Replies

our argumentation most certainly is circular because of the following: You demand Scriptural proof of the infallible magisterium. When provided you don’t accept them (you just derided one in your last post to me, to whit, “Whoever hears you hears me”).

Rather, while i do as 1st century souls did, (Acts 17:11) you affirm that a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) is essential for assurance of Truth, and that Rome is that AIM, and that I need to submit to her in order to know that she is that AIM, since she has infallibly declared that she is.

Otherwise tell me how “Whoever hears you hears me” translates into a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium? Dissent even in the OT could be a capital offense, (Dt. 17) but which did not mean they were infallible. Answer me.

So you reject infallible teaching because it isn’t in Scripture (in your opinion), and it isn’t in Scripture (in your opinion) because you reject the traditional teaching associated with such passages. It’s classic circular reasoning.

By no means. You demand of me that i accept the claimed veracity of Rome but submitting to Rome as having assure veracity. My rejection of Roman claims that i must submit to Rome's tradition-wresting interpretation of Scripture is simply is not circular any more than 1st c. souls rejecting the Pharisees claims against Christ was, which magisterium also presumed of itself a level of assured veracity, and sounded just like your reasoning:

Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:47-49)

For what i reject is the circular reasoning of RCs, that one cannot obtain certainty of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, but must submit to the AIM of Rome, only by which can one obtain certainty of Truth, including that the magisterium of Rome is assuredly infallible.

You accuse me of utilizing straw men in my arguments but fail to demonstrate how my assertions about your faith system are false.

I am sorry if you cannot see that by affirming the AIM of Rome is essential for assurance of Truth, then the basis for your assurance that this itself is Truth is because 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) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. >

Meanwhile, it appears you are also blind to the fact that i did show how your assertions about your faith system are false, as they are either straw men or based upon ignorance. Instead of shown as being false, you cannot explain how an assuredly infallible magisterium, having stewardship of Scripture, is essential for determining Truth, yet common people recognized an insect-eating holy man in the desert was "a prophet indeed," and an itinerant Jewish prophet was the Divine Christ and Son of God, when both were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, unto who "were committed the oracles of God," "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.. (Romans 3:2; 9:4)

First, the denominations mentioned there have serious doctrinal differences whether you want to admit it or not.

As is the case in Catholicism, the difference being a matter of degrees. However, i can have a close kinship and a blessed unity of the Spirit due to our shared conversion and relationship with Christ which is greater than our difference among surrendered believers, often immediate spontaneous upon meeting, and centered on Christ, but which i rarely have realized in meeting RCs. And i became born again at age 25 while being a weekly mass going RC, and remained therein for 6 years, during which taught CCD and was a lector.

The Foursquare Pentecostal “church”

You are again exampling your ignorance of the subject you are debating.The Foursquare Pentecostal church, or Pentecostal churches as this is what Foursquare describes, are not characteristically that of the modalist "Jesus Only" United Pentecostal Church International.

whereas the AOG and Lutherans and a few others (not counting the “evangelical” group because I don’t know what that means, since that’s rather vague) believe in the Trinity.

"The AOG and Lutherans and a few others"! How about most every Prot church there is, including the largest single denomination, the SBC! And if you knew the history of the evangelical movement you would know it rose due to a common contention for basic Truths, and against cults. Listen to Walter Martin, or read his classic work, "the kingdom of the Cults ."

Second, even beyond these serious differences among the “invisible church”, the statistics you cite do not show what you claim for another reason, and that is that all they really show is, that the Catholic Church (at least in America) has done a poor job of catechising her members.

Please, what the evidence testifies to is how Rome has catechized her members according to what she really believes, or do you mock Jesus and James: "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them." (Matthew 7:20) "I will shew thee my faith by my works." (James 2:18)

One may think this is a cop out, or evading the issue at hand but it isn’t.

Yes it is.

On one had you claim the Church is more *doctrinally* diverse than the “invisible” church

I did not say either. Those churches of historical evangelical faith are manifestly diverse yet with a stronger essential unity, and are very visible, even if as a remnant (per unusual), while the church of Rome with its contrasts is what is most invisible in the NT.

and then with the other hand only demonstrate not her actual doctrines, but her lack of proper education.

And who are you to reprove Rome for how and what she chooses to inculcate. After all, you are the one emphasizing submission to elders as knowing better than the flock. I am judging Rome Biblically.

No Catholic (at least none on FR) says the Church has been great at education, in the last 50 or so years.

