Posted on 09/27/2014 7:16:39 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Cordoba, Spain, Sep 25, 2014 / 02:02 am (CNA/EWTN News).- Amid widespread reports that Pope Francis might open the door to Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, a Spanish bishop says the Pope told him that this scenario is not possible.
Bishop Demetrio Fernandez of Cordoba, Spain said that during his ad limina visit to the Vatican earlier this year, the Holy Father told him that “the Pope cannot change” what Jesus Christ has instituted.
The question of Communion for the divorced and remarried has surfaced due to an address given by Germany’s Cardinal Walter Kasper to a group of cardinals earlier this year. Some have speculated that the Church will change its teachings, which do not acknowledge a second civil marriage unless the first has received an annulment, or a Church recognition that the marriage had never been valid in the first place.
In an interview with the newspaper Diario Cordoba, Bishop Fernandez said, “We asked the Pope himself, and he responded that a person married in the Church who has divorced and entered into a new civil marriage cannot approach the sacraments.”
“The Pope said that ‘this was established by Jesus Christ and the Pope cannot change it’,” he added.
“I say this because sometimes people say that ‘everything is going to change,’ and there are some things that cannot be changed. The Church answers to her Lord and her Lord remains alive,” Bishop Fernandez continued.
However, he explained, “The Church is continuously telling us to be welcoming, that people not feel excluded, and we can always find ways to be more welcoming.”
“...and which we Orthodox have instantiated in ecclesiastical divorces in which the innocent party can be given permission to remarry — not just in cases of the divorce of an adulterous spouse by the aggrieved innocent spouse, but for divorces of a husband by a wife whom he has tried to force into prostitution (a slightly different application of the for porneia exception).”
Does this apply to the Orthodox limit on remarriages? If so why have the limit if the same circumstances happen again to this person?
FReegards
It’s not the civil re-marriage that’s the problem — it’s the sexual relations (if any).
Ain't nothin' like the real thing, baby.
Huh? No one can cause another to be "adulterous" without that person's consent.
“Accept the ungodly all you want, but divorce and remarriage is still adultery. The Gospels make that perfectly clear.”
1. Of course we will accept those CHRIST died for - the ungodly.
2. Divorce is not God’s original plan. He allowed it for one reason - adultery - because of the hardness of human hearts. Christ reaffirmed what God the Father exempted.
3. For those who have sinned by divorcing for another reason, they can be forgiven too. The sacrifice on Christ covers all sin.
Please send your sinners to us. We will teach them the Glorious Gospel of Grace and what it means to walk with God. This will solve your tradition problem by not having them be there as second class Christians. We’re glad to help as a benefit of accepting all who want to come to Him.
Blessing.
“Christ believed in baptism. I know many evangelicals that think as long as you profess you’re “born again” water baptism is not necessary. “
Christ commanded that every believer who has entrusted herself or himself to Christ to follow Him by proclaiming publicly via baptism that decision. It is commanded as something to instruct all who come to Him. It does not lead to salvation. It follows salvation.
You do realize that this thread isn’t about baptism...?
“Anyone with an elementary understanding of Christianity knows that baptism is necessary for salvation. “
The problem isn’t what they know. It is that what they know is false.
“Or was Jesus lying?”
I always laugh when someone posts something like that!
Blessing to you NKP
Such idiots are denying their own doctrine every time they insist the Holy Spirit can't protect the Truth and their proof is that someone who likewise claims to be led by the Holy Spirit doesn't agree with them.
1. Instruction about marriage 19:3–12 (cf. Mark 10:2–12)
Matthew evidently included this instruction because the marriage relationships of His disciples were important factors in their effective ministries. Jesus clarified God’s will for His disciples that was different from the common perception of His day. He dealt with the single state as well as the essence of marriage and the subjects of divorce and remarriage.
19:3 The Pharisees again approached Jesus to trap Him (cf. 12:2, 14, 38; 15:1; 16:1; 22:15, 34–35). This time they posed a question about divorce. In 5:31–32, Jesus had taught the sanctity of marriage in the context of kingdom righteousness. Here the Pharisees asked Him what divorces were legitimate. Perhaps they hoped Jesus would oppose Herod as John had done and would suffer a similar fate. The Machaerus fortress where Herod Antipas had imprisoned and beheaded John was nearby, east of the north part of the Dead Sea. Undoubtedly the Pharisees hoped Jesus would say something that they could use against Him.
