Conscience question re. forum rules forbidding posting any thing "threatening...likely to offend...or otherwise violates any laws"

Saved2Serve said:
"Self and bible alone as a sole rule" as representing SS (sola scriptura), means a fallible person looking to a wholly God-inspired - and thus infallible - substantive standard body of Truth as alone being the sure sufficient (in its material and formal senses)

Yet the Roman Catholic alternative is that of a fallible person relying on a source which is not wholly God-inspired and assuredly infallible, but has only presumed to assert that she (conditionally) is protected from error. Meaning that 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 criteria: pope or ecumenical in union w/ him defining a matter of faith and morals for the whole church). Which means that her declaration (Pastor Aeternus) itself that she is infallible, is infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, past, present and future. She also essentially presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.

You can attempt to argue that being a God-ordained authority which could conclusively settle disputes and require submission, being the judge on who and what is true and of God (both men and statements) and to bind and loose in that regard, requires ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV), yet as described, that is simply not what Scripture examples and teaches regarding this office.

And both men and writings of God were established as such before there was a church which presumed it was essential to know these.

Neither does the commission to teach nor the promise to progressively lead into all truth (which has been going on since Genesis, and will be fully realized with the resurrection of the elect: 1 Corinthians 13:12; 1 Jn. 3:2) require EPMV.

Moreover, simply because something is true does not make it to be equal to the inspired word of God with its power, (Heb. 4:12) and since neither popes nor councils in union with him speak or write as wholly inspired of God, which Scripture is, then it only is the sure, supreme substantive word of God and source and judge of Truth.

Neither was it any magisterium of men (though it be a valid office) that the Lord Himself used as His sword of Truth to defeat enemies and substantiate His claims, but that of Scripture, for as said, the NT church established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, the Scriptures, (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.) and God-inspired oral teaching, and miracles, the later of which Scripture validates as a attesting to Truth, but only as consistent with prior revelation.


That is a form of an either/or false dilemma, a logical fallacy, since to believe the Bible is to believe the gospel, which is believe in the Lord Jesus of it.


Indeed, (John 21:25) but rather than speaking of the need for oral revelation supplementing this, the same author points to writing for truth of salvation: Likewise, These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13)

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15, 18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44, 45; John 5:46, 47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2, 11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15


To the contrary, it was Scripture which both preceded the church (do you deny this?) and provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church (do you deny this?), and by which the Lord substantiated His mission by, and opened the understanding of disciples to, and who invoked this in testifying to Christ and the gospel, while be able to speak (and write) as wholly inspired of God, and provide new revelation by, which your leadership does not! Do you deny this?

Meanwhile, so-called "revealed truth" has demonstrated the presumption of leadership to claim something which even history fails to evidence, as in the Assumption, (even as Ratzinger confessed), since she presumes (in the words of Cardinal Manning) "the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy...that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness." (“The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: pp. 227-228)


Rather, it is not I who am claiming authority as if a "little pope," nor deeming any Scripture to be meaningless, for any claim by me to veracity must rest upon the weight of sound Scriptural substantiation. In contrast, it is your church which has presumed that she alone is the sure supreme authority, since Scripture, Tradition and history only authoritatively consists of and means what she says, and one cannot even know what the word of God consists of apart from faith in her.

If 1st century souls followed this logic, that the historical magisterium over God's people where to be followed in all her judgments, then they would not have been able to ascertain that John the baptizer was "a prophet indeed," (Mark 11:32) and followed an itinerant preacher whom the historical magisterium rejected.


Yes, into which the Spirit baptizes ever believer upon regeneration. (1 Co, 12:13) even if they have no organic church to go to yet. (Acts 8:35-40)

And the only one true church is the body of Christ (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) being the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes every believer into, (1Co. 12:13) as "living stones" in this "spiritual house," (1 Peter 2:5) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares.

And with organic fellowships being what a believer to become part of, being baptized under water (if possible) as seen in Scripture, and which become increasingly diverse. (Rev. 2+3).

However, distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). Which includes its Peter, and gospel and Lord's supper. Therefore, based upon this, it has no valid claim to being the one true church.

