Posted on 01/25/2014 6:51:38 AM PST by GonzoII
This thread is clearly not the one we’re thinking of, but it IS evidence that they’ve been pulling that stunt before. It’s from 2009.
Book Review: Discovering a Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2330687/posts
Certain RCs have indeed hijacked FR and turned it into a Roman Catholic informational and promotional service. At last count there was at least 10 per day, which seems to have gone up. I have wondered if they gain an indulgence with each one, and perhaps some are trying to see what they can get away with.
But which has much resulted in Rome's elitist presumptions being exposed even more for what they are, " by God's grace.
No, not the same thread. Thanks for looking though.
At least you said IDEA...
Of course!
I suppose from the Catholic perspective of moral superiority with regards to authority, that comment makes sense because of the OTHER comment that caused it's generation.
Oh but it WAS written down, and quite early at that. Catholics just don't have the audacity to call it SCRIPTURE.
They had 'traditons' for HOW many years before they compiled the bible?
I wonder why they didn't slip them into it when they were the only game in town?
HMMMmmm...
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents, solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic; for our better ordering, and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, 1620.
|
Sola Ecclesia vs Scripture – An Unbiblical Recipe for Delusion You are wrong on multiple levels. What Scripture supports is that it is the only tangible, testable, transcendent comprehensive revelation that is wholly inspired of God. And that it is Scripture alone that is the supreme transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as the assured Word of God, and which is abundantly evidenced </a>.* And therefore the church DID NOT begin under Rome's alternative, that of sola ecclesia, in which the church alone is the supreme authority for determining Truth, based upon historical descent, etc. And instead it began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, which Rome cannot do, and instead Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. In addition, Scripture formally provides the Truth needed for salvation, so that a normal soul by God's grace can read a passage such as Acts 10:36-43 and be saved. Furthermore, Scripture also materially provides for the both writings and men being recognized as being of God (without a perpetually infallible magisterium), and thus for a canon. And it also provides for the church and its teaching office, etc. which function classic statements such as the Westminster Confession affirms. Thus it is Rome under her sola ecclesia presumption which subjugates Scripture to herself, and makes it an instrument to serve her interests, that is an erroneous unScriptural foundation. And it shows by her manifest contrasts with the NT church.
The Bible clearly teaches justification by faith. And we Catholics believe it. However, we do not believe in justification by faith alone because, among many other reasons, the Bible says, we are “justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:24, emphasis added). Misinterpretation. Reformers clearly taught that while it is precisely faith that appropriates justification, works justify one as having faith, and that faith without works of faith is dead. And it is RCs that evidence they least believe in works, as Catholics are far less committed that those who hold Scripture as the supreme and basically literal standard for truth. Scripture is remarkably plain in teaching oral Tradition to be just as much the word of God as is Scripture. And yet is based upon Scripture that we know the apostles did orally preached the word of God, for oral tradition existed nebulous form supremely subject to corruption. And which is tested by it, thus manifesting the Scripture is the assured word of God and supreme standard for testing truth claims. “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) Moreover, what Paul is referring to here is not ancient traditions such as Mary being bodily assumed into heaven and made into a doctrine even when there is no early record of it, but known truths which the Thessalonians and Corinthians had heard , and which could have been written. And in fact, there is absolutely zero proof that what Paul was referring to here was not written, as was the norm for any thing called the “word of God/the Lord.” In addition, unlike Rome, the apostles were given special revelation it were authors of holy Scripture, while preaching the truth of Scripture is itself called the word. (Acts 8:4) And thus even today evangelical pastors exhort their congregations to take heed to what they orally preached as being the word of God. Therefore, using the example of the apostles preaching the word of God, that being known Scriptural truths, to justify Rome channeling doctrines out of its nebulous virtual bottomless pit of oral tradition, and making herself supreme over Scripture by Tradition, is what is not supported by Scripture. When it comes to the tradition of Protestantism—sola scriptura—the silence of the text of Scripture is deafening. To those who have their hands over their ears and eyes. tell it to the church; (Mt. 18:15-17)..and if he refuses to listen even to the church,.. According to Scripture, the Church—not the Bible alone—is the final court of appeal Absolutely not. And if it were the church would be invalid itself as began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses. Mt. 