Yes your hit and run has several responses. This poster @PeaceByJesus took the time to refute each point. Did not want you to miss it.As anyone, answered this yet?
A lot as happened since I was away, I don't have time to read all of it.
Then why did you posit this canned polemics?Okay, I don't have time to deal with everything here, so I'll just respond to two of them:
A challenge it was not.Then why did you posit this canned polemics?
If you post a challenge it is only etiquette to respond.
Well, you see, even though they were fulfilling Judaism they just neglected to write it down like God had them do for preservation as inspired Scripture, for as seen in 2 Chronicles 34:14-33, oral tradition did not keep the nation from going South but left them overall ignorant of the law of God, while it was finding and reading the book of the Law that resulted in conviction and national restoration.Six. "Thus, the early Christians believed everything the Catholic Church teaches." How can they believe what the Catholic church teaches as it did not exist when they taught what they did.
Well, almost, and you can understand how we may get that demigoddess impression from the uncensored ascription's and adulation of Catholics.The RCC Church is not trying, (And never ties) to make Mary equal to Jesus.
Well, thankfully and with great accuracy others believe this is a sure way to discover what is false.....The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
I apologize, I missed your last reply.
If I needed to support Catholic traditions I would agree with your position. Since I do not I find Sola Scriptura to be more than adequate for salvation. What is essential to Salvation that you believe can not be found in scripture alone?
Incidentally, from my understanding I do not consider this a Salvation issue. Anyone who can sincerely make the confession of Romans 10:9 is saved. Regardless of any other traditions.
God Bless
Jax
Okay, I want come back to this, and have you ponder what I am about to say, this applies to both Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidei. For we're just looking at this in the context of Sola Scriptura, but I highly encourage you, to look at how this applies to Sola Fidei as well, in fact, I'm actually considering doing a Sola Fidei debate, but I'm not sure yet, I still need think and pray about this. For now, let's just consider the following sentence:I said works are not necessary to salvation.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” – Ephesians 2:8-9.
“Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.” – Romans 3:30.
Those who are saved will produce works as a result of their salvation. That's why James says "faith without works is dead".
I've got go for now. I'll check back tomorrow pm. Have a good evening.
God Bless
Jax
Glory to God for what good and edifying.That is probably the best, most comprehensive and well referenced synopsis of the differences between Biblical truth and Roman Catholicism I have seen on this site yet. Thank you for taking the time to post it.
So you mean the veracity of oral preaching and claims to be sacred tradition was based upon the premise of ensured magisterial infallibility as per Rome, which was essential in order to ascertain what was of God, or preaching and truth claims were established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and was subject to testing by the inspired written word, and which was established as being so and authoritative without infallible magisterial decree?There was never 'Sola Scripture' until people invented it! Oral preaching / Tradition was the norm.
And there are 1,000s upon 1,000s of people who engage in logical fallacies such as yours here, the premise of which is that if something results in deleterious division, then it must always do so. And which presumes that there is an alternative that does not.These days, there are 1,000s upon 1,000s of people who claim only 'their' interpretation / understanding of scripture is the correct one! Major1 is a prime example! Among many others on these forums.
Which is so much bombastic assertion. The church that the Lord bought with His sinless shed blood simply did not manifest Catholic distinctives, as listed here, by God's grace.Apostolic succession. The Holy Spirit. All entwined in His church, built upon His teachings, and Continues today straight from St Peter who He said was THE rock on which His church would stand.
The Peter of Scripture was not the papal Peter of Rome, and had no manifest successors in Scripture, except presbuteros/episkopos, not Cath hiereus (distinctive priesthood).Now, people who hate Catholicism have always argued against that point. Just like Moses was God's instrument on earth, so was Peter.
Meaning rather that Scripture is very dangerous to the falsehood of Catholicism, and thus for hundreds of years it hindered the ability to freely have and read the Bible, believing that "if the Sacred Books are permitted everywhere and without discrimination in the vernacular, there will by reason of the boldness of men arise therefrom more harm than good..."Sola Scripture is false and very dangerous as it let's the devil creep into people's minds and twist scripture.
Rome has no authority to presume the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and to thereby make her words equal to and above Scripture.The church, has authority to teach scripture via Holy Tradition.
