Old image ---New image
Posted on 04/28/2015 8:36:56 AM PDT by RnMomof7
or bad ones?
Type once: copy&paste forever
When I was in school it was GENDER...
Jesus, not Peter, is the rock
On this fact there is a lock
No need for to worry
My friends on the jury
Will witness to the salvation He wrought.
|
Are you still arguing over words? -- GOD |
Or any old ones. Anything with a good message. 😂😱
LOL!
Once again you are simply reiterating RC polemics which were examinedand still await a response from you.
Does this mean that Christ's Church has no disciplinary authority? The answers to your specific question here is that this text affirms that Christ's Church has disciplinary authority, which flows from the OT.
However, the question asked before im regards to this remains, Why does this authority necessitate perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, whenever it speaks according to Rome's formula, which excludes the possibility of valid dissent from it?
So this goes unanswered, I will provide the answer, which is that it does not, as Scripture manifestly teaches that ensured magisterial infallibility is not necessary for authority, or discernment of Truth or preservation of faith.
And in fact, the church actually began contrary to the Roman basis for discernment of Truth, with common souls having recognized both men and writings of God as being so, essentially in the light of their unique enduring Heavenly qualities and attestation.
And follow itinerant preachers who established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the historical magisterium, which you have invoked for support of Rome's.
Or does you mean that Christ's Church has no doctrinal authority?
Actually, Mt. 18:15-18 refers to judicial judgments on personal disputes, while the spiritual power extends to all believers, as also in Ja. 5. But in principal it affirms magisterial judgment, and Westminster states,
"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
Thus once again the issue remains that is not magisterial authority that is at issue, but perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is not promised or provided, but which Rome reads into Scripture based upon fallacious premises and presuppositions.
St. Paul calls the church, "the pillar and foundation of truth."
And thus as asked before of you when you posted this polemical proof text, the question remains, "So where is this text infallibly interpreted to mean Rome possesses perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility? Or even as requiring assent as meaning what you invoke it for?"
And in any case, "how does 8 words in Greek, (church living God pillar and ground the truth), one of which only occurs here, with both pillar and ground denoting support, translate into the church being the supreme infallible authority on Truth?"
This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice
Indeed, but since the NT church began in dissent from them, then how does this support the ensured magisterial infallibility of Rome, which excludes valid dissent, rather than upholding the principle of the magisterial authority?
If you want to argue for the latter, i will concur, even towards a centralized one as the ideal, but that simply does not support the elitist cultic claims of the church RCs seem bound to defend at any cost to credulity.
n this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who "bind heavy burdens and lay them on men's shoulders,
You failed to the source of this proffered polemic, which as SR points out used the discredited Pseudo-Clementine Writings yet this also only affirms the validity of the magisterial office, and also affirms the validity of dissent from it by itinerant preachers based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. .
Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: "Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained."
Wrong, and which is simply to much RC propaganda. The judgment of the OT magisterium was binding, disobedience even being a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) and to not absolve a person in his case was to leave him guilty. There is nothing radically new here, or anything requiring ensured infallibility for authority, any more than there was before.
And the manifest example of binding and loosing in the NT reveals that its spiritual aspect of binding/loosing souls extends to all righteous believers, such as offer fervent prayer like Elijah, who bound the heavens from raining for 3.5 years and loosed them again. (Ja. 5:16-18) Even though such prophets were persecuted by those in power whom they reproved, as has been the case in the history of the church of Rome.
The binding and loosing was also that of Peter indicting two liars to the church, unto death, (Acts 5) and Paul, together with the church delivering an impenitent incestuous man over to the devil for chastisement, (1Cor. 5) as well as personally doing so to two heretics. (1Tim. 1:10)
Meanwhile, the text RCs invoke for support of their practice of forgiving sins is supposed to be promising healing, (Ja,. 5:14,15) while instead it is usually a precursor of death.
In reality, Rome has basically bound multitudes from personally reading Scripture for centuries (while many of her note mislead them to this day), and loosed the unholy sword of men upon those who did or enabled it, among others tortured and or murdered simply for theological deviations. Which early Prots had to unlearn.
“The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach." --Jesus
In-credible. Unless you simply want to support the authority of the magisterial office, which was never an ensured infallible one, then by invoking this to support submission to Rome's infallible magisterium which excludes dissent, then you invalidate the very NT church which began in dissent from it, and asked the very questions you do! (Mk. 11:28-33)
Which would not be the first time RCs made use of fabrications that fooled others for some time .
Thank God for your catching it.
a “keeper” thanks Daniel
At least you made a response. Note that "a RC is not presuming what Rome presumes of her popes, that of possessing a charism of personal infallibility," was sppsd to say "a Prot is not presuming what Rome presumes..."
For that "without a pope, everyone is a pope" is repeated Roman rhetoric which is manifestly contrary to what Rome defines a pope to be, while RCs decide on who to believe and what they mean.
Amen
What Catholics fail to realize is that they are doing what they condemn everyone else who doesn't submit to Rome of doing.
They are, all on their own, using their own personal interpretation, deciding who or what is correct and incorrect.
If they decide that Catholicism is correct, it's because they have read and chosen to believe that Catholicism is correct, using their own personal interpretation of what they've heard.
Oh man.......that opens a can of worms that probably shouldn't be opened......
OSAS.....that allows you to have a "good time" without feeling guilty.....I'm beginning to like protestantism more and more as these pposts go on!!!!!
Now all I have to do is completely deny my accusative conscience....that inner voice that says "you are married, don't even think about it"...or perhaps that nagging voice which says "I know that you'd like to have that.....no one would ever find out about it, but it belongs to someone else....
If I knew that I could pull all the shenanigans that I wanted to, and have no guilt at all....WOW....that staid, old, Catholic church....what do they know?????
Those are pancake embryos...just need a little more time to mature....but still pancakes/ :-)
Billions of Catholics think that it is correct.....1 you thinks it is wrong......O.K.
So you equate the phrase *good time* with sinful behavior?
A person with a regenerate spirit and a renewed mind of Christ would not automatically equate the two.
Projection sure is an interesting thing....
You and "I"....I was correct...you didn't pay attention in Catholic school....too busy enjoying sinning!!!! :-))
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.