Posted on 12/29/2019 1:57:07 PM PST by ebb tide
See, that’s where you’re wrong.
The Holy Spirit preceeded any church.
And since Scripture is written by the Spirit through the hands of man, then Scripture, like the Lord, is supreme.
Boast in your organization all you like; I will boast solely in the Lord and him crucified.
Are you putting your faith in your faith, or in Jesus?
Only one will save you.
Preach that to all the Catholics who refuse to accept him as their pope and state that he’s a heretic, starting with the poster of this thread.
Don’t know what would drive someone who claims to be Catholic to put their faith in an article citing JWs as an accurate source.
The Scripture I quoted ought to answer your question- even for the most casual observer.
Why do you profs differ on contraception?
Is that tradition?
He does not need to, for he has a strawman and a false church.
Meaning distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. and which best shows how the NT church understood the OT and gospels).
Indeed. As usual, the RC does not understand what he boasts he disproves. To wit:
We need an authority to tell us which Bible is correct and how to interpret its contents so we can live according to God’s laws, not Luther’s or Zwingli’s or Joseph Smith’s.
Meaning an infallible authority, Rome, and which means the there was no sure and authoritative established body of Scripture by the time of Christ, upon which prophetic and doctrinal foundation it was built. So much for,
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)
And if he wants to argue that being the historical magisterial stewards of Scripture means that such are to be followed versus what those it rejects says, then he has a bigger problem.
He also states,
Protestants — or at least this one Protestant — do not care if you have different ideas about the morality of certain actions, because to the Protestant, actions do not matter. You can insert any moral question in the place of contraception, and the answer would be the same. The Protestant needs the teaching of faith alone to justify the teaching of Scripture alone and to get around this particular refutation that an outside authority is needed.
Well why didn't the Reformers think of that, instead of stating,
It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. Westminster Confession of Faith (1646),, CHAPTER XXXI.
And
Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and His righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification; yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love.[Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification.
For what this ignorant wannabe apologist fails to understand is that to believe is to obey, and thus Luther and others taught that,
faith is a living and an essential thing, which makes a new creature of man, changes his spirit... Faith cannot help doing good works constantly... if faith be true, it will break forth and bear fruit... where there is no faith there also can be no good works; and conversely, that there is no faith.. where there are no good works. Therefore faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both. if obedience and God's commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil's own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead... if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk. Works are necessary for salvation, but they do not cause salvation... faith casts itself on God, and breaks forth and becomes certain through its works... faith must be exercised, worked and polished; be purified by fire... it is impossible for him who believes in Christ, as a just Savior, not to love and to do good. If, however, he does not do good nor love, it is sure that faith is not present... where the works are absent, there is also no Christ... References and more by God's grace. http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Reformation_faith_works.html
And contrary to Catholics being the most unified, and SS leading to only confusion, those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God have long testified to being the most unified in basic core moral values, versus those whom Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.
Where do you see this in Catholic teaching, rather than it being necessary for the salvation of all human beings that they submit to the Roman Pontiff?
In addition, this means such are required to submit to a whole lot more than just tier 1 "infallible" teaching.
But, since you aren't a Catholic why get all hot under the collar about HIM? Why on earth would you care?
Well, why did the Lord reprove religious deceivers in His day?
No doubt, but he is not alone, and the question for those who excom. the pope is, who was the last validly elected and faithful pope?
He is in the second phase of pilot training. They have 3 weeks of academics, teaching them the T-6 systems, before they let them fly the aircraft. Obviously, they need to know the aircraft, backwards and forward, before they grab hold of the stick, and fly it
Lots of false doctrine on the thread, as usual. 😁
LOL why would you believe satan hates what he has manufacture to spread false gospel, the one insisting your works are required for eternal life? LOL, the usual from ebb!
When you have a gospel in which final salvation is attained by actually becoming good enough to be with God , thru baptism and Purgatory (for most), versus regenerating heart-purifying faith being counted for righteousness, and thus enabled to grow in that grace, then you have a different gospel.
You are in great company asserting it is ‘another gospel’. Paul nailed.
And Scripture also provides for discernment of what is from God, both men and writings, even in dissent from the historical magisterium.
And (before I go to sleep), here are some questions for those who argue for the alternative to SS, I will paste what I have written before, by the grace of God:
Some think that sola scriptura (SS) means we must dispense with the teaching office of the church, and conclusions of synods and commentaries, etc. but which opinion means that such are misled as to what SS reasonable means. But if instead they mean how can Scripture alone be the wholly inspired, sure, supreme and sufficient (in its formal and materiel senses) standard on faith and morals, when Paul referred to keeping oral tradition 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and the church as being the foundation of the Truth, then it is because,
1. Scripture was the standard by which even the veracity of the preaching of apostles was subject to:
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)
2. Men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, neither which even Rome presumes its popes ans ecumenical councils do.
3. Under the alternative of sola ecclesia, one can only assume that what their church teaches as oral tradition includes the teachings Paul referred to in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, and which assurance is being based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which itself comes from so-called tradition.
4. We can assume that what Paul referred to as tradition was subsequently written down, since God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;
5. And it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.
6. Rather than an infallible magisterium being required to for writings to be established as being from God, a body of authoritative wholly inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ, as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") " even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (Luke 24:27.44,45; Acts 17:2; 1828, etc.)
7. None of the few Greek words in 1 Timothy 3:15 ("church living God pillar and ground the truth" teach that the magisterial office of the church is supreme over Scripture, and both words for “pillar” and “ground” of the truth denote support (apostles were called “pillar”). And Scripture itself and most of it came before the church, and was built upon its prophetic and doctrinal foundation. And thus the appeal to it in establishing the authority of teaching by the church.
Questions for those who argue for the alternative of :sola ecclesia.
1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving what He told man as well as what man does: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or "it is written/Scripture?"
3. Which came first: the written word of God and an authoritative body of it, or the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating her claims to the nation that was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture subject to testing by the oral words of men or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source on what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scripture must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine revelation, and which formally and materially provides for what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace?
11. What oral source has spoken to man as wholly inspired the public express word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
Good night.
I’m not hot under the collar...
Just amazed that given the current statements by the pope anyone would be trying to convince us that we should obey him rather than scripture.
You spelled “Commie mole” wrong.
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.