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 ...
Take your time, maybe I could use some rest.
a young man who feeds on every word that proceeds from the mouth of God will indeed cleanse his ways, and will find his spiritual life sustained by it, and will find, as Paul told Timothy, that everything they need to come to Christ and live for Christ is not only there, but not encrypted at all to the believing heart, and even capable of convicting the unbelieving heart, for the clarity of its message. This is what God's word says about God's word.
The manual is sufficient to function as the only wholly inspired rule, thus being the supreme judge, and is sufficient in formally providing Divine Truth, which clear Truth one may (not necessarily will) be saved and grow in grace by reading it alone
However, while sufficient in providing the necessary Truth, SS cannot mean it formally provides the preacher whose preaching may by God's grace, instrumentally convict and converts, and which "breaks down the hay" for the sheep, but which it materially provides for.
For everything from the ability to reason, the ability to communicate, to discern literary genres, the interaction needed to learn to love others, situations needed to learn how overcome temptation, and other things that are part of growing in grace require things which Scripture materially provides (by way of sanction, and in principle etc.)
And for salvation and growth in grace the church instrumentally uses the only wholly God-inspired substantive and sufficient body of Truth there is for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Thanks be to God.
Thus the formal and material aspects need to be explained. You have RCs who think SS must mean Scripture alone provides everything, and or that only Scripture can be used in determining doctrine, perhaps because some SS defenders sound like that.
What is not essential, and can actually be harmful, are extrascriptural and unscriptural traditions which are held as equal with Scripture by the supreme authority of the infallible magisterium. Which itself comes from the oral tradition that it elevates.
Under that model the flock is to implicitly render assent of faith to whatever the supreme magisterium decrees, under the premise of her self-proclaimed but novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. But while both ecclesiastical and civil magistrates are to be generally obeyed as the highest judicial authorities of men, yet they are not the supreme infallible authorities on Truth. To hold that being the magisterial stewards of Scripture means such are infallible is to nuke the church.
It's the quality, not the quantity.
But while Scripture was the supreme rule and sufficient to save and grow in grace to a degree even under the Law alone - understanding it as God illumines as the psalmists extol - it is was not sufficient to provide all the Truth for the Christian until its the final book was inscripturated.
1) You've said (above, and elsewhere) that the "sola" in "sola Scriptura" refers to "Scripture as alone being the supreme sufficient authority and standard on faith and morals" (etc.). Fine. Can you please tell me WHY you believe that?
I already basically addressed this. Why? For the same reason souls recognized men and writings as assuredly being of God, in the light of their enduring heavenly qualities and attestation, finding OT writings as salvific and more to be desired than fine gold (as was told you) and obedience resulting in great reward and able to make them wiser than their teachers, and as the standard for testing Truth claims. After the same manner do i see Scripture as i do. But which does not infer ensured infallibility on the part of the discerners, nor must a lack of this equate to a lack Biblical assurance.
The confirmatory judgment of the magisterium may exclude dissent, but cannot mandate implicit assent of faith under the premise that it cannot be wrong, as per Rome. Instead, ultimately the validity of its judgments requires the evidential warrant by which men and writings became assuredly ascertained as being of God, versus the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, whereby the RC has assurance and renders assent of faith, under which Scripture history and tradition only mean what Rome says in any conflict. As no less than Manning reasoned,
But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelationâ€
“...the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.†— Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
2) Akin to #1, above: can you please explain HOW (apart from the Catholic explanation of an infallible Magisterium discerning and defining the matter) the books of Scripture were chosen,
As was told you, the historical reality is that due to the heavenly qualities and attestation of certain men and writings, souls fallibly judge[d] certain writings as being of God, and consequently a body (canon) of them."
Just answer the question asked you, "How were any men or writings recognized and established as assuredly being of God, such as Isaiah, to John the baptizer?.... do you see this discernment as inferring ensured infallibility on the part of the "electors?" Or a lack of this as being excluding Biblical assurance?"
So far, you've said simply that "it's okay to appeal to councils and things other than Scripture"..
No, i certainly have not simply said that.
and I don't disagree (that's the Catholic position, after all);
No, that is simply not the Catholic position, as "after all" what the pope and papal affirmed councils of Rome infallibly say is effectively the supreme law above what Scripture says, even by infallibly declaring that she is infallible.
but surely you can give some solid basis for the AUTHORITY of those "powers which put together the Scriptures" (apart from simply urging me to accept it on your say-so).
