This should be an interesting thread.
Are either of you familiar with this book or its author?
I don’t have any statues of the following in my house as many Catholics do:
1) Mary
2) Any Saint
I don’t pray to Mary or expect her to help, as she can’t. I only pray to Christ. Nor do I pray to any patron saint as we are all saints who are in Christ.
Also, I eat meat on Friday which is banned by the Catholic Church based on tradition.
I don’t rely on an “infallible” pope to interpret Scripture for me when they’ve blown it so many times in the past.
I know works won’t save me because I don’t know how much I should do and if I’ve done the right ones. Ephesians 2:8-9 tells me salvation is a gift from God and not works so that none can boast.
Salvation is based upon your belief that Jesus died on the Cross for your sins...past, present and future. Clear as day in the Bible.
This should be an interesting thread.
“If something about the Catholic Church troubles you, this book has the answer.”
What irony! Earlier today I was reading another Book that answers all my questions about the Roman religion.
My Book says:
“4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.”
My Book also says:
“4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.”
I appreciate the opportunity to sound the alarm and warn unsuspecting sinners.
A Catholic Priest is Biblically Saved
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VKiv3ZGAWo&feature=youtu.be
The Antichrist in Our Midst
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1OCYXUhUoU
The Gospel Defined and Discerned
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=81901181950
My main problem with Catholicism (and I don’t mean to bash Catholics because I believe they are just as Christian as I am), is most of that stuff you can’t find anywhere in the Bible, which makes it a non-starter for me.
Ah I see Mr. Rose knows the answers better than the Apostles.
Mark 8:18 NKJV
Having eyes, do you not see? And having ears, do you not hear? And do you not remember?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
THE CATHOLIC's DILEMMA BY History: A REFRESHING
Pope Stephen VI (896–897), who had his predecessor Pope Formosus exhumed, tried, de-fingered, briefly reburied, and thrown in the Tiber.[1]
Pope John XII (955–964), who gave land to a mistress, murdered several people, and was killed by a man who caught him in bed with his wife.
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, 1045, 1047–1048), who "sold" the Papacy
Pope Boniface VIII (1294–1303), who is lampooned in Dante's Divine Comedy
Pope Urban VI (1378–1389), who complained that he did not hear enough screaming when Cardinals who had conspired against him were tortured.[2]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503), a Borgia, who was guilty of nepotism and whose unattended corpse swelled until it could barely fit in a coffin.[3]
Pope Leo X (1513–1521), a spendthrift member of the Medici family who once spent 1/7 of his predecessors' reserves on a single ceremony[4]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534), also a Medici, whose power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked.
Thank god! Another thread devolving into Freeper Catholics v Protestants. Awesome. It must have been almost 10 minutes since the last one...
I never realized until I was an adult that there were other “”christian” religions that were actually taught false concepts about Catholicism. It’s that awkward “why are Americans such war mongers?” surprise question you get from a foreigner, that leaves you so perplexed you just don’t know how to answer.
Sadly too many Americans who don’t know their history are influenced by deception and end up faithless.
|
I never saw you post much before on RC versus Protestant debates in my years here on the RF, so I guess you might be excused for not knowing how often these RC attempts and their often parroted polemics have been refuted, so this one must be also, by God's grace.
Which logical conclusion of Rome's claims is what has actually refuted Rome so often here. I wish Mr. Rose would debate me here on that, but since you post it then you or others must stand in. Thus lets examine his arguments and ask some questions in so doing that his stand-ins need to answer.
A very foundational issue, so i am glad he begins here.