More questions for you are, do you not rely on self and your church alone as a sole rule, since you made a fallible decision to trust in a church as being infallible, and the word of God only authoritatively consists of and means what is says it does?

“the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities between the word of God and his reading.” (Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium)

“People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high.” ( Cardinal Avery Dulles)

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; (Providentissimus Deus)Pope Leo XIII)

How did souls know who and what was from God before your church presumed that she was essential to assuredly know such?



Yes, not just the collective church, but "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven." (Mat 18:19)

Which is related to "And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son". (John 14:13) "And this is the confidence that we have in him, that, if we ask any thing according to his will, he heareth us:" (1 John 5:14)

This broad provision is not restricted to church government, and is conditional upon "in my name," meaning according to his will, with proper motive, heart and faith.

As explained before, the Matthew 18:15-18 section contextually refers to judicial cases, which flows from the OT, in which the judgment of what was essentially the "supreme court" was binding, in guilt or innocence, or other issues, was binding, with dissent being a capital offense. (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) The closest application of this was Acts 15,

It certainly does not sanctify all that Catholicism has loosed upon the earth, including the decree that bound all Catholic rulers to exterminate/expel all heretics she pointed to, lest the faithful be no longer obligated to obey them. (canon 3, Ecumenical Fourth Lateran Council, 1215) Nor Protestant similar suppression.

Physically binding opposition is not what Mt. 18 sanctions.



Yes, and which refers to the gates of Hell not withstanding the body of Christ rescuing those falling into those gates. Which means is by effectual heart-purifying regenerating gospel faith in the Lord Jesus, (Acts 10:36-47; Acts15:7-9; Titus 3:5) and not that of salvation essentially being via perfection of character.



As regards final, full experiential salvation, that will be at the believer's resurrection, which is the only transformative postmortem experience the NT speaks of when clearly referring to the afterlife, which imperfect Paul looked forward to. Who at His coming,

"shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself." (Philippians 3:21)

And the only place of conscious existence after this world is that of being with the Lord at His coming.

For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. (1 Thessalonians 4:16-17)

However, Scripture plainly and repeatedly states that believers of gospel faith are presently "accepted in the Beloved," and positionally made to sit together with the Lord in Heaven, (Eph. 1:5; 2:6) having been forgiven all trespasses and translated into the kingdom of his dear Son, from where thy look for their Lord's return and their transformative resurrection. (Colossians 1:13; 2:13; Phil. 3:20)

In addition to what I wrote above, as being true believers, they are affirmed as presently possessing eternal life:

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God." (1 John 5:13)

And since one is saved by effectual justifying faith, which is evidenced by Spirit-led works of faith, (Rm. 8:14; Heb. 6:9,10; 1 Thessalonians 1:3-10) then Scripture warns believers against believing a false gospel based on merit via the Law, making Christ of no effect, to no profit, and of departing from the living God, thereby forfeiting what faith obtained. .(Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:6; 10:25-34)



What is there to explain? SS does not hold that having a Bible is essential for salvation, and SS preachers from long ago preached the gospel to souls who had none. SS holds that the Bibical contains what is necessary for salvation and obedience, and which sufficiency obviosly does not exclude teachers and study helps, etc. which Scripture materially provides. And whereby a soul may attain to saving knowledge, not that such assuredly will nor must have a Bible.

And also that "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)

Hope this helps. Sorry it had to be so prolix.
Click to expand...
Excuse me sir, but please cease the condescending insults.
 
Saved2Serve said:
The Jerome Biblical Commentary (ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy [Pontifical Biblical Commission,1972)
Click to expand...
They soiled the name of Jerome. All three authors were Historical-critical modernists/dissidents. As others and I see them, enemies of the faith. Wolves in sheep's clothing. How bizarre that you choose them from all of the orthodox sources available! Huge warning flag!

I hope to God Allmighty that you are simply deceived and are not consciously deceiving.
 