But you want evangelicals to leave their conservative active churches and eat the wafer with liberal pols and the majority of RCs which support them.

Thanks be to the 60’s counter culture.

It was worse in the 1st century, and we have no excuse.

But this isn’t proof of doctrinal disunity.

It is, as besides what they testify to by actions, even her paper unity is quite limited, and there is a multitude of thin gs RCs can and so disagree on. Sometimes all the pope can do is call a truce .

To me though, the dogma of the Trinity seems to be a pretty important one.

Which is why it is one of the things, among others, fundamental evangelicals overall have contended for thru decades.

You have also relied on the same criticism as Scott, to whit you point to the scandals of men in the Church, as if that demonstrates anything more than sinners in the church.

No, when you honor a Ted Kennedy as Rome did, it is not the same as simply having sinners in the church. "Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." (1 Corinthians 5:13)

Finally you claim that the Catholic Church is “sola ecclesia” which is flat out not true. Talk about using straw men!

It is flat out true, with no straw whatsoever.

In brief, that term is misleading as it may lead one to think the church just makes things up as she goes along and claims infallibility when someone disagrees.

It means Rome is the supreme infallibly authority, claiming to uniquely infallibly define both what Divine revelation is and what it means. Thus it alone is the supreme authority on earth. To say otherwise is what is misleading.

This does mean she can teach for doctrine what someone made up for all we know, based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. And she has made use of forgeries to support her pretensions.

And under this premise, Scripture, tradition and history only assuredly mean what she says they do. As no less than 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

No, that’s not the church’s claim in fact the opposite. As “pillar and ground of the truth” the church holds up (supports) both Scripture and Tradition.

More wresting of Scripture. The church of the living God (not the institutionalize one) being the “pillar and ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15) - which RCs love to invoke as if it said more than that - does not require or equate to assured infallibility so that whatever Rome speaks universally on faith and morals will he infallible. That is a RC contrivance.

Not the Tradition of men but the Word of God which you yourself a knowledge was and is the genesis of (some) Scripture. (I still maintain all but it’s a minor point to quibble IMO)

Which was not established upon the premise of assured infallibility, but by manifestly God ordained apostles, and whose "traditions" were not ancient tales, but contemporary preached truths, which we can expect would be subsequently written down, shown by a study of the phrase "the word of God/the Lord."

So we have the pillar and ground of the truth holding up the Word of God.

Or that the church both supports the Truth and rests upon that foundation. See here .

And how does it do that? By teaching what she was taught by Christ, by word of mouth and by letter.

And the whole church went preaching the Word, (Act 8:4) as do faithful evangelical types. But not under the premise of the church possessing perpetual assured infallible magisterium or it being necessary, which it never was for in order for God to preserve Truth, which Scripture does.

you may not agree with the church’s teaching on a matter, but your disagreement with the church proves nothing. Because as “reasonable” as they might be (although I have demonstrated at least a few areas of error already), the church has equally reasonable counter arguments.

No it does not, and you have "demonstrated" zilch, for the basis for the veracity of her arguments cannot the evangelical means of Scriptural substantiation, under which the church began, but they rest upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. According to her interpretation, or decree, one her version can be correct in any conflict.

"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

The difference between the two are you are not: 2000 years old and appointed by Christ. So your reasoning is that of men only.

The difference between the two are Rome can only claim to be 2000 years old and appointed by Christ, defining reality as she sees it as expressed above, but Scripture refuses to bear this out. So your reasoning is based on the premise of presumptuous men.

We certainly do not see the NT in Scripture the churches being presided over by a pope the whole church looked to as it supreme infallible head in Rome, and being taught that he was the "rock" of Mt. 16:18?

Or even a successor for the martyred apostle James (Acts 12:1,2) being chosen like Matthias was and after that manner (Acts 1, in order to keep the original number of apostles)?

And a separate sacerdotal class of believers titled "priests ," as they uniquely changed bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the masses to receive life in them and eternal life (RCs keep quoting Jn. 6:53,54 to us)?

And a hierarchical order of priests, bishops, Cardinals, etc., with ostentatious religious dress and titles, including "Most Reverend?"

And required (with rare exceptions) clerical celibacy, which presumes all such have that gift.

And incognizant (usually) souls being formally justified by interior holiness via sprinkling of water in recognition of proxy faith, and (usually) ending up becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory ?

And a separate class of believers called “saints,

And praying to the departed, or angels, and before images?

And the apostles teaching Mary was born and kept sinless?

And a church that conformed to this world in using papal sanctioned physical oppression torture, burning and death to deal with theological dissent

Or who, having lost that power, treats even notorious manifestly impenitent public sinners as members in life and in death, in contrast to the NT means of disfellowship and spiritual discipline.

And which members overall come in near last in things such as evangelism, commitment, and personal Bible reading, the latter which it hindered for a long time, and later sanctions teaching millions such things as that OT miraculous stories are fables or folktales, etc.

And teaches that the deity Muslims worship (not as unknown) is the same as theirs.

And which boasts of unity while being discouraged from objectively searching the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC doctrine, while (on the other hand) lacking certainty about all the things they must hold as certain, and seeing varying degrees of interpretation by the magisterium, as well in the great liberty they have to interpret Scripture in order to support Rome.

More can be said, but while i do not see any body of apostles today, esp in Catholicism, with the degree of power, purity, piety and performance like that of the early church, and that could effectually function as a universal magisterium, (which Rome is not even a form of), and the church overall as in negative contrast with the early church, yet among churches that hold Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired and basically literal word of God,

i see men ordained according to the Biblical requirements, (1Tim. 3:1-7)

with with simple titles of pastor as elders/bishops, that being one office, (Titus 1:5-7)

and clothed with humility as well the clothes of common men, (Mt. 23:5-12)

and taking part in the communal Lord's supper as the memorial that it is, showing the Lord's death till He comes, (1Cor. 11 ) and praying not to the departed or images,

and preaching the gospel of repentant faith in the Lord Jesus to save contrite damned + destitute sinners on His expense and credit, (Eph. 2:8,9) that being counted for righteousness, (Rm. 3 - 4:7ff)

which heart faith confesses the Lord Jesus, (Rm. 10:9,10) justifying them as souls having saving faith, (Heb. 6:9,10). and thus baptizing them as believers who can fulfill the stated requirements of repentance and wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37)

and thus overall on the practical level they foster the most unified and committed group of born again believers in core Christian truths,

realizing a basic unity of the Spirit as a result of a common personal conversion of heart faith in Christ, and resultant Scripture-based relationship with Him, which transcends external tribalism,

thus being treated by both Rome and liberals alike as their greatest threat to their rule.

But who, as predicted in the latter days, have been and increasingly are a remnant. To God be the glory.

Finally still you claim the early church began in rebellion to the heirarchal system of the Jews which is true in a way but in a way not true. It’s true Jesus taught that the Pharasees (among others) were wrong about HIM, but he never taught that the Jews were wrong about the LAW.

Wrong! Who is telling you these things? In upholding Scripture as the supreme standard for Truth over the magisterium, He corrected their negation of one of the 10 commandments no less, "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition," (Mark 7:9) As well as about whom Moses spoke of in Dt. 18:18,19 (cf. Acts 3:22,23), "For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?" (John 5:46-47) And He also corrected their answer to the question, "What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David," (Matthew 22:41-42) which they could not correct, they were wrong in saying "out of Galilee ariseth no prophet." (John 7:52) for Jonah, Hosea, Nahum and maybe Elijah, Elisha, and Amos were from Galilee.

Note that the Lord (Mt. 21:16,42; 22:44; 23:39; 25:41; 27:46) the multitudes (Mt. 21:9; 27:35; Jn. 6:31) and even the devil (Ps 91:11,12) invoked Psalms in the gospels, and the Holy Spirit to the Jews in Acts (Acts 1:20; 2:25-28,31,34; 13:22) and is called Scripture, (Jn. 19:28) it supports this as Scripture and argues for Writings being included as "the law and the prophets" (Jn. 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; cf. Ps. 69:4; 82:6; 89:28, 29; 110:4) and as part of the books the Lord referred to as Scripture in Lk. 24:44. 1 Corinthians 14:21 is also called

Plus we have clear quotes of Proverbs. (Romans 2:6; 3:15; 12:20; Heb. 12:5,6; Ja. 4:6; 1Pt. 5:5) Other of the Writings [hagiographa] may be included as accepted Scripture, to which Paul for instance references.

Indeed, Jesus himself exported his followers to “do as they say but not as they do”

Wrong, as their errors obviously extended into doctrine, thus Jesus Himself enjoined conditional submission (Mt. 23:2) as is always the case towaerd man, but obviously not implicit assent of faith as per Rome which is the issue. And thus it remains that under your model for determining Truth, that the magisterium (that is the steward of Scripture) is essential and always correct in determining Truth (and thus what writings and men are of God), then the 1st c. souls should have submitted to the seat of Moses, the stewards of Scripture, thus invalidating the church.

because he knew that humans would ALWAYS need a system of governance to resolve dispute and dissension.