Wrong. The Roman Catholic looks to the magisterium of Rome to infallibly authoritatively tell him what constitutes Tradition and Scripture and history and what they mean. Thus Rome operates under sola ecclesia, that Rome as the One True Church® is the supreme standard for Truth. Which is contrary to Scripture as we will see. Thus the first question: What is the basis for your assurance that Rome is the One True Church? If it is Scripture and history, then you are being like an evangelical, and do not need the magisterium for your assurance of Truth. In reality your assurance is based upon the premise of the perpetual assured infallibility of Rome. Which you know is true because 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. You may reason yourself into converting to and thus submitting to Rome, but once you have made the fallible decision (as it is a result of your fallible human reasoning), you are not to objectively examine evidence in order to determine the veracity of Roman Catholic teachings. "The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm) “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;” “He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“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 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm] Therefore as fellow Roman Catholic apologist Karl Keating states when trying to justify the lack of any actual Scriptural proof for the Assumption: The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275; http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
Not only that, but we must decide what it is. With the Roman premise being that an assuredly infallible magisterium is necessary to provide that, and its meaning, with dissent from that authority being rebellion. But that this is necessary and that Rome is that magisterium must have a basis. Thus the 2nd question: Do you hold (as Roman Catholics argue) that being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture (allowing Rome today to claim was that) means one is the infallible authority on that? If so, then how were both men and writings of God established as being so before Christ came? And since under the Roman model the historical instrument and steward of Scripture is to be followed, and Truth and assurance of it determined by it, and not by persuasion of Scriptural substantiation, then how could 1st century soils be correct in following a man in the desert who ate insects and an Itinerant Preacher from Galilee, when both of them were rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel? (Mt. 23:2) And of which, unlike a church in Rome, Scripture affirms was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture. (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) And yet whom the Itinerant Preacher reproved by Scripture, and established His Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the apostles and early church, (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.) For Scripture is abundantly evidenced as being the the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, and thus the church actually began (as did America) in principled dissent over those, whom, like Rome presumed of themselves “above that which is written.” (cf. 1Cor. 4:6)
Which it is as regards salvation and basic growth, for one who is drawn of God should normally be able to read a message of salvation such as Acts 10:36-43 and become born again. And also read what those in Acts did in response, and basic commands to holiness. However, holding Scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith does not mean it alone can be used, or is entirely formally sufficient, but that its sufficiency also pertains to material sufficiency, providing and sanctioning such things as the Holy Spirit's illumination, reason, the church, natural revelation, etc. And which Rose should have known before writing a yet another anti-Protestant book which parrots a favorite Catholic straw man polemic.
Which argument is based on the prior false premise, and that Rome's infallibly magisterium eliminates the problem of variant interpretations, which is does not. While those who most strongly hold Scripture as being the supreme standard as wholly inspired word of God are more unified in basic views than those Rome counts and treats as members, yet comprehensive doctrinal unity was ever a goal not yet realized. But while fundamental/evangelical churches require belief in core truths (contend for against cults) — many of which Rome also affirms — yet there are various degrees of disagreement outside that area. What is lacking is a universal magisterium as seen in Acts 15, however, this was under manifest apostles of God, whose abundant supernatural attestation and virtue enabled the degree of unity it realized, but which was contrary to Rome, and which she stands in stark contrast to both in exercise and substance. Meanwhile, the problem of interpretive differences is not solved even under the Roman alternative of sola ecclesia. RCs themselves must hold to certain core truths, yet not only these but most of what they believe and practice is open to varying degrees of interpretation. And the things Catholics can disagree on is extensive. One of which being what magisterial level (3 or 4 depending on who is explaining them) each of the Roman Catholic teachings fall under, which is necessary to understand what degree of assent is required, and of dissent, if any. As no infallible list of all infallible teachings is provided, nor of the level of each one of the rest belongs to, many RCs are encouraged to implicitly suibmist tot them all. Which is cultic. Under sola ecclesia there are even formal divisions and sects, so that Rome herself in effect is like one more denomination, and while she holds the Eastern Orthodox as Catholic, the issues that divide them are substantial and many. In addition, Rome's unity is limited and largely on paper, and James 2:18 teaches us that what one does constitutes what he really believes, and what Rome does is overall foster and implicitly sanction an overall liberal membership, exampled even by such notorious public examples as Ted Kennedy, whom the last pope (the “conservative” one) left with his apostolic blessing, not any manifest personal censure in his letter to him.
This is a further misrepresentation of reality, as if every evangelical type believer (which is being attacked her, not some wishy/washy close-to-Rome Anglican) is given no interpretive help and which he typically looks for, while in fact it is within that realm that the most comprehensive Godly help on interpretation of Scripture abounds as easily available, with classic commentaries such as Matthew Henry and others. And which type is in contrast with the modern liberal revisionism which Rome has sanctioned for decades (even on the Vatican's own web site) in its Bible helps within her own NAB!
