Reformation Reminders: Rome & Her Desecration of Christ

The CrippleGate ^ | OCTOBER 28, 2015 | Eric Davis

[xone]

Are you saying God and a nutritionists’ words have the same validity? When they have the same validity, you’ll have something, until then the statement and comparison fail.

[Boogieman]

“This is a gross simplification that disregards dozens of factors.”

It is a simplification, but I don’t think it’s either unfair or inaccurate. We can’t speak of matters as broad as this without simplifying things to an extent. I think if you were to try to break it down and analyze the minutia, you’d still find that many of those other factors you want to take into account were heavily influenced themselves by the Reformation, because it was one of the biggest factors impacting European society for centuries.

“If it were true, then you’d be laying abortion, homosexuality, rampant political-correctness, obesity, and who knows what else, at the door of Protestantism.”

That’s just fallacious reasoning since none of those evils originated with Protestantism, they are all quite ancient. You’re also only assigning blame to one party for ills present in their society, while ignoring the ills of the other society. Also, most of those problems have only increased in severity as North American countries began moving towards secularism, so we would have to conclude, if anything, there is a negative correlation between those problems and how Protestant our society was.

[xone]

And Christ gave his authority to the apostles, the first Bishops.

Where in the Scripture you posted, does Christ give His authority to anyone? He gave them a charge and promised to be with them to the end of the age.

[papertyger]

When they have the same validity, you’ll have something, until then the statement and comparison fail.

Wrong. When God says the sky is blue, it's no more valid than when the nutritionist says it; it's called "truth."

You're trying to make truth relative.

And by the way, when you say God said something He DIDN'T say, you're taking the Lord's name in vain.

[xone]

So eating a vegetable because someone says it’s good for you is the same as heeding what God says about His Word. Gotcha! If you have an allergy to that vegetable, it is still good for you? Some Catholics must have an allergy to God’s Word.

[xone]

when you say God said something He DIDN'T say

And what was that?

[papertyger]

And what was that?

You are claiming the text says something is comprehensive yet admit that if it were anything else, it wouldn't be.

That's claiming God said something He did NOT say.

[papertyger]

So eating a vegetable because someone says it’s good for you is the same as heeding what God says about His Word. Gotcha! If you have an allergy to that vegetable, it is still good for you? Some Catholics must have an allergy to God’s Word.

Now you're just trying to mangle the analogy.

You already admitted it "might" (weasel wording) be valid if it weren't God's Word under consideration. Of course you allude to NOTHING else that might make it invalid EXCEPT that it's God's Word, so that must be your reasoning.

[xone]

I’m claiming that an equivalency to what someone says about vegetables and what God says about His Word is a stupid comparison. Nice try.

[xone]

You already admitted it

When the nutritionist in the analogy becomes God Almighty, you will finally have a point.

[papertyger]

The idea advanced by Martin Luther that any man could communicate directly with his Creator on equal access basis with any other man without the intercession of the church, an institution which had sanctified the medieval secular hierarchy over men, was indispensable to the Declaration of Independence.

Utter nonsense. Were it true, the founders would have instituted an Anarchy, not a Republic. Conflating the legitimacy of an office with equality is intellectually dishonest.

[papertyger]

I’m claiming that an equivalency to what someone says about vegetables and what God says about His Word is a stupid comparison.

Yes, you are, but you're not saying why. You're not saying why, because you can't come up with a legitimate reason.

[papertyger]

When the nutritionist in the analogy becomes God Almighty, you will finally have a point.

Since when do you have to be God Almighty to utter a legitimate truth? You already admitted the analogy was valid. You just claim it's fallacious because it conflicts with your doctrine and you can't find another out than pretending the person uttering it is contradicting God when what they really are doing is contradicting your interpretive doctrine.

[paladinan]

Hi. I was raised with the same view you now hold.

Hm. Maybe in some respects...

It is very helpful to read what Jesus Himself says about the Word, the Scripture.

Certainly, it is. But... are you making the assumption that I haven't? If so, I'm not sure what basis you'd be using for that assumption...

On top of that, much of what Rome teaches contradicts God’s Word,

Such as? (And I'd also add: how do you tell the difference between "what you think God's Word says" vs. "what God's Word actually says"?)

which all by itself indicated to me that Rome is not the leader, that they are a distraction.

I've heard/read literally hundreds of such statements from those who'd fallen away from the Church... but I've yet to see even one which wasn't based on a great many errors and misunderstandings (and sometimes outright urban legends). Could you explain?

[paladinan]

That teaching is a lot more clear than any Roma. doctrines.

Really? And on what basis do you make that claim (aside from personal opinion and personal taste and inherited bias)?

[paladinan]

Where in the Scripture you posted, does Christ give His authority to anyone? He gave them a charge and promised to be with them to the end of the age.

You mean, aside from Jesus giving the Twelve authority over unclean spirits (cf. Matthew 10:1, etc.), authority to forgive sins (cf. John 20:23, etc.), authority to bind in Heaven and on earth (cf. Matthew 18:18-20, etc.), and such? Only willful blindness (or complete ignorance of what the Scriptures actually say) could lead anyone to think that Jesus did NOT delegate His authority to specific men.

[nathanbedford]

Kindly have a look at the rest of my posts in this thread.

[Salvation]

Prove from the Bible alone where Jesus gives that authority to the apostles, please.

[Bellflower]

The Church did not exist yet. The Disciples represented the Church which was to come. The Church is the body of Christ, made up of all believers. It is Christ who has recieved all authority and always will have all authority. Because He has all authority He commanded them. There is nothing in the context of this writting that implies or gives any authority, but rather says the opposite, which is that all authority lies in Christ Himself, whom we can therefore trust explicidly.

Also, you add bishops to the Disciples in your understanding. Really Christ is speaking to them of the whole Church which was to come, which they represented.

Even right now you are trying to teach. Are you a Bishop? Is Christ with all Christians always or only the Bishops of the CC?

Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

[xone]

All authority was given to Christ. Prove from your Bible that ‘all authority’ was given by Christ to anyone.