Posted on 05/24/2015 1:57:09 PM PDT by RnMomof7
Good grief.....so many errors in one post.
Catholics love to repeat their made up claims. Too bad they’re not based in facts.
How much scripture does your church read weekly? Ours is daily.
I'd make a couple points, well three.
I don't think you meant this post for me. Those are not MY words at the opening of your post.
The first sentence is not a question but it ends with a question mark. Could you clarify?
Re. vvs. 34 and 35- I'd say, "Red herring." I can give you the circumstances, the context, and the historical perspective that led Paul to write the letter but it's not relevant to the discussion.
"the word of truth" refers to all of Scripture in general (John 17:17), and the gospel message in particular (Eph. 1:13; Col. 1:5).
The thought is that the minister of the gospel is to present the truth rightly, not abridging it, not handling it as a charlatan (see on 2 Corinthians 2:17), not making it a matter of wordy strife verse 14), but treating it honestly and fully, in a straightforward manner. (copied directly from Vincent's Word Study)
Is it your claim that you are ONLY to rightly divide the OT?
For me, I study ALL of the scripture because it is His Word. The Old Testament SCREAMS OUT our need for a Savior... And declares God's plan for mankind. (Even to include salvation by grace - not works - to put a fine point on the matter.)
I'd say MOST times when articles like this are posted it is because someone hates the accursed and perverted gospel that became associated with Roman Catholicism over the centuries. But, Catholicism is certainly not alone in this as there are numerous cults and false religions out there.
Sometimes, too, people have to attack the motives of the one posting such an article because they cannot dispute what the article says. RnMomof7 as well as many of us left the false religion called Roman Catholicism because our hearts were illuminated by the Holy Spirit to the true gospel of the grace of God and the assurance He gives to all those who place their trust in Christ of eternal salvation NOT on the basis of our merits, works or deeds, but by faith. There is no need to rationalize or justify such a decision by falsely attacking our former religion because we KNOW we have eternal life and we want to share this GOOD NEWS with all those God gives us a chance to share it with.
Catholicism - which was NOT founded by Christ - proves itself wrong on many fronts and those who are diligently seeking to know the truth will recognize this and be rewarded. Like this article explains, much of what RCs claim to be their eternal, exclusive heritage is nothing more than rationalization and justification based on errors, lies, misinformation and deception which is easily proven by the word of God, facts and history.
Then why say such things as this;
in regards to OT?
Alexandrian canon you say?
Philo, from Alexandria, (20 BC to 50 AD) never once quoted from what Jerome called Apocrypha.
Throw Jerome under the bus, along with Athanasius who was bishop of Alexandria, since his listing (prior to Jerome) does not include OT Apocrypha, which term (Apocrypha) Jerome used in regards to these books in dispute.
The one mention of Baruch in Athanasius' listing can as well be interpreted to possibly be in regards to Lamentations (of Jeremiah), being as Baruch was allegedly something of a secretary to that prophet (Jeremiah).
Flavius Josephus pretty much settled the argument in 70 AD. There are hosts of others...with the evidence being bulletproof that there were disputes from early on.
The evidence which can be presumed of Philo, and then a bit later by the documented experience of Melito of Sardis (as that comes to us through Origen and Eusebius) does not indicate that there was anything like an "Alexandrian canon" of OT which differed from what the Jews of Jerusalem (you know, the VERY JEWS whom Christ presented Himself before as sacrifice to beat all?) knew as their own corpus of Holy Writ.
You make lots of statements, presenting incredibly weak arguments, then say such as;
The "beauty of the Catholic faith" as you put it --- I understand perfectly what you mean by that, but if it is not delusional (in those parts which Reformers rejected) then at the least the parts regarding devotions and prayers directed towards "Mary", along with the office of singular papacy itself (for Rome, Alone) are most certainly NOT Apostolic.
I've seen all the arguments, thousands of times by now. The Roman Catholic apologetic for such things as Marionism and the papacy, sucks eggs (generally speaking) more often than not. I could provide examples...
It looks 'good' perhaps to those blinded by confirmation bias, but otherwise rides the short bus (scholarly speaking).
As for those two items of theological consideration, a passage which you just quoted,
Remind them of these things, charging them before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.
does well apply -- to yourself, and every single other [Roman] Catholic here at FR who preaches the RCC instead of the Gospel of Christ.
So yes, I do hope that other 'Catholics' do as you said;
BECAUSE I'M FED UP to the gills with Roman Catholic, man-garbage theology. The commentary engaged in effort to support the tangled up messes (mistaken for "beauty") are EVEN WORSE!!!
Oh, and "have a nice day".
The mute.
You literally took the words out of my mouth.
I firmly agree with your entire post! Excellent! Praise God!
