Posted on 01/04/2019 8:20:14 AM PST by Salvation
Reading some of these historical evidences of various Catholics doing their thing is a way to understand just what Catholicism is capable of.
I assume you are now going to expound on the DIFFERENCES found in today's Catholic schisms and sects?
I don't know WHY our FR Catholics have no assurance of heaven...
You nailed it, sister.
I don’t either bro. I surely have assurance of Heaven. If others don’t, that’s on them. 😁
While using whatever Catholics place under the big Unitarian/Scientology/Swedenborgian/Mormonic;Baptist/etc. tent called Protestantism in comparison with Catholicism with her various various flavors of Catholics is an invalid comparison, the fact is that both early historical Protestantism and evangelicalism overall preaches that "both good deeds and faith in God are needed to get into heaven" - meaning a living effectual faith is that which justifies. And evangelicals are the ones who must evidence that, as compared to Catholic s.
No less a historical document on SS and Sola fide than the Westminster confession states that faith,
yet it is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love. - Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification
Luther himself in sermons rejected the idea that a faith which did not effect characteristic obedience was salvific, stating,
You mean the same scribes and pharisees that Jesus called hypocrites and white washed tombs full of dead men's bones?
Do Catholics?
And as for Protestants, no we don't do everything the scribes and pharisees bid us to observe and do. For one thing, we are no longer under the Law. It's not a requirement for Christians.
Another is that that was the priestly system of Judaism. That does not apply to Christians. Matter of fact, God did away with it and had the Temple destroyed on top of it, to prevent any further practice of it.
And none of that is still any excuse to ignore the clear concise command of Jesus to not call religious leaders by the title *Father*, as the context VERY CLEARLY shows.
All this nonsense that we keep hearing spouted about *Well, kids call their fathers *Dad* and Paul called himself a father to others* is nothing more than rationalization to disobey Jesus.
It's a very weak argument to that has been used too many times to rationalize disobedience.
So instead of excusing doing it, why doesn't Roman Catholicism demand that it's membership not use the word at all, instead of demanding they use it and rationalize it away?
RCs themselves actually have a great deal of liberty to (abuse) interpret Scripture within the Catholic parameters, seeing as there is no official commentary on the whole Bible (and the CCC hardly suffices for that).
And requiring notes in official RC Bibles has resulted in decades of many liberal interpretations , as said.
And dispensing with the fallacy that whatever fits under the tent called "Protestantism" examples what SS , with its accompanying view of Scripture, results in, the reality is that those who most strongly hold to the authority and integrity of Scripture as the accurate and wholly inspired word of God testify to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death.
And unlike us, you must consider them to be your brethren if Rome manifestly does. And yet RCs insist we should leave our conservative evangelical fellowships and join this unholy amalgamation
Who do those two YOPIOSers go to to truly determine which of those two opposing interpretations of Scripture is correct, and the truth?
Well, as RCs are to submit to a limited scope of basic beliefs, so this is essentially require in conservative evangelical churches, while both can disagree on many things.
A known proabortion, prohomosexual public figure with their spin on Scripture s far far more likely to call Rome their home than a evangelical church, who are considered religious enemy #1 by both liberals and trad. Catholics. And who then play victim when reproved for their promotions and defense of Mother Church.
In addition, contrary to the false version of SS that Catyhs rely on, in which only the Bible is to be used, and nothing more is needed at all, inn historical Protestantism no less that the Westminster Confession affirmed,
“It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith..and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission,” (Chapter XXXI)
Now the questions for you are,
1. Can common souls ascertain which writings are of God, or must the historical magisterium do this in order for an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings to be established?
2. Can itinerant preachers, not ordained by the historical magisterium and even sometimes reproving the same, be correctly ascertained by the people as being valid ministers of God, or must they be ordained by and faithful to the valid historical magisterium
3. If the answer to the above is that they can be, on what basis can these preachers be ascertained by the people as being valid ministers of God, if not upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power?
