Here. You may want some of these sanitary wipes to clean up after that mess.
Posted on 06/13/2010 12:16:24 PM PDT by markomalley
Which is why you thought that you could change the topic of this thread with them
Hey NL..Dr and I were not born yesterday.. it is obvious you do not have a biblical answer to the absence of priests as part of the NT church of jesus Christ.. just admit it.. The RC church is built on tradition not on the infallible word of God and then move on
Of course.
Shucking and Jiving, slipping and sliding; running and hiding
is part of the truly truest true Catechism.
INDEED.
Here. You may want some of these sanitary wipes to clean up after that mess.
Nonsense.
It merely observes the available evidence in the posts posted.
As you answer so also shall you receive.
= = =
That would be a Red-Sea-parting level miracle!
Did someone die and leave you the special assistant to the temporary associate Religion Monitor in training?
Idolizing the INSTITUTION. Sigh.
Are you going to give me credit for you learning the use of pluralis maiestatis or have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Its a pity those ESL classes didn't do any good?
I suppose that if you remember the 60's you weren't really there.
AMEN,Quix. I appreciate every time you write the words "IT IS WRITTEN" for they remind us how God speaks to us.
This fact cannot be over-stated. The writing down of Christ's words and teaching is the method God determined to employ to reach His children.
We can wonder why He didn't choose to use fortune cookies or Morse Code or fallible tradition, but He didn't. He ordained that the Holy Spirit would indwell the writers of the Scriptures and guide their writing so that God Himself is speaking directly to each of us in a consistent, unchanging way, and perceived by us with the guidance of that same Holy Spirit.
Whitaker enumerates the evidences which, as given by Calvin (Institutes, I, viii), are a testimony to the divine origin of the biblical writings; but then he adds the following admonition. “These topics may prove that these books are divine, yet will never be sufficient to bring conviction to our souls so as to make us assent, unless the testimony of the Holy Spirit be added….In order, therefore, that we should be internally in our consciences persuaded of the authority of Scripture, it is needful that the testimony of the Holy Ghost should be added. And he, as he seals all the doctrines of faith and the whole teaching of salvation in our hearts, and confirms them in our consciences, so also does he give us a certain persuasion that these books, from which are drawn all the doctrines of faith and salvation, are sacred and canonical.” 8 In this assurance too, of course, Whitaker and Calvin are entirely at one with each other. “The blind cannot perceive even the light of the sun,” says Whitaker again; “nor can they distinguish the splendour of the scriptures, whose minds are not divinely illuminated. But those who have the eyes of faith can behold this light. Besides, if we recognise men when they speak, why should we not also hear and recognise God speaking in his word?…But they [the papists] object that we cannot recognise the voice of God, because we do not hear God speaking. This I deny. For those who have the Holy Spirit, are taught of God: these can recognise the voice of God as much as anyone can recognise a friend, with whom he hath long and familiarly lived, by his voice.” 9... As the Word of God, the Scriptures are, of course, the Word of God to man. But the Reformers repeatedly emphasize the truth that it is only through the grace of the internal operation of the Holy Spirit in heart and mind that the message of Scripture can be understood and appropriated. The Divine Spirit is both the author of Scripture and the interpreter of his own Word. “The scripture speaketh many things as the world speaketh,” William Tyndale, the honoured father of our English Bible instructs us; “but they may not be worldly understood, but ghostly and spiritually: yea, the Spirit of God only understandeth them; and where he is not, there is not the understanding of the scripture, but unfruitful disputing and brawling about words... After citing 1 Cor 2:11f and Rom 8:14 and 9, Tyndale proceeds: “Now ‘he that is of God heareth the word of God’ John viii. And who is of God but he that hath the Spirit of God? Furthermore, saith he, ‘Ye hear it not because ye are not of God;’ that is, ye have no lust in the word of God, for ye understand it not; and that because his spirit is not in you. Forasmuch then as the scripture is nothing else but that which the Spirit of God hath spoken by the prophets and apostles, and cannot be understood but of the same Spirit, let every man pray to God to send him his Spirit.” 7"...William Whitaker, who was Queen’s Professor of Divinity in the University of Cambridge, and whose Disputation on Holy Scripture is the one extensive work on the subject of the Bible written by an English Reformer, speaks as follows: “Scripture hath for its author God himself; from whom it first proceeded and came forth. Therefore the authority of Scripture may be proved from the author himself, since the authority of God himself shines forth in it.” 4...