Both the NASB and NIV translations have rendered the Pharisees’ question well. They wanted to know if Jesus believed a man could divorce his wife for any and every reason. The Mosaic Law did not permit wives to divorce their husbands.
There was great variety of opinion on this controversial subject among the Jews. The Qumran community, for example, believed that divorce was not legitimate for any reason.708 In mainstream Judaism there were two dominant views both of which held that divorce was permissible for “something indecent” (Deut. 24:1). Rabbi Shammai and his school of followers believed the indecency was some gross indecency though not necessarily adultery. Rabbi Hillel and his school interpreted the indecency more broadly to include practically any offense that a wife might have committed, real or imagined by the husband. This even included a wife not cooking her husband’s meal to his liking. One of Hillel’s disciples, Rabbi Akiba, permitted a man to divorce his wife if a prettier woman caught his eye.709 Josephus was a divorced Pharisee, and he believed in divorce “for any causes whatsoever.”710 In many Pharisaic circles “the frequency of divorce was an open scandal.”711
19:4–6 Jesus’ citation of Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 shows that He believed that marriage unites a man and a woman in a “one flesh” relationship. He was the Creator in view (v. 4) though He did not draw attention to that point (cf. John 1:3; Col. 1:16). The phrase “for this cause” (v. 5) in Genesis 2:24 refers to Adam’s awareness that God had made Eve out of his bone and flesh, from him as well as for him. She was related to him in the most intimate sense. When a man and a woman marry, they become one flesh thus reestablishing the intimate type of union that existed between Adam and Eve before God separated Eve from Adam.
“. . . the ‘one flesh’ in every marriage between a man and a woman is a reenactment of and testimony to the very structure of humanity as God created it.”712
In view of this union, Jesus concluded, a husband and wife are no longer two but one (v. 6). God has united them in a “one flesh” relationship by an act of creation. Since God has done this, separating them with divorce is not only unnatural but rebellion against God. Essentially Jesus allied Himself with the prophet Malachi rather than with any of the rabbis. Malachi had revealed that God hates divorce (Mal. 2:16).
Jesus focused on the God-ordained and supernaturally created unity of the married couple. The rabbis stressed the error of divorce as involving taking another man’s wife. Jesus appealed to the principle. He went back to fundamental biblical revelation, in this case Creation. He argued that marriage rests on how God made human beings, not just the sanctity of a covenantal relationship between the husband and the wife.713 Marriage does not break down simply because one partner breaks his covenant with his or her spouse. God unites the husband and wife in a new relationship when they marry that continues regardless of marital unfaithfulness.
19:7 Jesus had not yet answered the Pharisees’ question about how one should take the Mosaic Law on this subject, so they asked Him this question. Granting Jesus’ view of marriage, why did Moses allow divorce? In the Deuteronomy 24:1–4 passage to which the Pharisees referred, God showed more concern about prohibiting the remarriage of the divorced woman and her first husband than the reason for granting the divorce. However the Pharisees took the passage as a command (Gr. entellomai) to divorce one’s wife for any indecency. God intended it as only a permission to divorce, as the passage itself shows.
19:8 Jesus explained that the concession in the Mosaic Law was just that, a concession. It did not reflect the will of God in creation but the hardness of the human heart. Divorce was not a part of God’s creation ordinance any more than sin was. However, He permitted divorce as He permitted sin because not permitting it creates worse situations.
“Moses regulated, but thereby conceded, the practice of divorce; both were with a view to (pros) the nation’s (hymon) hardness of heart: since they persist in falling short of the ideal of Eden, let it at least be within limits.”714
This is not saying that the Israelite who divorced his wife for the reasons God permitted committed sin, though he did. It is saying that the divorce option that God granted the Israelites testifies to man’s sinfulness. Therefore one should always view divorce as evidence of sin, specifically hardness of heart. He or she should never view it as simply a morally neutral option that God granted, the correctness or incorrectness of which depended on the definition of the indecency. The Pharisees’ fundamental attitude toward the issue was wrong. They were looking for grounds for divorce. Jesus was stressing the inviolability of the marriage relationship.