On further reflection on your emotive charge, rather than my use here of my standard practice on my initial post to a thread of pinging those who wanted to be pinged to threads as this being because I cannot handle the likes of you by myself (ask your cohorts), it is fitting that they be invited to Catholic threads that attack Protestantism. Especially seeing as as multitudes of Catholics are pinged to such (see post #2), and in responding to which the very few evangelicals who respond may be of some help, and which you should welcome under the premise that we are the ones so hopelessly divided (and we do disagree on some things).
However, the list mainly serves as inviting witnesses to to the reproof of Catholic propaganda, and which ping list is a missing feature on most forums. Such as one where for as number of days i have, by the grace of God, been countering atheists and liberals who also attack evangelicals, though in this case I presume it is on an issue you also concur.
“Amen! Isn’t it funny how some RC “apologists” trot out the straw man of “Protestants don’t all agree with each other on...”, when the SAME thing can be said of Roman Catholics? ”
Most don’t even agree with their “pope.”
“And when two people interpret the Scriptures in contradictory, mutually exclusive ways, (as often happens, such as the question involving whether or not the Scriptures still prohibit active homosexuality), which of those two biblical interpretations is right, and why?”
Indeed.why does the Roman “magisterium” oppose homosexuality, while the Vatican, seminaries, Cardinals, and bishops make Roman Catholicism into the gayest of gay and abusive churches??
Which is correct and why??
But Teddy K Catholics were given strong assurance that such will make it to Heaven. Now you sound like one of those Reformers.
faith and good works should be so closely joined together that the essence of the entire Christian life consists in both.
Oh, afvet isn’t one of the Reformers. He was just quoting me from upthread in his attempt to argue that works earn salvation.
Still kinda sad.
Or Paul
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. (1 Corinthians 4:14) For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. (1 Corinthians 4:15) To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord. (2 Timothy 1:2) To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. (Titus 1:4) I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds: (Philemon 10) But ye know the proof of him, that, as a son with the father, he hath served with me in the gospel. (Philippians 2:22)
Also, that "call no man father" reference comes from Matthew 23:9. Just before that, in Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus instructs folks to observe and do whatever the Scribes and Pharisees bid you to observe and do.
Even more contextually, "Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.? (Matthew 23:10) Yet, "ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him." (Ephesians 6:9) My brethren, be not many masters [instructors], knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation. For in many things we offend all. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man, and able also to bridle the whole body. (James 3:1-2) What is taught in Matthew 23:1-12 is a comparative form of speech, using hyperbole to denounce love of titles, and instead to exhort aversion to them and to heady exaltation thereby, instead being clothed with humility, taking the lowest place, and focusing on God the Father as the Christ a master. But which does not exclude that such titles as descriptive can be used.
The classic commentator Matthew Poole states,
Ver. 8-10. It is most certain that our Saviour doth not here forbid the giving of the titles of masters and fathers to his ministers, for then Paul would not have given himself the title of father, 1Co_4:15; nor called the Galatians his little children, Gal_4:19: nor called Timothy his son, and himself his father, Phi_2:22; nor called himself a doctor of the Gentiles, 1Ti_2:7 2Ti_1:11. That which he forbids is,
1. An affectation of such titles, and hunting after them.
2. Rem tituli, the exercise of an absolute mastership, or a paternal, absolute power; so as to require any to believe things because they said them, or to do things because they bid them, without seeing the things asserted, or first commanded, in the word of God.
And yet we have such acquisition of such honorary titles as "Doctor of Divinity,” Rev., Right Rev., Lord Bishop etc.. And while "call no man father" is not unconditionally absolute, it has no place as a formal title (nor does "reverend"), any more than calling Mormon leaders "elders" has. For no Cath. priest is my father (though I was baptized by one of my two uncles who were priests), for that act simply does not effect regeneration, which makes a mockery of the Biblical description of it with its basic transformative effects.
Well; Catholics are under Rome's law. It IS a requirement for them!!
Your catechism does NOT say that!
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.