Perhaps you could take them again?
Just when I didn’t think any of the RC’s could get
MORE
irrationally unfathomable in their postings.
Can I, other posters on FR, and possibly Michelle Obama, the Los Angeles Lakers and Oscar Meyer now assume that next time you cut-and-paste the work written by other people you will take the time and make the effort to give proper attribution to them rather than making it appear as if you were the author?
Well put.
Thx Thx.
Interpreting scripture with scripture...OR more so, studying scripture and believing it...Something that is completely foreign to those of the bread/meat and wine/blood society...
Thanks and amen...
LOL, thanks, dear. Most convincing.
I found this great link...
INSPIRATION OF SCRIPTURE IN THE ENGLISH REFORMERS
“What is the cause,” asks Tyndale, “that we damn some of Origen’s works and allow some? How know we that some is heresy and some not? By the scripture, I trow. How know we that St Augustine (which is the best, or one of the best, that ever wrote upon the scripture) wrote many things amiss at the beginning, as many other doctors do? Verily, by the scriptures; as he himself well perceived afterward, when he looked more diligently upon them, and revoked many things again. He wrote of many things which he understood not when he was newly converted, ere he had thoroughly seen the scriptures, and followed the opinions of Plato, and the common persuasions of man’s wisdom that were then famous.” 15 If the authority of the Fathers must be subject to that of holy Scripture, so also must the authority of the Church. In particular, Scripture is not dependent on the pronouncements of the Church for its authentication, for it is authenticated to every believer by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit..."...The question naturally arose (and this, too, is a question of importance for our day no less than it was in the sixteenth century) as to how far credence was to be given to the Church Fathers and their writings. Let Bishop Jewel answer: “What say we of the fathers, Augustine, Ambrose, Hierome, Cyprian, &c.? What shall we think of them, or what account may we make of them? They be interpreters of the Word of God. They were learned men, and learned fathers; the instruments of the mercy of God, and vessels full of grace. We despise them not, we read them, we reverence them, and give thanks unto God for them. They were witnesses unto the truth, they were worthy pillars and ornaments in the church of God. Yet they may not be compared with the word of God. We may not build upon them: we may not make them the foundation and warrant of our conscience: we may not put our trust in them. Our trust is in the name of the Lord.” Jewel cites the declaration of Augustine, the greatest of the Fathers, as follows: “‘Neither weigh we the writings of all men, be they never so worthy and catholic, as we weigh the canonical scriptures; but that, saving the reverence that is due unto them, we may mislike and refuse somewhat in their writings, if we find that they have taught otherwise than the truth may bear. Such am I in the writings of others, and such would I wish others to be in mine’“ (see Augustine, Ep. CXLVIII, ad Fortunatianum). “Some things I believe,” Jewel continues, “and some things which they write I cannot believe. I weigh them not as the holy and canonical scriptures. Cyprian was a doctor of the church, yet he was deceived: Hierome was a doctor of the church, yet he was deceived: Augustine was a doctor of the church, yet he wrote a book of Retractations; he acknowledged that he was deceived.” Jewel adduces further evidence from the writings of the Fathers, and then proceeds: “I could shew many the like speeches of the ancient fathers, wherein they reverence the holy scriptures; as to which only they give consent without gainsaying; which can neither deceive nor be deceived.” 14
Eph. 2:8ff teaches salvation by grace alone, but not by faith alone, since it lists good works alongside the faith. “Grace Alone” is the correct Catholic doctrine.
The two solas are counterscriptural error, no matter how long you take to explain them. That is not “obsession” to point out gross error, especially on the thread where demands to point out the priesthood in the scripture were made and answered.
I’ll believe THAT assertion IF and when I ever see it walked out!
Oh, right, satire.
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.