You have a valid point; but TODAY you guys spend a whole LOT of time; diligently seeking HER!
Posted on 11/10/2014 5:38:48 PM PST by Coleus
Mon. Nov. 10 at 8:00 PM ET Tue. Nov. 11 at 1:00 AM ET Fri. Nov. 14 at 1:00 PM ET DALE AHLQUIST
Dale Ahlquist, President of the American Chesterton Society and former Baptist, joins Marcus to talk about his journey home to the Catholic Church.
You have have ignored all three of my responses to you and their questions, and instead blithely engaging in the same specious polemic and its false dilemma instead, and instead blithely engaged in the same specious polemic and its false dilemma .
Some advocate of scholarship.
But to clarify, is your argument that we must follow the historical magisterium and the lettered, or even that an infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth, so that there can be no valid dissent from it, even on the basis of Scriptural substantiation.
And which model precludes Mormonic types etc., or a church in disarray and its people confused, and which is the only alternative if one rejects the Roman model?
Or do you want to equivocate and move the goal posts? Its your argument so you must defend it. Try to answer this time.
Koresh is dead, Osteen doesn't even claim to teach the Bible, JWs have their own version of the Bible and even it condemns their false teachings. Billy Graham isn't in the same orbit as those guys you keep tossing out like they were some kind of silly talisman to ward off the correction that you sorely need. He teaches the actual truth of the Bible and is why God has used him to reach millions around the world for Christ. Maybe if you could step back a bit from defending Rome at all cost - to the point sometimes of ridiculousness - you just might come to understand that truth is truth because it comes from GOD. It is revealed and illuminated in the hearts of those who diligently seek Him.
Irrelevant to the discussion. We were discussing theologians departing Rome. Luther et. al. were mentioned.
NKP then digressed to Luther not being a doctor of theology. When confronted with this incorrect information he then digressed further by bringing up Luther was the first to declare in Romans 3 faith alone. Then it was posted the long list of theologians before Luther stretching centuries, who came to the same conclusion as Luther did later. To include a few Roman Catholic Bibles expressing such.
Somehow, for some reason, you introduced a history of Luther as an antisemite and stated Hitler used his writings to justify the slaughter of Jews.
How much more digression, and shell game tactics shall we see?
It seems to me the thread has reached culmination. Because when an RC has nothing more to say they dig up Luther’s bones. Which does have some historical foundation in Papal history.
So am I to conclude some posters don’t want to admit they were incorrect on historical facts so they double down on another hand of three card monty?
So if you have a refutation of what the poster listed (post #252) as the historical precedent of “sola fide” let’s have it please.
Or maybe these ridiculous rabbit holes could be avoided if posters stopped doubling down on the ridiculous assertions.
“diligently” seek Him?
Catholics for 2000 years including the early Church fathers, and those who used Petrine authority to sort out and arrange the books in the Bible did not “diligently,” and the saints, martyrs, and stigmatists, who wrote about and followed Catholic doctrine did not seek Him out ???
How would anyone know that David Koresh, Jim Jones, the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Mennonites have not “diligently” sought Him out? The Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses have more adherents than Billy Graham ever did?
St. John Paul II had several millions as far as the eye could see that attended his Masses in just about every country he visited and may be this is “why God has used him to reach millions around the world for Christ.”
You’re still posting on this?
About 50 posts ago your post hit the canvass and the 10 count was given.
These threads are like the movie “The Notebook.”
This is one absurdity after another! Many KJV Bibles do not even have a study guide, nor was the KJV the first Prot. Bible, and most modern Prot Bibles do not even use the same family of MSS, and can be more different in their renderings than the RC DRB is within the 66 books, which is overall very similar. Compare the Message or Good New Bible with the KJV.
The Douay–Rheims Bible achieved little currency, even among English-speaking Catholics, until it was substantially revised between 1749 and 1752 by Richard Challoner, an English bishop, formally appointed to the deserted see of Debra. Challoner's revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Version (being a convert from Protestantism to Catholicism and thus familiar with its style) - he Rheims New Testament
And the Rheims New Testament is seen as having a little influence on the KJV.
And as Prot Bibles can differ due to translation and the school that did it, they can sometimes contradict what the KJV says, and could even agree with a Catholic rendering of a text.
Finally, the CCC is not like a Bible study guide, as it does not go thru the Bible and comment on chapters and verses, but simply quotes or references a relatively small portion of it.
And which does not even necessarily mean that this is an indisputable interpretation of it, as very very few texts of Scripture have been infallibly defined. In fact RCs have a great deal of liberty to interpret Scripture in seeking to support Rome, which they too often creatively attempt to do.
The CCC is a reference work for teachers of RC doctrine, which does not even rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant for its veracity, while a Bible study guide would be like that contained in NAB study Bibles.
Once again your argumentation provides more evidence why one should not be a RC.
“So ultimately it comes down to a matter of scriptural interpretation doesn’t it?
Does one accept the teachings of the Catholic Church with its 2000 year history, the traditions accepted by the early Church Fathers, the doctrine of the Eucharist as analyzed and established through the centuries by eminent theologians from Augustine to Aquinas to Newman to Benedict as well as several leading Protestant theologians who have converted to Catholicism, the lives of saints, martyrs, and stigmatists who have lived and practiced the Catholic faith, and a faith with a consistent Credo that has spread to the four corners of the world
or
do we accept the mudslide of eclectic interpretations offered by every Tom, Dick and Harry, and pastor of every corner street Foursquare Church, street preachers like the Grahams, Schullers, Jim Jones, David Koresh’s; Jimmy Swaggarts, TD Jakes’s, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, or for that matter any person who cracks open the pages of the Bible and purports to offer a definitive interpretation, or like many of the mainline Lutheran, Episcopalian, and Presbyterian Churches whose pastors may be married homosexuals and lesbians, because of what “they” believe is “their” interpretation of the Bible.
The question answers itself”
Best reply of the month. But common sense is not in abundance when some have been brainwashed against Catholicism since birth.
Actually in addition to your many ones, it is another specious argument that has already been exposed as such, thus ignored, but apparently some have been brainwashed by Catholicism since birth
>>Exactly, go ask David Koresh, Joel Osteen, Jehovah’s Witnesses, …<<
Let’s look at the above claim.
David Koresh: demanded unconditional loyalty and servitude from his followers. They followed Koresh to the death. They believed he represented Jesus on earth. A sort of vicar if you will. Sounds familiar. We could ask Koresh but he’s dead along with his followers who believed he alone had the truth and was infallible.
Joel Osteen: preaches from a lavish large building to an adoring crowd. How much does it cost to run the Vatican? All those adoring crowds.
Jehovah’s witnesses: weren’t they the Arians the Catholics say were eradicated in the 5th century? The same ones who come on FR from time to time spout their heresy, are then engaged by Prots and Evangelicals with scripture truth and then they run off. Noting few to no RCs engage in the discussion and when they do assert one cannot evidence the deity of Christ by merely using scriptures but must instead believe the creeds. Quite amazing.
I knew you just made it up.
Just as the neo-cons claim Reagan today, Catholics claim the early church theologians.
{Off in a corner a Greek Orthodox chuckles}
Still cannot get rid of the name dropping?
Do these guys somehow cancel out YOUR chosen religioin’s INFAMOUS popes?
What?
And DENY his CHURCH?
Do you KNOW what would happen to his soul THEN???
You have a valid point; but TODAY you guys spend a whole LOT of time; diligently seeking HER!
It's HER approval you want and HER help you seek!
Nah...
Groundhog Day
Oh?
Only TWO choices given?
Shame on you Catholics who want such a tilted playing field!
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.