Posted on 10/28/2013 12:50:17 PM PDT by GonzoII
“Funny how the liberals and the Roman church have to hide behind that ‘hate’ label.”
The only thing I can think of is that the Jesuits sent the order of Albino Assassin Monks around and ‘persuaded’ the owners of FR that such truthful and absolutely non-embarrassing tracts must be banned from the Religion forum. Obviously the Vatican couldn’t have the existence of the supercomputer underneath the Vatican with all the Protestant names and locations to be more widely disseminated than it already has become.
It’s the only thing that makes sense.
Freegards
“Athanasius doesn’t say “for edification.” That could ambiguously be interpreted as strengthening one’s faith, inspiring courage, whatever. Athanasius says it’s purpose is to instruct Christians in the ways of Godliness. In other words, moral doctrine. He certainly does not say that hey are “not to be used for doctrine.” And he most certainly doesn’t call them fiction.
He merely admits that they aren’t “canon.” Whose canon? Athanasius’ own incorrect enumeration of the New Testament makes plain that there is no settled Christian canon. He is referring to the Jews.
Sorry, you can’t have it both ways: Athanasius is either contradicting Sola Scriptura, by looking to something outside scripture for moral doctrine, and/or by “canon” he doesn’t mean the Christian canon.
I think you are overestimating your ability to muddle things up here. You’re also basically revealing that you don’t even know what the reformed view of Sola Scriptura even means. When Athanasius says that these books are “merely to be read,” and is for instruction in “Godliness,” that is not anything different from what I’ve already said before, and of which every Christian I cited agrees with, even your Papist Cardinal Catejan. The distinction is that these books, though having value as religious works by Christians for the edification of morals, cannot be used for the creation of doctrine. That is it. There’s nothing more to it than that. Furthermore, Sola Scriptura says nothing about us not using anything we want to instruct us in Godliness, or as aids for understanding the scripture (commentaries), or anything else we would like to use. It just means that we can only turn to the holy scripture for Christian doctrine, and nowhere else.
I think you and Vladimir, on some level, know you’re fighting a losing battle, and so you’re grasping at anything, even though there isn’t anything left to grasp anymore.
“FR is run by a non-denominational Christian. I’m a believer but don’t belong to any organized religion.”
Well, you thought you were a “non-denominational Christian” but apparently to someone in this thread you must be a liberal or Catholic. Welcome aboard, Jim! We’re so glad to have you! :)
I’m just saying... (sarc off)
Yes, I brought him up because that’s what happened. And? If the post gets deleted, that’s okay. The story is still true no matter what happens to the post.
“No, I doubt he does. And you shouldn’t talk about your daughter’s latest boyfriend that way.”
I don’t have any kids! Think up insults that actually apply!
“I don’t have any kids! Think up insults that actually apply!”
You’re doing that to yourself well enough on your own.
I spent three posts showing your claim is incorrect. If you want to cling to the Apocryphal books as ‘gospel’ you have your 1st Amendment right to do so.
Nice bait and switch on the total depravity. LOL how predictable. If you want to start a thread on Enoch and works based salvation please do so. You hinted in three straight posts you wanted to discuss Enoch in detail.
Sir did you go to Catholic HS? I did. I don’t remember any of the fellas running to the principals office. LOL.
LOL. Good one.
At the very least it is poor debating skills to bring up a source, take it to the woodshed knowing the rules prevent rebuttals. If you want to be fair I am sure you can post at “he who shall not be named” site. Let me know if you do.
I would not call Vlad’s comments as mind reading but for the first time on a forum I have witnessed mental procreation:)
“At the very least it is poor debating skills to bring up a source, take it to the woodshed knowing the rules prevent rebuttals.”
No. That would not be poor in skill - perhaps etiquette - but not skill. Denying someone the chance of rebuttal would show great skill not poor skill. And I wasn’t denying you a rebuttal in any case. I quite frankly don’t care if you post about him or not.
“If you want to be fair I am sure you can post at “he who shall not be named” site. Let me know if you do.”
No. I have no interest in posting there. And if I did I would feel no need to make any special effort to tell you or anyone else about it. What would be the point in any case?
Thanks. I might have a look at that. What are the two passages you are referring to?
There are a couple of comments which strongly disagree with Catholic teaching (specifically the papacy if I recall correctly; and are not really fairly written) but the bible is worthwhile.
I missed this.
Are you seriously suggesting that any of the people you cite rejected release from torture, imprisonment and death because they knew they would be resurrected?
Sorry, but none elucidate the resurrection. They may, like David, has some spiritual, prophetic hope beyond hope that they will be returned to life if they do perish. But none confidently predict their own resurrection, much less reject release for it.
So once again, you’re stretching the Protestant canon to find something vaguely referential, whereas the Catholic/Greek/Apostolic records precisely what the New Testament refers to.
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.