R-I-G-H-T, because we believe Rome over the Word of God. And we NEED them to explain it because God speaks over our heads and not to our heart. I’m sure that’s just the way He meant it. /s
“It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.”
—John 6:45
ALL that come to Christ are taught of GOD, not ROME. Perhaps you need the gospel of Christ, which is the “power of God unto salvation.”
Anyone who isn’t absolutely sure they know the gospel (there is only one saving gospel), should listen to the following:
The Gospel Defined
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=221413393310
What a ridiculous example regarding the apple. Is this what you're learning in college?
Where is that in the Bible? Of course, one could quickly retort with the idea that the Bible only necessarily contains the absolute moral truth necessary for salvation. But many Protestants do not actually believe that – just look at the large crowds of literal creationists! To be clear, the Bible is not guaranteed to be totally historically or scientifically inerrant in a literal sense. “Inerrancy extends to what the biblical writers intend to teach, not necessarily to what they assume or presuppose or what isn’t integral to what they assert.” [Catholic Answers] And if a Protestant would like to say otherwise, he must prove his position from the Bible – which he cannot do, at least not to any definite degree. Even natural law, which exists outside of the Bible, does not encompass such. Leaders like Ken Ham could be defeated with these points.
Based on the bolded text above if you really believe this then one can never take anything we read in the Bible as truth. For example, how can we know for sure that Jesus really meant it when He said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, the life...no one comes to the Father but through Me.
If you really believe what you wrote, then how can you be sure that Christ was really was able to do all the things recorded in the New Testament?
And I guess you do as you posted this nonsense below. This really speaks volumes about what you believe.
“[The Church] does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means.” – G. K. Chesterton
If this is what you are espousing then 2 Timothy 3:5 and 3:13 apply in this case. 3:5 holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; and avoid such men as these.
3:13 but evil men and impostors will proceed from bad to worse, deceiving and being deceived.
It is my prayer that you do not to the priesthood with this kind of false teaching you are espousing on this post.
Do we really need another anti-Protestant thread? Y’all must be very unsure of your beliefs to post this junk. I am Southern Baptist, believe the Bible to be the word of God and nothing you Catholics say will change that. What purpose does this serve?
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 Church] does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means.” – G. K. Chesterton
Hmmmm, interesting. Contrary to Chesterton, is that not precisely what happens with someone’s “last will and testament”? The written word of the testator is the final authority in a court of law (see Hebrews 9:15-22 for a direct analogy, where the word diatheke (Greek)/berith (Hebrew) is to be understood both ways, as either covenant or testament, depending on the Christological perspective, i.e. whether Jesus the Christ is to be understood as the One actively keeping the law we have not kept - keeping the covenant - or as the One passively taking responsibility for our failure to keep it - being the Testator whose death activates the giving of all that properly is His to give to us).
If the written word of God is not exactly analogous to a “last will and testament,” then what is it? Did God the Holy Spirit not foresee the problems that would ensue if man were to be permitted to interpret the plain sense of the text God Himself willed, the plain sense of His covenant/testament? If God cannot be depended on and assumed to have written such a document clearly from the first, then in what sense do we really trust God, the Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, All-knowing (for the Holy Scriptures assert all those attributes of Him)?
My three questions to Catholics:
1)What, in the mind of a Catholic, was the proper response to the corruption of the pre-reformation Catholic church, including but not limited to the selling of indulgences? What was the proper response to a church that was violating the teachings of the Bible?
2)The bible tells us Saint Peter was granted infalability by Jesus. If Peter had passed on that infalability to the next Bishop of Rome don’t you think that might have been recorded in scripture or at least somewhere? It seems to me that such an event would have been chronicled in detail by the church itself.
3)The Pope does not choose his successor, the Catholics elect the next one. That would mean that primacy comes not from the Pope but rather from the church itself. If one does accept that there is a church with primacy, since the great schizm how do I know that the Catholics are it rather than the Eastern Orthodox?
