Posted on 11/23/2011 11:11:08 AM PST by marshmallow
A notoriously 'gay-friendly' parish in San Francisco has invited an openly homosexual Episcopalian cleric to lead an Advent Vespers service.
Most Holy Redeemer parish asked Bishop Otis Charles, a retired Episcopalian prelate, to lead the November 30 service. After serving as the Bishop of Utah from 1971 to 1993, he publicly announced that he is homosexual. Divorced from the mother of his 5 children, he solemnized a same-sex union in 2004.
>>I already showed that the Nicolaitans were a gnostic heretical sect. {according to the Vatican}
You don’t even know what you are talking about.
There's something seriously wrong with that picture...LOLOL
The only distortion is the one you made when you stated that the good works that God prepared for us to do to walk in were filthy rags.
It's OUR righteousness that's the filthy rags, not the works of God.
There, a response from Scripture, but you won't understand it because you believe that CynicalBer interprets CynicalBear.
I understand it...God is saying, 'Get that bathtub out of your front yard; the one with the statue of Mary in it'...
How would you know??? The bible obviously hasn't seen much daylight at your house...
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
There's complete sufficiency for salvation right there...
There are other books that are completely sufficient in instruction for the workings of the church...
There are other books that are completely sufficient in dealing with how to live the Christian life...
How did the Church operate for her first 350 years without a canonized New Testament or her first decades with little or no NT scripture?
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
How could the Catholic Church create her bible before possessing a bible to guide her unless she is infallibly guided by the Paraclete, as Christ promised?
That's a real goofy one...How??? By collecting bibles that were floating around for a few hundred years before the Catholic religion created itself...
Got any hard questions???
Nothing there to worry about...That's already settled in heaven...
1 John 3:15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Was Jesus speaking to people under the law, or under grace???
But the implication is all wrong...No one hates Catholics...Now that unGodly religion that has you under bondage and will send you to hell may be another matter...
HaHa...You can't even get us angry over that...But nice try...
Outside of the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, the bible, the word of God is not only the words of God speaking to us, it is the closest thing we have to God on Planet Earth...
It is easy to understand why those of you who have little use for the word of God would feel that way...
...the Scriptures do not contain an inspired table of contents to tell us which books belong in the canon and which do not. many books that claim to be scripture are not in the Bible and many books are in the Bible that don’t claim to be scripture. [fight it out with the Mormons who like Rome, claim a supreme infallible magisterium that defines things]
given that, who if anybody ( human person or institution ) can infallibly state what the true canon of Scripture is? [it must be the Jews, since Jesus referenced books and a tripartite canon (which the Palestinian one was) which were already established as Scripture]
if the answer is no one can, how can you be sure what you hold in your hand is really the word of God? [the same Scriptural way and like degree (but more) we can know we have eternal life, (1Jn. 5:13) and that a man of God really is]
if the answer is yes, who has that authority and where did they get it from? [every gift and good thing comes from Rome God]
i’d really like an answer and no one can give me one.
The problem is with the premises of your polemical questions, what they presume, which is that of a perpetually assuredly infallible magisterium (AIM) that infallibly defines the contents and extent of Scripture, and that such an AIM is needed for souls to know the Truth and preserve it and the church, and that being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ requires and confers said perpetual assured infallibility, and that Rome alone is this entity. (Although the Catholic makes a fallible decision to trust in Rome, and must continue to make fallible judgments in submitting to Rome, as argued here.)
However, it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was written to give a final, infallible definition of her canon (and which may be not be identical with that of Carthage and Hippo), and most of Scripture was established before there was even a church in Rome, and truth was preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium (only Christ was/is), as God often raised up men from without it who reproved it from Scripture.
Moreover, if being the instrument and steward of Holy Writ — which the Jews (not a particular church of Rome) were clearly affirmed as being (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) — requires and confers perpetual assured infallibility, then Christianity would not exist, as it was birthed in holy dissension from those who presumed more authority than Scripture gives them, having supposed formal decent assured such, but whom God replaced, and can replace when they do likewise, as He can raise up from stones believers (Mt. 3:9) to continue to build His church, which lives by Scriptural faith (Rm. 1:16,17) and manifests the same.
