Actually, it is RCs who are always using posting a plethora of pages in servitude to Rome, using FR as a advertising and or promotional news and apologetics service for an elitist church. And a fools mouth calls for strikes (Prv. 18:6) so such arrogance calls for reproof.
Let’s go back to the Bishop, Presbyter and Deacon issue one last time without playing scripture tag.
Meaning since the Holy Spirit nowhere titles NT pastors "priests," out of 150 times hiereus occurs, or shows them engaging in any uniquely sacrificial function, then you must resort to extraBiblical traditions of men.
If several Church Fathers have written on those terms
As i said. Men presuming them know better than God.
For me to reject the clear and constant teachings of the those orthodox Church Fathers and the COuncil of Nicea’s teachings would akin to sin of “pride”
Fatal error. According this logic, the magisterium must always be correct and followed, which effectively nukes the church and replaces it with one not of Scripture. Holding to Scripture, evangelicals have defended most strongly the fundamental truth we both agree on with Nicea, but which basis also requires contention against those which are not.
For me the Council of Nicea is the “Definitive dogmatic teaching” on the Trinity, the Person of Christ, and sets fundamental doctrinal statements on the Church, Baptism, the Resurrection of the Dead, and Christ 2nd coming. So when Mr. Rogers states [and I am summarizing his views, not an exact quote that for the most part he can care less about the Council of Nicea’s teaching on Bishops/Presbyters/Deacons
Your reasoning here also is fallacious, since it supposes that since a source/body is correct on one or more things then it must be correct on other or even all things.
This standard RC argumentation, but the logic behind it would have constrained the first century souls to submit to those who sat in the seat of Moses in all their conclusions. And even a broken clock...
and while he thinks the Creed is ok, for the most part, the line “One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins” seems to him as being the Sacrament of Baptism using water and the Trinitarian formula [he deduced correctly], makes him view it [Creed] not totally favorable, then we are totally apart.
That should not be a problem, but supposing that the act itself brings regeneration, even for a soul who cannot obey the requirements for baptism; And in which one is formally justified by his own personal holiness, if "by grace," and thus typically ends up in purgatory in order to become good enough (and atone for sins) to enter Heaven, is a problem. On your end.
daniell212, when you used the term “Cult” that is BS! I am Catholic
No it is not, as quite soberly your latter statement refers to membership in a cultic system in which, as explained, you are not to examine the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but instead a faithful RC has one duty, which is to simply submit to leadership. Which as said, is not how the church began, and which can be explained further if desired.
Away from Mass, my social life does not revolve around doing everything with folks from my parish. My hobbies of golf, college football, comic book collecting, theology, work, having dinner with friends, seldom, if ever, involves folks from my parish. That type of behavior or culture is more associated with protestant fundamentalist churches were each member of the congregation’s life in its totality involves somebody from his or her local church.
We only wish it were more like that. I was raised devout RC, and became manifestly born again while being a weekly mass-going RC, and remained therein for 6 years seeking to serve God (i was a CCD teacher and lector) and others who had realized the profound difference in my heart and life, which was very rare. But have been an evangelical for much longer, and know well the difference btwn institutionalized religion and living faith, and yet today evangelicalism, while far more conservative and unified in basic core beliefs than Catholics, is also overall becoming more like the world in this latter day declension. May God give is grace to repent.
But by "cultic i am not referring to scope of psychological control exemplified in the Watchtower Society, but the fundamental premise for assurance of Truth. Which for RCs cannot be the weight of Scriptural substantiation.
Every Man[Woman] and the Bible alone is responsible for every heresy known to History.
Not so, as most cults actually operate under the Roman model of one person or office being the supreme infallible type authority, whose interpretation of Scripture and history alone is assuredly correct. Rome interprets these to support her, and the Mormons interpret them to support the LDS.
The Mormons and Smith, the JW’s, the Adventist, the Oneness Pentecostals, are outright heretical when it comes to Trinitarian and Christological Doctrine. All of those groups started because some guy read the bible and came up with yippie, an doctrinal view of their own mind that started heretical movement.
Against which and due to a shared doctrinal unity to fundamentals, the modern evangelical movement arose in opposition to as being unScriptural, and thus likewise against traditions of men, despite their own disagreements under SS, but which Catholicism under sola ecclesia also has, existing in schism and sects, while really being quite liberal in belief.
And in fact, under sola ecclesia you have the most fundamental heresies, as seen by such cults as you named. All based upon men thinking of themselves above that which written, (cf.1Cor. 4:6) being more akin to the pope than Reformers, as the former can autocratically "infallibly" decree Truth by fiat, and if so doing cannot be invalidated by anyone they say, or disposed without his consent. The Reformers, having precedent in those before them whom God raised up in the past from without the magisterium to correct it and preserve faith, reproved the presumptions of Rome. In so doing they appealed to both Scripture and the past, but in response to which the specious "we gave you the Bible, we know what it means" polemic is invoked, meaning that Scripture and the past is whatever we say it is. Which is where the cultic kinship comes in, contrary to the NT church.
