Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
Dunno if it was possible for him, but hypothetically I agree. St. Francis comes to mind.
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Matthew 28 records Jesus giving HIS authority to the Church to teach and baptize.
there is not one example of anyone in the NT reading the Scriptures and deciding on their own what they meant.
if the Church has the authority of Jesus to teach, we MUST LEARN.
we are not instructed to read the Scriptures and decide what WE think they say.
i know that hurts the EGO of man.
the problem non-Catholics have is they don’t understand the Church is the Body of Christ. oh, they give lip service to this doctrine, but they really don’t understand the implications of the doctrine.
What would be the consequence were you to think twice about the fundamental interpretation you use to interpret scripture?
Your whole worldview is built on applying Occam’s Razor to scripture, and if you were to reject it as the norm for interpreting scripture, you’d have to reach the conclusion that either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism is the true Church.
The fact is we have cited scripture until we have been blue in the face.
I don’t place you and your interpretations as being on equal par with scripture.
LOL, you said the “pure offering” was prayer.
i said “no” meaning no it’s not.
the reason it’s not, i said “prayer existed in the OT”
Malachi was making a prophecy of the pure offering Christians would offer to the Father for the sins, namely Jesus Christ.
Teacher! Teacher! She did a bad thing teacher!
I have never met ONE dispensationalist who believed what is listed in your “prominent dispensationalist” opinion. I love how suddenly “heretics” are considered “prominent” if they give you something, anything, to chow down on. I read somewhere that a “prominent” ex-Catholic priest said that there were Catholic priests that perform Satanic rituals and that is where the molestation of young children originated. And he could prove it. This, too is from a very prominent former Catholic priest, who left the priesthood and Church in disgust. Should everyone believe that because he is suddenly described as “prominent”? Does what one person say make it so because he is described as “prominent”? I didn’t think so..
"Beaver made a face at me. He crossed his eyes when you weren't looking, Miss Landers..."
[[[sigh}}}..."Thank you...Judy..." {{{sigh}}}}
hmm, i never met a Catholic that thinks Mary is divine or that she is to be worshipped.
doesn’t stop the muslims, mormons, JW’s, SDA and others from telling this “untruth” almost daily.
i know Christians would never make such a charge, Christians love the truth, right??
Truer words were never NOT SPOKEN. Catholics understand the Church the Body of Christ?! You don't even know when it began, how it began, why it began, and when it is going to end! And yet YOU understand it?! lol
Revelation 5:8 And when he had taken the book, the four beasts and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of incense, which are the prayers of saints.
The bible is a puzzle, to those who are not the children of God...For those of us who are, God gave the commandment to 'study'...To prove all things...To search the scriptures, as the Bereans did...
2Ti 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
God didn't write all that stuff just to take up space on the page...
So without the scripture, how are you to know the 'true' faith??? You think you have the true faith...Muzlims think they have the true faith...Mormons, the same...And what do you all have in common??? You turn to religion instead of the bible...
And the bible condemns all three of these religions...
All three of these religions take snippets from the scriptures and add their own recipes to create and justify their religion...
And again, the bible says to prove all things...By what standard??? The bible of course...
My soul magnifies the Lord,
And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.
For He has regarded the low estate of His handmaiden,
For behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
For He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name. And His mercy is on those who fear Him from generation to generation.
He has shown strength with His arm:
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
and exalted those of low degree.
He has filled the hungry with good things;
and the rich He has sent empty away.
He has helped His servant Israel, in remembrance of His mercy;
As He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to His posterity forever.
Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.
As it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be, world without end. Amen
Magníficat ánima mea Dóminum,
et exsultávit spíritus meus
in Deo salvatóre meo,
quia respéxit humilitátem
ancíllæ suæ.
Ecce enim ex hoc beátam
me dicent omnes generatiónes,
quia fecit mihi magna,
qui potens est,
et sanctum nomen eius,
et misericórdia eius in progénies
et progénies timéntibus eum.
Fecit poténtiam in bráchio suo,
dispérsit supérbos mente cordis sui;
depósuit poténtes de sede
et exaltávit húmiles.
Esuriéntes implévit bonis
et dívites dimísit inánes.
Suscépit Ísrael púerum suum,
recordátus misericórdiæ,
sicut locútus est ad patres nostros,
Ábraham et sémini eius in sæcula.
Glória Patri et Fílio
et Spirítui Sancto.
Sicut erat in princípio,
et nunc et semper,
et in sæcula sæculórum.
Amen.
She became the Mother of God, in which work so many and such great good things are bestowed on her as pass man’s understanding. For on this there follows all honor, all blessedness, and her unique place in the whole of mankind, among which she has no equal, namely, that she had a child by the Father in heaven, and such a Child . . . Hence men have crowded all her glory into a single word, calling her the Mother of God . . . None can say of her nor announce to her greater things, even though he had as many tongues as the earth possesses flowers and blades of grass: the sky, stars; and the sea, grains of sand. It needs to be pondered in the heart what it means to be the Mother of God.
(Commentary on the Magnificat, 1521; in Luther’s Works, Pelikan et al, vol. 21, 326)
LOL, i didn’t ask what the “incense” was, i agree it represents prayer.
i asked what “ AND A PURE OFFERING” means.
the pure offering is seperate from the incense, notice the word “AND”.
read what the Christians in 70-90ad in the Didache thought the “pure offering” was.
here’s a hint - protestants won’t agree with the Didache.
You stick to your own sect. Happy to enlighten you. There are several more divisions:
Research the history of Dispensationalism and the various offshoots, you might find one that appeals to your particular personality more. Better yet, spend some time researching the history of the Church beyond the 19th Century.
Seriously. Start with Acts and the Pastoral epistles, continue on with the early Church writings and histories, try St. John Damascene's compilation of early Church theology. Find some objective sources and really study the history of the canon of Holy Scripture, the early heresies, councils of the Church, creeds: all about how the Christian Faith came to us, from Jesus and the Apostles to today, not just the parts covered by your "Bible Study Class."
:)
l really think you might actually get into this study, give it a try.
The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus himself when he called the 12.
Roman Catholics will tell us that we need to consult the Magisterium in order to know what Scripture is, to understand it and to settle the various debates over its meaning and interpretation. But when we ask them why we should believe the Magisterium has the authority to establish the canon and produce the correct interpretations of Scripture, we are often treated to a series of Scriptural proofs, which presuppose the Scriptures are clear and authoritative. Whitaker observed this in his own day, and noted how this kind of argumentation is viciously circular (emphasis mine):
For I demand, whence it is that we learn that the church cannot err in consigning the canon of scripture? They answer, that it is governed by the Holy Spirit (for so the council of Trent assumes of itself), and therefore cannot err in its judgments and decrees. I confess indeed that, if it be always governed by the Holy Spirit so as that, in every question, the Spirit affords it the light of truth, it cannot err. But whence do we know that it is always so governed? They answer that Christ hath promised this. Be it so. But where, I pray, hath he promised it? Readily, and without delay, they produce many sentences of scripture which they are always wont to have in their mouths, such as these: "I will be with you always, even to the end of the world." Matth. xxviii. 20. "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there I will be in the midst of you." Matth. xviii. 20." I will send to you the Comforter from the Father." John xv. 26. "Who, when he is come, will lead you into all truth." Johnxvi. 13. I recognise here the most lucid and certain testimonies of scripture. But now from hence it follows not that the authority of scripture depends upon the church; but, contrariwise, that the authority of the church depends on scripture. Surely it is a notable circle in which this argument revolves! They say that they give authority to the scripture and canonical books in respect of us; and yet they confess that all their authority is derived from scripture. For if they rely upon the testimonies and sentences of these books, when they require us to believe in them; then it is plain that these books, which lend them credit, had greater authority in themselves, and were of themselves authentic.1
Some Catholics, such as John Salza, have attempted to avoid this vicious circle by countering that such an appeal to Scripture is spiral, not circular:
When Catholics explain that we believe in the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church, Protestants accuse us of circular reasoning. They say we get this information from the Bible and so the Bible, not the Church, is the final authority. This argument, while clever, is incorrect. The Catholic argument is what we would call spiral, not circular. First, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures as historical books only, but not inspired. Based on the historical evidence, the Catholic establishes the Scriptures are authentic and accurate documents. Second, the historically accurate Scriptures reveal that Jesus established an infallible Church based on texts like Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15. Third, this infallible Church has determined which Scriptures are inspired and which ones are not. Based on the authority of the infallible Church, the Catholic believes in the inspired Scriptures. This is the only logical and rational approach to accepting the inspiration of the Scriptures, and this is John Salza with Relevant Answers.2
As I understand it, Salza wants to move from demonstrating the Scriptures as historically accurate to demonstrating that these Scriptures attest to an infallible Magisterium. We then turn to this Magisterium to know that the Scriptures are inspired:
historically accurate Scriptures --> infallible
Magisterium --> inspired Scriptures
Salza's reply is interesting, but there are a number of problems:
i) There's nothing intrinsic to historical cases for the historical accuracy of Scripture that limits such an appeal to Catholics only; Protestants are free to make the same historical case as well.
ii) Apropos, the move from historical accuracy to inspiration is exceptionally short. The difficult components of any external demonstration of inspiration are in establishing the historical accuracy of the New Testament documents. But once that is accomplished, it is a much simpler matter to move from the historical fact of the Resurrection, which establishes Jesus as God, to the ministry of the Holy Spirit, which gives inspiration to the Scriptures. If the Magisterium isn't needed to demonstrate the much harder case of historical accuracy, it's hardly required to demonstrate the much easier case of inspiration.
iii) I don't even know how, in principle, you can divorce historical accuracy from inspiration. A good deal of the data contained in Scripture cannot be both accurate and uninspired, e.g. various prophecies, knowledge impossible to discern in any natural method (what someone or some group was thinking in their hearts at one time or another), what God was doing, thinking or intending, etc. And some data, even if they are knowable through natural methods, carry a certain theological significance that could not be accurately known (as truth) by the authors of Scripture without inspiration.
This is also why there is generally a correlation between denying historical accuracy and denying inspiration. The two go hand-in-hand.
iv) How can Salza establish the Scriptures as authentic and accurate documents if we need the Magisterium to interpret those very documents for us? If the Scriptures are unclear or difficult to understand, as Catholics often assert, this would apply whether or not they were inspired.
v) If we can properly interpret all of the passages required to make a case for the historicity of Scripture (e.g. the Resurrection being supported by 1 Corinthians 15) before we establish the Magisterium as authoritative, why do we need the Magisterium to properly interpret all of Scripture once we learn that it is inspired? If we were competent enough to interpret the Scriptures before we discovered their historical accuracy, we should be competent enough to interpret them afterward.
vi) His appeal to Matthew 16:18 and 1 Timothy 3:15 is dubious (see here for a short, but devastating critique of appealing to 1 Timothy 3:15; the comments section also contains links to discussions of Matthew 16:18).3 So even if the circularity is avoided by this argument, the Scriptures still do not establish an infallible, authoritative Catholic Magisterium.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/vicious-circle.html
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.