Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: WPaCon; metmom; Dr. Eckleburg; Gamecock; RnMomof7; Alex Murphy; blue-duncan; Quix; smvoice; ...

“How can Protestants say that the Church is not trustworthy because it is composed of fallible men, but have no problem with a Book written by fallible men.”

Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed, and are foremost adversaries against those who deny such, which are a result of holding men or an office as effectively infallible. And so they also contend against traditions of men which lack such warrant and conflation with Scripture, but are against it.

Thus, is not simply a matter of distrust of men but of holding the RCC as if they are infallible, which claim is based upon their claim to formulaic infallibility, which de facto renders statements infallible (if not necessarily the arguments behind them) when declared in accordance with their infallibly declared (scope and content-based) criteria, including their own claim to be infallible. But which still have need of some interpretation.

Moreover, your logic would require us to submit to the Jews, since it is expressly (versus of Rome) said of them that they were given stewardship of Scripture. (Rm. 3:2;9:4)

The way men of God and writings of God became established as such was by their heavenly qualities, supernatural Divine attestation, and their progressive complementary conflation with each other. And as such became established - most being before Rome’s claim to an infallible magisterium - they became the standard by which further revelation was tested by.

Holding Scriptures as supreme does not negate the teaching magisterium of the church, and in fact it materially establishes it, but it makes it subject to the Scriptures, rather than being the supreme authority on faith and morals, as possessing formulaic infallibility.

And while the Scriptures appeal to fallible human understanding in providing for assurance of truth, (1Jn. 5:13) those who hold Scriptures as supreme cannot claim they are infallible, but can only look to the Scriptures as the only objective, transcendent infallible authority, as they alone are affirmed to be so, (2Tim. 3:15-17) not a church office.


765 posted on 03/28/2011 7:23:57 AM PDT by daniel1212 ( "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out," Acts 3:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 756 | View Replies ]


To: daniel1212; WPaCon; Dr. Eckleburg
Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed

Rot --> tell me that the Oneness Pentecostals believe this?

And what about the Nicene Creed?

Baptists and Oneness Pentecostals are among those that reject it.

771 posted on 03/28/2011 7:43:54 AM PDT by Cronos (Palin: 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212; WPaCon; Gamecock
Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed

Rot --> which do you agree on?

  1. do you agree on one should believe in something as basic as Jesus was always God (Trinitarian position) or that Jesus Christ was man made God (Oneness PENTECOSTAL Protestant position) or the Angel Michael (Seventh Day Adventist Ellen G White teaching)
  2. do you agree on that there is the REAL Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (Lutheran, some Anglicans, maybe even Methodists), or is it just a symbol (Calvinists)
  3. do you agree on that one MUST talk in tongues (Oneness Pentecostal) to display faith or not?
  4. do you agree on that there should be an episcopate (Lutheran, Anglican) or not (Presbyterians)?
  5. do you agree on that apostolic succession is important (Anglican) or not (others)?
  6. do you agree on that Baptism is for infants and sufficient (Presbyterian etc.) or not (Baptists)?
  7. do you agree on that God pre-damns people to hell (Calvinism) or not (others)?
  8. do you agree on that vestements are ok (or in the silly words of one poster allowing men in dresses and silly hats) (Anglicans, Lutherans, some Methodists, Presbyterians, even Baptists and Pentecostals) or not?
  9. do you agree on that Jesus came only for the salvation of a few (Calvinists) or he was Savior of the world (everyone else)?
  10. do you agree or disagree with soul sleep? (Calvin: "As long as (the soul) is in the body it exerts its own powers; but when it quits this prison-house it returns to God, whose presence, it meanwhile enjoys while it rests in the hope of a blessed Resurrection. This rest is its paradise. On the other hand, the spirit of the reprobate, while it waits for the dreadful judgment, is tortured by that anticipation. . .", Psychopannychia,
  11. do you agree or disagree with worshipping on a Sunday (Presbyterians, Pentecostals etc.) or not (Seventh Day Adventists)
  12. do you agree with the Adventists that one should follow kosher laws or not?
  13. do you believe that we still have spiritual gifts like prophecy amongst us (Pentecostals) or not (Presbyterians)
  14. do you agree with being "slain in the spirit" (Pentecostalism) or not (Presbyterianism, Lutheranism etc)
  15. do you agree on that Regeneration comes through Baptism (Lutheranism) or not (Baptists)
  16. do you agree on that grace can be resisted (Pentecostalism, Lutheranism, Methodism) or not (Calvinism)
  17. do you agree on that baptism is three-fold (Mennonites) or not?
  18. do you agree on that there is no free will (Calvinism) or that man has free will (Mennonites)
  19. do you agree on that it is faith + works (Mennonites: Menno Simons told the followers of Luther and Calvin: “If you wish to be saved, you must walk in the way of the Lord, hear His Word, and obey it. For nothing avails in heaven nor on earth unto salvation, … not even Christ with His grace, merit, blood, and death, if we are not born of God, … if we do not believe His Word sincerely, and if we do not walk in the light and do right. As John says: …>If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie.’” (Complete Writings of Menno Simons, p. 208)) or not?
  20. do you agree on that there is imputed righteousness (Calvinism) or not (Mennonites)

