Posted on 05/25/2016 3:57:03 AM PDT by JosephJames
Are you familiar with the royal office of “Gebirah” within the ancient Kingdom of Judah, associated only with the line of David?
No; I am not.
I do now...
Revised August 2006, on the Feast of the Queenship of the Blessed Virgin Mary
You see, many of we who oppose catholiciism of your religion do so because of the blindness caused in catholics who are more than content to trust the magicsteerignthem, rather than develop as God's newborns being raised up in the Way that we should go by the indwelling Holy Spirit.
In 1545 your magicsteeringthem granted 'Traditions' equal authority to The Word of God. There is a long list of catholic 'traditions' which are anathema to the Word of God, yet those traditions are your truth. Sad that ...
God does not formulate plan B. He has His Will from the beginning and in Him is no shadow of turning. The God of The Bible does not issue commandments then violate them in the person of Jesus The Christ to establish a New Covenant. Perhaps you do not believe that it was indeed GOD who forbade the eating of human flesh and the drinking of the blood in which is carried Life? That would perhaps explain why you now defend the notion that God okays what He forbade, so your religion can be the more empowered.
My final reply to your blasphemy is the Letter sent from the first church council to the newborns being born from above through missionary work:
Acts 15:
22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole assembly, chosen men out of themselves to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas — Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren —
23 having written through their hand thus: ‘The apostles, and the elders, and the brethren, to those in Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, brethren, who [are] of the nations, greeting;
24 seeing we have heard that certain having gone forth from us did trouble you with words, subverting your souls, saying to be circumcised and to keep the law, to whom we did give no charge,
25 it seemed good to us, having come together with one accord, chosen men to send unto you, with our beloved Barnabas and Paul — 26 men who have given up their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ —27 we have sent, therefore, Judas and Silas, and they by word are telling the same things.
28 ‘For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, no more burden to lay upon you, except these necessary things:
29 to abstain from things offered to idols, and blood, and a strangled thing, and whoredom; from which keeping yourselves, ye shall do well; be strong!’
30 They then, indeed, having been let go, went to Antioch, and having brought the multitude together, did deliver the epistle, 31 and they having read, did rejoice for the consolation; 32 Judas also and Silas, being themselves also prophets, through much discourse did exhort the brethren, and confirm, 33 and having passed some time, they were let go with peace from the brethren unto the apostles; 34 and it seemed good to Silas to remain there still. 35 And Paul and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and proclaiming good news — with many others also — the word of the Lord;
THESE men named above are the earliest 'CHURCH FATHERS'. Yet catholiciism rejects what seemed GOOD TO THE HOLY SPIRIT that believers refrain from blood! The breaking of bread and sipping from the cup communion was already being practiced among the believers as they proclaimed the death of Their Savior until He comes back for them. Do you serious want to claim those believers were drinking blood in their Remembrance of Him? ... Sadly, that contradiction is exactly what you are trying to float!
The Revelation of John, in the first three chapters, proves catholiciism has had gross error inveigling the body of believers from the earliest times in Ekklesia History. You and Mrs Don-o and FourtySeven can continue to promote contradiction to the Character of God, but the Word of God, the Bible refutes you right from the First Ekklesia Council.
In going back over this thread, to make sure I have not erred in a way that would leave wiggle room for the blasphemies of catholiciism, I realized I made an error: “As to trying to make Polycarp your expert witness. He did not mention such a specific in his extensive letter to the Philadelphians.” Actually, I meant to write Letter to The Philippians. Ignatius wrote to the Philadephians. Polycarp might have, but we don’t have that Letter to consult.
Ah, well, we have one item that Candace's treasurer did not have, and that is the full, complete account of God's special revelation, the Bible; and that is hope enough. It collapses the two thousand years by placing the reader right in the middle of the scenes portrayed. There is nothing more needed to be known of Jesus that is not within its pages. It takes the place of Stephen, who was the best God had for that time.
That is the fulfilled hope we have, to fruitfully learn of our Lord from The Holy Scriptures we are given for that purpose.
>> It takes the place of Stephen Philip <<
I have no idea why I wrote "Stephen" and let it pass when I meant Philip.
It is true that the Scriptures are materially sufficient to equip believers in the faith; however, would you equip a young soldier with a uniform and rifle and send him out into battle without training him first?
