Posted on 03/08/2014 10:06:40 PM PST by NKP_Vet
The following outline shows that Jesus intended to create a holy, visible Church; complete with a prime minister, a hierarchy, binding authority, and perpetuity—the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.
It is important for Protestants to understand some basic facts. Contrary to the modern belief that the Bible is a “blueprint” or “textbook” which explains how a church should be structured, it is a product of the Catholic Church—a compilation of writings that reflect a structure that was already present. As such, the “Bible alone” has no reason to provide fine details of proper ecclesiology; however, proper ecclesiology is detectable. Shortly after Jesus’ resurrection, the Catholic Church wrote lots of letters. The Catholic Church discerned which of those letters were inspired. By the end of the fourth century (Councils of Hippo A.D. 393 and Carthage A.D. 397) the Catholic Church finalized the “table of contents” of the Scriptures and called the entire body of writing “the Bible”. In other words, the Bible would not even exist if the popes and the hierarchy did not exist.
(Excerpt) Read more at thechurchofchristiscatholic.com ...
Nevermind...
OOOoooh!
Mary’s sin is NOT found in the bible; but ALL men’s sins are...
But that is really where your "Rome gave me the Bible so they must best know what it means" leads to. Unlike how the church began, you rely upon an authority who authoritatively claims they are the authority based upon their authoritative claim of what Scripture and history means.
So I still maintain it’s the reasonable thing to do, to at least start with the stewards and instruments of Scripture in a search for an encounter with Christ here and now.
It is reasonable to expect they should know, but it is unreasonable to believe they must know best, and to place trust in them for assurance of truth, which you are to do as a RC, rather than the Scriptures themselves.
For nor being an instrument or steward of God warrants that, and such can lead you astray, as the OT corporate stewards of Divine revelation.
Moreover, the Roman magisterium was not and is not the instrument of Divine revelation, as it was neither a group project or responsible for its recognition, and is manifestly contrary to the NT church.
Otherwise, it’s not reasonable, it’s not really human to be a Christian. If He is not present and helping us NOW in a tangible way, the only way we can really respond to him as a human,
But your logic does not lead to the conclusion that Rome is to be submitted to, nor does it require her. Basing acceptance of Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, with Scripture being supreme as the assured word of God, not Rome and her assured veracity, is how the church began, as explained. While the stewardship=assured veracity logic invalids the church.
But submission based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome is what is Catholic teachings prescribe, even to saying God being obliged to submit to her.
If you do not subscribe to this submission then you are not much of a RC, and your faulty logic has led you to a faulty church.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...So distinct are these categories that..the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
As Alphonsus Ligouri, whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVL (1839) in the bull of his canonization, states,
“With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon, according as they refuse or give absolution, provided the penitent is capable of it.
Such is," says St. Maximus of Turin, " this judiciary power ascribed to Peter that its decision carries with it the decision of God." 2 The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. .” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2; http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt
As saith another sanctioned authority, The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ....The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command. - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974
Read some Matthew Henry commentary or others, and some good evangelical preaching if you want solid food.
Right from the get-go, you choice of a polemic is a poor one, for as usual, it begins with a straw man that does not even consider the basic teaching of Westminster, which states,
...we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word: and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them. - cps 6,7; http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm While salvific Truth is plain enough so that one could read Acts 10:36-43 and be born again, which relates to formal sufficiency, Scripture also provides for reason, the church, etc. which relates to the material sufficiency of Scripture, and "the light of nature, and Christian prudence," and "due use of ordinary means." The fact is that, left to the straw man of your pasted polemic, evangelicals could not even believe in the Trinity, which they have contended for against cults for hundreds of years!
So it will just have to suffice to say that Sola Scriptura is both un-Biblical and illogical. The doctrine can nowhere be found in the Bible,
Of course not, since his definition of it is a contrived straw man that does not allow for beliefs held as Truths unless explicitly stated, but a confluence of text support, and ignores material sufficiency.
And by which we see that it is abundantly evidenced in Scripture that it is held as the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.
And which reveals, sanctions and thus provides for writings being recognized as being so, and thus by extension for a canon, without an assuredly infallible magisterium which Rome, which Rome presumes she is and is necessary for assurance of Truth.
And from the beginning Scripture was formally sufficient to provide salvific truth, and materially provided for more, and increasing its degree of both as God gave more grace. Thus SS can be seen in Scripture in that sense, but that it contains all that can be known is not claimed, nor does the sufficiency of Scripture mean that.
Furthermore, plenty of Biblical texts can be referenced that call upon Christians to believe in oral Tradition as well as written Scripture But which were known truths recently taught, which could be written, as was the norm for that which is called the "word of God/the Lord, not nebulous oral tradion, that of ancient tales such as the Assumption Of Mary that even lacks early evidence in tradition.
And SS preachers also enjoin obedience to the oral word, that of Scriptural preaching, while the NT was not yet complete in Paul's time.
Finally, it is the Bible itself that calls the Church, not the Scriptures, the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1st Timothy 3:15). This should be enough for any level-headed Protestant,
That is absurd, absolutely ludicrous, and a testimony to the deceived heart that turns away from the Truth unto fables. What should be evident by God's grace to any level-headed believer is that all 1st Timothy 3:15 teaches is that the church supports the Truth, stulos and hedraiōma both having that meaning. And to extrapolate this means the church, not Scripture upon which it began, is the supreme authority is arrogant egregious wresting of texts.
