Posted on 05/18/2015 6:05:47 PM PDT by Old Yeller
For years, growing up as a Roman Catholic, we were taught that we were members of the one true church. It was impressed upon us regularly by the parish priest during Mass while giving his homily; by the nuns all throughout my Catholic parochial school years of second through seventh grade.
It was impressed upon us during our preparation to receive for the first time the sacraments of Penance, Communion and Confirmation. And while attending CCD classes all the way through high school. (CCD is the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, an association established at Rome in 1562 for the purpose of giving religious education, normally designed for children.)
It was an established fact that we understood and we never questioned the validity of it. And to be honest, it was a matter of pride, that we were privileged enough to be members of the correct church, while all others had belonged to something else that didn’t quite measure up to the status of the Roman Catholic Church.
After all, how could it be possible that Roman Catholicism is not the one true church?
Look at what Rome has to offer: It has the priests, the nuns; the bishops; the cardinals; and of course, the Pope. They have the Sacraments; the statues; the holy water; the incense; the Stations of the Cross; the Eucharist - in which Chris supposedly physically manifests Himself into the wafer after the consecration by the priest during the Mass; the Marian apparitions—which appear mainly to Roman Catholics.
And they have the Vatican, where the Vicar of Christ (who they believe is Christ’s representative on earth), governs the faithful and makes infallible proclamations and doctrine. How can this not be the one true church? No other organization on the face of the earth comes close to offering to its flock what Rome provides for its faithful.
But, of course, to be true, one must adhere to what has been established as truth and not teach or practice what is contrary to the truth. We read in Scripture a few passages that declare what is truth and what is not. Jesus proclaimed in John 14:6:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by me.”
>>>“Thank you for making my argument for me. The epistle of James is not canonical.”
Anybody espousing that belief is a heretic.<<<
Perhaps you can help out Steelfish, whom I have been badgering for official RC explanations to James’ contradictions of other Bible authors. You can find my posts throughout this thread.
Yet, Paul DID receive direct revelation from the Lord Jesus Christ. For example:
Don't misunderstand, I'm not at all dismissing the importance of the passing on orally of the truths Jesus taught, just that such oral "traditions" are not above the Scriptures and all such tenets of the Christian faith - those held to be binding upon a follower of Christ - should have their basis and proof from the revealed word, the Holy Scriptures. Relying solely upon humans to preserve revealed truths by an oral passing on of teachings/traditions is inferior to the written Scriptures and is why we can thank Almighty God that it is HE who has ensured we still have them to this day.
Here’s a nice one to add: “...I will come to visionS and revelationS of the Lord”. 2 Cor. 12:1. Plural visions and revelations
More specifically, and accurately in this instance, a heretic is one who denies the Word of God, the original canon as laid out by the Early Christians, via the Apostles, and their successors.
All Christians until the 16th century accepted the full canon as determined by the Catholic Church, and even today, most Protestants still accept the NT canon as the Catholic Church defined it.
All Christians until the 16th century accepted the full canon as determined by the Catholic Church, and even today, most Protestants still accept the NT canon as the Catholic Church defined it.<<<
I do not deny the Word of God. I deny that the epistle of James is the Word of God. I have provided ample evidence in this thread and a previous one, and over a period of two weeks not one RC on these threads has counterargued my evidence point for point. Will you address my evidence point for point? Or will you just throw more lame appeals to authority at me, as you have just done? (Frankly, they are getting quite boring.)
You need to prove an authority has excluded this book of the Word of God.
So, by what authority do you make this claim?
I’m not interested in the DeprogramLiberalism denominations interpretation. This argument is completely about appeal to authority. What is yours?
Otherwise we are back to the silly concoction that we can not only have 30,000 different sects, but the same number of canon.
So, by what authority do you make this claim?
I’m not interested in the DeprogramLiberalism denominations interpretation. This argument is completely about appeal to authority. What is yours?
Otherwise we are back to the silly concoction that we can not only have 30,000 different sects, but the same number of canon.<<<
Such nonsense. I only need to illustrate that James does not line up with other Bible documents, which I have done with not one substantive counterargument put forth by RCs or even Protestants on this thread. You said yourself: "God’s Word does not contradict itself." The epistle of James contradicts other Bible authors on a number of important matters. By your own reasoning the epistle of James is not canonical.
Again, will you address my evidence point on point? Well, of course you won't. Because you can't. You are defeated before you even begin.
Let’s take the contrarians defenders of the Protestant heresy one by one.
BLUEDRAGON takes issue with Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical, a tenured professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex, was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians who resigned and rejoined the Catholic Church.
