Free Republic
Browse · Search 		Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: paladinan

Pt. 2

Which argument was dealt with, for SS does not claim it must result in all believers concurring and never disagreeing. Nor can the Roman alternative. Under both a limited degree of unity is seen, as well as disunity, and the further groups get from Scripture being supreme and instead they think of men above that which is written, then the more dangerous they become. And which is how the SDA began and continues, as with Rome. One elitist org,. versus another.

RCs attack the premise that individuals can rightly understand the Scriptures, but then they make one man as unable to err or be reproved if he speaks according to a scope and subject based criteria, and unable to be deposed. Which as said, takes the problem of personal error to a corporate level, including fostering (what in Scripture would be) worship of a sinless, bodily resurrected almost almighty heavenly demigoddess , which is not the Mary of Scripture.

The alternative is what we see in Scripture, that of souls being able to discern what is of God, but with the magisterial office, beginning on a local level, judging hard cases, with God raising up manifest men of God if need be to correct it. Which again is how the church began and how it has been preserved as the body of Christ, with Scripture being the supreme sure standard. But which allows for "competition" and requires the church to continually manifest that it is of the living God versus resting upon self-proclamation, in which the only valid interpretation of Scripture and history can be Rome's.

More absurdity as already shown. What applies to Scripture also applies to men. Under the Roman model no one could know for sure if Moses or the prophets were of God, nor anything they wrote. Everyone had to wait until a church of Rome decided it was essential for this! What pretensions to grandeur. Instead souls today can assuredly know what is God as before, including taking steps of faith which lead to more assurance.

one cannot hold to a "true and secure canon of Scripture" and still embrace "sola Scriptura".

You obviously have not read much of my replies as you just parrot the same refuted polemics. One can hold to "true and secure canon of Scripture" which was progressively established just as they could hold that any books of the OT were and that John was a prophet indeed, and part of a company of prophets, without a (self-proclaimed) infallible mag..

  1. it's obvious that "Scripture testing the contents of Scripture" is a logical absurdity--akin to (as I mentioned before) choosing one's own biological father. Scripture cannot decide what belongs in Scripture.

Do you even read my replies much? That was dealt with long ago, as it is no more a contradiction to SS than holding that reading Scripture is since Scripture does not provide for eyes! Which as said before, presumes that SS only holds to formal sufficiency, yet that presumes what is provided under material sufficiency.

Scripture testifies to souls rightly establishing what is of God, and if that can be done for 22 books then it can for 66. And it is only then that SS is held to fully apply, for although God always formally provided enough for man's salvation, and for what God wanted him to know at that time, it did not always provide all the revealed Truth that the Christian is to know in this life.

Thus SS cannot and does not presume it was always operative, any more than sola ecclesia can. Before the Law was written, God only expressly revealed Himself to a select few souls. But when He made a covenant with an entire organic nation, then He provided the written Law, and God chose to preserved His word by writin. (cf. Ex. 17:14) Which became the standard for obedience, by which further revelation was tested and added to its contents. And with that body becoming manifest as ended, then its is the standard for faith and morals, though God can convict, comfort, "speak" personally to souls (or SS preachers at least pray He does during the offering!)

I referenced it as a historical document on SS rather than RC strawmen

I said "if," as others RCs have argued that and your "on their own" sounded like it. Simply because it is expected that one can understand the rules of baseball does not exclude umpires. And as shown, only norm refers to it being the only sure source as the wholly inspired word of God.

They have the same basis and have authority as with as any authority, and as subject to a supreme source as they are. Was the OT magisterium infallible though disobedience to it was a capital crime? (Dt. 17:8-13) Are secular courts? Their authority is based upon the word of God which teaches such can only arise of God ordains them, and can punish dissent, yet they are to be disobeyed when obedience to God requires it. The premise that such must be infallible to have authority, and that such is effectively above Scripture is what has no basis in Scripture.

That is to be decided on a local level, and more universal if need be (and SS is not opposes to a central mag., which concept Rome actually poisons), as in Scripture and with binding decisions, but not as presuming ensured infallibility of office. While RCs constantly attack SS as only resulting in division and heresies, broadly defining Protestantism in so doing, the reality is that those who hold the highest views of Scripture are the most conservative and unified in basic beliefs in contrast to the fruit of Rome, whose unity is very limited and largely on paper. And Scripturally, the evidence of what one really believes is that of what she does and effects. Yet RCs expect us to become brethren with the liberals which she treats as members in life and in death.

And as an autocratic authority, Rome can redefine herself, but which results in division, with many RCs becoming as Prots in principle deciding what is valid teaching based upon their judgment of what historical teaching says. As one post wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

Add that to the list .

But SS does not hold that formally sufficiency means Scripture produced either God or itself or the canon, or leaves the soul without helps, but the formal part presumes what the material aspect provides. God having provided Scripture, reason, language, etc and who convicts, draws souls, opens hearts and granted repentant faith, therefore a soul can discern writings and a body of such as being of God, and as well as its meanings and what is needed for salvation and growth in grace, without additions of equally inspired traditions, though other external helps are affirmed.