Just where did I urge you me to accept Scriptures on my say-so? Besides not apparently reading what I wrote, are you now arguing against what I did not write?
And what i did say as regards a solid basis was that rather than necessitating an infallible magisterium, OT writings were established as authoritative and the basis for the "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:1-2) And the magisterial office was instrumental in this by affirming what had been established by consensus as being of God, the magisterium being the supreme judicial court for disputes, but not as the supreme infallible authoritative source on Truth, requiring implicit assent of faith, excluding the possibility of valid dissent, as if it was the wholly inspired and assured word of God
The Roman mind seems simply incapable of comprehending how a magisterium can be authoritative as the supreme judicial court, without having or claiming ensured infallibility which excludes the possibility of valid dissent, but that is the reality in Scripture, versus the autocratic authority of Rome. And logically, as the church began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses (Mt. 23:2) as historical magisterial stewards of Scripture then the Roman model effectively invalidates the church, as would if attributing ensured infallibility to the magisterium.
Which Scriptural, historical reality refutes your idea that "that there must be an infallible way to discern which books are "inerrant Scripture", and which are not... or else the "inerrancy" of those books will be of little use (since there'd always be doubt as to whether the "right books" were chosen)." For as said, if that was the case then as said, "no one could be sure if Exodus was of God, or Isiah, etc. Thus the abundant references to the written word of God in the OT actually were of questionable authority, and thus the NT church and "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:2) was established upon dubious sources.
Consistent with your premise, a soul cannot have assurance that Rome is the supreme infallible authority except by faith in her as the supreme infallible authority, who has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, then n her declaration that she is infallible is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Logic exercise: please define (literally: de = to, fine = end; tell me the limits of that term and the concept which it represents) the object to which the phrase "THIS WORD" refers.
Logic exercise: Since in Roman reasoning an assuredly infallible magisterium is essential to ascertain what Scripture consists of and means, then please explain how any writings or body thereof were held to be authoritative without said magisterium?
You seem to be interpreting it as meaning "Scripture, whole and entire".
Logic means that as your premise is false so is your conclusion. The context was distinctly said to be that of OT writings, yet the authority of which in principle upholds Scripture as "being uniquely qualified and sufficient to function as the regula fidei—the infallible rule for the faith and life of the Church, providing the Truth essential for salvation and growth in grace."
No faithful and well-informed Catholic will argue against the IMPORTANCE and the AUTHORITY and the NECESSITY of the Scriptures;
No faithful and well-informed Catholic will argue against the IMPORTANCE and the AUTHORITY and the NECESSITY of the Roman magisterium as effectively being the Supreme Law, which leads to treating the Scriptures as an (often abused) servant to support Rome, not simply for basic commonly held doctrines, but in order to misuse its inherent authority to make her distinctive claims look Scriptural, especially in condescension to evangelical types. Logically if you claim to be the only authority who infallibly defines what Scripture both is and means, then you are the sole supreme authority.
we argue only against the Protestant tendency to try to use them ALONE as the "guide/norm/etc." of faith... since it's not designed to do that, and it doesn't CLAIM to do that.
Really? If we are talking about the same thing, that of Scripture being the final court of appeal as the infallible Source/Rule of Truth on what must be believed, to which both in civil and ecclesiastical courts are to look to in rendering binding judgments as to what must be done (and upon which the validity of them ultimately depends), then that is just what Scripture claims to be. Popes may damn evangelicals, and SCOTUS may effectively punish dissent to Obergefell, but neither can mandate implicit assent of faith that excludes valid dissent.
I dare you to show me any magisterium office of men on earth that could not be corrected by Scripture, under the premise that they posses ensured veracity, while i can show you that they were corrected by Scripture, but which is never corrected by men.
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word. (Psalms 119:9)
Yes. Now, we need a definition of "THY WORD".
Then why not look at the source whence it comes? Contextual, what do you think it refers to? Scripture or the magisterium? And it is Scripture that effects such things, then it supports which as being the only infallible (and thus The) authority on Truth.
complete with Protestant interpretations (and additions, such as "sola Scriptura"
That simply follows in principle.