773 posted on 03/28/2011 7:45:36 AM PDT by Cronos (Palin: 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212; WPaCon; Gamecock; Dr. Eckleburg
Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed

Rot -->do you not read what your friends Dr. Eckleburg and GAmecock's groups say about you Pentecostals?

OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Pentecostals from the OPC doctrinal website
{the OPC} sharply contradicts the view popularized today by the neo-Pentecostal movement. In essence this view would have us believe that we can have the same charismatic gifts that we read about in the age of the Apostles - such as prophecy, speaking in tongues, and healing - today.

This is a very serious error (of the Pentecostals). In essence it is a result of a failure to grasp the Biblical teaching concerning the history of salvation.

OPC/PCA preaching hatred against Pentecostals and Methodists: From the opc doctrinal website:
. Are Arminian (Methodists, Pentecostals, Baptist etc) preachers heretics? yes
. Is Arminianism (Methodism, Pentecostalism, Baptists) a damnable heresy? Yes.
. the teachings of Arminianism are contrary to Scripture, they are manifestly false. They are serious perversions of the gospel of Jesus Christ
"we see the inherent Satanism of Free-Will Arminianism" (accusing Methodists, Pentecostals, etc. who disagree with Calvin of preaching a gospel of Satan

Maybe we can ask Gamecock if he agrees with the statement (click the link): "This goes to what the Reformers taught; that is the "enthusiasts" or what we call today Pentecostals, are really no different from the Roman Catholics

Or maybe you agree with Dr. Eckleburg when she says that The problem with non-denominational churches is that there's nothing to stop the congregation from deciding to become Mormon or Unitarian, etc.
There is something to be said for a diagonal form of church structuring, like the Presbyterians -- organized by a representative group of congregants. This actually strengthens the Christian imperative rather than dilutes it as so many non-denominational churches tend to do.

Do you agree with them on these two things?

775 posted on 03/28/2011 7:48:30 AM PDT by Cronos (Palin: 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212
Actually, evangelicals do most universally concur on truths which have been held of old which have sound Scriptural warrant and conflation, such as are expressed in the Apostles Creed, and are foremost adversaries against those who deny such, which are a result of holding men or an office as effectively infallible. And so they also contend against traditions of men which lack such warrant and conflation with Scripture, but are against it...

Holding Scriptures as supreme does not negate the teaching magisterium of the church, and in fact it materially establishes it, but it makes it subject to the Scriptures, rather than being the supreme authority on faith and morals, as possessing formulaic infallibility.

AMEN!

812 posted on 03/28/2011 10:21:45 AM PDT by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 765 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson