Posted on 03/29/2014 7:53:18 AM PDT by STJPII
"The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres…churches and altars sacked.....
There was a time, not long ago, when Catholicism was synonymous with clear, unequivocal teaching. Like her or hate her, people knew where the Church stood on every important issue. The Baltimore Catechism, the precepts of the Church, Denzinger’s Sources of Catholic Dogma, the Code of Canon Law, the various papal teachings that upheld truth and condemned error in no uncertain terms…people who had never darkened the doorstep of a Catholic Church were not ignorant of her most basic teachings. Catholic schoolchildren, on the other hand, could recite many of these core beliefs from memory.
Over the course of the 20th century, however, that began to change."
I am not a reformation Christian...I am a Christian...
Are you not of the "brand" of Christian that takes the Scripture to be the ONLY authoritative rule of faith and practice? If so, then you are a reformation Christian by definition, and quibbling about it will do nothing but derail a potentially edifying dialog.
Are you not of the "brand" of Christian that takes the Scripture to be the ONLY authoritative rule of faith and practice? If so, then you are a reformation Christian by definition, and quibbling about it will do nothing but derail a potentially edifying dialog.
I do look to the Scriptures as the final and supreme authority for the Christian as I earlier noted in 2 Timothy 3. It was at Antioch where believers in Christ were first called Christians. I would describe myself in that manner.
I think part of our problem in the world today is that we attach too many labels in these type of discussions.
I also think, for some, the term "reformed" has taken on a negative context. So for our discussion, if you would put me in the camp that calls oneself a Christian as the believers at Antioch did I'd appreciate that.
If you want, I'll refer to you as a member of the Catholic Church.
Fair?
Nope. Sorry. You are positing the fitting of an essential piece of the puzzle, without which said puzzle can not be complete, is ALL that is needed to complete the puzzle. A that is not a logically supportable proposition, and no amount of fixating on the proper definition of "complete" is going to affect that dynamic.
No. That is rather like a Anglo American calling it "fair" to refer to himself as American and the native as an Indian.
you were not at the discourse.
Are not your inferences, indeed ANY teaching, that is not explicitly commanded in Scripture, man made? If not, why are yours inspired but mine are not?
To base doctrine on something other than the Bible is the concern. This goes to the point Paul was making in Timothy 3 we were discussing.
Example: prayers to Mary.
We have nothing in Scripture that tells us to pray to Mary. Yet, man-made tradition tells us to.
Well, if we can't agree on what the plain reading of the text in 2 Timothy 3 is saying is saying this may be a quick conversation.
No...we are not Anglo-Americans. We are Americans by virtue of our birth in this land. If the native wants to be called something other than Indian, I'll go with his suggestion.
We can't call them Native Americans as they were here long before America was founded. And by using America I mean the country...not the continent.
The Church.
and why?
Because Scripture does not tell you what is a proper hermeneutic and what is not.
Sure it does...
What would you say to a student who saw no need for Algebra?
You are correct. I am saying the Bible alone is insufficient. And that doesn't contradict 2Tim3 for the previously stated reasons.
That the Bible alone is insufficient is further demonstrated by the fact that it gives precious little insight into sin in all it's forms and guises.
Trying to use the Bible as a legal code is to fall into the same error as the Jews of Jesus' day.
Agreed.
God Bless.
You should be wary cut and pasting Internet quotes on Luther, as they often misrepresent what he said, if he even said it.
James Swan has put more research into these than any other on the Internet and if would do good if RCs would do a "search site" for quotes, as in,
site:beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing
Which should show you Luther: Christ Gave The Keys To Peter?
But that is an issue that saw differences among CFs, while the real issue is perpetuation, and which has been dealt with before often. My fingers are too stiff to say much more now.
Matthew 18 fails to mention the “Keys” which is a clear reference to Isaiah 22, where Eliakim was given real, absolute authority to govern.
I doubt that is even a official RC interpretation, while The Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others assume that Eliakim is the peg, which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in Isa. 22:25, and which position classic commentators Keil and Delitzsch contend is the case. And whether or not v. 25 refers to Eliakim or Shebna, it is evident is that being fastened in a sure place does not necessarily establish perpetuation.
In addition, nothing is provided by way of literal fulfillment of this prophecy in the Old Testament, nor in the New in support of Peter, and when perpetuation of any office is the case then the Scriptures makes that evident. And what is evident as concerns perpetuation is that to Christ it is promised that His kingdom will never cease, (Lk. 1:32,33), who shall be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that being their holy Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah, out of which our Lord sprang and made a new covenant with. (Heb. 7:14; 8:8 ) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) Thus this what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah.
The Church.
Scripture provides for the church, reason, natural revelation etc. Formal sufficiency is limited. But that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, is abundantly evidenced .
Saying it is the church is an assertion. What is the basis for your assurance of Truth? Are you saying that being the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God? That seems to be the RC polemic behind "we gave you the Bible...)
More in context of 2 Timothy 3:
II Timothy 3:13-17 NKJV
But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived. But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
"upon this rock"; in the greek is petra = bedrock or large stone.
Peter was fallible yet a living stone, which Christ would use as one of the first of many living stones to build his Church. Christ, on the other hand, is that layer of bedrock upon which all living stones are placed in the building of the Church.
Christ is the foundation and it is Christ that is building upon that foundation. Do not err by equating a man as equal to Christ or as Christ's sole representative on earth.
What would you say to a student who saw no need for Algebra?
You are correct. I am saying the Bible alone is insufficient. And that doesn't contradict 2Tim3 for the previously stated reasons.
That the Bible alone is insufficient is further demonstrated by the fact that it gives precious little insight into sin in all it's forms and guises.
I'd be curious as to why the Bible is insufficient in giving "precious little insight into sin in all its forms and guises."
I have to admit that's a new one on me.
Then give me one... instead of trying to snow me under with a page full of references that beg the question in that the interpretation of said references assumes your original assertion.
As you can see from the disagreement over 2Tim, passionately asserting a statement is comprehensive does not make it so, not matter how much we wish it. Shaving the corners off a square peg does not make it fit the round hole, even if though it will go inside of it.
If the Scriptures alone where enough, the Scribes and Pharisees would have been Christians when Jesus got here.
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.