These questions are not meant to be snarky or arguementative, they are simply my own logical problems with the Catholic claim to primacy.
I always wonder of the 35,000 Protestant sects which one is correct..they all can’t interpret the Bible Correctly.
Look today on subjects like Abortion , Homosexuality, The catholic church has always been the same..DOGMA>
The Biggest fallacy in Sola Scriptura is that they miss the entire Purpose of the new Testament. The New Covenant the Only Covenant is the EUCHARIST..The REAL Presence of the Body Blood Soul & Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Most Protestants don’t recognize that it took 300 years of discussion & prayer to Finalize the new testament. Each Book Chosen had one thread in common the Book contained a contribution to the liturgy of the Eucharist which by the 2nd Century was the Mass we know today compiled By St Justin the Martyr.The Tradition Protestants reject is the early church fathers writings in support of the Apostles writings. They travelled with Peter and John the Apostle and wrote of celebrating the TRUE Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ said if you don’t believe be gone..He started with only the Apostles all others left him. It is sad ...they don’t recognize Christ as he himself explained the Founding of his Church the Repository and Nurturer of Scripture not 35,000 Protestant sects rejecting his own words...
Please find for me the concept of the word “church” in the Greek as it is used in the English today.
Is there as reason you post articles seeking to ignite strife in the body of Christ?
God Bless you, matthew, for wanting to proclaim the truth, but it is lost on many here who would rather eat glass that accept the Catholic Church.
Thought you might find this interesting. Given they never post any negative threads about the Protestant faith.
I just can't help but despise those who presume their church is in authority OVER the word of God.
Didn't you recently post this SAME Protestant-bashing propaganda here?
Matthew! You sure know how to set the kitties among the pigeons.
I find it uncharacteristic for Freeper brothers and sisters to be in such a tizzy, Christian vs Christian.
Much protesting about the Cardinals! And for the Cardinals!
William Shakespeare summed it up:
Hamlet:
Madam, how like you this play?
Queen:
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Hamlet Act 3, scene 2, 222–230
and also this one:
Enter a Gentleman.
Q. Kath. How now!
Gent. An ’t please your Grace, the two great cardinals
Wait in the presence.
Q. Kath. Would they speak with me? 10
Gent. They will’d me say so, madam.
Q. Kath. Pray their Graces
To come near. [Exit Gentleman.] What can be their business
With me, a poor weak woman, fall’n from favour?
I do not like their coming, now I think on ’t. 15
They should be good men, their affairs as righteous;
But all hoods make not monks.
From: The Famous History of the Life of King Henry the Eighth
Act III. Scene I.
By the way, FE is a grateful Catholic now, having recovered from the Episcopalian death spiral and chosen to swim the Tiber. This was my personal decision, and nobody here has to agree with it. The Catholic religion helps me fulfill my spiritual life.
Still, we do not need to shred one another intellectually over such dogmatic divisive drivel.
This republic, and our freedoms, including religious freedom, and freedom to the liberty of life, are seriously in jeopardy in this country. We should stay focused on those threats, and how to protect against them.
Nothing like feasting on the rotten fruit of the religious forums at free republic.
Well, I think I’ll stand pat with my sins being forgiven and my heart changed because I believed the scriptures.
I have a tangible relationship with Jesus and I don’t need either a Pope or a Priest to communicate for me with Jesus, Jesus IS my High Priest and my Savior and as the Apostle Paul states in Chapter 8 of Romans, his Spirit witnesses to my spirit that I am a child of God.
I don’t need to live in my sin as Christ died for me and saved me and gave me power/Victory over my sin.
ola Scriptura does not even claim that there is no other authority besides the Bible; it maintains that the Bible is alone (sola) as the only infallible authority.” Some apologists concede this position, but I see no reason to, and so I responded, “The practical effect [of Sola Scriptura] is that it denies the authoritativeness of any other authority – making that authority not an authority at all.”