Notice in passing that Jesus never associated Himself with the sin in the discussion. He consistently spoke of the peoples’ sin as their sin or your sin, never as our sin (cf. 6:14–15). This is a fine point that reveals Jesus’ awareness that He was sinless.
What was the indecency for which Moses permitted divorce? It was not adultery since the penalty for that was death, not divorce (Deut. 22:22). However, it is debatable whether the Israelites enforced the death penalty for adultery.715 It could not be suspicion of adultery either since there was a specified procedure for handling those cases (Num. 5:5–31). Probably it was any gross immoral behavior short of adultery, namely fornication, which includes all types of prohibited sexual behavior. Even though divorce was widespread and easy to obtain in the ancient Near East, the Israelites took marriage somewhat more seriously than their pagan neighbors.
19:9 Jesus introduced His position on this subject with words that stressed His authority: “I say to you” (cf. 5:18, 20, 22, 28, 32, 34, 39, 44; 8:10; 16:18, 28). His was the true view because it came from Him who came to fulfill the law. Matthew recorded only Jesus’ words concerning a man who divorces his wife, probably because in Judaism wives could not divorce their husbands. However, Mark recorded Jesus saying that the same thing holds true for a woman who divorces her husband (Mark 10:12).716
There are four problems in this verse that account for its difficulty.19:10–12 Some scholars who believe that Jesus meant to discourage remarriage in verse 9 interpret the disciples’ statement in verse 10 as evidence that they understood Him in this light.727 If a person has to remain unmarried after he divorces, it would be better if he never married in the first place. However this is probably not what Jesus meant in verse 9. The evidence for this is His reference to eunuchs in verse 12 as well as the inferiority of this view as explained above.First, what does the exception clause include? The best textual evidence points to the short clause that appears in both the NASB and the NIV translations, “except for immorality” or “except for marital unfaithfulness.”717
Second, what is the meaning of porneia (“immorality” NASB, “marital unfaithfulness” NIV, “fornication” AV) in the exception clause? Some interpreters believe it refers to incest.718 However, there is no evidence of which I am aware that the Jews ever regarded an incestuous relationship as constituting marriage. Furthermore Paul used this word to describe prostitution in 1 Corinthians 6:13 and 16. In other words, porneia does not mean just incest.
Others believe porneia refers to premarital sex, in which case if a man discovered that his fiance was not a virgin he could divorce her.719 Even though the Jews considered a man and a woman to be husband and wife during their engagement period, they were not really married. Consequently to consider this grounds for a divorce seems to require a redefinition of marriage that most interpreters resist.
Still others define porneia as adultery.720 However the normal Greek word for adultery is moicheia, which Matthew used back to back with porneia previously (15:19). Therefore they must not mean the same thing. It seems unlikely that porneia refers to spiritual adultery in view of 1 Corinthians 7:12.
The best solution seems to be that porneia is a broad term that covers many different sexual sins that lie outside God’s will. This conclusion rests on the meaning of the word.721 These sexual sins, fornication, would include homosexuality, bestiality, premarital sex, incest, adultery, and perhaps others.
A third problem in this verse is why did Matthew alone of all the Synoptic evangelists include this exception clause, here and in 5:32, when the others excluded it? To answer this question we must also answer the fourth question, namely what does this clause mean?
Some scholars believe that Matthew simply added the clause himself to make what Jesus really said stronger. They assume that what Mark wrote represents what Jesus really said. This view reflects a low view of Scripture since it makes Matthew distort Jesus’ words.
Another answer is that the exception clause does not express an exception. This view requires interpreting the Greek preposition epi (“except”) as “in addition to” or “apart from.” However when me (“not”) introduces epi it always introduces an exception elsewhere in the Greek New Testament.
Another similar answer is that the exception is an exception to the whole proposition, not just to the verb “divorces.”722 In this case the porneia is not involved. We might translate the clause as follows to give the sense. “Whoever divorces his wife quite apart from the matter of porneia and marries another commits adultery.” Thus in this view, as in the one above, there is no real exception. The main problem with this view, as with the one above, is its unusual handling of the Greek text. One has to read in things that are not there.