Then see the reality i referred to, that of the smoke screen of quite limited and largely paper Roman unity, while what she calls us to be members in is an amalgam of varying beliefs, even among clergy, and under popes and a magisterium under which obedience in one century can require exterminating all the "heretics" and in another can mean affirming them as viable separated brethren (though that also is subject to interpretation), and Muslims as worshiping the same god as they.

Which also applies in principal to Rome with her own leaky boat, but there was no fallacy, as i affirmed that under SS one can lead to certain Truth, that Scripture is of God and how to be saved, which is obvious, unless you want to argue that souls today cannot read a text as Acts 10:36-43 and become born again. And seek baptism and a church as per its teachings.

As said, under SS as well as under the Roman alternative there is both unity in essentials as well as divisions, and the issue is which one is Scriptural, that of souls discerning what is of God, both Scripture itself and what it teaches, with Scripture magisteriums for disputes, or an infallible magisterium as essential for both, and requiring implicit submission, resulting in cultic unity if enforced, If RCs allow that souls can discern Scripture as being of God and teaches that Rome is the one true church then they would have to allow that souls may have the opposite conclusion, thus they actually argue that souls cannot know that Scripture as of God apart from faith in her.

Indeed, and which is a prime reason why I contend against the errors of Rome, as one who was raised devout, but born again at about age 25, under strong conviction of my empty state, and thru tearful repentance and trust in the Lord Jesus to save by His grace, with evangelical radio clarifying salvation was by grace, not the merit of works. And i remained so for 6 years, during which i was a weekly a weekly mass-going RC, and sought to serve God as a CCD teacher and lector. But rarely did i find souls who realized the manifest regeneration i did with its profound yet humbling transformative effects, unlike in evangelical churches.

But as under the Roman model for determination of Truth, since the magisterium is in error, so also the people, in which salvation begins with becoming good enough to be with God via sprinkling, and and thus usually ends with becoming good enough to be with God thru purgatorial suffering commencing at death, and are said to have truly merited eternal life due to their works done under grace (salvation by works thru merit). If you want the teaching i can provide it.

Therefore RCs typically never come to the place that I did, as a damned and destitute sinner in need of regeneration, but are treated as children of God already effected by sprinkling them (usually) as an infant. And even the most nominal are basically assured of eventually entering glory due to purgatory and their merits and the merits of Rome.

The light of nature , and Christian prudence refers to using Biblical principals in some circumstances where there is no clear teaching, and while men can claim what they may, including that they have a unique charism of infallibility, yet using Scripture, and the "general rules of the Word" and even the "light of nature" we can reprove them (who effectively began under a female "pope"), as was done in Scripture. Which we do and thus thus their minority status.

The Roman alternative is to infallibly declare you (as a collective elite) are and will be perpetually infallible whenever you speaks in accordance with your infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders your declaration that you are infallible to be infallible, as well as all else you accordingly declare.

Under which Scripture, history and tradition can only consist of and or mean what you say in any conflict. Thus the recourse of no less than Cardinal Manning in the light of Prot challanges:

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”

And under which

"Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law..all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." (Providentissimus Deus;http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."" (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals,

And yet it is you who want to invoke cults!

I pray you do.

No, on my say so would be akin to the error of Rome, and you can only take anyone's word on anything on the same basis as souls heeded the Biblical prophets . or the Bereans took the words of the apostles on anything. Which was NEVER on the basis of ensured magisterial infallibility, but upon evidential warrant, which Scripture, as written, being the supreme standard.

Rome infallibly decrees papal infallibility, and thus i can ask you, why should I take Rome's word for anything? I'm quite serious: what infallible charism or mandate do they have to bind Christian consciences to accept what they say as "true"? I do not think you are suggesting that I take their collective opinion simply on your say-so, as it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus any who knowingly dissent from the latter must be in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?

To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things).

I take "Ordinary means" as referring to evident principals of interpretation, which we unconsciously employ in everyday communication, context, genres, grammar, familiarity with the other utterances on the subject at hand. Which includes recognizing historical narratives as literal events, while depending upon what Rome sanctions can mean reading for decades ccommentary in her own officially sanction Bible that such events as the Flood, the Tower of Bable, etc. were fables, Joshua's conquests were fold tales, and Sermon on the Mount was not there, etc.

Thus such helps must be approached critically. And while some souls can be saved and grow in grace without commentaries, others need more grace And as the noted theologian i quote also said, The question does not concern the perspicuity which does not exclude the means necessary for interpretation (i.e., the internal light of the Spirit, attention of mind, the voice and ministry of the church, sermons and commentaries, prayer and watchfulness). For we hold these means not only to be useful, but also necessary ordinarily. (Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology)

In your idea of alone yes, as that would even exclude that the Bereans were looking to Scripture as being the sole standard in examining the veracity of apostolic preaching thereby, or must imagine that SS means it was always the standard for people of God, but both of which would be a strawman of SS, as explained before.