Last edited:
For your information, my life has been spared from fatal illness seven times. I have miraculously survived via God's grace as - PLEASE PAY ATTENTION HERE! - transmitted through the Holy Eucharist, the Anointing of the Sick and the other Sacraments clearly instituted by Christ IN THE BIBLE. After spending 15 years lost in the Protestant wilderness, the haunt of demons, the Most Holy Spirit lead me toward the light of Christ. Thus, one must understand that I possess an alarming lack of interest in focusing on condemned*** heretical error. To do so lowers me, reduces me, violates my human dignity by demanding that I divert my gaze from our precious Lord so as to engage in worldly ERROR. No sir! I have escaped ego-centered Protestantism and its clear and obvious deception. I have abandoned man-made religion; have risen above ego-centered slavery. I have taken the best advice in all of scripture: "Do whatever He tells you." I strive to humble myself daily in the presence of the God you claim to love. Conversely, I have fully embraced Christ on HIS terms. I most sincerely exhort you to do likewise. This is a near impossible task via the man-made doctrine of bible alone.

Thus, it should be eminently clear that I harbor precisely zero desire to countenance such obvious and flagrant theological error. I love God; I love truth far too much to risk being lead astray by a stranger who, for all I know, may well be serving the spirit of the air. I have tested the spirits and your words dissolve Christ. For your repentance and salvation, please thoroughly read 1 john 4:1-4 (Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims) several times. No other bible is acceptable - especially the secular King James Bible, which requires a believer to prostrate himself before the "Most High and Mighty Prince James"! What baldfaced and utter BLASPHEMY! God alone is the Most High and Mighty! This is certainly idolatry of the most vile sort.

Now, after you read those verses and repent, you will then possess a far more profound opportunity for salvation. God saves whom He wills, but the words you write (once Google translates them) stand in such stark opposition to revealed truth that the mind fairly boggles. I susect that I lose brain cells by attempting to rectify the convuoluted phrasiology and halting train of thought. Maybe Chat GPT can help you express your novel belief in a more coherent and understandable fasion.

Before God, I must declare that engaging with you has become a near occasion of sin for me: spiritual danger. I will not allow anyone to bewitch me as befell the hapless Galatians. I am not so dense and slow of wit as the "Bereans" who, despite being saturated with scripture, completely missed the salient point: Jesus Christ. In all of their immersion in sola scriptura, they nevertheless could not fathom that Christ was the long-awaited Messiah. They were so incredibly hard-headed that they had to run back to scripture to fact-check Paul! What stupefying sluggards they appear to be! What is worse, even after assuring themselves that Christ was the Anointed, only a portion of them converted! Unbelievable! And todays' foolish bibleists hold them high as fine examples. Fallen, Fallen is Protestantism!

Now you arrive here in a decidedly peremptory fashion, dialoguing, no! disgorging upon us - with no intent to dialog!!! - the greatly feared and rightly vilified "other gospel" that Paul so wholeheartedly adjured us to scrupulously avoid. I will neither dissolve Christ nor depart from Him, as your words ultimately require. I have insufficient Tylenol at hand to suffer through parsing your effusive pontifications. They are opinions and yours alone. I follow Christ and not ypour ego or my ego. The Catholic Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, founded by Christ on Saint Peter. All other ersatz communions place you at great risk of eternal loss.

On that day, coming ever so soon, please do not tell Saint Peter that you were not cautioned. Christ loves you and even as difficult as you have presented to us, we love you and strongly desire that you be saved. I pray for the day when humility leads you to a fuller knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of all.

Peace be to you.

*** Of note: both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, independently, extensively examined the "reform" and both, God as their witness, rightly denounced the supposed "reform." This historcal and theological truth is concealed from Protestants. Why?
 
po18guy said:
I was speaking of the New Testament. Did you not realize that? Wow.
OK, I am clearly wasting my time here. God bless you and lead you to Christ!
Click to expand...
"Scripture" includes the OT, which constitutes the majority of the Bible, and as said and shown, provided the epistemological and prophetic foundation for the church, and especially the gospel without which the church would have no members.