I don't see how you could possibly conclude anything of the sort. Taking this individual text as a piece of logical data, it's very vague; it certainly says that the "Word" is the Word of God.... but it doesn't say whether that "Word" is written, or oral, or both;
Really? The whole of Ps. 119 refers to the Law/statutes/commandments/ordinances/precepts/testimonies, which Moses was commended to write, (Dt. 31:9; Josh, 8:32) with writing being the chosen means of preservation, (Ex. 127:14; Isaiah 30:8; cf. Job 19:23) and as the Rule for devotion, doctrine and direction, and which is described as something tangible, accessible, transcendent, and thus "Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word," (Psalms 119:148) thus among other things enabling the execution of "the judgment written." (Psalms 149:9)
If the Law served as the supreme authority, how much more is this wholly inspired source when God gives more grace via added revelation. Even the Law was sufficient for what God required at that time, if not for the Christian life, but He is free to give more grace, and which men are accountable for in degree that they are blessed.
And in addition to what Scripture formally provides, are such graces it materially provides, from reason to teachers to the personal guiding/leading of the Spirit (especially during the offering!). But to make the papal or conciliar words of the church effectively equal to and of superior authority to wholly inspired Scripture is unholy presumption. They have no ensured infallibility nor are they wholly inspired of God.
Do remember that "Word of God", in the Scriptures, refers primarily and ultimately to Jesus, Himself (the "Logos", John 1:1, etc.).
Indeed, to which even He appealed to Scripture as verification, while do you hold that your magisterium is God, who alone possesses ensured infallibility, except for souls speaking as wholly inspired of God? Do you claim that latter for your magisterium?
nor does it define the CONTENTS of that "Word",
What the "Law' refers to there can be seen by comparing Scripture with Scripture, as can the expanded meaning of the Law in the NT, to which it often appeals. And as expressed before, if you are right, that you need an infallible magisterium in order for these writings to have the authority attributed to them ("Scripture cannot be broken," etc.), then it remains the prophets and the NT church was built upon texts which were held to be of God but which were actually of dubious authority. Welcome to the church of Rome.
So... St. Paul commands the disciples to hold fast to the traditions (oh, that word rings harshly in some Protestant ears!) which were given them, EITHER BY WORD OF MOUTH or by letter...
This argument was also dealt with. As said, SS preachers themselves can enjoin corporate obedience to Scriptural Truths, but what neither dare claim is to speak under full inspiration of God providing new public doctrinal revelation as such as Paul did, and in laying down his judgments on such things as marriage.
Meanwhile, the oral passing down of teaching and events occurred but which we assuredly know because such were was penned under the full inspiration of Spirit, and you have no evidence these known truths to which the Thessalonians enjoined were some ancient unwritten tradition nor something that would not be written, as it normally was, as a study of the phrase “the word of God/the Lord†shows. If you want to claim Rome is privy to some unwritten apostolic doctrine which she can make binding beliefs out of, then she need to manifest the credentials for that, as the apostles did. See below.
the early Church was hard at work--with evangelizing, baptizing, ordaining, absolving sins, anointing, etc.--for decades before the NT was even WRITTEN, much less compiled, approved as actual Scripture, and put into wide circulation (which took centuries). Any beliefs to the contrary are simple wishful thinking.
I understand the problem. RCs want to find sanction from Scripture for Scripture not being the supreme and sufficient standard, and for oral tradition being equal to it, under the supreme authority of the Roman magisterium. Thus they want to equate the oral preaching which took place before the NT was written with being what Rome deems is oral tradition, thus giving her a license to autocratically make binding beliefs out of what she asserts. However, the whole of this presumes,
1. That these essential salvific or edifying things were not written as Scripture, yet should be binding beliefs, even if something 2,000 years after it allegedly occurred, and despite the serious lack of evidential warrant, contrary to what the apostles orally preached, leaving saints in doubt for most of church history about a necessary belief.
2. That that somehow the church was engaging in such things as praying to angels and ascended saints in Heaven (which is actually a later development as one of many marginal perverse Jewish traditions, while a heavenly Queen of Heaven is only seen in paganism), yet despite approx. 200 prayers in Scripture the Holy Spirit provides absolutely ZERO prayers to anyone in Heaven but the Lord. Nor can this be extrapolated from human communication in this realm. This is quite the presumption. But which tradition is to be assuredly believed as certain due to another tradition, that of Rome's ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. That your texts support making binding beliefs of unwritten tradition based upon this is what is simple wishful thinking.