Consider: Lutherans and Calvinists believe in unconditional election as regards predestination. However, Lutherans do not believe in a predestination to Hell, while Calvinists do (aka double predestination). Both denominations subscribe to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Which of the two is correct?
Or what of the denominations influenced by Arminianism, such as Methodism? Arminianism holds to conditional election, contrasting with Calvinism in particular. Who is correct?
Or consider baptismal regeneration, which is held by Lutherans. Evangelicals, Baptists, and Fundamentalists (among others) disagree that water baptism is necessary for salvation. All subscribe to Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Who is correct?
Or what of salvation in general? Lutherans and Anglicans believe that salvation can be lost by a baptized Christian, that they may fall away. Calvinists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Evangelicals would disagree. Who is correct?
These are not minor quibbles, for they are issues of tremendous significance on how a Christian is to live!
If all these denominations claim Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, yet arrive at wildly different conclusions, it logically means that some are interpreting Scripture incorrectly.
How do you tell which interpretation is correct?
1140 AD The Doctrine of Seven Sacraments in Catholicism declared
1184 AD The Inquisition becomes official Catholic policy
1190 AD The sale of Indulgences instituted to pay for the Vatican building program
1220 AD Adoration of the wafer adopted
1545 AD 'Tradition' given equal authority with Scripture
1966 AD JPII dismisses the idea that one can only obtain forgiveness directly from God
Who to turn to for truth??? Ah, that magicsteeringthem can do it! Look at some of the drek they have declared. Whatta buynch!
And lest we forget, 1076 AD The Doctrine of Papal Infallibility proclaimed, then 1229 AD the catholic Church forbids the Bible to laymen. Wycliffe and Hus must have liked that one!
No, it means they have made the same mistake Catholicism makes and that is going beyond what the Bible teaches and winging it. Sola Scrptura is not the problem. Man made denominations trying to brand and market themselves is the problem.
Love the tagline, especially on a Catholic discussion thread! Someone should ping TC to your tagline.
They claim to go by the Bible alone, just as you do. Who are you to say that their interpretation is incorrect?
Unlike you, I don’t subscribe to Sola Scriptura, so I don’t have the same logical problem.
So I reiterate: you claim Sola Scriptura, as do Lutherans, Baptists, Evangelicals, Calvinists, and Fundamentalists, among other Protestant denominations. Yet we have mutually exclusive theological positions that emerge, as I have already pointed out.
Who decides who is right? How do you determine which one is true?
Good questions!
God decides which one is correct.
We are to test each doctrine by comparing it to what God has revealed to us in His Word. (2 Tim.3:16,17). Man is not to add to or subtract from His Word. This is repeated three times in the Bible. In the beginning (Deut. 4:2), in the middle (Prov. 30:5,6 and at the end (Rev. 22:18,19).
No, you have a much larger fundamental problem. Remember, the first step in solving your problem is first recognizing you have one.
1545 AD the catholic church declared Tradition is equal in authority to the Word of God. The Vatican can make up anything they choose to make dogma ... and doctrine, too! Maridolotry anyone?
If all these denominations claim Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide, yet arrive at wildly different conclusions, it logically means that some are interpreting Scripture incorrectly.
How do you tell which interpretation is correct?
They're not much different than the differences which exist between the Roman Church and the EO.
So it's your opinion that the differences between different Prot denominations is *significant*. That's nice.
Claiming that they are significant and then using it as a club to bludgeon sola Scriptura with is not real solid ground to stand on. ESPECIALLY in light of the differences between the EO and Roman Catholicism.
Catholics on this board have told us that outside of what the church has interpreted there is wide leeway in how Scripture is interpreted.
Why is it OK for Catholics but not Protestants?
And where in Scripture is lockstep adherence to a certain doctrinal position required for salvation?
Have you ever read Romans 14? GOD allows for leeway in "disputable matters". Far more than Catholics do for Prots.
Catholics lay requirements on Prots that God never did.
What's with that?
It is Protestantism that chose the banner of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide. Catholics didn’t place that on you, nor would we.
But because of that criteria, the metric by which Protestantism is measured differs compared to Catholicism, which has the threefold Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and the Magisterium.
And yes, I agree that there is leeway in “disputable matters”. But let me ask you: How do you determine what is considered “disputable” and what is considered non-negotiable?
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.