This is simply another misrepresentation, a careless or purposely deceptive invocation of Westminster by a Roman Catholic apologist. The fact is that Westminster states, “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture:.. .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 Thus what is being taught is that no only are some things determined by the light of nature and sanctified common sense, in accordance principles seen in Scripture (creation reveals God, and the Lord appealed to Scripture-based reason), but rather than the Bible being clear to any who takes it up without any outside help, as all Scripture is not alike plain nor clear unto all, the “due use of the ordinary means” helps souls to understand, that meaning such thing as pastoral help, commentaries, etc. And as said, on the practical level where it counts, evangelical types testify to a greater basic unity overall than Catholics, despite the limited paper unity. And despite the external tribalism, among the former is realized both spontaneously and in ministries, a basic essential unity of the Spirit, based on a common conversion and Scriptural relationship with the Lord Jesus - Christ in them and they in Christ, (Jn. 17:21,23) and which transcends external divisions.
That is absurd, as he has as much help and more than that than RCs, who are told to look to their magisterium for such, but which at best have only infallibly interpreted a few verses of Scripture, and this is not one of them. That all do sin is an established evangelical truth, relegating those who disagree as being fringe, as it is with RCs, but how to reconcile these two texts will find disagreement among RCs, as in multitude other things. And if it is not infallibly taught, there can be some disagreement, and simply because some texts are invoked in the CCC does not mean this is an infallible interpretation. In addition, adherents of SS cannot claim to be little pope, having assured infallibility, which is the height of “sola individuala,” but making the church to be the supreme authority over Scripture simply takes the problem of individual interpretations being supreme to a institutional level. For rather than one person leading others astray based on elitist claim of assured veracity, an entire church overall can be led into error based upon such. And thus Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.
That Catholicism is true is begging the question, but that the Bible was not intended to be studied in isolation from Scriptural tradition (a basic literal hermeneutic, versus liberal revisionism) and the teaching office is what Westminster affirms in principle, " It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word." (CHAPTER XXXI ) So much for the straw man Rose makes to burn, while the difference is that an assuredly infallible magisterium is not what is promised in Scripture nor is shown to be necessary, but instead the church began in dissent, based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. And the greater the claims, the more that is needed, and what the evidence warrants for Rome is contrary to that.
That is superficial reasoning, since even the interpreter often requires varying degrees of interpretation, and as said, this is really done by what one does. Thus a real apostle writes, “ the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness?” (1 Corinthians 4:20-21)
Written by a novice under the spell of manifestly specious and parroted argumentation. Actually, this is a amateurish and fundamentally erroneous attempt as provided here, while as one who became manifestly born again as a weekly mass-going Roman Catholic (raised devout), and remained in it for years after, i realized the profound difference between institutionalized religion and real regeneration (though i certainly need to grow more in grace). And having since examined to good and bad of Rome over the years, and have spoken to multitudes by God's grace, then the more I learn of her then the more fundamentally fallacious her elitist claims are shown to be. |
Well, if anyone really cares, or has the time between posts about how Catholics “must” base their faith on the authority of the Church on unsubstantiated claims, and/or how Catholics “must” deify/worship Mary like some goddess “because we (the super-smart Biblical scholars of FR) say they do”, maybe one can deign to answer the following question:
Did Jesus establish a visible, authoritative Church, or not?
Because that’s really the issue here, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. Whether one wishes to dance around it, denying the question to even themselves via side streets and rabbit holes like the “deification of Mary” and unsubstantiated claims of authority.
I’d really like to know if any anti-Catholic has ever seriously considered that question. And don’t “answer” by misdirection either, by bringing up the same bilge I mentioned already that has contaminated this thread.
Because guess what: that’s the exact point where the book mentioned in the OP of this thread starts. And it’s good it does start there, because ultimately, once one decides the answer to that question, pro or con, all of these side trails become meaningless.
Funny that, maybe that’s why I’ve never seen that question directly discussed. And yes I’ve read all the posts in this thread, none answer DIRECTLY (even with scripture alone if that is one’s preference) the question: Did Jesus establish a visible, authoritative Church, or not?
This isn't about “polemics”.
The question should be, “Has the Holy Spirit testified to you of the truth?”
The question should be, “Have you read and prayed about the Bible?”
So i responded at length on my own blog here and told him in case he or anyone wants to comment.