Thank God, and who has thus led multitudes out of Rome to find life and pasture in "Bible churches." I am glad to be one.The Holy Spirit guides it today, as it did from that very day in the upper room.
And so somehow Catholicism solves this? In all her history, has Rome ever published an official commentary on the whole Bible? And do you affirm the veracity of the notes and helps in your officially sanctioned NAB?If we already have this many ways of interpreting just one three-word sentence, consider how vast the Bible is, and how many passages there are, where we can run into the same problem as we have here.
Think about that..
Okay, I want come back to this, and have you ponder what I am about to say, this applies to both Sola Scriptura and Sola Fidei. For we're just looking at this in the context of Sola Scriptura, but I highly encourage you, to look at how this applies to Sola Fidei as well, in fact, I'm actually considering doing a Sola Fidei debate, but I'm not sure yet, I still need think and pray about this. For now, let's just consider the following sentence:
"I ordered hamburgers"What does that sentence mean? "I ordered hamburgers" did I order frozen hamburger patties? Or cooked hamburgers on a bun? Did I order just the hamburgers, just the burger and the bun? Or did I order hamburgers with lettuce, tomato, onions, etc. Or did I order hamburgers, each with it's own special toppings; one has hotsauce; one's a cheeseburger, one has no onions etc.? And that's just a few ways of interpreting this sentence, there are plenty of other ways of interpreting this. Consider if we examine which of the three words is being emphasized:
"I ordered hamburgers"
"I ordered hamburgers"
"I ordered hamburgers"
If we already have this many ways of interpreting just one three-word sentence, consider how vast the Bible is, and how many passages there are, where we can run into the same problem as we have here.
Think about that.
I have college tomorrow so I won't be home until late this evening. I call on all my fellow-Catholics to fill in for me while I'm gone, keep up the good work.
Or that he must be the assuredly infallible authority on it, for the Catholic premise is that 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.
Would any Catholic here disagree with that?
Frankly that post had to be long to properly address each straw man which was presented.
You say you know Catholic thinking well. If that's true, you'll understand that the Catholic Church believes that salvation is a cooperative thing. By His grace, God offers salvation. By our choice, we accept or reject it. In that sense, we participate.
Our Lady participated in the redemption of mankind. The angel phrased his greeting and his announcement such that she would have been within her rights to decline carrying the savior in her womb. She didn't have to comply as she was being asked to. But, by her own choice, she decided to cooperate.
Thank you for the Vatican II quote.
Could you possibly have any issue with that?
When I was saying you misunderstood some things, I was referring to you saying
"The process is only the RCC's way of trying to make Mary equal to Jesus as the co-redeemer"
That is untrue.
The RCC Church is not trying, (And never ties) to make Mary equal to Jesus.
More accurately, it makes the the Catholic Church superior to Scripture since according to her it only consists of and assuredly means what she says, at least in cases of conflict.I am not a Catholic but I would certainly disagree.
You [are] as a Catholic try[ing] to prove the infallibility of the Catholic Church by stating that the Catholic Church is the infallible interpreter of the Bible. Your claim makes the church equal, if not superior, to the Bible and is another of their efforts to present the Catholic Church as an authority in religion instead of the Bible only.
And Scripture testifies that common people could assuredly discern what and who was of God without an infallible magisterium, and sometimes in dissent to those of the magisterium. (Mark 11:27-33)Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
1). "To make it in any sense an infallible revelation, or in other words a revelation at all to us, we need a power to interpret the testament that shall have equal authority with that testament itself." (The Question Box, p. 95)
2). "An infallible Bible is no use without an infallible interpreter..." (My Catholic Faith, p. 145).
3)."...The Scriptures can never serve as a complete Rule of Faith and a complete guide to heaven independently of an authorized, living interpreter." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 68).
4)."The Church is the only divinely constituted teacher of Revelation. Now, the Scripture is the great depository of the Word of God. Therefore, the Church is the divinely appointed Custodian and Interpreter of the Bible. For, her office of infallible Guide were superfluous if each individual could interpret the Bible for himself...God never intended the Bible to be the Christians' rule of faith independently of the living authority of the Church." (Ibid., p. 77).
However, the Bible truth says that there are no passages in the Bible which state that Christ made His church the infallible interpreter of His Word. There are none that mention an infallible interpreter and none that hint or remotely imply that Christ wanted one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?