3. That Roman leadership as is the apostles in orally providing the assured word of God for the whole church, yet Rome's so-called apostolic successors utterly fail (as i do) of the qualifications and overall credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12) In addition, not even they presumed perpetual ensured infallibility of office, not even in writing Scripture, nor was this the basis for the assurance of what was believers, but thus they appealed to contemporary external eye witnesses of events, and or special revelation in doctrinal teaching, and their apostolic credentials and Scriptural substantiation in word and on power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
In addition, SS does not hold that it was always operative, any more than Rome can claim that for her magisterial alternative. As said, at one time oral tradition was the supreme standard for faith and obedience, according to the grace given before Moses. But as written, Scripture became that manifest supreme standard, sola prima, by which additional revelation and claimed prophetic fulfillment and writings (which it provided for,) it were tested by, and thereby, as God gave more grace, more writings established as being Scripture, leading to SS.
I'd also gently point out that, logically speaking, it proves very little to say, "the Bible is the most important... because the Bible says so!" Ever hear of "circular arguments"?
You seem so intent to finally find a logical fallacy in every closet that you miss how your judgment can apply to you, as in arguing that an infallible magisterium is essential to ascertain what Scripture consists of, while arguing from Scripture that Rome is that infallible magisterium. Thus you attempt to prove what Scripture is by the church and what the true church is by the Scriptures.
However, this is not the same as asking to show where the Scriptures support something, including about itself, and your denial from the beginning was that Scripture does not teach SS, not even close, and thus there is no circularity in showing what Scripture says about itself and how it was used in substantiating Sola Scriptura from that source. If you want external evidence for Scripture being the word of God, and as such its supremacy and sufficiency, then we can do that route.
As for judging these writings to be of God, fallible souls can correctly judge certain men and writings as being of God, and consequently a body (canon) of writings can be established, and which judgment they find continually confirmed, which is what these books themselves claim. Assurance in Scripture is never based on ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but upon holy substantiation in word and in power.
If you object to that, consider that as said, RCs themselves make what can only be called a fallible judgment, meaning it allows for the possibility of error, in (erroneously) judging Rome as being of God and as warranted to be their supreme and infallible authority, (which she effectively is for them) to which all lesser sources owe their authority.
And the means of preservation was by writing: Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8)
I don't suppose you'd be open to staying within the bounds of your data, and saying that writing was *A* (and not "the", in the sense of "only") means of preservation? The Scripture passages you quote simply don't prove (or even mean) what you claim that they mean.
Really? Then show me another preserved wholly inspired substantive body which contains all that Scripture does, or even another one that complements it which is set forth as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims. And the basis for its veracity. You have yet to show the Roman alternative to SS.
And utterly dismissing the admonition about beholding the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but not perceiving the beam that is in thine own eye, (Luke 6:41) what certain RCs utterly ignore is that the non-binding words of anti-Judaism of one man, but that of popes and an institution even until recent times, and even now is far behind evangelicals in support of a Jewish homeland.
Yeah, I posted the thread.
Luther was just one among many reformers.
Doesn’t mean I venerate him.
I left behind the whole “veneration” routine when I walked away from Roman C. statues, paintings, scapulars, medals etc etc.
Roman irreverence toward The Scriptures is evidenced by their altering wording to support the magicsteeringthem assertions. The catholic Bible has alterations to passages so that the altered passages support heresies like thedeification of the Mother of Jesus, as one example.
It seems to me that not only is the wicked vulgar antisemite venerated as a hero of the re-formation of Christianity, he is also foundational to it in the arena of Sola Fide for if Luther is not permitted in the kingdom of heaven, where exactly does that leave the re-formation ?
Yet if you have truly posted not to praise that wicked man, and not to praise him, let it be so for the evil of that man endured beyond him. Germany honored his birthday by burning synagogues as he requested (Kristallnacht).
Not content with putting his plan for the Holocaust to paper, he continued conspiring to harm the Jews granted refuge by genuine Christians even in his last miserable year on this earth, and boasted of it in a letter to his wife. When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.
Matthew, Catholic chapter twenty five. Protestant verses thirty one to forty six
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
Presuming the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is akin to magic.
The catholic Bible has alterations to passages so that the altered passages support heresies like thedeification of the Mother of Jesus, as one example.
You mean such as "full of grace" in the Vulgate, while some RC translations have "highly faviored" or even "favored one' as the NAB.