Rome can declare what it may, but the Scripture saith, "...I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:19-20) In short, the Scriptures do not promise perpetual assured formulaic infallibility which Rome declares itself as having, but promises one can know the truth and make it know, based upon the testimony of Scripture and the manner of evidential attestation it establishes is given to Truth, (1Jn. 5:13) and by which the only assuredly infallible magisterium was established as being from God. "If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not;" “...the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me;” “Search the scriptures...;” .”..Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God;" "...all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." (Jn. 10: 37; 5:36,39; Mt. 22:29; Lk. 24:44) And thus His apostles: "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2) "..not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." "By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left." (2 Corinthians 4:2; 6:7)
The answer then as to who establishes, and not merely states, what Scripture consists of, is the class of believers who manifest that the word of God is alive and powerful, (Heb. 4:12), and thus that the church is of the living God, versus its institutionalized counterpart in which the God of the Bible is largely in a museum, or is much a fantasy.
Expanding this, my polemical response to your polemical question is,
1. Rome is one among many who claim to define Scripture, but the writings of Scripture were not established as being such due to conciliar decrees canonizing them, as helpful as they can be, but its establishment, like that of true men of God, is essentially due to its Divine qualities, effects and supernatural attestation and conformity with that which was previously established as truth (by those means), with Scripture becoming the standard for obedience and testing truth claims from of old, as is much evidenced. The authority of the oral word was subject to conformity with the written word. (Acts 17:11)
The most a magisterium can do is judge and affirm as contents what has been made progressively manifest, but which will not make a writing Scripture, as it has a power that is not from men but from God, and the veracity of a list is based upon the enduring power of such books (thus there was a canon of book of which Christ referenced). Likewise, while apostolic sanction of book was important in their acceptance, that men of God are such is not based on self-proclamation or formal decent (though the latter is a normal means of confirming such), but by conflation with Scripture in word, purity and power.
As to which canon is authoritative, most of what Scripture consist of was settled early on, but dissension over a minority of books was allowed (principally the apocrypha) and existed in Roman Catholicism right into Trent, whose canon finally ended dispute (but not over which version of the Vulgate to use), while the Protestant canon was overall settled quite quickly (though it entered in the labors of other men, as did the New Testament church), and the evidence is that canon is the most popular among believers. In addition, they can have more assurance of its contents being Divine and of its completion than Roman Catholics have of a canon of their supreme authority, that of their supreme magisterium.
2. As regards infallibility, Scripture promises knowing truth on a personal level, based upon evidence, (1Jn. 5:13) and it states that writers of Scripture were inspired by God in providing His truth, (2Pt. 1:20,21) and that He would be with true believers, (Heb. 13:5) which alone constitute His body, (1Cor. 12:13) but what Scripture does not promise is assured formulaic infallibility, which is what Rome presumes, having “infallibly” declared that she is infallible whenever her magisterium speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula (defining a matter of faith and morals to all the church), which renders its very declaration that it is infallible to be infallible, and can make all conform to supporting her.
That a statement is Truth will be made manifest, as Scripture has been by its power, and will overcome error, but while a person and church may declare infallible truth — as even “there is a Creator” can be considered an infallible statement — it is not assured that the church will perpetually be infallible every time it speaks to the church on faith and morals. That it did speak infallible truth at times is true, but we know this from Scripture, and that it was based on Scripture and Scriptural attestation, (Acts 15), and not because of a formulaic assuredly infallibility, which does not even necessarily extend to the arguments or reasoning behind them.
3. As to who most authoritatively can declare what Scripture consist of, the answer again is the class of believers that manifests that the church is of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth, (1Tim. 3:15) and only insofar as it does, as again, it was by manifestation of the truth that the apostles persuaded men, (2Cor. 4:2) and their authority did not rest on self-proclamation but on purity, power and Scriptural conformity. (Acts 17:2,11; 28:23; 2Cor. 6:1-10; Rm. 15:19)
The fruit of Rome is overall been a denial of this, relying much on self-proclamation, and on the sword of men, and losing the latter, on redefinitions (leading to schism) and increasing accommodation to the world, or, as seen by traditionalists, blind devotion to her as if to an idol, (with exceptions). And despite its claim to unity, little of Catholic doctrine is held to require implicit assent, and what Roman Catholics can disagree on is extensive, as well as what they do, though seldom resulting in formal divisions (though such are a reality, and despite her claims of universal jurisdiction, she effectively is as one denomination among others).
The apostles did not preach themselves or the church as objects of faith, but rather than simply preaching Christ and the gospel and holiness, Rome fostering faith in her which will save even the most nominal Catholics, and much of what passes for Roman Catholic apologetics is that of preaching the claims of Rome to infallibility and supremacy, and trying to justify them as being necessary, and forcing Scriptures which Rome has not infallibly defined to support her, and even things that Rome could change, and refusing objective analysis but disallowing even the slightest evidence against her. Including that evangelicals testify to greater commitment and unity in conservative moral views and certain core teachings, and that most who leave her for evangelical churches do so due to a lack of experiencing grace, not liberal morality.
