Posted on 06/03/2007 2:32:29 PM PDT by NYer
Then what do you call all those WRITTEN Papal encyclicals? Do you just pretend they are not WRITTEN?
If they are infallible, then they are the Word of God. Since they are claimed to be the Word of God, and they are in addition to the Bible, no Catholic in good standing can agree with the doctrinal statement of the ETS. THE BIBLE ALONE. ALONE.
It is Bible Alone version 2.1
:>)
So you do not believe in the infallible teaching of the church. You agree with Sola Scriptura ? (Bible alone)
God just needs some "help" explaining what it means, so he gave the world a pope so we can have Catholicism 1.0, 2.0, 2.15, etc.
He actually quotes two scriptures in one of them!!!
That is at least one per book!
LOL, this site needs a rep button!! ;^)
Man I missed that line, were the books “pre conversion” ?
great line BTW
I was thinking that the other day, no way to rep a great post or line
YEs. The first book was "Moral Relativism" which was co-Authored by Gregory Koukl. I believe there were 177 pages and only two obscure bible verses. I find it odd that a Book on the evils of Moral Relativism could basically completely ignore any references to the only source on earth for concrete Moral guidance.
The other book in my collection is a Book in which Beckwith was the editor. It was a book on Mormonism. There were several articles in that book from other authors that relied heavily on scripture, but the article from Dr. Beckwith was devoid of any scriptural references that I could find. IIRC there were numerous references to the Book of Mormon and to Aristotle and Plato, but I don't believe I was able to find any scriptural references in his article.
I also looked on-line for some of his on-line articles and found very few (if any) that had any direct scriptural references in them. What I found puzzling is how a man who quoted so little scripture could be elevated to the position of president of a society that had the following as its statement of purpose:
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
But then if you read Dr. Norman Geisler's resignation letter of 2003, it makes more sense.
Wow. Did God know Geisler was gonna quit ets?
No way he’d have foreseen Beckwith crossing the Tiber....right? (He’s not gonna be happy with this turn of events.)
:>)
You can go back to the Waldenses which is at least a couple centuries before the Lollards (and probably more).
And if you aren't satisfied with that then you can go back to Paul who commended the Bereans for using Scripture as the rule for judging doctrine and teaching.
Ahhhhh indeed.
It has compromised its integrity and foundation so the fruit of the tree would be spoiled.
Thanks for the link
Amen.
However, if he did stray from the truth it would only be a temporary lapse. Eventually he would recognize the error and return to the clarity of Scripture -- "saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ."
"Be not afraid; only believe." -- Mark 5:36
Why men cover themselves in silver and gold talismen when Christ's blood is the only thing that saves anyone is a perpetual mystery.
What has happened to the ETS is the same thing that is happening to our constitutional republic. The Republic was founded on a basic understanding and assent to the principles of self government set forth in the Constitution. Over the years the words of the Constitution have come to mean something other than what the founders intended them to mean. As a result our current system of government bears little resemblance to the Republic envisioned by our founding fathers.
The same with the ETS. The founding fathers of the ETS (such as Geisler) intended the doctrinal statement to mean something concrete, i.e., that the Bible and the Bible alone (Sola Scriptura) is the inerrant word of God. But the ETS allowed the statement to be watered down and to mean something that the founders did not envision. In that light it was not surprising that they could elect a fledgling Catholic, someone open to the idea of extra-biblical inerrancy and revelation, to the position of President of a society founded upon the idea of Sola Scriptura.
There is no doubt but that the founders intended Sola Scriptura to be the guiding principle for the ETS. And now their recent president has joined up with those who mock the very principle that these men envisioned. And to top it off, this ex-president suggests that he could still, in good conscience, sign off on that declaration. Sure, if he reinterprets the meaning to fit his own theology rather than interpreting it in the manner in which it was intended to be interpreted.
Indeed, and put as poetry ...thank you
Everyone????
2nd point: I take it from your repsonse that you do believe that Mary is a co-Redmptrix with Christ. That would mean that she shares in the Glory and is at least partially responsible for your salvation.
Is she not also a co-Mediatrix with Christ, i.e., that she stands as a mediator between God and Man?
Gosh Dr. Beckwith. Do you buy into all this stuff?
Or is your conversion to Catholicism more in the realm of philosophical agreement rather than doctrinal agreement?
Dr. Beckwith, do you pray the Rosary? Do you believe that Mary is partially responsible for your salvation? Is Mary a co-Mediatrix with Christ?
Or did you not bother to think about these things before you crossed the Tiber?
Christ alone. Hmm. Why didn't Christ believe in Christ alone? What is the deal with all those Apostles?
I guess Christ was misquoted when he cried “It is Finished”?
Yeah, pretty much. That's why both Romans and Orthodox believe in it.
I take it from your repsonse that you do believe that Mary is a co-Redmptrix with Christ. That would mean that she shares in the Glory and is at least partially responsible for your salvation.
What I understand the term "co-Redemptrix" to mean is precisely spelled out in Dr. Miravalle's books. Instead of jumping to ridiculous conclusions about what the teaching means, and putting words into my mouth (and his), read the books.
About the same time. And the Waldenses believed in things that you would condemn.
And if you aren't satisfied with that then you can go back to Paul who commended the Bereans for using Scripture as the rule for judging doctrine and teaching.
I think using Scripture as a rule for judging doctrine and teaching is a fine thing.
I think setting yourself up as the final arbiter and judge of what Scripture means is a terrible thing.
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.