But it is what Rome did not change that is the problem for them, as it would not have been hard to add one prayer to angels or saints in glory, or one so that souls may be released from purgatory, and or one command to the churches submit to the holy father in Rome, or a mention of NT pastors titled "priests" officiating at the Lord supper, offering it up as a sacrifice for sins, or of souls consuming such in order to obtain spiritual life, etc.
That all such are absent testifies against the Islamic assertion that the Bible was changed to say such things as they deny .
Cordially,
“Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ “
I thought FR banned these toxic types of threads?
To my knowledge, and as one typically pinged to such, this article is the only one that outright denigrates the Catholic faith since the great censure of 7/19/2015 , and was posted by one who most likely did not know of that.
Yet what was manifestly banned was not all posting of provocative articles by those who take their faith seriously (thus are strong conservatives), and which would basically make many of the very rules of the RF superfluous,but what was manifestly banned was the daily "sport" of outright attacks on Catholic faith, while later threads exhorted that the attacking of each other's faith by conservatives stop.
But certain RCs it seems, as expected, presumed this was a none-way censure, and RCs alone continued to post provocative articles about Catholic distinctives, and as such call for reproof of their elitist one true church, which does not even consider Protestant churches worthy to properly be called such, then thus that has followed..
And why would Prot. articles be banned, celebrating or explaining a faith that was the predominate historical faith of America, many of whose founders were understandably wary of Catholics, while provocative articles like "How the Rosary Led Me to Christ" (10/11/2015),and 3 days later, "Our Lady of Fatima – Her Prophecies and Warnings Remain as Essential as Ever!" and 2 days later, "Fox News’s Kirsten Powers announces: “I’m becoming Catholic!†(10/16/2015) and more are allowed?
In addition, while rel. caucus threads typically see about 6 replies, and political ones maybe 50, it is provocative religion threads which often literally see hundreds (sometimes thousands) of replies, and indeed the most posts out of any subject.
Which, besides giving FR a higher rating in traffic, and often appearing in Google searches on Cath/Prot issues of debate, testifies to the commitment to religious beliefs among many conservatives.
One can hardly expect that such conservatives, whose beliefs flow from their faith, should be banned from expressing them and only speak on conservatives beliefs they agree on in the interest of saving American, when the historical faith of America was predominately Protestant, and thus protecting freedom of religious expression, even if favoring that faith.
To deny both would not be consistent with American ideals, and to censure Prots while allowing only RCs to promote their distinctive faith is closer to favoring the Cath. monarchy essentially many anti-American RCs advocate. That would neither be Christian or American.
Yet FR is not a public street, but a privately owned forum (which has basically banned Mormons), and thus i propose, and only as a guest here along with others who support conservative beliefs and traditional American values, that articles promoting distinctive faith beliefs or a particular church be limited to perhaps two per week, while allowing the sometimes heated debate under the balanced rules of the FR and under the and traditionally fair and religion moderators.
Your response?
I'm glad you brought that up...
He invented his unbiblical ideas of "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" out of whole cloth, and used them to anoint himself "his own pope"
Well no...The early church fathers taught 'scripture alone'...
Hint: when one finds that one needs to rewrite history in order to make a claim, then that claim is probably not a true one.
Interesting you would bring that up since you are the one trying to change history...And if you are going to post false information about that, there's not much reason to believe any thing else you say...
Here's just a few to start with...
Scripture Alone is final Authority
1 Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,†(Adv. H. 3:1).
2 Clement of Alexandria (150?-213?), “They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves,†(Stromata 7:16:3).
3 Origen (185?-252), “No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures,†(Tract. 26 in Matt.).
4 St. Cyprian of Carthage (200?-258), “Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written . . . If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed,†(Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. 74 ad Pompeium).
What say ye to that???
“Have thou ever in your mind this seal, which for the present has been lightly touched in my discourse, by way of summary, but shall be stated, should the Lord permit, to the best of my power with the proof from the Scriptures. For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning , but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.†(Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lecture 4, Ch. 17)
“When someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.†(Augustine, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 6-7)
Doesn’t that parable seem to be saying that works are important and that lack of works might condemn you? I suppose one might say that works are the fruits of faith but deeds shape the heart more than vice versa.
Guess scripture isn’t always so obvious:)
There's another position that is rarely spoken of on these pages which is the position I and some others cling to...
Catholics, Pentecostals and many others read those scriptures and see 'works plus faith' for salvation...Millions upon millions of people see that...They see it in the book of James and Hebrews as well...The reason they see it there is because that is what the book says...
Now of course that brings up the question of how does one reconcile those verses with the scripture in the Pauline epistles where it clearly teaches 'faith alone', without works...It's really not so tough...
When Jesus came, he came to his own...The lost sheep of the house of Israel...Jews...No Gentiles...No Protestants nor Catholics...That can be easily proven by just reading the gospels...It's in there...Those Jews were OT Jews under the Law...Works were a requirement...Jesus never told them to stop doing works for salvation...
Those Jews were not looking for a church...They knew nothing of a church...What they were looking for was a Kingdom...A Kingdom with a physical Messiah who would sit on a physical throne in the physical Jerusalum...The OT spends a few thousand verses talking about that future Kingdom...
Had those Jews accepted Jesus as their Messiah, the Gentile church(es) would never have shown up...Jesus would have been Crucified, the Great Tribulation would have taken place and Jesus would have returned a second time to rule as the physical king on a physical throne in physical Jerusalem...
In the gospels, we read of their conditions and requirements to get thru the Great Tribulation and into the physical Kingdom and those conditions require faith and works...Hence, in those scriptures we read about faith and works...Those people are justified by their works...
So Jesus still not intending to give up on his people needs a new plan...He's tried everything else and all he can do now is to try to make his chosen people jealous of the Gentiles who now are given the spiritual promises once given to Israel (But NOT the physical promises)...So he puts Israel on 'hold' and gives the spiritual promises he gave to Israel to a new nation, the Gentile nation...Not only that, Jesus changes the conditions for those spiritual promises...Jesus' death will be the full atonement for their sins...His church members will include Gentiles who will now be filled with the Spirit of God...Everyone is given free Grace...Justification is now by faith alone in Jesus Christ...Jesus Christ fulfilled the 10 Commandments so we don't have to...He became sin for us...
We will exist on the earth for approximately 2000 years to fulfill bible prophecy while God deals with his people who rejected him...God ultimately brings them back to their own land (1948) and we will soon thereafter then be lifted of the earth to ever be with the Lord...
At that time Jesus will deal with those who have come against his nation, Israel...He will not only make life a living hell for them, he will do significant damage to the earth while severly punishing those fake religious who call themselves Jews...
And then Jesus comes again...He will kill most of Israel's adversaries...All of Israel will be saved...Jesus will THEN set up his physical Kingdom in Jerusalem...There will be a judgement of the Nations...It will be a judgment of how the Nations treated his brothers, the Jews during the Tribulation...THAT is where the scripture is applied that you initially referred to...
I realize mine insthe minority position but I won't be swayed...If you don't change scripture but believe exactly what it says, I believe people will come to the same conclusion that I and many others have...
That is not to say that in those books that are written doctrinally to the Jews that there are not spiritual applications for Christians...Things like 'faith without works is dead' is a real spiritual truth for Christians but for me it is a doctrinal truth for Jew during the Tribulation...
As it is now, the Catholics and others read those scriptures that tells us we must have works and can lose our salvation...In the process, they have to completely ignore those scriptures which say the opposite...You can see it happen here on FR constantly...A Catholic will not touch Eph. 2:8,9 if his life depends on it...
On the other hand, those on my side will read and believe all those eternal security scriptures with the faith plus nothing verses but when it comes to those your side adheres to all kinds they/we come up with all kinds of scenarios to try to show that your position is wrong...
The best excuse for both sides is, 'it doesn't mean what it clearly says'...By believeing what it says one will be led to the position I take...
Never knew of that, but while some RCs (while advocating for a censorious Catholic monarchy) distance themselves from the Divine right of kings and autocratic aristocratic rule - which type of thing many early Prots had to unlearn from Rome in making men as popes, yet does this kind of leadership sound compatible with the constitutional republic of America?