In imperfect contrast is Protestantism, which had (and yet has) things from Rome and the world it needed to unlearn, though historically its growth depended more upon the gospel of manifest regeneration than the sword of men (which was often against them, and will increasingly be). But it is formally divided into denominations, with each denominations usually having their own magisterium (but not claiming assured infallibility) though one of its distinctives is that of not preaching a church, and those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture (evangelicals) overall manifest a basic spiritual unity, due to a common conversion based on the gospel of grace versus salvation by morally earning it. And while lacking centralized authority, such overall affirm many core truths and thus contend against cults which deny certain basic core essentials, most of which both Protestant and Catholic agree on, but also against doctrines which are a result of making traditions and imaginations of men equal to Scripture, and a magisterium as supreme over all.
But besides unnecessary divisions, especially of late it also sees increasing spiritual declension, and so it has been and is a remnant of believers that provide the strongest testimony that the Scriptures we hold to are the Word of God, living and effective and sharper than any two-edged sword, and who have provided a great wealth of material from hymns to commentary. And which thus point soul to the Source versus not thinking of men above that which is written, which disallows assured infallibility except for God and Scripture. May their tribe increase, and i be more like it. And as the Lord Jesus confirms His word, (Mk. 16:20) so the Scriptures must continue to be established as being Divine by their mani-fold power, overcoming evil with good, in regeneration and in holiness, to the glory of God.
EXCELLENT, as usual, for you.
Thx.
Yeah, yeah, tear down all the statues on Monument Avenue in Richmond, Va., the Lincoln Memorial in DC, the USMC War Memorial in Arlington, and on and on. Everyone knows Catholics don't worship statues. So, when anyone sees some remark posted about a statue of Mary being an idol they know it was posted by either an anti-Catholic who prefers lies to the truth or a Mooze Lame who hates all forms of religious art.
When did the Catholic religion create itself? Please specify what Catholic "heresies" were introduced, when, and by whom. (Constantine introduced no new doctrines. If you think that he created a climate conducive to heresy, please specify these heresies and by whom they were taught.)
If you have no such evidence, there is nothing else to support your position.
Some books of NT scripture, such as the Didache, were eventually declared apocryphal and excluded from the canon. Who had authority to do this if not the Catholic Church. Was the Didache unjustly excluded?
Maybe ancient Greece and Rome never existed. Are there any Protestant academic historians claiming that the widely sourced testimony of St. John of Damascus on the Assumption of Mary was fabricated?
Some books of NT scripture, such as the Didache, were eventually declared apocryphal and excluded from the canon. Who had authority to do this if not the Catholic Church. Was the Didache unjustly excluded?
There's complete sufficiency for salvation right there...
Until recently, all Christians throughout history believed in the necessity of baptism. How did the early Christians get it so wrong?
Hey, you ever see anyone bowing and praying to the Lincoln memorial??? Didn't think so...
Back when I was a gentleman in training, we were taught to bow to the young ladies. Little did I know that I was an idolater!
Today I am amazed by those who can see into another’s heart and mind and know, based on posture alone at times, that they are mistaking a statue of the Mother of Our Lord for God.
(Well, either that or they don’t know the difference between icon and idol.)
Great Scripture quotes. May we all seek to pray like Paul did and mean it. Amen!
Were those young ladies statues or carved images?
The commands are specific about bowing down TO and serving carved images.
It doesn't say you can't bow down to people as a sign of respect and it doesn't say you can't bow down in the vicinity of a statue for some other reason.
But to bow down to a statue of Mary like the pope and numerous Catholics do to pray to her, is just wrong. God's determination, not mine. HE put it in writing.
Do you know the difference between an icon and an idol? Can only a statue be an idol? What makes an idol an idol, and therefore an idolater an idolater?
You left off “thou shall not make a graven images” in your post, why?
Do you have any?
Thou shalt not make graven images is obviously connected to the worship of false gods. God cannot be contradicting himself when He commands the making of the image of a golden cherubim and the making of the bronze serpent. There are statues and images recorded for Solomons temple.
You cannot apply one part, bowing, and not the other, making graven images and be consistent.
What your post does is follow part of the letter and miss the point: worship of false gods.
Philosophy precedes theology even when it comes to so-called “Bible believers.”
The Bible is a code, but your Nominalist philosophy keeps you from understanding it correctly.
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.