When the king presumes to declare himself to be whatever he presumes.
God can because He alone can back it up.
Posted on 05/25/2025 4:05:48 AM PDT by JosephJames
Did your head fall onto the keyboard and roll around as you tried to regain consciousness?
Very curious.
It certainly comes from God, and from Adam onward, God always provided enough revelation for obedience to Him, which (aside from general revelation of nature, and morally of conscience) before Moses, was in a very limited sense and expressly to a limited amount of persons who thus shared it.
But when choosing to reveal Himself and His laws more fully and to an entire nation, God committed His word to writing, this manifestly being His chosen means of preservation, versus materially insubstantial untestable oral transmission which is highly vulnerable to undetectable corruption (Exodus 17:14, 34:1, 27; Deuteronomy 10:4, 17:18, 27:3, 8, 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11, 102:18, 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7, 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11, 18:28; Revelation 1:1, 20:12, 15;
As with Moses, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome presumes its popes and ecumenical councils do. Yet Scripture had become the standard by which the veracity of even the apostles could be subject to testing by:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
Rather than an infallible magisterium being required for a body of wholly God-inspired writings to be established as being from God, as mentioned, a body of authoritative writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture ("in all the Scriptures:" Lk. 24:27), even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2, 18:28, etc.)
. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillars”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and the latter was built upon the prophetic, doctrinal epistemological foundation of transcendent Scripture. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.
You are probably happy to hear the answer that the truth comes from God not from the Church, since protestants believe that each Christian is the infallible sources of the truth of God.
That statement is simply not accurate, and certainly did not come from God, nor that Rome's cult declaration that she is conditionally infallible.
Besides Protestantism, as wrongly defined as any professed Christian or group that is not in communion with the “Catholic Church,” being so diverse that many do not even believe the Bible is the sure supreme accurate standard on Divine Truth, then aside from one true church cults, those who hold that Scripture is the only wholly God-inspired substantive, authoritative word of God, any claim to veracity must rest upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
no priest, bishop or POPE can change the Truth of Divine Revelation given by God
True.however, that is just what Catholicism has done, and presumes it can add to it:
For distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
For Rome 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 criteria: pope or ecumenical in union w/ him defining a matter of faith and morals for the whole church). Which means that her declaration (Pastor Aeternus) itself that she is infallible, is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, past, present and future. She also essentially presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
And therefore, history, Tradition and Scripture only consists of and means what she says. As
Thus no less than Cardinal Manning stated,
• "It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. 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....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, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28
And which means that the basis for the veracity of church teaching does not rest upon Scriptural warrant, but upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
• Newman: "in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council
Thus Rome can even declare something to be a matter of binding belief that was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that her own scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.
• As Ratzinger states,
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. Jn 16:12-13), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 (words in [brackets] are mine).
Therefore Rome can claim to "remember" a fable that only is evidenced as being a later development and make what at best warranted only speculation into a binding doctrine over 1700 years after the event allegedly occurred. But it can be held as such because,
"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.
And thus, rather than being like the noble Bereans in seeking to ascertain the veracity of what is taught by examination of scriptural warrant, we have such papal admonitions as,
"It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors" (Vehementer Nos, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X, 1906)
This is contrary to how the NT church began, which actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p><p>
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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.) To God be the glory, and of such testimony we (and I) need to show more of.
I will likely no post back till much later, by the grace of God.
This Post Is Monumental!
.
I stand up For the Prophet Jonah from the Fact that Jesus referred to Him.
.
The Fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls have a Complete and Accurate Copy of Isaiah prove the Written scriptures go Back 2000 yrs. Without Being Corrupted when compared to The KJV I hold in My Hands!
.
(Your kidding about Not posting,correct?)
“Ridiculous Born-Again Jesus Freak
WACKADOODLES!”
.
I Resemble That Remark,
and Wear It Proudly!
.
Thank You Jesus!
Fixed It!
I find it hilariously ironic when Catholics point fingers and criticize others about being megachurches.
The biggest denomination in Christianity, with a leader who lives in opulence few ever attain, with his own private army for security, in a walled compound, with all kinds of conveyances at his disposal, and someone to chauffeur him around.
...that need to bribe people to go with rock bands and Starbucks.
That's worse than threatening people with eternal damnation because they won't join your church, and that you can choose to withhold forgiveness from them (allegedly), thus consigning them to hell forever?
You are introducing me to Ratzinger in a way I could not understand, before.
Thank you for this.
Is everything okay, sir?
I commend his honesty as far as it went. He was stuck btwn a rock and a hard place, that of knowing that decreeing the assumption of the Assumption an article of faith, thereby requiring the highest form of submission, could not be justified on the basis of warrant from hundred years of history that was silent on it, and the nature of what (fable) finally did provide some material for the belief that developed.
And yet as a cardinal, he had to uphold this promulgation as being Divinely revealed truth. And so his recourse was to act like a Cardinal Manning, that "The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour," that history, Tradition and Scripture is only what Rome authoritatively decrees. In the case of Ratzinger, his premise was that Rome can "remember"an event that there is no evidence of being forgotten. For which he even invoked John 16:12–13 and Jn 16:4 for support, of promises to be led into all Truth, and of remembering what the Lord has told the disciples, which broad promises can be invoked to sanction most any supplementary fable like the Assumption.
Likewise, Rome presumed to "infallibly' declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based criteria: pope or ecumenical in union w/ him defining a matter of faith and morals for the whole church). Which means that her declaration (Pastor Aeternus) itself that she is infallible, is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, past, present and future. She also essentially presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
Thus, the RCC is an object of faith, as is God.
Autocratic absurdity
It’s like the absurd idea of the divine right of kings writ large.
one of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a near-complete copy of the Book of Isaiah, known as the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). It's the oldest known complete Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah, dating back to around 125 BCE, approximately 1000 years earlier than the previously oldest known Hebrew manuscripts.
The Great Isaiah Scroll is remarkably similar to the Masoretic Text (the standard Hebrew Bible used today). Scholars have noted that the text is virtually identical in over 95% of the text. The remaining 5% of differences are mostly due to variations in spelling and orthography, not changes in the underlying text. The scroll is currently housed at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. - Google AI
I will likely no post back till much later, by the grace of God.
(Your kidding about Not posting,correct?)
I neglected to add "today" after "much later." Sorry.
When the king presumes to declare himself to be whatever he presumes.
God can because He alone can back it up.
And this is why I believe the Lutheran belief about baptism.
Specifically, that baptism saves because it’s a visible sign of the sacrifice of Jesus in the life of the believer. (1 Peter 3: 21) To be baptized is, in essence, no different than having full faith in Christ alone. And it is a gift of God, not an act done by the will of man—otherwise it turns faith into a work.
But just because baptism saves doesn’t mean that baptism is the only thing that saves, because all salvation flows from Christ alone.
A man who dies before being able to get baptized can still have salvation if the gift of faith is present.
Alternately, a man who refuses to be baptized but claims to have faith is probably not saved because he rejects Jesus’ words.
No Worries!
You bring much to the Table.
👍
Didn’t this veneration, elevation, admiration and worship of the Queen of Heaven, kind of help get the Israelites into the whole Babylonian Captivity in the fired place? I know there were other issues as well, but this was one of them. Wasn’t she also known as Diana of the Ephesians? The Queen of Heaven idea, is not new. Could this also be called syncretic paganism?
I wore one when I was a catholic, many decades ago. I still don’t really know what it was supposed to protect us from, or if it was supposed to protect us from anything. I know it was very abrasive to the skin.
Yes indeed. For one, the only prayers or offerings in Scripture to anyone else in Heaven (http://peacebyjesus.net/ptds.html) is by pagans, including to the only Queen of Heaven see therein, by souls who were as adamant as many Catholics in defending their blasphemous practice:
As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes... (Jeremiah 44:16-17
PRAYERS FOR THE DEAD Christians seem to have acquired the habit of praying for their dead at a very early date. This was an innovation... These practices developed around the beginning of the Christian era. They were a phenomenon of the times, particularly noticeable in Egypt, the great meeting ground for peoples and religions. Traveling in Egypt around 50 s.c., Diodorus of Sicily was struck by the funerary customs: "As soon as the casket containing the corpse is placed on the bark, the survivors call upon the infernal gods and beseech them to admit the soul to the place received for pious men. The crowd adds its own cheers, together with pleas that the deceased be allowed to enjoy eternal life in Hades, in the society of the good."... It then becomes clear that at the time of Judas Maccabeus--around 170 s.c., a surprisingly innovative period—prayer for the dead was not practiced, but that a century later it was practiced by certain Jews. The Birth of Purgatory By Jacques Le Goff. pp. 45,46 , transcribed using http://www.onlineocr.net.
The Catholic Encyclopedia speculates that a further reinforcement of Marian devotion, “was derived from the cult of the angels, which, while pre-Christian in its origin, was heartily embraced by the faithful of the sub-Apostolic age. It seems to have been only as a sequel of some such development that men turned to implore the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. This at least is the common opinion among scholars, though it would perhaps be dangerous to speak too positively. Evidence regarding the popular practice of the early centuries is almost entirely lacking...,” (Catholic Encyclopedia > Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary)
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; .... turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374} - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power; http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html
Which includes Christmas, not as to holy motive nor necessarily as a celebration, but as an annual Christianized pagan December season, which observance is basically mandated (11 months out of the year a preacher can preach what he feels the Lord leading him to so, but come December, he must preach what tradition mandates), thus being contrary in principle to the New Covenant, and legalistic. Which is manifest by the response to those who by pass it in Christian liberty, and seek to worship therein.
Meaning that Catholicism is guilty is essentially engaging in the same adoptive tactic of Israel of old, who, when not actually nationally engaging in idolatry, usually attempted to turn "high places" of pagan worship into venues of worship of Yaweh. But which, rather than destroying them as commanded, perpetuated the existence of these sanctified places, (1Kings 15:14; 2 Chronicles 33:17) - despite the command, "Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the Lord thy God, which thou shalt make thee - (Deuteronomy 16:21) thereby easily enabling them to revert back to their original idolatrous purposes when Israel backslide once again. (1Kings 12:31; 13:33; 14:23; 2Kg.15:35; 16:4; 17:10-19, 31-34; 2 Chronicles 21:11; 28:4; Isaiah 57:5).
As the Lord leads, we can celebrate the Lord's birth as well as other events, of God's gift to mankind, and give gifts in that spirit - esp. the gospel, but to ritually "observe days, and months, and times, and years" (Galatians 4:10) is not NT Christianity, with meeting on the first day of the week being the only one which has precedent.
Thanks Dan. A good read.
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.