Pope Gregory XVI: It is insanity to believe that liberty of conscience and liberty of worship are the inalienable rights of every citizen. . (Pope Gregory XVI, “Mirari Vos,†August 15,1832)
Pope Pius IX, Error Condemned: Every man is free to embrace and to profess that religion which, led by the light of reason, he shall consider to true . -- Allocution "Maxima quidem," June 9, 1862; Damnatio "Multiplices inter," June 10, 1851. (Ven. Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors,â€December 8, 1864; http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm)
• Pope Pius IX, The Syllabus (of Errors): [It is error to believe that] Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.†(Section X, Errors Having Reference to Modern Liberalism, #78. http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P9SYLL.HTM)
Pope Pius IX, Error condemned: In this age of ours, it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion be the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other cults whatsoever. In certain regions of Catholic name, it has been praiseworthily sanctioned by law that men immigrating there be allowed to have public exercises of any form of worship of their own. (Pope Pius IX, “Syllabus of Modern Errors,â€December 8, 1864)
• Pope Leo X: That it is against the will of the Spirit to burn heretics at the stake is condemned as false. (Pope Leo X, “Exsurge Domino,†1520)
• Pope Innocent IV, Ad extirpanda: The head of state or ruler must force all the heretics whom he has in custody...to confess their errors and accuse other heretics whom they know, and specify their motives,..Those convicted of heresy by the aforesaid Diocesan Bishop,surrogate or inquisitors, shall be taken in shackles to the head of state or ruler or his special representative, instantly,or at least within five days, and the latter shall apply the regulations promulgated against such persons [burn them alive]...(http://userwww.sfsu.edu/%7Edraker/history/Ad_Extirpanda.html;
French RC bishop and theologian,Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (French: (September 1627 – April 1704) was a strong advocate of political absolutism and the divine right of kings. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques-B%C3%A9nigne_Bossuet)
French RC Jean Bodin (1530-1596),who in 1576 published Six livres de la république (Six Books of the Commonwealth). Bodin insisted that sovereignty (i.e. the ultimate supreme power in any state) was absolute and indivisible. - https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/351/351-172.htm
Dictatus papae: That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. >That he himself may be judged by no one.
That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair. Dictatus papae [1075] (a compilation of 27 statements of powers arrogated to the Pope that was included in Pope Gregory VII's register under the year 1075):http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp
And Bellarmine held that even heretical popes cannot be deposed:
) the manifestly heretical Pope...can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended
Now, a Pope who remains Pope cannot be avoided, for how could we be required to avoid our own head? How can we separate ourselves from a member united to us?
...that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first... it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, - http://www.cmri.org/02-bellarmine-roman-pontiff.html
"...the manifestly heretical Pope...can and must be deposed by the Church. To my judgment, this opinion cannot be defended..."
Cardinal Bellarmine notwithstanding, The Roman Catholic Church Condemned Pope Honorius I as a Heretic and Excommunicated Him
Cordially,
Only posthumously. Worthy subject.
Honorius who was condemned by the 6th ( for a teaching he promulgated in an official letter sent to Monotheletism Sergius as the bishop of Rome, the council specifically saying that Honorius and the others taught the heresy), 7th, and 8th ecumenical Councils; and every Pope who took the of the papal office for the space of three hundred years,
Honorius’ letters had been burned before the Council as “hurtful to the soul.†Pope Leo II likewise anathematized Honorius and said that he had “permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching.†http://vintage.aomin.org/ThanksHonor.html
RCs argue that Leo only condemned Pope Honorius for negligence in allowing a heresy to spread and grow, not for heresy, and the ecumenical conciliar condemnation for heresy was not valid because such must be confirmed by the reigning Pope, and only in the form that he confirms it.
Yet White points out that
"the universal church at that time did not believe in the idea that a council had to await the approval of the bishop of Rome. That concept had to wait to find its universal expression in the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals almost 200 years yet in the future from the time of the 6th Ecumenical Council and Pope Leo. That a belief, first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the 9th century would have to be read back into the context of the clear and obvious condemnation of Honorius in the 7th century, in a vain attempt to save him as well as rescue a dogma defined in the 19th century, is clear evidence of the impossible task facing the defender of papal infallibility."
They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. - http://vintage.aomin.org/FailuretoDocument.html
..the historical fact is that Honorius was condemned as an heretic and monothelite, as established by at least 13 points of evidence that Schaff provides, including the following: “The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II, “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy Sergius etc together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.†(footnote omitted)
I think they post such articles thinking every reply gets time off in purgatory.
If a conditional plenary indulgence indulgence is granted to the faithful who teach or study Christian doctrine, then some may see posting such articles as obtaining one, as with caucus devos to Mary.
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.