Amen!
...and “Amen!”
That wasn't what you claimed. Are you really so unfamiliar with the Bible that you thought you were hearing all of it? How much of "just about completely" is 27.5%?
Indeed, but which refers to general revelation, not special express revelation, which the second half of Ps. 19 refers to:
The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes. The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever: the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them is thy servant warned: and in keeping of them there is great reward. (Psalms 19:7-11)
The word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. As is abundantly evidenced
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
Actually, you have entire RC groups who interpret RC teaching as meaning they must ignore the papacy of certain years, while those who obey "the one duty of the multitude," which is "to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," are mostly liberals.
In addition, EO Catholics (some RCs will not even call them Catholics) significantly differ with Rome. And what doctrinal unity she has is largely on paper and quite limited. Thus while claiming unity, Catholicism exists in schisms and sects,
For the problem with the cultic Roman model for authority, in which souls are induced into looking to leaders and giving assent to them above unchanging Scripture, is that when they go South, or deviate from Scripture or RC past teaching, then so do most of the people.
Thus obedience to the pope during past centuries included exterminating all Prots, which were excluded from salvation, while today the pope gives even evangelicals the embrace of brethren, based on V2. (
Some examples of contrasting teaching .)
Thus conservative RCs tend to be of the SSPX or SSPV variety, yet which are charged with being like Prots in principal, since they determine what true teaching is by interpretive examination of the evidences for it. But a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of current or any RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the self-proclaimed veracity of Rome.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.” (Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org /Tradition/faith2-10.htm]
..in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8. The Vatican Council lhttp://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/gladstone/section8.html
St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that.
prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. This doctrine is conformable to Holy Scripture: Behold, says the Lord, as clay is in the potter s hands.' Religious must leave themselves in the hands of the Superior to be moulded as she wills. St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf
Everyone becomes their own pope and interprets the same scriptures by their own partial understanding, leading to massive disputes and misunderstandings.
Actually, no one can presume personal or magisterial protection from error as popes and Rome does, while RCs either give implicit submission of mind and will to what popes and Rome does or they differ with them, and which Rome implicitly sanctions.
In addition, both what magisterial level teachings fall under (unless one provides implicit assent to all Rome says, and which is cultic, not Christian, then) , and their meanings are subject to varying degrees of interpretation, This is esp. manifest among those who take doctrine most seriously, and thus they pick and choose from V2 and modern teaching what is to be obeyed, even though they disagree among themselves over things (including whether Francis is a valid pope).
And having lost her unholy power of the sword of men, then the fruit of Rome is largely liberal, with even proabortion/sodomite pols being treated as members in life and in death.
And unlike evangelicals, RCs cannot obey the Biblical injunction to be separate from such, (2Cor. 6:14-18) but must be yoked with unless they become part of schisms or sects, while those who hold most strongly to the primary evangelical distinctive in holding Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate, basically literal word of God are the most unified in conservative basic beliefs.
Moreover, consider what your sola ecclesia model can lead to, and which further warranted the Reformation.
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/) As for comparing Rome with Prot divisions, this is an invalid comparison, as it compares one body (if quite varied in reality despite having the same theater daily/weekly) with a many which includes multitudes who do not even hold to the most primary aspect of the Reformation, while those who hold most strongly to holding Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate, basically literal word of God are the most unified in conservative basic beliefs. Meanwhile, having lost her unholy power of the sword of men, then the fruit of Rome is largely liberal, with even proabortion/sodomite pols being treated as members in life and in death. Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to the primary evangelical distinctive in holding Scripture as the wholly inspired and accurate, basically literal word of God are the most unified in conservative basic beliefs. Instead of the Roman model for assurance of Truth claims, which rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults). the NT church began because souls followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected, and whom their itinerant Leader reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (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.) What is lacking today is the manner of manifest men of God who treated Scripture as the supreme authority, in word and deed. And thus could say, ...in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
These leaders did not resort to claiming ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, but followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (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.) Under which the NT church saw its degree of limited unity of heart and basic Truths. The Biblical model has not been tried and found wanted, but wanting to be tried. Thus lacking such leadership which directed souls to Scripture as supreme, then divisions are a fitting judgment, while Rome's alternative of sola ecclesia is foreign to the NT church, and is what major cults rely on.. Every human organization requires an accountable leader. But the pope is not, as he is an autocratic head, with "full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered," (CCC 882) and who is judged by no one. Dictatus papae [1075] : That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it. That he himself may be judged by no one. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.asp Only he [the Pope] can summon universal councils No synod can be called valid without the pope's agreement. Thus it is said, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first... it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. — http://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html In his dissent, Dollinger summed up what papal infalliblity made the pope into: “The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120
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.