(I'd remind you that the Catholic Church champions the value and necessity of the Scriptures, too; She merely reminds the faithful of the plain fact that Scripture is not, and cannot be, meant to be used ALONE, and it never claims to be.)

In reality, what this is manifest as meaning is that Rome reduced Scripture to be a (abused) servant to support her, as it only consists of and means what she says, which means at best it cannot contradict her, but which it manifestly does .

ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture,

Actually, I am not trying to prove my own conclusion that SS is Biblical by this statement, but speaking as one who holds to it and is refuting your fallacious statement, “the Bible doesn’t teach “sola Scriptura”, anywhere. Not even close,” I am judging the claim of Rome thereby.

But which will not allow you deliverance from this lack, as you must also even reject that Scripture is the supreme standard by which the validity of Truth claims are to be ascertained (sola prima) though a faithful RC is not to do so in order to ascertain the veracity of her teachings, and such searching is superfluous as only one conclusion can be allowed, that which supports Rome.

What? You want to invoke a text as supporting ensured infallibility that indicates the church supports Truth and grounded in it, not that it is basis for the authority of Scripture, and or the supreme authority on it. Which is reading into the text based on the few words actually in the Greek ("church living God, pillar and ground the truth"), and with one, stulos, that is nowhere else seen, either in the LXX or Hellenistic Jewish or secular Greek (and beware of the root word fallacy . Hedraios itself does occur 3 times in the NT, and is translated as "stedfast" twice (1Co. 7:37; 15:58) and as "settled" once Col. 1:23, which the church is to be in supporting the Truth, since it began upon Truth for most of Scripture preceded the church, which was established Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.

But one need not know what what the texts says in the original language, as that the church is of the truth, and is grounded in and supports the Truth is what Scripture elsewhere makes manifest.

The only sense in which the church is the pillar and ground of the truth is like as Israel was, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Romans 3:2) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen. (Romans 9:4-5)

Again, how does this indicate a promise or necessity of ensured infallibility? The Lord has always been progressively leading His people into all Truth - without needing an infallible magisterium of men and usually not via one - providing periods of new revelation as well as continual leading into Truth by opening the understanding of believers to what was already provided, as the Lord did in opening the understanding of the disciples after His resurrection.

And in leading the disciples into all Truth the Spirit inspired writers, mainly Paul as the primary writer of the NT, to reveal more of His word, including the gospel which Paul did not receive via men. (Gal. 1:11,12)

That Rome is privy to some revelation that exists in an amorphous form is akin to claims of cults. Rome's sppsd "apostolic successors" do not speak under Divine inspiration like as the writers of Holy Writ, and fail of both the qualifications and credentials of Biblical apostles (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,17; 2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12).

And while we do not see new corporate revelation now, God still illuminates the understanding of what is written, while leading into all Truth likely will end when believers see Jesus, (1Jn. 3:2) that being when that which is perfect is come, the perfect revelation of Christ, when believers shall no longer know in part, or see through a dark glass, but shall know even as they are known, (1Cor. 13:9-12) face to face with God their savior.

Moreover, as with other things in this Jn. 16:13 statement (which was after the Supper of cp. 13, after which the Lord said "Arise, let us go hence" - Jn. 14:31), including being martyred, the promise was not to the 11 alone or only thru them.

Which attempts further testify to the lack of support for Rome, as the binding and loosing power was also not unique to them, or required infallibility. For the judgments of the OT magisterium were also binding, and could loose as well, dissent from which judicial judgments God made a capital crime, as said before. (Dt. 17:8-13) That certainly is binding. Even civil authorities can judicially and physically bind or loose persons. (Rm. 13:1-7) As could husbands toward toward their wives and fathers toward their daughters as regards vows they made to God. (Numbers 30:5.8) But all such were themselves subject to correction by Scriptural reproof, as the Lord did to those who sat in th seat of Moses. (Mk. 7:2-16) In addition, men such Elijah even had power to spiritually bind and loose the heavens, (1Ki. 17:1; 1Ki 18:18,42-45) with loosing those who are afflicted or delivering them to bondage being another, (Lk. 4:18; 13:16; 1Cor. 5:1-5)

The OT mag. has its NT counterpart in the promise of Matthew 16:19, which encompasses both the purely spiritual as well as judicial realm and Matthew 18:18 refers to the latter, operating as Dt. 17 to resolve personal conflicts, though that can extend to doctrinal disputes in both cases. But which did not promise or require ensured infallibility.

In addition, while judicial decisions such as in personal conflicts belongs to the magisterial office, the spiritual power of binding and loosing can be exercised by holy believers. For after Mt. 18 expands the teaching on binding/loosing to say Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matthew 18:19,20) And note that the Lord affirmed one doing ministry in His name even though he was not part of the apostles company.