No dispute here, as the teaching/governing office is upheld, as shown. Just not on that presumes assured veracity.

Just not the system the Jews had perverted by their man-made traditions.

But this is an impossible charge when the magisterium is the supreme indisputable judge on what is Truth, and the Pharisees could have easily justified their purification precepts as well as the law of Corban under the premise of them being the assuredly correct interpreters of Scripture, and the purification precepts were an extension of the temple purity laws, and that money dedicated to God was an extension of priestly dedication to the Temple.

After all, among many other things , Catholicism divides makes one believers into being "saints,"and ascribes to created beings an attribute only God is shown being able to have, that of hearing virtually infinite and incessant numbers of mental prayers to them in Heaven, which no one (except pagans) are shown to taught to do.

And by imposed functional equivalence Rome renders NT pastors into a distinctive class of clergy titled "priests" (hiereus), which the Holy Spirit never does, nor does presbuteros mean hiereus . And renders the requirements for pastors which assume they normally be married, and know how to rule his own house and thus can take care of the church of God, (1Tim. 3:1,5) into a requirement that all (but a few converts) be celibate, which presumes they all have the have gift of celibacy, (1Cor. 7:7) which church law (if changeable) is highly presumptuous and contrary to Scripture. And makes events Scripture nowhere mentions, and is contrary to Scripture, that of Mary already being bodily raised and crowned before the Lord's return, and ascribes to her an unScriptural demigoddess status.

The veracity of all of which tradition does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

So he wasn’t exhorting his followers to become some kind of anarchists,

A false dilemma. The magisterium is to be upheld, and in fact there should a centralized one, which Rome nuked by her recalcitrant arrogance and error, but not as claiming assured infallibility, but in which credence is dependent upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as it was in the NT church.

rather to throw off the man made portions of the Jews and KEEP the rest, including their heirarchal structure.

Rather, it is actually under the same basis that some Jewish upstarts dissented from man made portions of the Jews and doctrinal errors of those who sat in the seat of Moses that we must reject the same of Rome. Which includes her false idea of Pete r and papacy , which even the EOs much reject, as well as her extra and contra-Scriptural traditions being taught as doctrines, and which includes her artificial distinctions btwn episkopos and presbuteros, and papal pomp, lofty titles and ostentatious religious garb. (Mt. 23:5-11)

Otherwise the anathemas St. Paul spoke of have no meaning. What does it mean to “let him be accursed” if, after given such a rebuke, all an early Chrisitian had to do was to down the road to another “church” and join that one?

It means that rather than as in Rome, in which even impenitent proabortion sodomites are treated as members even in death, we are to obey "come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you," (2 Corinthians 6:17) and be in a congregation that exercises effectual discipline of the impenitent, while helping the contrite trying to overcome sin.

The fact is that in absolutely none of the epistles to the churches, or the Lord's own words to the 7 churches in Rv. 2+3 is submission to Peter listed as a solution, even with the Corinthians following false apostles, and (contrary the arrogance of Rome toward us) they were all called churches, even the Laodiceans, and that of Diotrephes (a papal prototype). No doubt one could be expelled from the church of Philadelphia and join the Laodicean church, while even true apostles were excluded from the church under pastor Diotrephes. (3Jn. 1:9) Meanwhile it was Paul who is the only one who is shown calling elders together and discipling them.

After all, there wasn’t any unified visible authority, right?

Another false dilemma, and more recourse to the usual straw man. Of course, we could go to the lengths of the Puritans also.

And such an excommunication couldn’t be done, from even a practical standpoint much less a theological, unless there WAS a governing body in place that had the ultimate authority to speak finally on matters of faith.

Indeed, under manifest God-ordained apostles, in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,...By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4,7) Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12) But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty [not as Rome], not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

The greater the claim, the greater corespondent attestation is required, and as said, Rome utterly fails of the requirements and attestation of Biblical apostles, who did not even claim assured formulaic infallibility of office as Rome. And what was ordained in Acts 15 was wholly Scriptural. (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)

The most the magisterium can require is conditional submission, which we must also render to Caesar, and which does not equate to anarchy except in the Roman mind, which cannot conceive of how one could have assurance of Truth without an infallible magisterium, and thus how the church could begin without this.

The more you try to defend your imaginary church, the more it is exposed as being invisible in Scripture .