Posted on 02/01/2017 6:33:59 PM PST by marshmallow
Evangelicals have been urged to celebrate the Reformation as "essential" to Christianity and resist attempts to dilute differences between Protestants and Catholics.
The Evangelical Alliance's statement to mark the 500th anniversary of the Reformation, headlined on the Evangelical Alliance press release as "500 Years of Protest", praised the split as a recovery of Jesus' teaching. It emphasised ongoing "points of divergence" between the two traditions as well as acknowledging efforts at reconciliation and convergence after centuries of mistrust.
"As evangelicals, we owe a great deal of our doctrinal, spiritual and cultural identity to the Reformation," the statement read.
"The Reformation was not so much an innovation as a recovery – a recovery of the essential content of the 'evangel' or 'good news' of salvation proclaimed by Jesus Christ himself, and by his apostles. That work of recovery is reflected in our own designation as evangelicals."
It insists the "core distinctions" between Luther and the 16th-century Roman Catholic church "remain between modern-day evangelicals and Catholics despite efforts at reconciliation".
The statement marked a notably different tone to that of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Archbishop of York who called for repentance for the division. They lamented the "lasting damage done five centuries ago to the unity of the Church, in defiance of the clear command of Jesus Christ to unity in love".
(Excerpt) Read more at christiantoday.com ...
Again, John was taken in spirit to the Lord's Day... we have not in real time reached the 'Lord's Day'...
As Peter penned in II Peter 3: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
John's assessment of the churches standing was done for future time... like even the here and now time. The Lord's Day begins the day Christ returns for a harvest. It is not as if the preacher class has NOT had the Instruction Manual... And Peter is the one who declared where 'judgment' begins... the preaching class of course. Peter 4:17.. Peter will not recognize what is claimed to be the 'keys' Christ gave him.
What do you think is God's point of view? We can know it, He sent us an instruction manual, and He will use whomever He finds that fulfills His plan.. His view is what counts through the sands of time. God allowed the 'Reformation', in spite of the doctrines to the contrary.
What does reading the Second Maccabbees and Esther has to do with anything? The early church fathers (including our Jewish fathers) agreed that Esther was inspired and inerrant. Even though the Book of Esther does not mention God, the work of God can be found within the text. Although Second Maccabees mentions God, that is not a qualification for inspired text, otherwise our discussion could be considered inspired.
If you believe comparing the Book of Mormon with Second Maccabees is cognitive dissonance, do you believe the Catholic Church today can officially declare some other writing as God breathed?
Being addressed in the Bible as a church by the LORD Jesus Christ Which again does not make these RC, which what you desperate need to prove. you can make assertions that they are based upon the premise than any church must be Catholics, which is based upon the premise that the NT church was Catholics, bu which is simply so much question-begging, presuming the very thing that needs to established.
Thus the question once again, Where are any RC distinctives(pope, Eucharist, etc.) mentioned? The fact that there were marked differences btwn these individual churches, including doctrinal deviations, which could lose their candlestick, is more indicative of Prot churches than Catholic under a centralized head to which they all looked to.
No, the denominations that later devolved from the Reformation do not have evidence of provenance extending back to the churches of the Bible.
Which is another fallacy, that "unbroken" (supposed by RCs) formal descent is essential for validity, versus faith, which would nuke the NT church itself which began in dissent from the historical magisterium, and calls all those who have the faith of Abraham "true Jews." (Gal. 3:8,9, 6:26; cf. Rm. 2:28,29) For "God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham." (Matthew 3:9)
What? You are asked to provide evidence from Rv. 2+3 and so you go to of Romans,...
You wrote "And just where or where anywhere in these letters to the 7 churches is there any evidence that there Roman Catholic churches? "[bold emphasis mine] Note that an "or" in a statement specifies a choice, as in A or B. I chose A.
Fine, a typo ("or" for "oh") but the context of "where" was Rv. 2,3. Regardless, Romans no more shows that these churches in Asia were RC than Rv. 2,3 does, but which is based upon the false premise that the NT church was Catholic, yet her distinctives are not manifest in it, despite RC extrapolations.
