all murder in the eyes of God. And many most will go to oblivion screaming “I’m sooo sorry”
Posted on 06/15/2015 6:30:36 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Read these in context, understand the audience of the writer. They’re both right.
What are the odds those 5000 bishops say the exact same thing every Sunday in their message with no deviation whatsoever.
The Acts 15 the Holy Spirit led them to restate Noahic Covenant in Genesis. From Scripture. Err Sola scriptura.
“By the magisterial teaching of the Church”
If teaching of the church violates scripture I doubt the Holy Spirit is involved. Acts 15 again was not new but the Holy spirit pointing to scripture in Genesis.
“...that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.”
This may sound weird, but I have a glimmer of hope that some day God will use my time spent in the Psalms to witness to Jews and hopefully win some. The Lord is spoken of constantly there. Hebrews really emphasizes this by quoting much from the Psalms.
I know, how arrogant of a “Gentile sinner” thinking they have something to offer the Jews! But we believers in Jesus DO!
Welcome to the Religion forum.
I'm going to conclude from the nature of your questions that you are not a Christian. Am I correct in that assumption?
Not ONCE did He say, "Remember what the prophets told us?"
all murder in the eyes of God. And many most will go to oblivion screaming “I’m sooo sorry”
I don’t do Pope. I do Jesus but “glabal warming” is a total lie. I hope the man does not bear false witness. It is a real bad sin.
Yes why do we allow baby killing. These people need to go to jail like a drive by shooter!!
Murder.
This is “inside baseball” real bad . I am a Christian.
God bless Alamo Girl.
That fat dumb bitch is an automatic channel change and has been for many tears. Her only talent is that she is loud and fat. ( Very butchy)
The ability to teach through the gift of teaching, does not in the least mean that they didn't use Scripture as their source of truth and the means by which truth claims were measured.
John 17:17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth.
Then they do the Berean thing and Search the Scripture to see if the teaching in in accordance to it. Just as the Bereans did when PAUL, of all people, came preaching to them.
See the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15. How does a Protestant know that he is being lead rather than a Catholic?
Because it lines up with Scripture. The Council at Jerusalem did not admonish the Gentile believers to do something that was not already established in Scripture, ie, Acts 15:27-29 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”
Nothing there that was not already established clearly by God.
Good catch - good post.
The difference is they used scripture in context and they didn’t go outside of scripture.....unlike the roman catholic church. See the immaculate conception and assumption of mary for examples.
Considering that the New Testament had yet to be written they indeed did go outside of what at the time was Scripture. In any case, what it clearly shows is that the apostles and presbyters of the church were invoking the authority of the Holy Spirit directly and not just appealing to Scripture.
Considering that the New Testament had yet to be written they indeed did go outside of what at the time was Scripture.
Guess you forgot about the OT.
In any case, what it clearly shows is that the apostles and presbyters of the church were invoking the authority of the Holy Spirit directly and not just appealing to Scripture.
Yes...they Holy Spirit was guiding them as the Helper as promised by Christ.
Notice no appeal to Mary or the departed saints.
Also notice that all present were in agreement with the decision of James.
This must be the question no catholic wants to answer....I think we know the reason why.
Because there was no need to answer such a silly question. Even the four evangelists did not say the exact same thing. Besides, the mentioning of the 5000 bishops was to refute the attempt to reduce the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church to that of Rome alone.
Not at all. But they could not have decided as they did without the teaching of Jesus and their reflection on its meaning, both of which are outside the Old Testament.
Yes...they Holy Spirit was guiding them as the Helper as promised by Christ.
As it has continued to do in the teaching of the church for 2000 years.
Also notice that all present were in agreement with the decision of James.
But by their own words their decision was presented as that of all the gathered apostles and presbyters and not just that of James.
I would also point out that we are here arguing the meaning of this passage in Scripture. Both of us think that we are right. An appeal to Scripture alone will not resolve this dispute. Just as the church at Antioch submitted to the authority of the apostles and presbyters gathered at Jerusalem so must we submit to the teaching authority of bishops of the church today. This is the model presented in the Bible.
The above statement, the two sentences put together, are self-defeating, even to point of irrationality.
Under principle of sola scriptura, ministers of the church are not precluded from being led by the Spirit. It is from the writings which you are quoting from which helps serve to establish that.
Try reading the article.
And THAT is your own mere opinion which yourself (and those which share the same warped view of what the solas of the Reformation are) do seem to be continually proclaiming MUST BE believed, but is a distortion of what the principle of sola scriptura is, when that be more properly understood.
If one prophesy, let another judge.
The Latin Church, almost stem to stern, top to bottom, on a daily basis, does that very thing which you have just accused Protestants being uniformly(?) guilty of.
Try looking in a mirror.
The RCC is not the solo ecclesia, to whatever extent the membership is truly among ekklesia, at all. Mileage varies, as that saying goes, with that sort of thing applying to one and all (not just among Roman Catholics).
The Latin church was not in the earliest beginnings considered to be the, or even a central-most seat of infallible 'authority' for such a concept was not contemplated in earliest centuries of the church. The RCC it is not infallible now, and it was NEVER that thing, despite the reams of Romish writings which self-reverentially proclaim that assemblage of utter falsehood (of itself being the One True Church, Alone) as being the very stuff of truth itself (and have programmed/thoroughly brainwashed it's membership into believing).
That's something of a classic case of projection --- projecting upon generally all so-called Protestants that which the Church of Rome is itself guilty of to significantly larger degree than most any portion of the larger, wider corpus of bonafide 'Protestant' exegesis of Scripture present itself as, and those who expound upon those things present themselves to be.
According to the Church of Rome, All must be [unilaterally] subject to the Roman Pontiff?
All must accept the Latin Church's invention of dogma identified as Immaculate Conception? (which is, roughly described; the claim Mary, the earthly mother of the Messiah, was miraculously preserved from all sin --- even the slightest --- from her own birth).
And those are only two of many places where Rome Alone proclaims itself able to assert it's own authority to be above and over all --- even over and above Scripture itself, inventing doctrine and dogmas which are said must be believed.
If what the Roman Catholic Church declares all must believe, is even in part not believed...then what?
Excommunication latae sentenciae.
I thank God for Himself not having truly empowered the Latin Church to the full extents which the wider code of that church's own canon law stipulates, and further suggests.
Meanwhile, there are yet more fundamental truths which are not at all dependent upon the Church of Rome (Alone) to declare;
Out of Egypt I have called My son (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:15).
When anyone puts their own exegesis (or eisegesis, read here for explanation of the differences, along with one provided, rather neutral example) on the same plane as Scripture, or even higher, while simultaneously ignoring those portions of Scripture itself which refutes aspects of their positions (as is all too common for some aspects of Roman Catholic Church "magesterial teachings") then they are guilty of what you claim Protestants (alone?) are guilty of.
Many, if not most(?) of those whom Roman Catholics perceive as being Protestant, by instinct, and by the holy spirit turn away from cultish leaders who dare assert that their own exegesis/eisigesis is equal to Scripture.
This does not mean that that all other exegesis, among that which can be perceived to be profitable & helpful illumination of what the Scriptures openly enough hold, needs to be taken as equal to Scripture, or else discarded.
One, Scripture itself, is as the Word of God. The other is mere teaching about Scripture, as assistant to what Scripture itself can hold within itself.
Your thesis fails, as it will always fail, and for the same fundamental reason of having made something of a strawman out of the Reformation rediscovery of the principle of sola scriptura.
There is yet another dimension to this too.
That one sola is but one of five solas intended to work together in complementary, interlocking fashion. No one single sola was contemplated to be truly alone.
Without examination of how those all work together, then critical appraisal (and effort to defeat the one, to then be better able to re-assert solo ecclesia instead, either openly doing so, or by persistence in suggestion and innuendo) will also be doomed to fail, other than in the minds of brainwashed papists perhaps, along with pretty much every other group which insists upon setting their own teacher's opinions over and above Scripture, at any point which the teachings and commentaries are faced with challenges based upon solid enough biblical exegesis.
Or are you arguing from a partim-partim view of sufficency? http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/11/material-sufficiency-of-scripture-vs.html
Like White, I too notice the shifting from one perspective to another among RC apologists, with it seeming to occur without those apologists being aware of their own inconsistencies.
The written word, the Scripture -- cannot be broken. Just ask Jesus. He was the one who would say such as that...
It matters not that the Word can be misused, at times and places misunderstood, mangled, misapplied or else even totally ignored.
His word shall not return unto Himself void Isaiah 55:11.
So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Check the full chapter's context for the above Isaiah 55.
For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
You shall therefore lay up these words of mine in your heart and in your soul, and you shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes.Heaven and earth shall (may?) pass away but His word shall not pass away. More literal translation for Matthew here
There is much more also, which when understood, irrefutably establishes that ekklesia is subject to the Word, rather than the word of God be subject to ecclesia.
At any place where one may tend towards making the teachings of God to be of no effect -- then the written word is the first, and the last word. All must be yield, much as every knee shall eventually bend, and more directly kneel before the Creator....while kissing the feet of popes -- is exercise of blasphemy.
If one be a prophet of God who is sent to remind one and all of that which has come from God, to man, and bring yet further Word of God ----one measure of a prophet, if one carefully inspects the history of true prophets (compared to false prophets) is that whatever word they bring will not conflict with what has come before.
God's own words were complete and entire from His own first utterances of them, needing no further "development" from His own perspective, although it did take millennia for the fuller depths of meaning to become more apparent, thus more easily accessible to the understandings of mere humans. Even now we must have the spirit of the Lord open the written word to our understanding. No amount of explanation coming from human source can ever get it right, unless that human source is being properly led.
Regardless of whatever errors there may be found within the writing and teachings of whomever it is who opens the Scriptures and attempts to speak concerning them;
Justification for what the Latin Church has done with doctrinal teachings at some junctures of it's existence (such as the two examples I pointed to) is not found in the passage;
which is often brought out by Roman Catholics when speaking of the comfort of their own one ecclesiastical organization's self-perceived exclusion from even the possibility for doctrinal error.
That (above) passage is not speaking of future centuries time flawlessness for any one ekklesia in particular, but instead is speaking more towards hell itself not being able to hold it's captives forever prisoner.
During the era of the Protestant Reformation, it took making a big break with the burdensome additions to the Gospel of Christ which the Latin Church had embroidered upon (on top of) the teachings of the early centuries Church in order that the captives could be set free...
Those of Rome (the RCC) often have it quite backwards, although I do get a sense that in spite of all the accumulated extras (which can obscure the plain teachings of God as much, or more than help illuminate those same) at least *some living remnant* of that fellowship find freedom by and in Christ Himself, despite all the ornate additions which distract and obscure the utter simplicity of His own having taken the sins of the world (even our own) bodily upon Himself.
And an highway shall be there, and a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall be for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err therein.
Phillips, Craig & Dean - Revelation Song lyrics by Jennie Lee Riddle [youtube]
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.