Somehow i missed this post. Nothing new that has not been refuted. Rome teaching ONE truth, for ALL times is an absurd claim unless you restrict it a few basic teachings, and define unity as largely being on paper, ignoring the multitude of things RCs can disagree on, even as to how many teachings actually require assent of faith, and what assent to others is required and what it means. The greatest unity of RCs is one of error.
Then there is the scope of disagreement that Rome evidences she sanctions, adding to the disparity of belief in the church of Rome with her largely liberal membership, which Scripture requires separation from on that basis alone. (2Cor. 6:14-18)
And as for looking to the magisterium, as one poster 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
Meanwhile at the same time you must severely restrict what Catholicism consists of, you define Protestantism so broadly as to include likes of Jim Jones Joel Osteen and so-called Rev. Jeremiah Wright . Do you realize how desperate this sophistry makes RCs look? Yet Rome counts and treats multitudes of souls who would feel very uncomfortable in conservative evangelical churches, such Teddy K, as members in life and in death, thereby teaching the rest how see understands her own laws, and fostering more of what others RCs denigrate as CINOs.
Scripturally the evidence of what one believes consists of what it does and effects, (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 2:18) and for all the Cath fomenting against those who esteem Scripture above the word of men as creating division, the fact is those who most strongly hold to Scripture literally being the accurate word of God are the most unified in basic beliefs versus the overall fruit of Rome. Which evangelical types have historically contended for due to shared assent. Due to such commitment both liberals and Caths count them as their greatest enemy. Quite amazing for a faith hopelessly divided.
Protestantism “spawned a cluster of heresies.â€
Says a member of a church with a beam in its eye, as Rome took the problem of personal error to the most corporate level, giving credence to the interpretation an autocratic man as binding upon all his foolish flock.
For not only does Catholicism itself exist in schisms and sects, but due to what Rome officially teaches and effects, she is the most manifest example of the deformation of the NT church .
Catholic Church Fathers (those early theologians) spent the better part of some 300 years sorting out hundreds of written texts and fragments before they assembled the canonical texts.
You mean scholarly disagreement continued down thru the centuries over certain books and right into Trent.
This was a full ELEVEN CENTURIES before the heresy of Protestantism
And a full ELEVEN CENTURIES before Rome provided an indisputable canon - after Luther died, despite RC propaganda. And after Catholicism already was divided, and due to looking to men above Scripture, after Catholicism had suffered such declension that "the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution" as Ratzinger affirmed, and required the Reformation as Divine judgment and correction.
Too many RCs have drunken from the Kool-Aid of wishful propaganda such as your spin.
During those centuries several heresies were settled by the Catholic Church.
And adopted or invented by her, including her autocratic authority as being above Scripture.
Does the Bible state it is the sole or final authority of Christianity? NO.
YES, as regards final, that is expressed for the Scriptures are the only substantive transcendent body of comprehensive Divine revelation which are wholly inspired of God, (2Tim. 3:15) having unique power as the assured word of God, (Heb. 4:12) authored by God Himself, which even Rome's papal "infallible" pronouncements are not,
In addition, it is abundantly evidenced, 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.
Scripture is not the sole authority in Christianity for it provides for the church, which as regards government is the final authority in deciding judicial matters, but not on Truth (faith and morals), any more SCOTUS is over the Constitution, or that the OT magisterium was over Scripture, to which it was to look as supreme. Though dissent was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) as uninspired men are not the supreme source of Truth, thus that dissent could be valid must be allowed. And thus the church began in dissent from the historical magisterium which sat in the seat of Moses, as common souls discerned what and who was of God and followed itinerant preachers who established their Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Thus the answer to the question "Does the Bible state it is the church is the sole or final authority on Truth is NO. But Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
Christ said that the Church is to resolve disputes among Christians, not Scripture
That argument against SS (or even just sola prima) is a fallacious , for the reasons describe above. Scripture being the standard, rule, norm for faith refers to it being norma normans (“the rule that rulesâ€), versus magisterial decisions which, as is always the case with the non-inspired authority of men, subject to examination via the word. Which, and not to mere passed-down traditions, the Lord invoked against the devil, (Mt. 4) the Scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees, (Mt. 22,23) and established His mission and opened the understanding of the disciples to. (Lk. 24:44,45) Glory to God.