Likewise in James 5, in which the intercession of presbuteros - not hierus=priests - obtains healing, including if as a consequence of chastisement for sin (cf. Mt. 9:2-7) is followed by the only exhortation to confess sins to others, which is a general one to one another, with the promise of healing, not due to clerical status, but due to holy fervent prayer: "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much," (James 5:16) is what James says Elijah exampled, binding and loosing the heavens, (Ja. 5:17,18) which is exhorted for all believers. Blessed be God. I am no Elijah sadly. Nor are RC priests.

A distinction must be made between being the judicial court in matters of dispute, which the magisterium was in Scripture, both Old and New, versus it being The Word of God on faith and morals. The judgment of SCOTUS is to settle matters, but it does not mean they are necessarily right and autocratic, being above the Constitution, nor did sitting in the authoritative magisterial seat in Scripture mean that they were necessarily right and autocratic, being above Scripture. Which meant souls could be correct in their dissent from it in following preachers of Scriptural substantiation.

It is amazing how much help RCs imagine God needs. He “neglects” to do such things as provide even one prayer in Scripture among approx. 200 addressed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord , so Rome “helps” Him out by invoking extraBiblical practices that developed. He likewise neglects to anywhere state that Mary did no sin, despite His practice of mentioning lesser notable aspects of characters, from the number of toes to Anna's prolonged virginity, so Rome helps Him out by invoking tradition. And here, even though the Lord somehow preserved His Word and faith for thousands of years without an infallible magisterium, so that an abundance of writings could be invoked by some itinerant preachers in support of a new sect of faith, Rome decided He needed ensured magisterial infallibility to do so else they would “destroy/lose that inerrant content in rather short order”! And somehow this new magisterial charism is nowhere taught, even among the list of ways in Hebrews that the New Covenant is better.

Instead, Rome much corrupted the faith, but God raised up men to correct it, as He did in the past.

Thus common sense and plain logic require that "sufficient and certain knowledge of salvation-related matters" requires not only inerrant data, but an infallible guardian and interpreter. And you simply cannot establish ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility from Scripture, despite what you see as indicating it, nor it is logically required unless you disallow the means God used in Scripture to preserve His Truth and faith.

Once again, why not look to Scripture? Upon what basis was the Lord's reproof of their traditions of men of those who sat in the seat of Moses? That they were contrary to tradition?

For that matter, what did the Lord rebuke the devil by, and in other places reprove the Pharisees and Sadducees, and what did the Lord open the understanding of the disciples to? That some of Scripture first existed in oral form, and sometimes words in oral are called the word of God is true, but it was not by magisterial decree that anything became Scripture, nor after Moses wrote the Law that any oral tradition was declared to be the word of God.

Instead it is actually because oral Truth was written that we know it was the word of God, and oral preaching was and is subject to testing by Scripture, that being the standard as the wholly inspired and assured word of God. And Rome cannot claim to be preaching the word of God under the inspiration of the Spirit like as Scripture was penned.

First, we know what Roman Catholics have in mind, but where in all the letters to the church is submission to Peter as the supreme universal, let alone infallible, head enjoined? Despite the many problems, critiques and commendations, submission to Peter is nowhere enjoined, even as a solution nor commended as a virtue, including in the 7 letters to the representative churches in Asia. (Rv. 2,3)

Moreover in Acts 15 it is James which provides the definitive Scripture-supported judgment (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14) on what was to be decreed, confirmatory of Peter's testimony and exhortation, and what Paul and Barnabas had been preaching, the veracity of which Scriptural judgment was not based upon the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility.

And which was an affirmation of the evangelical gospel of grace, that “through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they,” in which souls were told that “whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins,” and were born again before baptism. (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-11)

But what Scripture does is to give a general exhortation to “obey them that have the rule over you,” (Heb. 13:17) like as it does toward civil rulers, which applies to souls under whatever government they find themselves in. But as seen in Scripture, such are not autocratic entities but are subject to Scriptural reproof. Rome is closer to “Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them.” (3Jn. 1:9) than Peter.

It is true that the NT church did manifest a limited, basic unity under a central magisterium, but which was under manifest men of God (2Co. 6:4-10) such as i do not see today, yet I support that in principal, as said, a central Scriptural magisterium is the ideal. But due to the Roman deformation of the church then division was required, and which is commanded, (2Co. 6:13-18; cf. 1Co. 11:19) and like as Israel after Moses and Joshua and the divided kingdom, accommodation to this means there is no central universal magisterium, only local and denominations.

The latter is what Rome effectively is, as she cannot rule over those without her, especially after the loss of her unscriptural sword of men, and is compelled to admit that properly baptized Prots are part of the body of Christ (as are a few of her own). Even if she denies them the use of the proper term “church,” contrary to Scripture, while since even the Laodiceans were called a church then Rome might be herself.

Those who choose to remain in that too-close-to-Rome- denom (which they should not) are to be conditionally subject to them like as someone is to be to civil rulers over them wherever they may be.