Within 88 years, by January 1st, 2100, there will be nothing left of the Protestantism we know today. It will essentially be extinct.
The man is also a wannebe prophet, as while the Lord may return, it will not be Rome's errors that is in glory, but essential evangelical faith that exalts the Lord, not Mary.
Got to go now, but your attempts to support Rome have only once gain ended up exposing her fallacious support.
“Where in the Bible are the words ......”
Whoa!
What is ironical is the Roman Catholic as well as the Eastern Orthodox churches all claim to hold to "Tradition" as equal to Holy Scripture, yet, they disagree with EACH OTHER over what those traditions are. Having a hierarchy over them didn't resolve the reason why they split from each other in the first place over a thousand years ago. Holding to the definition of the doctrine of sola Scriptura as defended by the Reformers as well as most all of the early church fathers, would acknowledge that the principle of the over all authority of the divinely-inspired Scriptures most certainly IS found within Scripture. Those who hold to "their" church as the authority place man against God's own holy word and that is a dangerous place to be.
“On the other hand we hand the Gospel and Letters of John that tell us that not everything is in the Bible.”
Of course we don’t have everything in the Bible. We have what God chose to inspire. What He gave us is authoritative, sufficient and complete.
Everything else - which none of us know - is comprised of everything He chose not to inspire and include.
“Also my pastor mentioned something that St. Paul said quoting Jesus, and since St. Paul never meet Jesus, it had to be tradition”
Paul was caught up into the heavenlies to meet the glorified Christ face to face. Christ directly revealed things to Paul. Direct Words from God.
-— What is ironical is the Roman Catholic as well as the Eastern Orthodox churches all claim to hold to “Tradition” as equal to Holy Scripture, yet, they disagree with EACH OTHER over what those traditions are -—
That’s why there is a schism.
OTOH, Catholics and Orthodox are overwhelmingly in doctrinal agreement. So much so, that Catholics are permitted to receive Communion in Orthodox churches.
You can find a Protestant group that disagrees with other Protestant groups on any doctrinal issue, including even the Trinity (Oneness Pentecostals) and even Sola Scriptura (Church of England).
The only unifying Protestant belief is that they’re not Catholic.
Of course it was oral tradition, as much of the Bible was first oral, and not all that can be known has been revealed, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but which does not mean all that was of that oral medium was of God, but that which written is God inspired, formally being the word of God. And as such it separates the wheat from the chaff.
And Paul's exhortation to hold to traditions referred to known teaching which could be written as the word of God, and normally was, and was not ancient oral tales such as the Assumption. Moreover, the exhortation to obedience was under the rubric of Scripture being the supreme authority for obedience and testing the veracity of Truth claims, as it is abundantly evidenced to be.
And none of the proffered proof texts you may paste can refute that.
In contrast, Rome presumes to take nebulous ancient oral stories and channeling them into extraBiblical and unScriptural doctrines, and making them equal with Scripture, while making both as servants to her.
For Rome has unScripturally 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. Thus Tradition, Scripture and history can only authoritatively mean what she says them mean, as according to her interpretation, only be correct in any conflict.
Which contrary to the basis by which the church was established, that of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the premise of Rome's assured veracity, which.
Paul’s Gospel was by revelation, not ancient oral tales, and established upon Scriptural substantiation, not the premise of assured veracity.
“Am I not an apostle? am I not free? have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? are not ye my work in the Lord?” (1 Corinthians 9:1)
“As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Galatians 1:9)
“But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:11-12)
“But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me by his grace, To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.” (Galatians 1:15-17)
“Like I said before the authority and source is the Holy Bible in the words of Paul and others.”
You have yet to post a single verse from Paul or any other Apostle that supports your truth claim.
Why? You seemed so sure when you posted.
It’s what we see over and over isn’t it.
Not that it will make a lick of difference, but read this link. I don’t like repeating myself and there is no sense continuing this debate.
http://www.fisheaters.com/solascriptura.html
“Not that it will make a lick of difference, but read this link. I don’t like repeating myself and there is no sense continuing this debate.”
I looked. It doesn’t appear you wrote that. Did you?
As near as I can tell, NKP, you have yet to actually post evidence on FR on this topic.
You really don’t have any do you? If not, why did you claim sola scriptura is a heresy?
OK, if you’ve got nothing on this, let’s move on to the other “heresies of Protestantism” as you claimed. You must have a large number to choose from.
Is there any other supposed heresy you can provide evidence for to support your truth claim.
I wasn't trying to "proof text" anything. I was sharing with a very long time Freeper friend, Salvation, the way I would respond to the request for an explantion of sola scriptura.
Also, it wasn't "proof texting" because it built the basis for the doctrine of sola scriptura on a solid, rational foundation presented from the bible.
Finally, it wasn't "proof texting" because my friend's request was that we USE the bible to demonstrate sola scriptura.
It is not "proof texting" to provide a biblical explanation of the doctrine of the trinity. "Proof texting" is generally understood to be citing a single verse that when taken out of context (or placed in no context at all) supports a narrow biblical argument. For example, proof texting the unbiblical teaching of of "name it and claim it" a person might say, "the bible says 'ask and you shall receive..."
You need to read post #257
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.