18:15-17 has its precedents in the Old Testament (Dt. 17) in which cases were brought to judges whose verdict was final, even being a capital crime to disobey it. Yet just like the Supreme Court today, that did not render them assuredly infallible. And therefore God often raised up men from without the magisterium to reprove it. And therefore the church began following an itinerant preacher, whom the magisterium rejected, but who establishes claims upon scriptural substantiation. Elitist Rome therefore has a false foundation, contrary to how the church began, but like the Pharisees who reject the Lord Jesus, she arrogantly presumes to think of herself above that which is written. (cf. 1Cor. 4:6) Much like Babylon, “she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day. For 1,500 years, Christianity saw just a few enduring schisms (the Monophysites, Nestorians, the Orthodox, and a very few others). Now in just 480 years we have this? Unity itself is not the goal the godly and thus Christ actually came to bring division as well as unity among those who love the truth, which requires separation from Rome, and results in the unity that transcends external tribalism. Cults like the Watchtower Society show far more comprehensive unity than Catholicism, while North Korea has the greatest unity on earth, and Rome also much relied upon the sword of man for her unity until she was disarmed. And having lost that, unity within Rome is largely a paper one and very limited, while in reality Catholicism exists in schism and in sects and abounds with disagreements and varied interpretations on what she teaches. Moreover, Catholics know very little of the unity of the spirit by evangelicals realize based upon a shared personal conversion to Christ and Scripture-based relationship , which transcends external divisions. Therefore, under both Sola ecclesia and Sola Scriptura, we have both unity and division, the difference being a matter of degrees and quality, with the kind of unity Rome has being cultic or apathetic, while unity based upon objective examination of the truth by lovers of it is of superior quality, if not quantity, that which relies upon implicit submission to a self-proclaimed infallible entity of men. In contrast to Rome, the church's unity was not based upon the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, which suppresses objectively examining the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of her teachings. Instead as said, it was based upon scriptural substantiation in Word and empower. And without the apostles with the manifest power, purity, and performance they had then the unity the early church had would not have been realized, and only insofar as the church is like that can we have organizational unity today. And as far as churches are concerned, Rome is not not even in the running. Matt. 4:7...Just because someone quotes Scripture as an authority, this does not mean he believes in sola scriptura. But the Lord Jesus did not simply respond with Scripture, by a defined that as being the word of God, Not some nebulous oral tradition. Moreover, it was not tradition that the Lord Jesus opened the minds of the disciples to, but “Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,” (Luke 24:45) and which Paul reasoned out of, (Acts 17:2) and the a Apollos convinced the Jews by, (Acts 18:28) not ancient oral traditions. In addition, the the miracles that mainly convinced the Gentiles are part of scriptural substantiation, as Scripture establishes this manner of attestation to truth, as tested by Scripture. So did Jesus Christ believe in sola scriptura? By no means! Neither should his Church. So did Jesus Christ believe in sola ecclesia? By no means! Neither should His Church. Instead, as said, the Lord Jesus and the early church established their truth claims upon scriptural substantiation (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) And therefore the foundation upon which the church was built is contrary to that of Rome, who presumes of herself and assured veracity which is more akin to the Pharisees and rejected Christ. And that she is to be rejected, as you the church rejected them in the light of Scripture as supreme. |
And didn't you hear ? Catholic invented hospitals. And the wheel i suppose.
Hospitals, yes.
But the most famous foundation was that of St. Basil at Cæsarea in Cappadocia (369). This "Basilias", as it was called, took on the dimensions of a city with its regular streets, buildings for different classes of patients, dwellings for physicians and nurses, workshop and industrial schools.
And universities.
This consortium magistorum included the professors of theology, law, medicine, and arts (philosophy). As the teachers of the same subject had special interests, they naturally formed smaller groups within the centre body. The name "faculty" originally designated a discipline or branch of knowledge, and was employed in this sense by Honorius III in his letter (18 Feb., 1219) to the scholars of Paris; later, it came to mean the group of professors engaged in teaching the same subject. The closer organization into faculties was occasioned in the first instance by questions which arose in 1213, regarding the conferring of degrees.
It also gives us ample opportunity to expose the errors of the RCC. The Holy Spirit will enlighten those lurkers who He wills if we pray that He gives us the information and words.
The cult of Roman Catholicism tries to rewrite history like the Obama Administration! Actually, the Greeks began the cultural revolution 300-400 years before Christ.