It seems RCs are so mesmerized by Roman pretensions that they cannot see what Scripture reveals. Again, how did 1st century souls discern that some prophet in the desert who are insects was of God and correct in reproving those who sat in the seat of Moses? “Inherited biases and/or personal tastes” or because they had enough Scriptural judgment to see the contrasts? Under the Roman model, it was the judgment of the historical magisterial office that they should have followed.

nor was [the Magisterium] ever necessary for God to preserve Truth and faith.

Misrepresentation. In context i was referring to the an infallible magisterial office, and in the light of what Scripture says, even five seconds of clear thinking shows that that idea is nonsense. See above.

God actually often did so by raising up men from without the magisterium which they reproved. Which is how the church began.

Ever hear of prophets, wise men and scribes? (cf. Mt. 23:34)

:) Ah, yes... the epithet "Roman", which whets the indignation of anti-Catholic ears...

Yes, RCs take offense at that, but it is used by popes and prelates, and is often necessary, as here, to differentiate between EOs (some do consider themselves to be Catholic) and Roman Catholic, while it is of the Roman Empire from which is took some of its form, with her Caesariopapacy, etc.

Such refers to enjoining obedience to known contemporary-preached Truths by manifest apostles of God, not on the basis of ensured infallibility. Why do you no read what i wrote: “Paul enjoined the Thessalonians to keep what was orally preached, yet Rome cannot tell us what it was, but the veracity of his preaching was established upon Scriptural substantiation. [Acts 17:2,11; 28:23; Rm. 11:19 etc.] While Paul provided new wholly inspired revelation, which Rome cannot claim, a SS preacher can call for hearers to obey the oral preaching of Scriptural Truths, under the premise that they are, and subject to proof thereby which the noble Bereans subjected the preaching of Paul to, (Acts 17:11) [while] the whole church went forth "preaching the word." (Acts 8:4)

Inspired writers can include true words, events or prophecy from an external source, and the basis for veracity of the words and events of Christ which Luke provided was that they were from contemporary eyewitnesses, (Lk. 1:2;) versus 1700+ years later binding souls to believe some extrascriptural event which lacks testimony even for hundreds of years after it allegedly occurred (thus scholars denied it was apostolic tradition), with the veracity of it based upon the premise that an office possesses ensured infallibility and thus what is “remembers” is true. Rome cannot claim to speak as Biblical apostles or its writers binding extrascriptural Truths to the church universal.

And see additional comments above on this issue.

SS churches can affirm traditions (wedding ceremonies, etc.) if not binding, while a phobia of oral tradition being declared to be equal with Scripture under the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility is not only rational, but it's Biblical, as well. Such pretensions are found in cults.

and essential for salvation faith, and life. A soul may read such a text as Peter's sermon in Acts 10 and become born again just as the hearers of it there did,

A soul may also be saved by following whatever lights God allows in his existence (i.e. those who never hear the Gospel, but who follow the law written on their hearts by God, as best they can);

Which is another claims which sees variant interpretations by RCs. One one hand Francis said the blood of Christ makes atheists children of God, and a cardinal allowed that atheists could have eternal life, while some strict traditionalists even reject baptism of desire.

Jesus own words can be taken to mean one must sell all and give to the poor to be saved, (Mk. 10:21) or just half and repay wrongs fourfold, (Lk. 19:8,9) or literally consume His “real” flesh and blood, (Jn. 6:53,54) or just believe in His promise to save those who believe in Him. (Jn. 11:25,26) Thus RCs place far more weight on the gospels than the rest of the NT. But as the gospels interpret the OT, so the further revelation of Acts and the rest of the NT interpret the gospels, which Scripture interpreting Scripture.

In which we see that it is repentant faith, which will effect obedience in being baptized, forsaking false gods, repay wrongs if able, and overall characteristically follow the Lord in whom, they believe, that appropriates justification, being counted for righteousness on Christ's account, thus making peace with God. (Rm. 3:25-5:1ff)

Thus salvation is promised to those who simply believe on the Lord Jesus who was holy but died and rose to save us, (Acts 10:43) and to those who believe and confess the Lord Jesus, and who call upon the Lord, (Rm. 10:8,9, 13) and to those who believe and are baptized, (Mk. 16:16) and to women ”in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety,” (2Tim. 2:15) meaning their normative role. And which effects justify one as being a believer. (1Ths. 1:4ff; Heb. 6:9,10)

But RCs confuse the effects of justifying faith with the cause, imagining a ritual itself (ex opere operato) with the prop[er intent effects regeneration, and actually being made good enough to be with God, which perfection of character ("actually be perfect as the Father is perfect" "having the perfection of our heavenly Father," as another thread states) they must attain in order to finally enter glory.

But while consistent with what i said, while forgiveness and the Spirit is promised by Peter to those who repent and are baptized in the name of Jesus, (Acts 2:38) as that requires faith, what the first purported pope plainly taught was that “To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.” (Acts 10:43) Which they did and received the Spirit, thereby confessing this faith in tongues, and only then were baptized as souls who already were born again. Which Peter goes on to say (Acts 15:7-11) was that of God “purifying their hearts by faith,” and which he uses in affirming salvation by the grace of God.