Why? Because after having reviewed the materials from both sides, he changes his position and reverts to Catholicism. In other words, Beckwith cannot be trusted. One wonders what BLUEDRAGON would say about Ulf Elkman and Richard Neuhaus.
Ulf Ekman, the founder of Scandinavia’s biggest Bible school, with a congregation of some 4000 individuals, converted to Catholicism because his theological inquiry confirmed for him the indispensability of the Catholic sacraments.
Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, was a pre-eminent Lutheran theologian in America. He knew his Bible-text and history like no other Protestant having taught and written extensively on the subject. When he converted to Catholicism he said, “I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time.”
DANIEL1212 produces a stack of comments to confirm that Catholicism requires unwavering obedience to its doctrines. But this is an unremarkable finding. Catholicism is not open to picking and choosing in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer divided itself into some 30,000 sects and keeps subdividing itself. Just as one cannot pick and choose to believe in the writings of one Evangelist versus another, (whose writings from hundreds of scripts were culled and presented as the authentic word of God in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority), one cannot as a true Catholic accept some part of Catholic doctrine and dispense with others.
Doctrinal menu selection is not how Petrine authority works. Christ, taught ONE coherent truth and this is why He established ONE Church and entrusted the Great Commission to go forth and “teach.” This is why St. Paul speaks of “obedience” to faith and teaching (Romans 6:17).
This implies not only that we cannot have different “teachers” from Billy Graham to David Koresh and your corner street Foursquare Church pastor all offering “different versions” of God’s worth, but that Catholic doctrine is a unified whole, and departures from it must of necessity be labeled a heresy.
DANIEL1212 however hails this division without realizing that he is talking about a division of “truth.” In support of this division he offers this pure piece of nonsense. He says that: “division produced Godly men such as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moody, Edwards, etc. Which are desperately needed today.” It escapes him that heretics, like atheists, Hindus, Rastafarian, can all lead good lives. They also all reject the Eucharistic Presence of Christ and the transubstantiation that occurs during the Sacrifice of The Mass, a centerpiece of Catholic doctrine.
Take for example Jay Richard. He is a senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. Richards holds a Master of Divinity degree, a Master of Theology degree and a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. Read him speak about his transformation from Calvinist to Catholic.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/discovery-institute-fellow-is-dedicated-to-christian-unity/
aMOREPERFECTUNION insists that we post these “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church. The canon of the Bible may be the BEST example of Sacred Tradition that the Catholic Church is the Bible itself because nowhere in the Bible does it say what the canon is. We need to rely on Sacred Tradition that tells us what the canon is. Without Sacred Tradition, we have no way of knowing what is inspired Scripture and what is not.
A fuller explanation of this Sacred Tradition is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 74-95, 113
REDLEGHUNTER offers his version that St. Mary Magdalena of the Cross- a Catholic mystic made a pact with the devil. He offers this to prove that her beliefs were no different than those of David Koresh. Seriously?
DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM offers his “own” books on Meta-Christianity to refute Catholic doctrine and poses a series of questions about differences of opinion between James and Peter and Paul. He forgets the very genesis of this confusion. It’s an old Protestant theme used to undermine Petrine authority. This has been answered over and over again. But here’s a basic refutation.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html
If more is needed perhaps try reading some books by Benedict XVI, called the theological Einstein of our times. Maybe get a copy of Benedict XVI, “The Early Apostles.”
EDITOR-SURVEYOR seems to think that Christ is not true man and true God. The early Church Fathers buried this Arian heresy. Indeed, what was formerly a Jewish Sabbath of Saturday observed for centuries was now the First Day of the Week. An earth-shattering and profound change in custom and practice is what Benedict XVI offers as one of the many proofs of Christ’s bodily resurrection. Without a belief in the triune God, references to Yeshua is meaningless rot.
COMMERCECOMET scolds RBMILLERJR because apparently his comment of a “great post” was not directed to the contrarians. At least that much is obvious.
BOATBUMS attempts to minimize the Catholic intellectual tradition. For this he cites scripture: Corinthians 1:25 “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength,” is yet another supreme example of why Protestantism thrives in shallow waters.
This quote has everything to with the paradox of the cross. The verses preceding 1:25 puts the selected quote in context. “For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
This is the same BOATBUMS who a while ago posted this:
“There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start. Creeds, on the other hand, HAVE changed as well as their interpretation on each point.”
The dozen Bible Churches in your town have different pastors and each unlike the Joel Osteens, TD Jakes, and Jimmy Swaggarts all provide different interpretations of God’s word. I suspect they don’t have a Credo or a Catechism.
Reviewing these posts by Bible Christians make it impossible to disagree with Dr. A. David Anders, a born and raised Bible Christian and a Wheaton-educated Protestant historian who after several years of intense study converted to Catholicism and wrote: “Protestantism is a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.”
