the Pope and the Papacy

[Fireinfolding]

Must things be this complicated?

Wouldnt some verses suffice?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

*snip*
See also the section on Purgatory whence Augustine claims belief in Purgatory would be proper if even only based on the teaching of the Church. Augustine's belief in the authority of the church shows that he did not teach sola scriptura.

Continued

So you are admitting that one can view either RC or EO/Protestant teaching to come to a conclusion on a doctrine even if one can't find it in Scriptures.?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

While I do not hold to the rapture theory, obviously it is not a "second chance", as with the false doctrine of purgatory.

I am also thankful the RCC does not espouse the future "rapture" doctrine [and from I hear, the RCC says that the rapture doctrine is "heretical"]

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/articles/subcats.asp?id=9|21

Dispensationalism, Premillenialism, the Rapture, Tribulation Period, C.I. Scofield, Bible Prophecy

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Is it fair to say that Benedict's vision is not what the earlier RC was? Have they repented and recanted, chopping at the root of their tree?
​

So we have a new and improved infallible teaching that replaces the older, defective infallible teaching from the infallible church that says its dogmas are directly communicated to and it's magesterium infallibly led by the Holy Spirit, so that it's teachings are infallible divine truth..

Gotcha!

Either the Holy Spirit was confused in the earlier teachings or Rome was.

You be the judge.

Let the reader decide

This is just too easy folks. It'd be sooo easy to unify in the Truth.

 

[Stryder06]

While I do not hold to the rapture theory, obviously it is not a "second chance", as with the false doctrine of purgatory.

Glad to hear you don't hold to the rapture. And it actually does offer up a "second chance" for those left behind.

 

[Standing Up]

Must things be this complicated?

Wouldnt some verses suffice?

No kidding. Those semantical webs weaving in the whim.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Let the reader decide

This is just too easy folks. It'd be sooo easy to unify in the Truth.

 

[Stryder06]

Must things be this complicated?

Wouldnt some verses suffice?

Hopefully I'm not speaking out of turn here, but if I'm not mistaken, for our catholic brethren, "holy tradition" would be sufficient enough to justify this theological issue.

Of course, if there is scripture for this, I'd love to read it.

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

Do we now?

Augustine believed the canon of Scripture to contain the Greek OT canon also known today as the deuterocanonicals or "Apocrypha"

"The whole canon of the Scriptures, however, in which we say that consideration is to be applied, is contained in these books: the five of Moses . . . and one book of Joshua [Son of] Nave, one of Judges; one little book which is called Ruth . . . then the four of Kingdoms, and the two of Paralipomenon . . . . [T]here are also others too, of a different order . . . such as Job and Tobit and Esther and Judith and the two books of Maccabees, and the two of Esdras . . . . Then there are the Prophets, in which there is one book of the Psalms of David, and three of Solomon. . . . But as to those two books, one of which is entitled Wisdom and the other of which is entitled Ecclesiasticus and which are called `of Solomon' because of a certain similarity to his books, it is held most certainly that they were written by Jesus Sirach. They must, however, be accounted among the prophetic books, because of the authority which is deservedly accredited to them" (Christian Instruction 2:8:13 [A.D. 397]).​

Oh, but you neglect to include that Augustine, as did the early church fathers made a distinction between the Inspired Canon, and that of the deuteros, that were also called "canon" but not inspired, and for use in matters of faith and morals. Augustine, like Jerome and the rest relegated them to ecclesial status, rightly so.
​

Augustine Believed in Authoritative Tradition

"[T]he custom [of not rebaptizing converts] . . . may be supposed to have had its origin in Apostolic Tradition, just as there are many things which are observed by the whole Church, and therefore are fairly held to have been enjoined by the Apostles, which yet are not mentioned in their writings" (On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5:23[31] [A.D. 400]).​

Augustine considered the Scriptures to be "Apostolic Tradition", and those teachings that were in agreement with the Scriptures.


​

"But the admonition that he [Cyprian] gives us, 'that we should go back to the fountain, that is, to Apostolic Tradition, and thence turn the channel of truth to our times,' is most excellent, and should be followed without hesitation" (ibid., 5:26[37]).

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the Apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Letter to Januarius [A.D. 400]).​

Augustine considered "Apostolic Tradition" to be the Scriptures and the doctrines which are in accordance with the Scriptures.

Roman Catholics make the mistake of seeing the word, "Tradition" and read it through the lens of Rome's medieval version, when in fact Augustine and the early church used the term entirely differently, as indicated below:

What more can I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture sets a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise more than it behooves to be wise,” but be wise, as he says, “unto soberness, according as unto each God has allotted the measure of faith.”---Augustine, "On the Good of Widowhood".

​

 

[Standing Up]

Augustine Believed the Mass to be a Sacrifice

"In the sacrament he is immolated for the people not only on every Easter Solemnity but on every day; and a man would not be lying if, when asked, he were to reply that Christ is being immolated. For if sacraments had not a likeness to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all; and they generally take the names of those same things by reason of this likeness" (Letters 98:9 [A.D. 412]).


​

Immolated is sacrifice. Now is this what JM is speaking about? Not lying to reply CHRIST IS BEING IMMOLATED. Not resacrificed, but is being sacrificed again and again and again and again.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hopefully I'm not speaking out of turn here, but if I'm not mistaken, for our catholic brethren, "holy tradition" would be sufficient enough to justify this theological issue.