For it is the faith which baptism both requires and expresses that is counted for righteousness, but (as reformers taught) must be a living kind of faith which effects obedience, versus an inert faith. The latter of which is what James 2 protest against, while Paul deals with whether a system of works-merit can justify one, the Law being the epitome of that. For if James is speaking of justification in the same sense as Moses in Gn. 15:6 and Paul in Rm. 4 then he is contradicting both, as it was when helpless Abraham believed God alone could and would effect the realization of His promise that he was counted as righteous, and which was not due to him suddenly actually becoming good enough to be with God.

Yet as faith effects works, then one can be said to be justified by the kind of works which evidence faith, versus a barren one, as per the sense James is dealing with. And like as forgiveness is equated with healing in Mt. 9:1-7, (“whether is easier, to say...”) and works are faith in action, then they can sometimes be used interchangeably.

If we only both believed that only the kind of faith which effects obedience, which includes repentance when convicted of not doing so, then it would do away with the mutual charges of “easy believism” between both RCs and Protestants, but while some of the latter teach that an obedient type of faith is not necessary, in Catholicism one is said to have truly merited eternal life by his works done in God. Which emphasis results in Catholics expressing that the reason God would let them into Heaven is because of their merit, and or that of their church. Such with never realize regeneration with that kind of faith, versus coming to Christ as one damned and destitute, and casting all faith upon God to save them by the sinless shed blood of Christ. (Rm. 3:10-25ff)

Yes, that is long, but this is a primary issue, and this is turning into an extensive exchange, and i guess i have a theological bent.

you must be referring to infallible answers as otherwise we both only have fallible souls

As with Scripture, consider context. You argued “ We have a living person (or persons) whom we can ask for clarifications, if we misunderstand something from Rome,” but you must be referring to infallible answers as otherwise we both only have fallible souls to look to, which is just what you are arguing against. And one can hardly argue that the supreme magisterium is going to give timely answers to the multitude of questions about the meaning of aspects of RC teaching.

I did and do, and your explanation does not refute what i said at all.

Thus according you, versus other RCs, one can dissent from teachings which they are to give all possible weight to, yet not sin. Yet as with dissent by those of “invincible ignorance,” does not mean it is not evil. But you use the “pain of sin” condition to exclude required religion assent, which allows for internal doubt but not public dissent. And you again leap from solemn teachings (which can be conciliar as well, with the approval of the Pope) to the “Pope's comments about global warming” — which actually teach it is real and a dire global threat — and thereby convey that all a RC is really bound to assent to is that which is infallible defined, which (according to at least one professional RC apologist is in the minority of what RCs believe and practice).

And which examples how much RC teaching is subject to interpretation, and is in contrast to so much teaching i provided and others that can be provided. But since such were only non-infallible papal teachings then i suppose you can reject them.

Your pain of sin clause notwithstanding, it remains that even such teaches of Vatican Two as deal with religious freedom, etc. require of the faithful a degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. (http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2011/12/nature-of-intellectual-assent-that-is.html) And as do encyclicals, including those on social teachings, as The "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states, “In the Church's social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. Insofar as it is part of the Church's moral teaching, the Church's social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it.” - http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

And as said, it is evidenced that the popes last encyclical (http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html) is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. And which he presents as definite problems requiring a response based upon Catholic teaching.

. Other Roman Catholics look at Catholic teaching on assent and conclude that “Rejecting a non-infallible teaching is not heresy but is a mortal sin (assuming 3 conditions met).” — http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=9330822#post9330822

Thus while RCs disparage Scripture as able to be the standard for faith and morals due to its interpretive problems, and point us to the Catholic magisterium as the solution, they disagree on what such means and there validity, as well as which teachings are infallible.

Meanwhile, just which teachings are infallible are subject to interpretations, as can their meaning, and to suppose you can get an infallible answer to questions concerning such is absurd

Please! In context we were dealing with infallible answers to theological questions, not 2 + 2 = 4. And my denial is not that the magisterium cannot speak infallible Truth, nor that a pagan could, but the ensured formulaic infallibility Rome claims.

I was aware of that, as well as the variant claims as to how many there are or possibly could be, http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/papalinfallibility.pdf, besides their meaning. You have the infallible (quite apparent) decree by Pope Eugene IV that firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” And consistent with this Rome (non-infallibly) required Catholic rulers to exterminate all the heretic from the land, or effectively lose their power.

But Vatican Two takes this and broadly affirms properly baptized Prots as separated brethren through whom the Spirit works (and rather than separating them with the sword it affirms religious freedom.) Thus some traditionalists require that Prots must convert if they will be saved, while advocating for a Catholic monarchy under which Prots would be more like Christians in Muslim theocracies. And if such Vatican Two is not binding, or clear enough, they may. And such Catholics of variant views , along with liberals, are your brethren in the light of Rome's manifest interpretation of herself, from which we must separate.