Here, as you are in need of a straw man to burn, you reject the correction, even labeling the correction as being a concession, and then go on to make an absurd statement that SS denies the authoritativeness of any other authority!!!
Yet this means that Westminster itself is dismissed as an authority must be dismissed, in context, as it affirms,
"It belongs 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..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm ),
But not as enjoining unconditional obedience as to an assuredly infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes, which only God is worthy of.
Now i know you have a record of arrogantly posting por polemics as if they have no refutation, and then failing to actually engage such when it is given, so once again you need to answer some questions.
Since Scripture enjoins conditional obedience and thus SS upholds it, and you must uphold unconditional submission, under the premise of an assuredly infallible magisterium, and which rejects personal interpretation of Scripture as providing assurance of Truth, then what is your basis for assurance that Rome is the one True infallible church, and worthy of such unfaltering submission to the official teaching of Rome on matters of faith and morals?
Are you arguing that being the historical instrument and steward of Scripture means means they are the infallible interpreters of it, so that dissent from them is rebellion against God?
I love the Second Vatican Council’s statement on all of this: “[T]he task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church,
Them you love propagandist assertions. Answer the above.
Do you deny that Scripture is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced So that the church began upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, or the premise of assured magisterial infallibility?
Another great blow to Sola Scriptura is that the Bible did not put itself together, and it does not list the books that belong within it....The only reason that we know which books comprise the Testaments is that the Church has informed us
So are you denying that Scripture does not provide for a canon, or that only an infallible magisterium can? Or that your version of SS does not?
Many Protestants also allude that absolute truth can only be found within the Bible. If I throw an apple up into the air, it will fall. Where is that in the Bible?
Are you really that desperate, or is your age showing?
Of course, one could quickly retort with the idea that the Bible only necessarily contains the absolute moral truth necessary for salvation.
Again are you really that desperate? Or so ignorant that your apologetics are am embarrassment and an argument against being a Catholic?
SS does not hold that Scripture teaches you how to design a nuclear reactor, nor that it is not accurate in its historical or scientific statements. The truth necessary for salvation is actually a RC argument, one that is a subject of debate, with conservative RCs holding to plenary inspiration and accuracy in historically or scientific statements.
the Bible is not guaranteed to be totally historically or scientifically inerrant in a literal sense.
That marks you as a liberal, and one that most RCs here would disagree with, as this supports the liberal revisionism evidenced in much of the NAB Bible helps and some of its notes , which they scorn. And rightly so.
And if a Protestant would like to say otherwise, he must prove his position from the Bible – which he cannot do, at least not to any definite degree
The NT treats the OT historical accounts as accurate, and it is a slippery slope once you impugn them. And past popes affirmed plenary accuracy.
LAMENTABILI SANE Pius X July 3, 1907 ERRORS OF THE MODERNISTS CONDEMNED: 11. Divine inspiration does not extend to all of Sacred Scriptures so that it renders its parts, each and every one, free from every error.
Here is the story of your unified church on this from one of your own:
Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akins explains that “Basically, there was a huge, behind-the-scenes fight at Vatican II about plenary inerrancy. The traditional Catholic teaching--which prior popes had said was infallible--is that Scripture has unrestricted inerrancy. That is to say, any time Scripture makes a factual assertion then, properly understood, it's guaranteed to be true...the present wording of Dei Verbum was worked out, and assurances were given that the formulation--which was still not entirely satisfactory--was not to be understood as excluding the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture.
But there were problems: While the final formula didn't exclude the unrestricted inerrancy of Scripture, it didn't mandate it, either. The formula could be read more than one way, with the clause about our salvation either serving to explain the purpose for which God put his truth in Scripture or limiting the scope of the truth which God inerrantly put in Scripture. (http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/09/compendium_on_i.html)
No wonder the sedevacantists object,
— VATICAN II Rama Coomaraswamy, M.D.; http://www.the-pope.com/wvat2tec.html