A fourth view is that when Jesus used the Greek verb apolyo (“divorces”) He really meant “separates from” and so permitted separation but not divorce.723 Therefore there can be no remarriage since the marriage bond is still in tact. However in verse 3 apolyo clearly means “divorce” so to give it a different meaning in verse 9 seems arbitrary without some compelling reason to do so.
Other interpreters believe Jesus meant that in some cases divorce is not adulterous rather than that in some cases divorce is not morally wrong.724 In the case of porneia the husband does not make her adulterous; she is already adulterous. However the text does not say he makes her adulterous or an adulteress; it says he makes her commit adultery. If the woman had committed porneia, divorce and remarriage would not make her adulterous. However divorce and remarriage would make her commit adultery. The major flaw in this view is that in verse 9 it is the man who commits adultery, not his wife.
Probably it is best to interpret porneia and the exception clause as they appear normally in our English texts. Jesus meant that whoever divorces his wife, except for some gross sexual sin, and then remarries someone else commits adultery (cf. 5:32).
“On any understanding of what Jesus says . . ., he agrees with neither Shammai nor Hillel; for even though the school of Shammai was stricter than Hillel, it permitted remarriage when the divorce was not in accordance with its own Halakah (rules of conduct) (M[ishnah] Eduyoth 4:7–10); and if Jesus restricts grounds for divorce to sexual indecency . . ., then he differs fundamentally from Shammai. Jesus cuts his own swath in these verses . . .”725
Divorce and remarriage always involve evil. However just as Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of man’s heart, so did Jesus. Yet whereas Moses was indefinite about the indecency that constituted grounds for a divorce, Jesus specified the indecency as gross sexual sin, fornication.726
Why then did Mark and Luke omit the exception clause? Probably they did so simply because it expresses an exception to the rule, and they wanted to stress the main point of Jesus’ words without dealing with the exceptional situation. Since Matthew wrote for Jews primarily, he probably felt, under the Spirit’s inspiration, that he needed to include the exception clause for the following reason.
Jesus’ specification of marital unfaithfulness as the sole ground for divorce conflicted with the law’s requirement that the Jews should stone those unfaithful in marriage. Jesus was also abolishing the death penalty for marital unfaithfulness by taking the position He took. He was teaching that His hearers could deal with marital unfaithfulness through divorce rather than through execution, though divorce was only a divine concession and not His preference. The subject of how to deal with divorce cases involving marital unfaithfulness was of particular interest to the Jews in view of Old Testament and rabbinic teaching on this subject.
Probably the disciples expressed regret because Jesus had come down more conservatively than even Rabbi Shammai, the more conservative of the leading rabbis. Jesus conceded divorce only for sexual indecency, as Shammai did, but He was even more conservative than Shammai on the subject of remarriage. He encouraged the disciples not to remarry after a divorce involving sexual indecency whereas Shammai permitted it. His encouragement lay in His clarification that marriage constitutes a very binding relationship (vv. 4–6). The disciples thought that if they could not divorce and remarry, as Hillel or even Shammai taught, they would be better off remaining single.
Jesus responded that not everyone can live by the strict verdict that the disciples had just passed in verse 10, namely never marrying. He did not mean that it is impossible to live with the standards He imposed in verses 4–9. If He meant the latter, He eviscerated all that He had just taught. Some could live by the strict verdict that the disciples suggested, namely eunuchs whom God graciously enables to live unmarried.
Jesus identified three types of eunuchs (v. 12). Some eunuchs were born impotent or without normal sexual drive and therefore remained unmarried. Other eunuchs were eunuchs because others had castrated them, most notably those eunuchs who served in government positions where they had frequent access to royal women. Still other eunuchs were those who had chosen an unmarried life for themselves so they could serve God more effectively. Thus in answer to the disciples’ suggestion that Jesus’ encouragement to remain unmarried presented an unreasonably high standard (v. 10), Jesus pointed out that many people can live unmarried. For those so gifted by God it is better not to marry. Those who can accept this counsel should do so.
However neither Jesus nor the apostles viewed celibacy as an intrinsically holier state than marriage (1 Tim. 4:1–3; Heb. 13:4; cf. 1 Cor. 9:5). They viewed it as a special calling that God has given some of His servants so they can be more useful in His service. Eunuchs could not participate in Israel’s formal worship (Lev. 22:24; Deut. 23:1). However they can participate in the kingdom and, we might add, in the church (Acts 8:26–40; 1 Cor. 7:7–9). Evidently there were some in Jesus’ day who had foregone marriage in anticipation of the kingdom. Perhaps John the Baptist was one, and maybe some of Jesus’ disciples had given up plans to marry to follow Him (cf. v. 27). Jesus definitely was one for the kingdom’s sake.
To summarize, Jesus held a very high view of marriage. When a man and a woman marry, God creates a union that is as strong as the union that bound Adam and Eve together before God separated Eve from Adam. Man should not separate what God has united. However, even though God hates divorce He permits it in cases where gross sexual indecency (fornication) has entered the marriage. Jesus urged His disciples not to divorce, and if they divorced He urged them not to remarry. However, He did not go so far as prohibiting remarriage. He encouraged them to realize that living unmarried after a divorce is a realistic possibility for many people, but He conceded it was not possible for all. A primary consideration should be how one could most effectively carry on his or her work of preparing for the kingdom.728
Matthew did not record the Pharisees’ reaction to this teaching. His primary concern was the teaching itself. He only cited the Pharisees’ participation because it illustrated their continuing antagonism, a major theme in his Gospel, and because it provided the setting for Jesus’ authoritative teaching.
Constable, T. (2003). Tom Constable’s Expository Notes on the Bible (Mt 19:1–10). Galaxie Software.
Rashputin,
Thanks for raising this issue.
“I always laugh when some idiot says the Holy Spirit is inept and incapable of keeping one Pope on the right track because that Pope doesn’t accept the “Sola Yourselfa” doctrine that says the same inept and incapable Holy Spirit leads millions of people to tens of thousands of different interpretations of Scripture.”
If the Holy Spirit is the basis for staying on track - as it is in the way your post posits this argument - then the pope’s interpretation is no better nor worse than the millions of people and tens of thousands of interpretations. Frankly, I have never personally heard anyone make the argument you posit, so I must treat it as a straw man argument.
The more important issue is that every believer does indeed have the Holy Spirit according to Scripture. Nowhere is there the position of Pope as a church office.
“Such idiots are denying their own doctrine every time they insist the Holy Spirit can’t protect the Truth and their proof is that someone who likewise claims to be led by the Holy Spirit doesn’t agree with them. “
Twice you used the pejorative “idiot”. In my experience, posters typically do this when they run out of cogent arguments. You typically post more tight arguments, which I appreciate. Admittedly, I rarely agree with your posted arguments, but they are usually better than this resort to adhominem in this post.
In any case, thank you for posting.
Blessings to you.
Oh I now, first John the Baptist was a liar, then Jesus.
Baptism is not necessary, only that you say you are born again! Don’t have to get anywhere near water. Well I know it’s true, since Pentacostal Jimmy Swaggart said so this morning.
Dear NKP,
You wrote, “Oh I now, first John the Baptist was a liar, then Jesus.
Baptism is not necessary, only that you say you are born again! Don’t have to get anywhere near water. Well I know it’s true, since Pentacostal Jimmy Swaggart said so this morning.”
I’m going to set aside your conversation concerning baptism and salvation, since this thread is about neither.
If you would like to discuss the need for baptism for salvation, why don’t you start a new thread and ping me?
best.
Why are you watching Jimmy Swaggart???
It's no straw-man nor is the FACT that the same base of doctrine that espouses, Sola Yourselfa, swears and insists that avowed anti-Christ Pharisees at a mythical council made up of the same people who preach that Mary was a whore and Jesus Christ is burning in Hell are the proper authority on what should be in the Old Testament.
People who prefer the Pharisees to Christ, the Apostles, and all Christians prior to Luther think anything they don't want to deal with honestly is a "straw-man" so they can change the subject and ignore reality.