No, that is clear, but despite typical RC responses to this issue, infallible teachings as per Rome are not restricted to papal decrees, but include thode by the universal magisterium in union with the pope, which, as well as which part of the encyclicals, the CCC etc, express infallible teaching, significantly broaden the scope and the interpretations.

Yes, we finally agree on something! Thank you for taking the time, though i dare say it took me much longer and is not proof read. But may it serve to help by God's grace.

167 posted on 11/08/2015 11:14:52 AM PST by daniel1212 (Turn to the Lord Jesus as a damned and destitute sinner+ trust Him to save you, then follow Him!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies ]

To: daniel1212
Sorry for the delay; real life intrudes a bit, this week.

No offense, but... good grief, man, you make my head hurt! I admire the effort and time you put into your replies... but it's a colossal exercise in missing the point! Let me explain:

1) "Sola Scriptura" means either that it ALONE is to be used as the guide and norm for faith, or it doesn't. The issue of formal vs. material" sufficiency is an interesting one (and it led me to a discovery I'd not seen before--i.e. that the Church has not defined the material sufficiency of Scripture as a dogma... at least, not yet), but it's ultimately beside the point--since "sola Scriptura", if it's to mean anything but an empty phrase, must presuppose BOTH.

Honestly: such volumes of verbiage (and I don't mean to demean your effort--it obviously took a great deal of time and patience) in an effort to have your cake (hold to the "SOLA" of "sola Scriptura") and eat it as well (claim that other things can "assist" Scripture in "norming" the faith, though you never define the boundaries... which is hardly surprising, since it would be a logical absurdity: those "other things" would need to be "approved" and "normed" by Scripture before being used to "help" Scripture "norm" anything--including themselves), is something of a weary spectacle. Let me try to put it into plain logic:

a) Sola Scriptura, if the phrase is to mean anything at all, requires that Scripture ALONE be used for something substantial to the faith... yes? If not, then the "sola" has been jettisoned and diluted to nothing, and you abandon the classical Protestant use of the term (cf. Luther, etc.). You're free to make up your own new and esoteric definition of SS, but you're not free to masquerade that as a "canonical" definition... especially since a definition of "SS" without the first "S" is really rather pointless.

b) If SS means that Scripture ALONE is to be used as the "norm" of faith (and you do know that the "SOLA" is what Catholics reject, yes? Some Protestants get muddled on that idea, and assume [wrongly] that Catholics do not regard Scripture as authoritative, inerrant, divinely inspired, etc.), then it must be true that nothing else can be used for such "norming", save in subordination to it... yes?

c) When you make an impassioned plea of "other things, such as councils and such, can be used to decide the contents of Scripture, interpretations of Scripture, etc.!", I really do wonder if you're listening to yourself! Surely you realize that an authority is only as reliable as that on which it rests? (And it's facile to say, glibly, "Ah, but we and our teachings rest on the Rock of Christ!"... since any group which disagrees with you can claim the very same thing... and both of you cannot be right at the same time. Look up the "law of non-contradiction", if needed. In short: that would settle nothing.) If you're prepared to claim that the "table of contents" of Scripture is without error, then you're attributing that infallibility of judgment to the council (or what-have-you) which decided it in the first place! And in doing so, you'll have plagiarized the Catholic position by stealth, and left Protestantism behind (and I'll be happy to welcome you into the nearest RCIA program! :) ).

d) If you claim that your understanding of Scripture is "sufficient for salvation", I'll be justified in asking how you come to that conclusion... especially since millions of Christians--who also pray, study, etc., and have abilities which match or exceed yours and mine--read the same Scriptures and come to different conclusions! How do you presume to say that your interpretation of, say, John 6 (which teaches the Real Presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist, as plainly as day), is RIGHT, and the Catholic view is WRONG? You're very free with "devil-words" such as "cult, deception, etc."... but that's mere bad-mannered fluff (and obviously raw opinion and empty rhetoric--since anyone else could use them against you, with at least the same authority); now, you're on to prove your case. And no... I read your very long missives, and they do not prove such, at all. They are impassioned attempts to show that "SS allows things other than Scripture to be used"--which I never denied. They are intense attempts to show that "Roman Catholics can experience confusion with their own doctrines, too!"--which is a mere appeal to the "tu quoque" fallacy, and it equivocates the substantive and fundamental disagreements within SS Protestantism with the minor and easily-handled confusions which might come from this-or-that Catholic doctrine being heard by a Catholic individual.

Apologies for the very brief quote (I don't mean to slight the rest of your effort), but this is quote telling (especially in the logical sense):

Which argument was dealt with, for SS does not claim it must result in all believers concurring and never disagreeing.

You don't understand! LOGIC requires that Protestants not hold FLATLY CONTRADICTORY beliefs, while still claiming that "The Holy Spirit and Scripture Alone led them to both positions". Protestants cannot hold to "SS" while accepting flatly contradictory positions in their "teachings of Christ's Church". Either Sunday worship is damnable, or it isn't; wither Saturday observance of the "Sabbath" is obligatory, or it isn't; you can't cling to both, shrug your shoulders, and say, "Well, we don't need to agree on EVERYTHING!" If you don't agree on what sends you to HELL, then you're in serious trouble, FRiend!