Hippocrates, (born c. 460 bc , island of Cos, Greece—died c. 375 , Larissa, Thessaly), ancient Greek physician who lived during Greece’s Classical period and is traditionally regarded as the father of medicine. It is difficult to isolate the facts of Hippocrates’ life from the later tales told about him or to assess his medicine accurately in the face of centuries of reverence for him as the ideal physician. About 60 medical writings have survived that bear his name, most of which were not written by him. He has been revered for his ethical standards in medical practice, mainly for the Hippocratic Oath, which, it is suspected, he did not write.
Plato’s Academy, founded in the 380s, was the ultimate ancestor of the modern university (hence the English term academic); an influential centre of research and learning, it attracted many men of outstanding ability. The great mathematicians Theaetetus (417–369 bce) and Eudoxus of Cnidus (c. 395–c. 342 bce) were associated with it. Although Plato was not a research mathematician, he was aware of the results of those who were, and he made use of them in his own work. For 20 years Aristotle was also a member of the Academy. He started his own school, the Lyceum, only after Plato’s death, when he was passed over as Plato’s successor at the Academy, probably because of his connections to the court of Macedonia.
No it is not, as faith in Scripture is not based upon it simply saying so, but upon the Divine qualities that attest to its divine inspiration, like as they do to a man of God. And not because a supposedly infallible magisterium said they were.
Thus writings were recognized and established as being of God long before Rome presumed to be the authority necessary for that. And thus souls had assurance that Jesus was the Christ, based upon Scriptural substantiation - not because the stewards of Scripture said so.
But Rome denies you can have real assurance from Scripture, as that is contrary to her presumption, and thus when defending Rome as the one true church (OTC), the Catholic predictably appeal to his sole authority—the Church.
This is a textbook example of the logical fallacy of circular reasoning which betrays an essential problem with the doctrine itself. For the Catholic's basis for assurance that Rome is the OTC is because she infallibly defined herself as being so, who alone can provide real assurance of truth. To hold otherwise would be to validate evangelical means of determining truth.
The RC can said some evidences persuaded him to trust Rome, but that is a fallible decision to trust a church as if it were God.
The Catholic Church’s position on inspiration is not circular. We do not say “the Church is infallible because the inspired Scriptures say so.” The Church was established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord decades before the New Testament was written. The Church is infallible because Jesus said so. However, it is true that we know the Scriptures to be inspired because the Church has told us so. That is also an historical fact.
Staples is now engaging in the typical RC recourse of argument by assertion. That Rome is established historically and functioned as the infallible spokesperson for the Lord Jesus, who said the Church is infallible, and which is a historical fact, is one massive interpretative lie, and which Rome's interpretation is the only one that is held to be authoritatively true.
That is to say, according to her interpretation, or decree, only her interpretation can be authoritatively correct. Staple's pretensions of establishing Rome based upon evidences are not based upon the premise that one may have assurance of Truth based on such, which is how the church began, but is based upon the premise that these evidences show Rome to be the one true infallible church because she said so.
When the Catholic approaches Scripture, he or she begins with the Bible as an historical document, not as inspired.
That statement itself is telling. In attempting to prove Rome is the supreme authority on Truth and over Scripture, he must polemically divest it of its Divine inspiration, since only Rome can authoritatively give us assurance that it is!
Yet as said, both men and writings of God, and indeed the bulk of our Bible, were recognized as being so before there ever was a church of Rome that presumed she was necessary to establish such.
And under Her premise of historical descent establishing her as the steward of Scripture, inheritor of the promises, and thus incontestable authority on truth, and who and what was of God, then the church itself would be rendered invalid, for has said, it began in dissent from those who had historical descent and were the stewards of Scripture, and inheritor inheritor of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4).
What is very clear historically is that Jesus established a kingdom with a hierarchy and authority to speak for him
Rather, what is very clear is that this and other so-called evidences four. Rome do not teach Roman Catholicism with her perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium and pope reigning supreme overall, with "priests" sprinkling infants infants recognition of proxy faith, formally justifying them by interior holiness, and gaining spiritual light by physically eating human flesh, and finally becoming good enough in purgatory to enter heaven, among multitude other things alien to the New Testament church. .
In reality, the more Staples attempts to make an argument based upon history the more it betrays his premise that this argument is considered true because Rome says she is what it attempts to prove.
And in addition to Scripture teaching contrary to Rome's pretensions and propaganda, even Catholic scholarship, among that of others, provides evidence contrary to Rome's claims of apostolic succession, etc.
In ancient Greece, temples dedicated to the healer-god Asclepius, known as Asclepieia functioned as centres of medical advice, prognosis, and healing.[6] Asclepeia provided carefully controlled spaces conducive to healing and fulfilled several of the requirements of institutions created for healing.[7] Under his Roman name Æsculapius, he was provided with a temple (291 BC) on an island in the Tiber in Rome, where similar rites were performed.[8]
Institutions created specifically to care for the ill also appeared early in India. Fa Xian, a Chinese Buddhist monk who travelled across India ca. 400 CE, recorded in his travelogue that:The heads of the Vaisya [merchant] families in them [all the kingdoms of north India] establish in the cities houses for dispensing charity and medicine. All the poor and destitute in the country, orphans, widowers, and childless men, maimed people and cripples, and all who are diseased, go to those houses, and are provided with every kind of help, and doctors examine their diseases. They get the food and medicines which their cases require, and are made to feel at ease; and when they are better, they go away of themselves.[9]
The earliest surviving encyclopaedia of medicine in Sanskrit is the Carakasamhita (Compendium of Caraka). This text, which describes the building of a hospital is dated by Dominik Wujastyk of the University College London from the period between 100 BCE and CE150.[10] According to Dr.Wujastyk, the description by Fa Xian is one of the earliest accounts of a civic hospital system anywhere in the world and, coupled with Caraka’s description of how a clinic should be equipped, suggests that India may have been the first part of the world to have evolved an organized cosmopolitan system of institutionally-based medical provision.[10]
The Romans constructed buildings called valetudinaria for the care of sick slaves, gladiators, and soldiers around 100 B.C., and many were identified by later archeology. ..The declaration of Christianity as accepted religion in the Roman Empire drove an expansion of the provision of care. Saint Sampson the Hospitable built some of the earliest hospitals in the Roman Empire.
The first prominent Islamic hospital was founded in Damascus, Syria in around 707 with assistance from Christians. More .
Universities? Hardly. They were a Johnny-Come-Lately.
................
THE ORIGIN OF UNIVERSITIES
Shangyang, “higher school,” China, established sometime during the Yu period: 2257-2208 BC
Imperial Central School, established sometime in Zhou Dynasty: 1046-249 BC
(”The early Chinese state depended upon literate, educated officials for operation of the empire, and an imperial examination was established in the Sui Dynasty (581–618) for evaluating and selecting officials from the general populace.”)
Takshashila University, Taxila, Pakistan, 7th c. BC
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/OriginUniversities.html
Allow me to contribute a couple:
The Barren Harvest of Protestantism
The Blessed Virgin Mary and the Catholic Discovery of America
Book Review: Discovering a Lost Heritage: The Catholic Origins of America
How Catholic Nuns Shaped America
"How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" ( Book Review )
And probably discovered fire as well.
Thanks. I knew someone could come through.
The so called *apostolic succession* has deemed God a mere allegory and created new deities to pray to. This succession has devised their own methodology of deciding who is and is not a saint. Christ Himself said call no flesh man ‘Father’, yet, through the ‘apostolic succession’ their high priest is called ‘Holy Father’. One cannot get much farther away from ‘sola scriptura’ than that tradition all by itself. By the way in the last book of the WORD, Revelation, there are 7 churches listed not just one. Listed by each of these churches are their doctrines, what is acceptable doctrine and what doctrines causes all but two to fall short. These warning are given, yet in majority ignored. And then the self praising and boasting comes that without the ‘apostolic succession’ none of we commoners would even have the WORD.
There can be no doubt as to why Rome rejects ‘sola scriptura’, because in the ‘Volume of the Book’ their traditions are not scriptural, but created by their claims of divine ‘apostolic succession’. God used a donkey to get a preacher for hire attention, so all this hiding from the WORD is a short term activity.
Solomon (Ecclesiastes 1) wrote long before the invention of an ‘apostolic succession’ there was nothing new under the sun, what had been would be again... And Paul basically restated this warning, ICorinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
I love using ‘sola scriptura’ on the unbelievers.
“Sola Scriptura”
Show me in the Bible where the word Sola Sciptura is mentioned. Tradition came WAY BEFORE words were put in print, by the Catholic Church I might add.
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.