.
No, the ‘church’ was never a sect of Judaism.
Judaism, an invention of men, was what was hung on the cross, in favor of Torah, the way of God.
That prevailed until the end of the apostolic age, with the death of John around 94 AD.
At that time the mystery of Iniquity began its march to victory over a period of two and a half centuries. It has been in control from that point onward.
.
Yawn - more obfuscation...
By the way, my books were not written to specifically refute RC doctrine - but they do anyway, along with a lot of Protestant doctrines as well.
.
>>”Indeed, what was formerly a Jewish Sabbath of Saturday observed for centuries was now the First Day of the Week” <<
.
Typical error of ignorance.
The only ‘first day’ worship that the early and true assembly ever respected was held at the beginning of that “work day” on what you Romans call Saturday evening. it was a potluck dinner and Bible study, called Havdalah.
The “mystery of iniquity” eventually brought about the serious depredation of that true worship.
That’s not how The early Apostles saw it. Read, Benedict XVI, The Early Church. It’s heavily footnoted just like the scholar he is.
I agree. Jesus used the past tense of the word "love" because He was teaching a truth - that God so (in this manner) loved (past tense) the world that He GAVE (also past tense) His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him will not perish but have (present, continuous) everlasting life. (John 3:16)
Jesus was teaching that this was how God demonstrated His love for mankind by giving Jesus (who HAD been born) to be the Savior and that all those who would believe in Him would not perish in hell but have eternal life.
I hope this isn't a parsing of words exercise in argumentum ad infinitum. It's really simple, actually.
Well of course. So anything reasoning that contradicts your “meta-Christianity” is either wrong or a “yawn” (now that’s a real argument).
Sorry, but I’ll take Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, or Benedict XVI whose writing fill the shelves of university theological libraries any day before I spend a minute on any other sophomoric screed.
What "reasoning" - what "contradicts"?!? You have presented no counterarguments at all.
>>>Sorry, but I’ll take Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, or Benedict XVI whose writing fill the shelves of university theological libraries any day before I spend a minute on any other sophomoric screed.<<<
I never expected that you would. Just like I have never expected you to actually put forth substantive counterarguments, because you don't have any. I am simply using you to post things that may be of interest to others. Your arguments have been empty of substance from the beginning and will never contain any. You have a hollow belief system that you have let others fill, devoid of the most important ingredient in determining facts and truth - skepticism. Skepticism means having to know all sides of an argument. When one says black and another says white, the only way to determine which to accept and which to reject is to investigate both black and white. Intransigence is blindly choosing one to the exclusion of the other. You have more faith in mere men than in the Scriptures. So sad...
You continue to fall back on your arguments by assertion and arguments based on authority, yet these defenses have been refuted numerous times. Do you imagine no one can remember back that far? Do you imagine your arguments are enhanced by insulting those with whom you debate? You keep referring to a "shallow waters" or the inference that no non-Catholic is capable of deep theological thought. I, too, can prance out a list of numerous powerhouses of the Protestant/Evangelical faith, lists of former Roman Catholics who converted to Protestant/Evangelicalism and a litany of the tomes of their writings that could match up to anyone you might presume is the prime example of a "really, really smart person", but that isn't the point, is it?
This quote has everything to with the paradox of the cross. The verses preceding 1:25 puts the selected quote in context. “For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
No, this has WAY more to do with human capacity for intellect than just the world's view of the cross. Because God HAS chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, the weak things to bewilder the mighty, we ALL may know that the glory for all things is God's. You trot out your roster of smart people as if we should just surrender to anything they say because they just must be right seeing they are so smart and all, but you cannot honestly deny that some of the most brilliant people who ever lived were deniers of God, rejecting His authority and placing themselves as the epitome of human thinking and accomplishments. Scripture tells us God laughs in derision at such men, that those who profess themselves wise are really fools. Is there a place for wisdom in men and women of God? Of course! God grants wisdom to those who seek it from Him. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, let's not forget.
So, how do we know who is wise in God's eyes? Those who seek Him, to know Him, to love and serve Him. He mocks those who mock, but gives grace to the humble. (Proverbs 3:34) So, that's why I minimize not just the Catholic intellectual "tradition" but ANY tradition that rests on it's laurels and presumes the "little people" will be awed and amazed at their brilliance that they swallow whole whatever is spun by them. Without reliance upon the word of God, it's all just human wisdom, which can be foolishness. I find it quite curious how much you cherry pick the writings of these Catholic stalwarts. You skipped right on past that paragraph from Benedict on the sad state of the Catholic hierarchy leading up to the Reformation. I guess it must be difficult to see one's bubble burst? That ones' Rome-colored glasses are quite smudged.
This is the same BOATBUMS who a while ago posted this: “There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start. Creeds, on the other hand, HAVE changed as well as their interpretation on each point.” The dozen Bible Churches in your town have different pastors and each unlike the Joel Osteens, TD Jakes, and Jimmy Swaggarts all provide different interpretations of God’s word. I suspect they don’t have a Credo or a Catechism.
Every time you trot this out, it only shows how shallow your own little knowledge pool is. I'm beginning to think you would drown in that deep end you so like to boast of. Do you imagine that the dozens of Catholic priests, bishops, popes and lay people don't also have their own personal interpretations of God's word? Tell me, has the Roman Catholic church EVER produced a comprehensive Bible commentary? Has the official catechism of the Catholic church guaranteed that NO Catholic thinks outside of the magesterium-built box? Sure, you can claim all you want that the tenets of the Catholic religion are spelled out in this document, but you cannot in all honesty claim it has brought about "unity" of belief. There IS such a thing as absolute truth - and it's true whether anyone believes it or not. God's truth, as revealed in His sacred word, is that truth and as long as someone is seeking to know it, God will reward him. This was understood from the start. God's word is truth. It stands as an unmovable rock. Whatever little "extras" man adds to his religion either doesn't matter or makes the difference between salvation or condemnation. We should major on the major things, not the minor things. Keep the main thing the main thing. I repeat, “There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start. Can Catholicism claim this?
Do you imagine non-Catholic Christians are ignorant of the writings of the "early church fathers"? How many times have we presented their words to dispute the false assertion of modern Catholics that they hold the SAME faith as the early church? Do you want to go around THAT carousel again? All you have is bluster and swagger as if you are clinging to the shirt tails of those whom you admire and can garner some of their "glory" by praising them. It is so transparent that you don't seem to do much thinking of your own. Perhaps that is why you lash out at others while never addressing the actual questions posed to you. Great men of God were never afraid to do that because they knew that TRUE wisdom comes from above.
No.
No.
No, more like institutional disobedience. Lawlessness.
Did Yahovah REALLY say... ??
And thus easy to dismiss whole: For the only standard to determine the truth of a doctrine, or a prophet, or anything else, is whether it keeps Torah.
I "took issue" with Beckwith, by quoting him?
That is absurd.
The portion I was quoting from Beckwith refuted a central tenet of your own positions, not my own.
I was agreeing with him, as far as that went...
That should have been obvious.
Among that which you continued with, is this little bit of mind-reading/attributing of motive;
In other words?
No, there is no "in other words", as far as my own words went. Those other words are YOUR words, not my own.
One would have had to be a mind reader, or an actual prophet of God, to be able to "see" into myself in such way that you could attribute motive/mind read, etc., in the ways which you just did (as has been a long habit of yours for doing).
If yourself not claiming prophecy, or else having prophetic insight (you don't have it, at this juncture -- maybe some other time you may?) until then; refrain from attributing motive, mind reading, and the 'ol "in other words" wherein you try to put words into the mouths of others.
That sort of discussion/debate tactic leads to flame wars.
But hey, if that's all you've got, then I've already won this round, and will continue on course of my own long string of minor victories, for what those are worth (not all that much, in the larger scheme of things). It's like taking candy from a baby.
It is yourself who appears, or seems to be saying that Beckwith should not be trusted.
One need not follow Beckwith all the way to his own reverting back to Roman Catholicism, in order to rightfully enough quote him, in part, as for a narrower issue.
I was "trusting" Beckwith as far as his own estimation of the preaching aptitude of so-called Protestant evangelicals.
It appears to me that it is yourself who is being dismissive of Beckwith...
Here is what I was refuting, of your own words;
And here is your own witness, Francis Beckwith, testifying against that [quoted immediately above] statement of yours [underlining, bolding, and enlarging for emphasis, my own]; But these evangelicals do so by using contemporary language and addressing contemporary concerns. This will help Catholics understand the reasoning behind the classical doctrines. In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world. For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith. "...Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the Church Fathers that developed the catholic creeds as well as the Church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s Word.
source=http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2772
Obviously, Beckwith strongly disagrees with your own frequently repeated, and insulting estimations of "Protestant' scholarship.
I can agree with him, as far as that goes...
Yet, it is not fine philosophy and scholarship which can lead one to God, but His own drawing of a man (or woman) to Himself.
There truly is not other Way.
Even your own Church ecclesiastical association agrees with that estimation..well...at least since some time after the Protestant Reformation forced the issue(s), and considerations as for that (how one comes to the Lord -- not by their own will, but by the will of God) had to be re-aligned closer to the treatments of the subject as it is written, in Holy Scripture.
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.