Posted on 06/03/2007 2:32:29 PM PDT by NYer
I think "dreamt up" would be more apropos.
I'm suspended between the Evangelical world and Rome, which is an interesting place to live. I wish you had stayed on at ETS, but your explanation is clear and charitable.
Have you seen Koons' "The Case for Catholicism", which has been online for a few days? It's a very interesting document.
Welcome to FR!
The scriptures are the inspired word of God, Campion. Of course they’re different than any other writings.
The Scriptures are to early Christian writing as the Constitution is to a US legal library.
It is the basic document. It provides the anchor. It is such that one might move this far or that far, but the keen sense of a bible reader will be alerted by the Holy Spirit when someone has moved TOO FAR.
There are no arguments from scripture for any of them.
Francis is is always sad when we find out that one that had represented Christ was never saved, but was one of the tares Christ speaks about.
Recently someone commented if you want to find the devil look in the pulpit.
Although it was an obvious exaggeration, there is much truth to the fact that too many evangelical pastors and leaders may have had a mental assent to the doctrines of the reformation but never had a regenerated relationship with Christ.
Having come from the Catholic church I know the evangelical aspect of Rome is not to lead others to Christ, but to lead others to “the church” .
The church does not save, the sacraments do not save, Mary is not the dispenser of all graces.
An elect child of God would never move from faith to works and tradition.
I pray that God open eyes to the truth of His word
Never said they weren't.
the keen sense of a bible reader will be alerted by the Holy Spirit when someone has moved TOO FAR.
You've just set up an authority in addition to Scripture, called "the keen sense of a bible reader, which claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit".
Of course (just as one example), the "keen senses of bible readers" have led Protestants to 4 or 5 different positions on infant baptism. Are there 4 or 5 different Holy Spirits?
As I said, this only sets up the guy you see in the mirror as the final arbiter of truth.
Indeed he has, but he has tried to state that his current membership in the Catholic church is not inconsistent with the doctrinal statement of the ETS. He stated: "I firmly believe that I can sign the ETS doctrinal statement in good conscience..."
The only way he could believe that is if he continued to believe that Scripture was superior to tradition and that scripture alone contains the inerrant word of God. He therefore could not sign the doctrinal statement of the ETS in good conscience unless he disagreed with the Catholic position on the inerrancy of the Magisterium and the Pope and the above mentioned doctrines.
Of course, if he publicly did that then he could be excommunicated.
But He is an official poster now, so we should let him speak for himself.
Thank you for demonstrating that you're not even remotely interested in listening.
That isn't exactly what the ETS doctrinal statement says.
Why don't you post it verbatim. It's only two (!!!) sentences.
I have set up no new authority, Campion. I’m using the scripture. Jesus said that “The Holy Spirit will guide us into all truth.” It also says that the “Holy Spirit” has a ministry of bringing scripture back to the memories of believers.
Would you like scripture references for both of those?
1Co 2:13 - Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
Joh 14:26 - But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
That’s a restating of the original proposition, Campion.
So far no one has contested it.
Whether it’s lack of interest, laziness, naptime, or a LACK OF SCRIPTURE, I’m waiting to see.
The bottom line, though, is that at this point no one’s contested it.
He said "you," and he was speaking to the Apostles at the time. There's no warrant to assume what he said applied to everyone at all times, or everyone who thinks it applies to them, or anything like that. Otherwise, you have every heretic under the sun claiming that they, personally, are guided to "all truth," which makes the Holy Spirit author of several thousand "new truths", most of which contradict the faith once delivered.
You have indeed set up a new authority.
My, aren't we testy today?
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
.
A Catholic can agree with the proposition that “the Bible alone ... is the Word of God written ...”
The authority, campion, as I’ve pointed out is the scripture, the Word of God.
Perhaps some believe that the Holy Spirit is not REAL or is Dead? Are you one of those?
You've already denied that any response can be made.
Your interpretation of same, which you argue is authoritative, because you think the Holy Spirit leads you to truth (and, I guess, fails to lead me to truth, because if he did, I'd agree with you).
That is the alternative authority that you're setting up.
It's as clear as day.
That’s what the propostion is.
Then it says AGREE OR DISAGREE?
Well, then, make a choice!
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is Real?
Do you believe that the Holy Spirit is Dead?
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.