not Scripture as recorded by Matthew 18:17
Which is more wrongly dividing the word, ignorantly or not, as this was actually the NT counterpart to what was ordained in the OT Scriptures, (Dt. 17:8-13) and here actually dealt with personal grievances, not declaring something as binding belief like the bodily assumption of Mary 1800 years after the fable imagines it occurred, and dealt with here by God's grace. And which NT magisterium not more excludes the possibility of valid dissent than that of the OT did, despite the pretensions pf Rome's autocratic cultic premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
This explains the conversion of Dr. A. David Anders. I saw that her sacramental doctrine, her view of salvation, her veneration of Mary and the saints, and her claims to authority were all grounded in Scripture,,
Which, like the rest of your often-reiterated but refuted sophistry, is no more a valid argument than before, as your recourse to "the intellectuals must be right" is, to as said before , contrary to "the multitudes of what Scripturally God calls wise souls, which rarely are the intellectual types, and your few examples no more support the premise that such are to be followed because of their intellectualism than Bruce Jenner is because of his athleticism."
It also ignores the multitude of learned who remained Protestant and reproved Rome or left (Luther himself shared the highest scholarly seat), but it was not the learned who heard the Lord Jesus gladly, but the common folk, and the church thus consisted of few who were of that "noble " class, (1Co. 1:26) and consistent with that are the words of Norman Geisler (Ph.D. in philosophy from Loyola University)
So, while we are losing a few intellectual egg-heads out the top of evangelicalism to Rome, we are gaining tens of thousands of converts out the bottom from Catholicism. The trade-off highly favors evangelicalism. - http://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-roman-catholics-are-leaving-church.html
In addition, the converts whom Caths call for testimony tend to represent a different spirit and view of Prots than those who invoke them, and or provide evidence for us, as Newman.
When America’s pre-eminent Lutheran theologian Rev. Neuhaus
Of infamous (to both conservative evangelicals and RCS alike) "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" and preferred to use the term "Roman Catholic" which many RCs takes offense at.
outside of Catholicism from the Moonies to Jehovah’s Witnesses, all brands of Christianity is more than heretical, it is a veritable freak show of so-called Christianity on display..
Actually, Catholicism operates out of he same heretical model as such cults, with their unquestionable supreme leaders/magisterium being supreme, and producing their own heresies while each claiming to the one true church. But Rome has far less unity than they do, a freak show of false doctrines and conservatives and liberals, and with the most liberal Pro churches being those which are closest to Rome.
Give it up. The more you argue for the wishful fantasy of Rome then the more the ragged clothes of the emperor have been exposed.
You cannot say that God calls people of 1001 different believers to be pastors in as much Protestant and Episcopalian denominations. This would include married homosexual pastors and “bishops†as well as you very well know. To say that there are several “truths†is a contradiction of God. God Is Truth, He is One Truth, and it’s the ONE-truth mandate that was given to Peter and his successors to go forth and teach this ONE truth through ONE Church. The Catholic Church existed BEFORE the Bible. The books in the Bible were assembled in AD 384, by the Catholic Church and through Divine inspiration. That inspiration did not vanish a full 11 centuries later with the plague of Protestantism. If you doubt, that Divine inspiration guided the Church that selected the books in the Bible and assembled them in the order we find them, then you have little choice but to toss out the Bible. The books in the Bible did not drop from the skies.
For nearly four centuries, they were checked for their accuracy as the Word of God by checking and cross fact-checking the oral tradition. That received oral tradition is what the Church uses. Outside the Catholic Church there is no central Credo. Rather, you find a flotsam and jetsam of unadulterated rubbish from the David Koresh and Jim Joes and Joel Osteens of this world right down to your illiterate corner street pastor who spouts off his or her own interpretation to mainly low-information high school dropouts.
This is why you will find a towering intellectual tradition only in the Catholic Church and why even the brightest theologians and pastors of the on-Catholic Christian movement have converted to Catholicism. All this cutting-and-pasting form third-rate blogs and random hurling of fragmentary scriptural quotes is beyond sophomoric. It is, as students of theology have called it, useless garbage.
Just check out the galaxy of converts to the Catholic Faith over different times, places, and faiths, including previous atheists and agnostics.
If you really, really, want to know why serious converts convert to Catholic try reading this:
http://www.catholicconvert.com/about/why-im-catholic/
338 well done.
Check out his response. He’s stuck on the intellectuals.
He has also not responded to your post where you torpedoed his “early” Marian references.
338 well done.
Check out his response. He’s stuck on the intellectuals.
He has also not responded to your post where you torpedoed his “early” Marian references.