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:28-29)

Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) (Romans 1:1-2)

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:25-26)

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
 
po18guy said:
They [re. The Jerome Biblical Commentary (ed. Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Roland E. Murphy [Pontifical Biblical Commission,1972) ] soiled the name of Jerome. All three authors were Historical-critical modernists/dissidents. As others and I see them, enemies of the faith. Wolves in sheep's clothing. How bizarre that you choose them from all of the orthodox sources available! Huge warning flag!

I hope to God Allmighty that you are simply deceived and are not consciously deceiving.
Click to expand...
All were and are manifestly considered members by your leadership to whom you are to submit, including Bergoglio, who likely considers the three scholars mentioned above to be too conservative. I hope to God Allmighty that you are simply deceived and are not consciously deceiving, in response to biblical reproof.
 
po18guy said:
please thoroughly read 1 john 4:1-4 (Latin Vulgate, Douay-Rheims) several times. No other bible is acceptable - especially the secular King James Bible, which requires a believer to prostrate himself before the "Most High and Mighty Prince James"!
Click to expand...
Which is very close to the KJV, though not on the list of approved translations by your bishops.

The 1983 Code of Canon Law entrusts to the Apostolic See and the episcopal conferences the authority to approve translations of the Sacred Scriptures in the Latin Catholic Church (c. 825, §1). Meanwhile, the Vulgate had many versions when Trent affirmed it, leading to the scandal of the SistineVulgate.

As regards 1 John 4:1-4:

Dearly beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
By this is the spirit of God known. Every spirit which confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God.
And this is Antichrist, of whom you have heard that he cometh: and he is now already in the world.
You are of God, little children, and have overcome him. Because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
(1Jn 4:1-4) [1899 Douay-Rheims Bible]

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
(1Jn 4:1-4) [1769 King James Version]

A fitting text. Thanks. I certainly affirm the incarnated Christ, God manifest in the flesh, which is the test here, and whose physicality is emphasized in Scripture, (Luke24:39; 1John 1:1-3; 4:2-3; John5:6; 2 John 7) in contrast to a Docetist-type Christ, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was, meaning a metaphysical meaning. However, the Lord Jesus never appeared as inanimate objects, which are said to no longer actually exist, while this christ no longer locally does either under that form once manifests decay of these non-existent object occurs.

For your information, my life has been spared from fatal illness seven times.
Click to expand...
As the Mormons say when confronted with Scriptural refutations, "I have my testimony" as a substitute for Scriptural refutation.

I am not so dense and slow of wit as the "Bereans" who,
Click to expand...
the Holy Spirit commends as "noble" (DRB) and contrary to your slander ["What stupefying sluggards"] did what Paul himself and disciples like was Apollos were doing, (Acts 17:2; 18:28) following the example of their Lord, (Lk. 24:27,44) and thus many believed on the risen Lord Jesus, while others were hardened, as exampled here in the light ot Biblical Truth.

Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so. And many indeed of them believed: and of honourable women that were Gentiles and of men, not a few. (Act 17:11-12) [DRB]

Now you arrive here in a decidedly peremptory fashion, dialoguing, no! disgorging upon us - with no intent to dialog!!!
Click to expand...

Which is more recourse to slander, in response to actual refutation.
*** Of note: both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox, independently, extensively examined the "reform" and both, God as their witness, rightly denounced the supposed "reform." This historcal and theological truth is concealed from Protestants. Why?
Click to expand...
To the contrary, I am one who exposes such error and claimed reforms, which includes enlisting the EO's in denouncing other RC error, without me affirming their own.

And yet, Traditional RC's who subject the veracity of modern RC teaching to their judgment as to what historical RC is and means (and dissent from aspects of V2 and some modern encylicals) are essentially acting like "Bible Christians" are to. Except our source for ancient church teaching is the only wholly God-inspired record of it. Thanks be to God.

I have insufficient Tylenol at hand to suffer through parsing your effusive pontifications. They are opinions and yours alone.
Click to expand...

Meaning more soliloquy.
 
po18guy said:
Please tell the truth: Are you Professor Irwin Corey?
Click to expand...
Meaning more recourse to ad hominem in response to sound reproof.

As a mod on another forum advises,

If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.

Your choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top