Posted on 12/31/2015 4:29:48 PM PST by NYer
Dead Sea Scrolls
Aight I’m off this thread cause I have to go to work. Ill be back tonight but thank you all for reinforcing my belief in the idiocy of Protestantism and Born Againism.
What external source verifies Scripture and on what authority does that external source operate?
The Church.
Jesus said that we MUST be born again to enter the kingdom of heaven.
You can call His words idiocy if you want but that’s YOUR problem. Have fun trying to explain your opinion of them to Him.
And the church gets its authority from where and how to you prove it?
I cannot help your inability to see that it was you who asked to see something from the Bible, and now that this was provided you still object as if this is still contrary to SS, or amounts to circular reasoning. However, discerning something as being of God is both Scriptural and it is not proving the Bible by the Bible, but Scripture does show how something is judged to be of God based upon the weight of evidences external to Scripture. Both men and writings of God came to be established as being so essentially due to their unique heavenly qualities and attestation. Thus it remains that you have no argue against SS as described.
In other words you have no argument with which to interact with what refutes you but simply resort to more parroted polemics which also are specious. In this case the fact is that rather than as under the RC model for discerning what was of God, in which the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation are the assuredly infallible interpreters and authorities on it, The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) 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" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)
And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them 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.)
Thus the NT church began contrary to Rome with her the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unecessary in Scripture.
That 1500 years later some German loons and disgruntled monks invented bibliolatry with the support of avaricious and adulterous princes is of no moment.
You mean,
Cardinal Bellarmine:
"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)
"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/)
The Truth the Word of God declares is foolishness to them who are perishing. You will not gender up an exception clause to ride the catholic dogma to salvation. God does the calling. God does the birthing. God raises up His children in the Way that they should go as His new borns.
You cannot strive to eventually obtain that which God offers immediately to those who will humble themselves and accept immediately the Grace of God in Christ.
Dogma will not lead you, cannot make God owe you.
Institutional trudgery will not take you to a place where God owes you something. When Jesus related that coming time where He says 'depart from Me I never knew you', He was giving a big hint that unless you are born again, born from above, you have not let Him know you.
His sermon to Nicodemus should be more than enough testimony, coming directly from God through His Scriptures, to inform anyone that Jesus has a plan and it is not based in your working for it. It is the Gift of God, the Grace of God in Christ Jesus.
Be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind. Do you know the two prongs of the way your mind is renewed?
The witnesses to the events of the Bible are what prove it.
That you don't agree with it I cannot help.
You never really believed did you? That’s why it is so easy for you to give up Catholicism for OSAS.
It sounds as though the Eucharist was never real to you.
I could never give up the Eucharist and I am a convert.
So you believe you eat in the wafer the Divinity of Jesus, continuing the sacrifice at every Mass?
True, but the argument is that since SS - that Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God (it uniquely is the only wholly inspired substantive body of Truth) alone is the supreme and sufficient standard/rule authoritative source of Truth for faith and morals - requires that Scripture provides all that is necessary for faith and morals then it must provide a canon, yet this is based upon a strawman of SS that restricts what it provides to formal explicit teaching (such as a sermon like Acts 10:36-43 by which one can become born again), and excludes what it materially provides such as by way of sanctioned substantiation, and which includes reason, the guidance of the Spirit and discernment as to what is of God, the church and teaching office,etc.
The opposing alternative essentially is that the church of Rome is the supreme and sufficient source of Truth, providing Scripture and the oral word of God as alone possessing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is necessary to assuredly know what is of God and its meaning. See post above.
However, it is manifest that even "lay people" assuredly could discern what is of God, both men and writings, without an infallible magisterium, and even in dissent from it (which is hopw the church began), and which in principle therefore provides for a canon. Indeed, most of what we hold to be Scripture was already established as being of God before a church of Rome even presumed it was necessary for this. Moreover, the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. God provided and preserved His word and faith without one, and often preserved faith by raising up men from without the magisterium and even in dissent from it. Which again, is also how the church began. (Mk. 11:27-33)
Thus the NT church began contrary to the Roman basis for Truth, and as 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.
Well, I’ve seen a fair number of FRoman Catholics condemn the idea of sex without the chance for procreation and yet defend NFP.
That may be so, but it is not what is proclaimed in Humanae Vitae.
Luke 18:9-14 He also told this parable to some who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and treated others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.'
But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted."
Philippians 3:2-9 Look out for the dogs, look out for the evildoers, look out for those who mutilate the flesh. For we are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus and put no confidence in the flesh-though I myself have reason for confidence in the flesh also. If anyone else thinks he has reason for confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless.
But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith-
All that hard work and Paul counts it as rubbish for the excellency of knowing CHRIST.
Religion is worthless in knowing God. All it does it provide an opportunity for the flesh to brag about itself.
Colossians 2:16-23 Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ. Let no one disqualify you, insisting on asceticism and worship of angels, going on in detail about visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.
If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations-"Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" (referring to things that all perish as they are used)-according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
So which has the greater authority?
The Church or Scripture?
Is the church in authority over Scripture giving Scripture its authority?
Or is Scripture in authority over the church giving the church authority?
I believed everything Catholicism taught me when I was under it.
Then I started reading Scripture for myself and saw the contradictions between it and what the church taught.
I threw my lot in with God.
If I honestly really believed that eating Jesus would give me eternal life and that what Catholicism claims happens to the elements, the wheat and the wine, really did happen, then I would have stuck with it.
But Scripture teaches that it’s by faith we are declared righteous and have eternal life and that eating of blood is absolutely, unequivocally, strictly forbidden by God so what Catholicism claims happens in transubstantiation is wrong because it violates a very basic, clear directive of God that is reiterated throughout Scripture.
26While they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.†27And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29“But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom.â€
Matthew 26:26-29
22While they were eating, He took some bread, and after a blessing He broke it, and gave it to them, and said, “Take it; this is My body.†23And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, and they all drank from it. 24And He said to them, “This is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. 25“Truly I say to you, I will never again drink of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.â€
Mark 14:22-25 NASB
14When the hour had come, He reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. 15And He said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; 16for I say to you, I shall never again eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.†17And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves; 18for I say to you, I will not drink of the fruit of the vine from now on until the kingdom of God comes.†19And when He had taken some bread and given thanks, He broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.†20And in the same way He took the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood.
Luke 22:14-20 NASB
52Then the Jews began to argue with one another, saying, “How can this man give us His flesh to eat?†53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. 55“For My flesh is true food, and My blood is true drink. 56“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. 57“As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me. 58“This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.â€
John 6:52-58
14Therefore, my beloved, flee from idolatry. 15I speak as to wise men; you judge what I say. 16Is not the cup of blessing which we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread which we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 17Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.
1 Corinthians 10:14-17 NASB
23For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.†25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.†26For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
1 Corinthians 11:23-26 NASB
The observant reader will note the context of each account regarding the Lord's Supper.
In Matthew, Mark and Luke Jesus is addressing the disciples. In John He is addressing disbelieving Jews.
When all accounts of the Lord's instructions are taken into account one sees the clear meaning of the text. The bread and wine are symbolic of His flesh and blood. Paul's instructions he received from our Lord make this clear.
When we participate in the Lord's Supper, or Eucharist, we are remembering the sacrifice He made for us and we are identifying as a believer in Christ.
Again, context is key to understanding the Word.
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.