If one reads His words carefully, one would see that the church of the Laodiceans was a member of the body of the Messiah and had the Messiah's love. This is proven prima facie from the text. Being in that state and condition is superior to being an illegitimate pretender.
That was not in contention, as you are missing the point, which was that your assertion that this was a bona fide one holy catholic apostolic church with provenance is quite fitting, seeing was a lukewarm church the Lord wanted (and would if these did not repent) to spit out of His mouth. The disparity btwn this and a church like in Philadelphia is striking. May all be as that one.
RCs actually discuss the latter, as to whether Trent limited the canon versus defining what books belonged in it at that time (and the EO canon is slightly larger, but they get a pass for not conforming to "infallible" Trent).
Meanwhile 2 Maccabees 12 clearly teaches that those for whom prayers and offerings were made died due to idolatry, which according to Rome is a mortal sin for which there is no hope.
Now under the coats of every one that was slain they found things consecrated to the idols of the Jamnites, which is forbidden the Jews by the law. Then every man saw that this was the cause wherefore they were slain. All men therefore praising the Lord, the righteous Judge, who had opened the things that were hid, (2Ma 12:40-41)
In addition, the prayers and offerings were made in hope that these may attain the resurrection (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead: 2Ma 12:44), not escape RC purgatory, being in which is actually a promise of being in the first resurrection, according to RC delusion (versus Scripture in which all believers to be with the Lord at death or His 2nd coming: 2Co. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-13; Acts 7:59; Lk. 23:39; 1Ths. 4:17).
If you believed the scriptures you would believe that because that's exactly what the scripture says...
And those same scriptures told us how we can tell the difference between the real church and the fake church...So that's how we know we have the right church and you don't...
Indeed, but which was not the contention, and applies to all believers.
Indeed. Devotion to her is neither mentioned as a commendation (for practicing) or a condemnation (for not doing) or a recommendation (as a remedy) any more than the other distinctives are. It is true that these letters are dealing with the fruits of faith, not so much means of grace, but the point here is where is the evidence that these were RC churches (versus others), which the mention of RC distinctives would provide, but are simply not there (or manifest anywhere in the life of the NT church).
Well it seems like you wish to deflect the discussion.
Each reader does not decide which books belong in or out of the Bible which you already know. The Bible (Protestant) is what was originally agreed to be the inspired and inerrant word of God accepted and used within the Church for over a 1500 years. The Old Testament going further back. The Catholic Church added to it at the Council of Trent. While using “tradition” is an easy cop-out, adding these books wasn’t through the apostolic tradition which Irenaeus talked about. Otherwise you would have to fault the early church fathers for their failure to correctly apply “tradition”. They didn’t include them.
Now if a NEW book was recovered by archeology, by what test would it be deemed “inspired and inerrant”? By the Catholic Church saying it was so? That isn’t much different than Joseph Smith saying his writings were inspired by an angel. Of course, the Catholic Church has been know to accept people who claim angelic visions. What makes Joseph Smith any more different?
"Argreed to" by whom?
Luther apparently knew. Do you consider him to the Holy Ghost?
The Old Testament was handed down by our Jewish forefathers. The New Testament was agreed to by the early Church Fathers.
It is what happened 1000 years later that we should be interested in.
They followed what the early fathers deemed inspired. If it was up to Luther he would have tossed out the book of James. To his credit it remained because he followed...wait for it....tradition.
Yeah, right! LOL.
Sounds a lot like islam either capitulate or die.
“As to Irenaeus saying the “truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church”
First and foremost is this church today isn’t Catholic
“its roman catholic or church of rome” which ever you like.
The rcc is a counterfeit looks like the real deal, but with close inspection it’s found to be totally fake.
“And unto the angel of the church in Thyatira write;”
Funny that you post the very scripture that condemns the rcc for yours is the only church that worships a female as deity.
“members of the one holy catholic apostolic church”
But not of the roman variety.
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.