Christianity changed the world, history proves Protestantism and derivitives are changed by the world.
have a nice day
Thank you for sharing your opinions. I will try to keep my response brief...
“People who believe the Holy Spirit allowed entire books of the Scripture that were not inspired to be included in the Septuagint all the way through the 1500s don’t really believe in the Holy Spirit other than an excuse for their own personal interpretation of Scripture.
The Jewish canon never included some newer books were included in the Septuagint. They were kept separate for a reason. These new books were referred to as anagignoskomena in Greek, because they never included in the Jewish canon.
“It’s no straw-man nor is the FACT that the same base of doctrine that espouses, Sola Yourselfa, swears and insists that avowed anti-Christ Pharisees at a mythical council made up of the same people who preach that Mary was a whore and Jesus Christ is burning in Hell are the proper authority on what should be in the Old Testament.”
Really Rashputin? This is your argument? If you are going to make an argument by pulling in way out beliefs as a straw man in your discussion with me, it will be a short and useless interaction. I do not believe blessed Mary was a whore. I do not believe Jesus Christ is burning in hell. It isn’t even worth discussing something that is a false argument.
“People who prefer the Pharisees to Christ, the Apostles, and all Christians prior to Luther think anything they don’t want to deal with honestly is a “straw-man” so they can change the subject and ignore reality.”
Again, false argument. I am not disagreeing with Christ, the Apostles and am not preferring the Pharisees. Nor preferring Luther for that matter. Nor am I changing the subject.
“Christianity changed the world.”
We agree there. The rest is a non-argument, presented by a chorus of fake straw men. You’re off your game today.
"If you are going to make an argument by pulling in way out beliefs as a straw man in your discussion with me, it will be a short and useless interaction. I do not believe blessed Mary was a whore. I do not believe Jesus Christ is burning in hell. It isn’t even worth discussing something that is a false argument."
ROTFLOL, the usual which amounts to:
"Point out the glaring contradictions in what I say and I'll take my toys and go home"
Don't agree with such folks, but insist that a fictional council of people who do believe Mary was a whore and Christ is in Hell are the ones who the Holy Spirit leads to knowing what should be considered the inspired Word of God. In fact, they know better what should be in the OT canon than Christ, the Apostles, and all Christians prior to your favorite Protestant revolutionary came along. That's what your argument boils down to.
So, you insist such folks are the proper authority in spiritual matters properly discerning the Truth because the Holy Spirit that governs Sola Yourselfa tells you those folks were correct and therefore the Holy Spirit must be guiding those folks as well. They know what is the inspired Word of God except when they don't know what's the inspired Word of God? They know the proper interpretation of Scripture except when they don't? And who is the judge? Why, the Self and Self Alone; the real basis for Protestantism and all that grew out of it.
Yeah, don't believe in anything that isn't convenient at the moment is the real bottom line for Sola Yourselfa folks and it's getting more clear that's the case with each attempt at changing the subject.
People who do not believe the Holy Spirit could protect the Holy Word of God from the inclusion of error don't believe in the Holy Spirit as anything other than a convenient excuse.
Either the Holy Spirit was right for the first seventeen hundred or so years that the Old Testament included books Protestants threw out or the Holy Spirit isn't an all powerful part of the Holy Trinity. Period.
People who toss out part of the Bible are tossing out the Trinity right along with the portions of Scripture they shed whether the strong delusion they're under lets them realize it or not. No wonder it's so easy for people like Rick Warren and Glen Beck to slide toward Chrislam. They've thrown out part of Scripture and/or added to Scripture to suit their personal delusion which means they've already denied the Holy Trinity just like a good Muzzie does.
Throw out Scripture to begin with and it's all downhill from there as the history of Protestantism clearly proves.
have a nice day
**while some poor guy who married a whore or some poor woman who married an abuser are denied.**
****Not true UNLESS they remarry.****
Exactly my point. If some poor guy who married a whore or some poor woman who married an abuser get divorced and then remarry-they are denied communion.
If they are democrat politician who supports abortion and homosexual marriage they are welcomed.
Something wrong with that IMHO.
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.
“Don’t agree with such folks, but insist that a fictional council of people who do believe Mary was a whore and Christ is in Hell are the ones who the Holy Spirit leads to knowing what should be considered the inspired Word of God.”
No, I do not. I don’t even know who these people you refer to are. If they are fictional, are you making them up yourself, or are you identifying actual people and calling them fictional. You’ve lost me. Please clarify. Also please identify your characters, real or fictional. Also please identify where I have either known or supported these real or fictional characters. If you can do so, it will simplify our interaction. If you cannot, you are repeating the unknowable for some reason.
“In fact, they know better what should be in the OT canon than Christ, the Apostles, and all Christians prior to your favorite Protestant revolutionary came along. That’s what your argument boils down to.”
I do not know who “they” are as I mentioned above.
Christ (in His earthly ministry) nor the Apostles identified the canon of Scripture.
I have no favorite “Protestant revolutionary. Nor a favorite group of revolutionaries.
Ergo, it is not my argument, but one you appear to be trying to foist upon me.
“So, you insist such folks”
No, I’ve neither referred to nor identified “such folks” as ones I agree with, let alone “insist.”
“are the proper authority in spiritual matters properly discerning the Truth because the Holy Spirit that governs Sola Yourselfa tells you those folks were correct and therefore the Holy Spirit must be guiding those folks as well.”
This is some kind of alternative universe or reality you are putting forth. I’ve never argued such. Don’t know where you got this idea. Please point to something grounded in reality, or there is nothing to discuss. So far, you have discussed nothing.
“They know what is the inspired Word of God except when they don’t know what’s the inspired Word of God?”
“they” again, whoever “they” are.
“They know the proper interpretation of Scripture except when they don’t?”
“they?”
“And who is the judge?”
At least your post hits on a question that is important.
“Why, the Self and Self Alone; the real basis for Protestantism and all that grew out of it.”
Apparently, you are advocating a binary view of either the pope or millions. This is not my world nor my argument.
“Yeah, don’t believe in anything that isn’t convenient at the moment is the real bottom line for Sola Yourselfa folks and it’s getting more clear that’s the case with each attempt at changing the subject.”
You will have to take it up with them. I’ve not changed the subject once in my interaction with you. In your post however, you’ve veered from the topic of the thread, to an imaginary group of people, the pope, protestant revolutionaries, etc.
“People who do not believe the Holy Spirit could protect the Holy Word of God from the inclusion of error don’t believe in the Holy Spirit as anything other than a convenient excuse.”
I believe He did protect the Word from the inclusion of error. It took time. He protected Israel. That didn’t mean there weren’t times they went into captivity.
“Either the Holy Spirit was right for the first seventeen hundred or so years that the Old Testament included books Protestants threw out or the Holy Spirit isn’t an all powerful part of the Holy Trinity. Period.”
I find this argument to lack most qualities that make a tight argument. I can tell you are convinced.
“People who toss out part of the Bible are tossing out the Trinity right along with the portions of Scripture they shed whether the strong delusion they’re under lets them realize it or not.”
I don’t believe a part of the Bible was tossed out.
“No wonder it’s so easy for people like Rick Warren and Glen Beck to slide toward Chrislam. They’ve thrown out part of Scripture and/or added to Scripture to suit their personal delusion which means they’ve already denied the Holy Trinity just like a good Muzzie does.”
You will have to take this up with them.
“Throw out Scripture to begin with and it’s all downhill from there as the history of Protestantism clearly proves.”
I do not believe this happened, but I see your post is quite stuck upon it.
“have a nice day “
To you too.
Have a nice day
Our Father who art in Heaven,
Hallowed be thy name;
Thy kingdom come
Thy will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread;
And forgive us our trespasses
As we forgive those who trespass against us;
And lead us not into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
Hail Mary, Full of grace, the Lord
is with thee. Blessed art thou among
women, and blessed is the fruit of thy
womb, Jesus. Holy Mary, Mother of God
pray for us sinners, now and at the hour
of our death.
Glory be to the Father and to the
Son and to the Holy Spirit. As it
was in the beginning is now, and
ever shall be, world without end,
Amen.
“Thanks for the laughs. Have a nice day “
Indeed! Please pop around again for tea and crumpets and do bring your anonymous group of characters. I would still enjoy meeting them.
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.