Posted on 03/18/2015 6:21:18 AM PDT by RnMomof7
5056 télos (a neuter noun) – properly, consummation (the end-goal, purpose), such as closure with all its results.
“...to everyone that believes.”
Not to everyone who joins a cult.
That doctrine is not in Holy Scripture, so it fails its own test.
It's also not possible in practice of determining doctrine. You take the place of the Church in determining doctrine on your own authority or according to your own tradition.
Well, if that’s the case, a lot of other Knights will have to be purged along with me. Have fun enforcing theological correctness. If ever you are interested, we can discuss some of these issues one at a time. Although I’m not a fan of the current Pope, he is in agreement with much of my thinking on compulsory clerical celibacy. Have him excommunicated too while you’re at it. Have fun.
Just yourself. You determine doctrine on your own authority or according to your own tradition.
“That is another way to look at your cult.” - Resettozero
“I only attack statements and beliefs of the Catholicism.” - CynicalBear
“Not to everyone who joins a cult.” - Resettozero
This thread has descended in the profane. There is no conversation here, only attack. No thank you. Good day.
Whose dog just yelped?
Thanks for your kind words and your referral to some of these authors. I deeply appreciate it. However, I think it would be nice if some individuals including yourself could make the supporting arguments for various doctrines, practices, and beliefs yourselves. I have read many books on Church History, religion, theology, etc. from both Catholic and non-Catholic authors alike. If you study the Church’s policy of compulsory clerical celibacy for example, you will see that the policy was not always in place and it took the Church many centuries to implement and institutionalize it. You will also note there is no requirement for compulsory clerical celibacy in the Bible, and quite to the contrary, priest were married men in the Bible and they were expected to be married. Fact is Church policies, rules, regulations, dogma, doctrines, discipline, rituals, and liturgy are always subject to change and modification. Look no further than Vatican II for proof of that. It doesn’t matter whether you agree with Vatican II or not. Fact remains the Church adopted and implemented and significantly changed a number of its rules and policies. The Bible always remains the word of God, but Church policies are always subject to change.
BTW, you quoted me incorrectly.
“When a man chooses to take the calling of the priesthood he is aware of what he is giving up.”
Says who?
According to St. Paul:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
These are Paul’s requirements for service in the clergy. Works for me!
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
And yet you can't give any other infallible source for what the apostles taught.
Sadly.
If you look at the history behind it, you can understand why the Church took this rule. It was a good one that answered an even bigger problem. Again, this is a rule and a discipline, not a doctrine.
Ultimately, this conversation comes down to authority. Who has it? How is it exercised? Jesus is the Son of David as well as the Son of God. He sits on the Throne of David or else God's promise to David was not fulfilled. Around Him are His ministers for the administration of His Kingdom. Among them is the Prime Minister who bears the authority of the King that what he binds is bound and what he looses is loosed. This authority is explained in Isaiah 22 and echoed in Matt 16 to St Peter.
If the Church has the authority of binding and loosing and we are members of the Kingdom of God, then there is real authority for administration of the Kingdom. As you said, some rules have changed. If there is authority at all, there is authority to change rules and rituals. Where the Church has been absolutely consistent is in doctrine and dogma. These have never changed and only developed as the Church has heard the inspiration of the Spirit.
I offer some previous posts for more on the subject of Church authority:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2746890/posts?page=114#114
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2747272/posts?page=114#114
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2999692/posts?page=153#153
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2853144/posts?page=71#71
God bless you.
Sorry, ”Scripture is sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine” is not in the verses you posted.
I say look no further than St. Paul:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach.”
1 Timothy 3:2
This works. I agree with it. Why change it?
According to you on your authority.
many other non-RCs agree with this method
True. Does your doctrine derived by the same method agree with theirs? Is yours in agreement with Calvinists? On how many points? Or, contrarily, does yours agree with Arminianism? Does yours agree with the sola scriptura Baptist on paedobaptism or with the sola scriptura Lutherans?
Or is your sola scriptura doctrine uniquely your own?
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.