**From Alister McGrath's [Irish theologian, pastor, intellectual historian and Christian apologist, currently Professor of Theology, Ministry, and Education at Kings College London] The Genesis of Doctrine: A Study in the Foundation of Doctrinal Criticism: Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine...I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228.
whether they publicly admitted it or not, they realized, but accepting those Councils and Creeds regarding Christ, the Trinity, etc, they were recognizing that the NT Gospels and Letters did not have language and a theological preciseness to formally define an orthodox doctrine of Christ and the Trinity.
And whether RCs publicly admit it or not, that does not contradict the supremacy or sufficiency of Scripture, for it was due to the Scriptural substantiation such doctrines had that they affirmed them, conversely, it was due to the lack of which that they contended against both cults who deny such as well as teaching traditions of men as doctrines of God.
In addition, Scripture materially provides for the church and the magisterial office and function, and thus Westminster affirms this, but not as possessing perpetually infallibility.
As a Catholic, as I stated earlier, teaching of a Church Council on a subject is going to hold weight with me.
And with that mindset, you would have rejected a holy man in the desert who ate insects, and an itinerant Jewish Preacher who was rejected by those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, whom this unsanctioned Preacher reproved by Scripture as supreme. (Mk. 7:2-16) In contrast to the Roman model for assurance of Truth, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation, (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34) following an itinerant Preacher who reproved them by Scripture, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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 instead they followed this itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, but who established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (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.)
+1
“Actually, it is RCs who are always using posting a plethora of pages in servitude to Rome, using FR as a advertising and or promotional news and apologetics service for an elitist church. And a fools mouth calls for strikes (Prv. 18:6) so such arrogance calls for reproof. “
The context of my use of pack of wolves is the litany of FR bible thumbers that get listed in a post to me. I have never posted anything, there is just as much protestant stuff posted here except you guys have hundreds of divergent sects.
You wrote:
“Meaning since the Holy Spirit nowhere titles NT pastors “priests,” out of 150 times hiereus occurs, or shows them engaging in any uniquely sacrificial function, then you must resort to extraBiblical traditions of men.
As i said. Men presuming them know better than God. “
No, men who know a heck of lot more than you do. When you say, know better than God, that implies you read the Bible and you know what God says. That is the of sola scriptura married to sola my own ego!!! What exact Protestant sect do you belong to? My guess, it is one of 2 basic groups[the Calvinist or Arminians [spelling?]. On a related note, those 2 go at each other almost as bad as each go after the Catholics.
You wrote:
“Fatal error. According this logic, the magisterium must always be correct and followed, which effectively nukes the church and replaces it with one not of Scripture. Holding to Scripture, evangelicals have defended most strongly the fundamental truth we both agree on with Nicea, but which basis also requires contention against those which are not.”
I do accept the magisterium as the having the teaching authority. The Alternative is for me to list to who, you???? or maybe some redneck Pastor where I live???? Good grief.
You wrote:
” No it is not, as quite soberly your latter statement refers to membership in a cultic system in which, as explained, you are not to examine the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but instead a faithful RC has one duty, which is to simply submit to leadership. Which as said, is not how the church began, and which can be explained further if desired. “
Yes it is. So we can play that game all night, You say No, I say yes, should we make a Beatles tune out of this?? Sort of like You say No and I say Yes {you say Hello and I say Goodbye]....Well, your view of cultic is your view, I reject it ex ante, I will not repeat what I already said on the subject,
As for heresies, again, every heresy starts with someone who thinks they Know better and it starts with someone thinking the Holy Spirit inspired them to interpret the Bible correctly. Every last one of them. From 16th Century, Protestantism at the “corporate level” so to speak has continued to fragment, and fragment, and fragment, and it will continue to do so.
Now to come back to Romans 15:16,my Catholic NAB, RSV and Navarre Bible, all translate it as “priestly service for the Gospel” . The Navarre Bible has Jerome’s Latin translation along with it and word used there is “oblatio” which is associated with a solemn offering to God in the context of a Liturgical service. The English word “Oblation” which was directly derived from Oblatio refers to an offering or sacrificial offering and the term refers to the gift to be offered and the act of offering at Mass. So, the “oblatio” [Preperation of the Gifts in modern English Catholic usage] would be the oblation which the priest presents to God, in his name and on behalf of the entire Church; these gifts [bread and wine] are which upon accepting them, God will give to us as the perfect oblation, Jesus Christ his son [taken from the Our Sunday Vistor’s New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 722, 1998 edition]
So Romans 15:16 in every Catholic Bible I have uses “priestly service of the Gospel” The Douah-Rheims uses “oblation” but I have already covered that given this translation is directly from Saint Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, which used “oblatio” which again is connected to a priest making an offering to God.