Of course, if there is scripture for this, I'd love to read it.

edit to add: oooops.....it's closed

http://www.christianforums.com/t7231588/
"Holy Tradition"--Who has the correct interpretation of the Traditions?

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

Glad to hear you don't hold to the rapture. And it actually does offer up a "second chance" for those left behind.

This is not the thread to discuss this or the abberant teacings of the SDA.

 

[Fireinfolding]

Hopefully I'm not speaking out of turn here, but if I'm not mistaken, for our catholic brethren, "holy tradition" would be sufficient enough to justify this theological issue.

Of course, if there is scripture for this, I'd love to read it.

No you are not speaking out of turn, we just pile on

I'm not too swift though I know theres whats called "Holy scriptures" but does scripture speak of "holy tradition"? Or is that sorta a way to describe (traditionally speaking) how the holy scriptures come by? I read "tradition" but I dont read holy tradition. Well...ofcourse there was tradition Jesus rebuked so Im not sure all is holy on that end of it (well compared to the Word of God) Jesus lifted up as a standard in the face of what their tradition made to none effect.

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

God uses suffering to purify the soul and to detach it from created things. Scripture more than once repeats the comparison: as gold or silver is purified by fire, so also the soul of the just is purified by tribulation (Ps. 66,10; Prov. 12,3; Wis. 3,6, EccL 2,5; Pet. 1,2).






After Jesus "was put to death in the flesh" (1st Peter 3:18), he "descended into the lower parts of the earth [sheol]" (Ephesians 4:10) to "preach to the spirits in prison" (1st Peter 3:19), namely the righteous men whose knees "bow...under the earth" (Phillipians 2:10) such that the "gospel was preached even to the dead" (1st Peter 4:6). Fulfilling the promise "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God...all who are in the tombs will hear" (John 5:25.28). Afterword, regarding these righteous men of sheol, "when [Jesus] ascended on high he led a host of captives" (Ephesians 4:8) immediately making Jesus the "firstborn of the dead." (Collosians 1:17).
But what happened to sheol after this? Some say it disappeared. But what does Scripture say? Jesus says "I hold the keys to death and the netherworld [sheol]" (Revelations 1:18 - sheol in Greek is hades). Jesus is not holding the keys to something that no longer exists, but to something that still exists. But if it still exists, what is it for? Do any souls still go to sheol even after Jesus' resurrection? If so, are any of these souls righteous?
In Revelation 20:4, we see the superlatively righteous as coming to life during the first resurrection: "the souls of those who had been beheaded...they came to life and they reigned with Christ for a thousand years." We are also told that "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over." These remaining people are said to come from sheol: "then Death and Hades [sheol] gave up the dead in them" (Revelation 20:13). This then answers a previous question; there are indeed souls that still go to sheol even after Jesus' resurrection.
Now, some might claim that this "hades" or "sheol" of Revelation 20:13 is actually hell itself. However, Revelation 20:14 states "Then Death and Hades were thrown in the lake of fire [Hell]." This proves that this sheol is not the same thing as hell itself. If it were, then Revelation 20:14 would be indicating that Hell was being thrown into Hell; a proposition which makes no sense. However, some say that absolutely all the souls of this second resurrection from sheol go to Hell. But what does Scripture say of these people? "If any one's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire" (Rev 20:15). Now, (Ephesians 4:9) in saying "if any one," what does it mean but that some names were indeed found in the book of life.
What does it mean to say "if any one" if not to say that there are some whose name's were indeed in the book of life? When Paul says "If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed. Thus, those whose names were in the book of life did not go to Hell! These remaining people were among the saved! It thus holds ipso facto that there is a place, neither heaven nor hell, which does indeed detain some number of righteous souls before entrance into heaven.

Bot?

 

[Dark_Lite]

While I do not hold to the rapture theory, obviously it is not a "second chance", as with the false doctrine of purgatory.

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

Originally Posted by ebia

For pity's sake. If the RCC teaches something you disagree with you want to condemn it for doing so, if it doesn't you want to condemn it for not doing so.

Dude

Really? I thought the opposite.

, just asking for 3 examples from the video. Instead folks have ranted against the man. Thanks for doing the same.

We have here a good example of postmodernists in Christian garb, in which the truth is irrelevant. How sad.
​

 

[Rick Otto]

Is a forum ban sort of a beheading?
I feel a draft on my neck.

 

[Rick Otto]

postmodernist in Christian garb

I was thinking of dressing up as one of those for a costume party.

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

Originally Posted by Sargent_Pepper

While I do not hold to the rapture theory, obviously it is not a "second chance", as with the false doctrine of purgatory.

Roman Catholics think that their "venial sins" are not really very offensive to God, and have no eternal consequences, therefore are free to commit all the "little sins" they want since they get them burned off in purgatory.

That fallacious thinking of sin being mortal and venial stems from a perverse understanding of both the Holiness of God and the nature of sin.

God is so Infinitely Holy that one, teeny, tiny sin is infinitely offense to an Infinitely Holy God, and will take all eternity to suffer for.

How sad when Roman Catholics land in purgatory and discover it is really hell.
​

 

[Sargent_Pepper]

I was thinking of dressing up as one of those for a costume party.

They can be acquired at the "Unity Church".