Nor can the Roman alternative.

Not only false (there are no contradictions within Catholic dogma), but a "tu quoque" fallacy. Pointing out someone else's leaky boat doesn't patch your own.

Under both a limited degree of unity is seen, as well as disunity, and the further groups get from Scripture being supreme and instead they think of men above that which is written, then the more dangerous they become.

That "limited degree of unity" is obviously not sufficient for Protestants... since there is a "limited degree of unity" between SS Protestants and Catholics... but you don't accept that as license to embrace Catholicism, do you? Besides: this is obviously your mere opinion, since your view of "above what is written" (which is an oblique reference to 1 Corinthians 4:6, I assume?) rests entirely upon your personal judgment... or else you'd reject "sola Scriptura" and "sola fide" as being "above what is written"!

And which is how the SDA began and continues, as with Rome. One elitist org,. versus another.

Irony, thy name is daniel1212! That's a pretty elitist thing to say, don't you think?

Which as said, takes the problem of personal error to a corporate level, including fostering (what in Scripture would be) worship of a sinless, bodily resurrected almost almighty heavenly demigoddess, which is not the Mary of Scripture.

Forgive me, but... this quote of yours is loaded with what we, in college, called "weasel words":

"what in Scripture would be" = your personal interpretation of what Scripture says, without so much as a scrap of evidence. Where does it say that veneration of one of God's masterpieces is somehow "forbidden"? The idea of the Blessed Virgin Mary being "worshipped" (in the modern sense of the word--i.e. adoration, latria) is entirely in anti-Catholic imaginations. I assure you, I've never "worshipped" Blessed Mary as a "goddess" (or any such nonsense); she is God's masterpiece, but she is a creature, totally dependent on him... SS anti-Catholic opinions and misconceptions and canards notwithstanding.

"worship" = SS anti-Catholic opinion and mind-reading of what they assume Catholics to be doing.

"sinless" = well, at least you have that part correct. :)

"bodily resurrected" = yes. Your problem with that is... what, exactly? How does this go against Scripture in any way? Do you also balk at the bodily resurrection of Lazarus, or the man thrown into Elisha's tomb, etc.? Do you balk at the bodily assumption of Enoch and Elijah? Explain, please.

"almost almighty" = not only weasel words, but slimy. The Blessed Virgin is only as "mighty" as God allows her to be... akin to the "mighty" nature of St. Michael the Archangel, who's as powerful as God wills him to be. This is simply a sloppy smear of a position which SS anti-Catholics happen not to like.

"heavenly demigoddess" = what on earth does that mean, exactly, aside from possibly using the word "goddess" to stir up indignation in SS anti-Catholic readers? Can you supply a definition for this apparent example of raw rhetoric?

You obviously have not read much of my replies as you just parrot the same refuted polemics.

Remember what I said about "irony", above?

One can hold to "true and secure canon of Scripture" which was progressively established

This is a flat assertion of raw opinion, FRiend. We "can"? Why? On what basis do we trust the conclusion to be assuredly true and reliable (as must be the case, since it means the difference between salvation and damnation)?

just as they could hold that any books of the OT were

They could, eh? Which books of the IT do you mean? 2 Maccabees? The Book of Jubilees? The Assumption of Moses? You're begging (and dodging) the original question completely; HOW was the OT "canonized"? It's not enough to say that "it was done progressively, and besides, the Westminster Confession says that the use of councils is perfectly legitimate for such discernments without danger of spoiling the inerrant contents"... since the WC hasn't proven its divine mandate (above and beyond spouting its mere opinion), and since "appeal to progress when deciding an infallible collection of Scripture" is about as illogical as saying that "life can evolve from non-life, and a rational human soul can evolve from an animal soul, because the change was gradual!". Piffle. Rhetoric is a poor substitute for reason.

and that John was a prophet indeed, and part of a company of prophets, without a (self-proclaimed) infallible mag..

And you know that John (the Baptist, I assume?) was "a prophet indeed"... how? I assume that it was from reading the Gospels... yes? How do you know that the Gospel which you read is "true Scripture"? The fact that it just happens to be in your Bible is mere happenstance... since the book of 2 Nephi just happens to be in the Bible of a member of the LDS, and since the Book of Jubilees just happens to be in the Bible of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Here's your problem in a nutshell, FRiend: if you cling to a "hard" definition of "sola Scriptura", then you refute yourself (since Scripture doesn't teach it). If you "soften" the definition, then your argument becomes circular, since Protestant definitions and interpretations are used to "prove" the authority and reliability of the Protestant Bible, which in turn is used to "prove and norm" the original definitions and interpretations.

If you're truly serious about the "don't go beyond what is written" idea, you'll drop "sola Scriptura" like a hot cinder from the netherworld.

168 posted on 11/12/2015 9:10:49 AM PST by paladinan (Rule #1: There is a God. Rule #2: It isn't you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search 		Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson