tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post5400504624759248560..comments2024-03-22T16:09:48.895-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part Two): Divine Authority, Church CorruptionJames Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43466844205800175472017-04-27T11:40:44.487-04:002017-04-27T11:40:44.487-04:00One Catholic apologist tried to use a similar line...One Catholic apologist tried to use a similar line of reasoning, he could pick any topic of discussion, and chose to discuss the authority of the Catholic church as the first point. The rationale: the Catholic Church picked the canon of the Bible, therefore the Catholic Church is the primary authority which decides what is scripture and what isn't. They use this line of argument especially against Protestants. He was not familiar with the New Church, and he was not familiar with our canon, the argument starts to rapidly fall apart - one can see in the comments the line of reasoning here: <a href="http://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2017/03/is-second-coming-physical-event-or.html" rel="nofollow">Is the Second Coming a Physical Event or Spiritual Event?</a><br /><br />The New Church uses internal evidence in the text itself, and is not dependent on authority or tradition as the Catholic Church is, and to some extent, the Protestant churches as well.<br /><br />I discuss this issue of authority of the Catholic Church here: <a href="http://dream-prophecy.blogspot.com/2017/04/does-primary-spiritual-authority-reside.html" rel="nofollow">Does Primary Spiritual Authority reside in the Roman Catholic Church?</a>Doug Webberhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11071107950046910342noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43395819877773875752015-02-02T07:48:31.320-05:002015-02-02T07:48:31.320-05:00Yes indeed, the individual members are sinners. Bu...<br /> <i>Yes indeed, the individual members are sinners. But the Church is greater than the sum of her sinful members.<br />The Church is not sinful in her Sacraments nor in her doctrines due to being the Body of Christ. </i> <br /><br /> Rather, the Body of Christ does not consist of only one church, nor are the visible churches the same in content as the Body of Christ, as only the latter consists 100% of believers. <br /><br />And which is in contrast to Rome and liberal Prot churches, which treat even proabortion, prohomo, promuslim pols as members in life and in death, and a near majority which support such.<br /><br />Which partly evidences what they really believe, (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20) and is more substantial and speaks louder than conservative paper statements. <br /><br />It is the church as the Body of Christ which Christ promised to lead and preserve, which is His bride, not single visible churches thru which the Body of Christ as well as unbelievers have expression. <br /><br />And Rome's <a href="http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html#The" rel="nofollow"> doctrines of deformation </a> will be burned up along with the so-called health and wealth gospel.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58058247332857477982015-02-02T00:13:45.710-05:002015-02-02T00:13:45.710-05:00Nor is he inconsistent in assuming that the Bible ... <i>Nor is he inconsistent in assuming that the Bible is clear Christ established a church. There is a spectrum of clarity to Scripture (as even Protestants admit) - an atheist can read Scripture and know it mentions Moses and not Big Bird. </i> <br /><br /> However, DV argues that without an infallible magisterium it "becomes impossible to distinguish between what divine revelation actually is versus what a fallible human being thinks it is." (http://www.catholic.com/blog/devin-rose/why-catholicism-is-preferable-to-protestantism)<br /><br />For support he might have invoked Cardinal Avery Dulles asserts, "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."<br /><br />And the Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; <br /><br />"..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..."<br /><br />Thus DVs erroneous fundamental premise is that perpetual magisterial infallibility of office is essential for discernment (as well as preservation) of Truth, for correctly ascertaining who and what is of God, otherwise "there's no way to know whether you're assenting to divine revelation or to mere human opinion about divine revelation." <br /><br />However, this RC premise and its presuppositions effectively invalidates the NT church. For without any perpetually ensured infallible magisterium souls souls correctly discerned both men and writings a being of God.<br /><br />And the rather than the the church beginning under the RC premise for determination and assurance of Truth, in which the historical magisterium and recipient of Divine promises of God's presence and preservation are the assuredly infallibility authority on Truth,<br /><br />Instead they followed itinerant preachers whom the magisterium rejected, but whom their Leader reproved from Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (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.) <br /><br />Meanwhile, under the RC model 1st century souls could not have had assurance of Truth as to what writings were of God, and should have submitted to the historical magisterium.PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76483051648740219012015-01-17T13:43:02.187-05:002015-01-17T13:43:02.187-05:00"I would much rather be charged with proving ..."I would much rather be charged with proving the Papacy over something difficult like the Trinity or the Divinity of the Holy Spirit ( I know of Catholics who would go so far as to include the Divinity of Christ here, but I draw back at that) from the pages of the NT alone."<br /><br />Thanks, Guy. The enjoyable belly laugh was well worth having to clean a mouth full of tea from my monitor.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04249673269230269465noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-14097553722881038312015-01-16T22:42:09.585-05:002015-01-16T22:42:09.585-05:00Guy Fawkes:
If you think that by offering argumen...Guy Fawkes:<br /><br />If you think that by offering arguments along with troll-like comments will save your comments, you're wrong.<br /><br />It takes me a second to delete your comments. I don't really care what argument you make if it's embellished with troll comments. You, sir, have worn out your welcome.<br /><br />This is really simple Guy Fawkes, or Jim, or whatever your name is: make arguments and comments on the actual blog entry, without acting like a troll. <br />James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-72197048300608562662015-01-16T15:58:55.085-05:002015-01-16T15:58:55.085-05:00"You're no victim. You're here simply...<b>"You're no victim. You're here simply to antagonize."</b><br /><br />Guy's posts are the blogosphere's version of drive-by shootings.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-69744036561335327732015-01-16T15:31:02.306-05:002015-01-16T15:31:02.306-05:00What proof have you provided guy? I've seen yo...What proof have you provided guy? I've seen your comments before James deleted them and all that you do is make claims. You bring no proof. You've even admitted to provoking James to delete your comments.<br /><br />You're no victim. You're here simply to antagonize.zipper778https://www.blogger.com/profile/03461482876486910840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37135826191724012512015-01-16T12:40:50.811-05:002015-01-16T12:40:50.811-05:00"This might carry more weight if Scripture pr...<b>"This might carry more weight if Scripture predated the church. But the church was operating for decades before Scripture was complete - the identification of the canon was based in part on the life of the church."</b><br /><br />The Church still had Scripture; the first Christians, being converted Jews, had the the Old Testament to start with along with the first hand witnesses of Jesus' ministry. Secondly, the NT books did not have to be a "complete" set before they could begin circulating. Lastly, the Church predates the "Bible" when Bible means "complete canon", but as already stated it does not predate the OT and further it is by the preaching of the Gospel and the Truth of Jesus Christ that establishes the Church (Acts 2:1-13).<br /><br /><b>"Paul presupposes the layman accepted his previous preaching of the gospel ("other than the one we preached to you") that he preached based on apostolic authority. By this logic, such a layman would be justified in rejecting Paul's original preaching in the first place."</b><br /><br />This is half-correct. Paul is presupposing that the hearer of his letter to the Galatians had accepted his preaching. It is because the listener had accepted the Gospel that the listener was in a position to reject that which was contrary. Paul takes great pains to explain how the listeners were qualified as believers in Jesus Christ to perform that task. That does not mean that the listener was "justified" in rejecting Paul's preaching unless the listener was to remain dead in his sin.EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-46289694445366081062015-01-16T11:27:23.073-05:002015-01-16T11:27:23.073-05:00James,
Rome sets parameters with its declarations...James,<br /><br />Rome sets parameters with its declarations that circumscribe interpretation - it does not outlaw interpretation wholesale. If it did, there would never be any theological development which in turn leads to dogmas that further set parameters, nor could there be scriptural commentaries or catholic theologians. Rome's view of authority does not entail a borg-collective. So Rose is not inconsistent to appeal to verses.<br /><br />Nor is he inconsistent in assuming that the Bible is clear Christ established a church. There is a spectrum of clarity to Scripture (as even Protestants admit) - an atheist can read Scripture and know it mentions Moses and not Big Bird.<br /><br />"I would argue there certainly are church leaders from generation to generation, but their interpretations of the Bible are not infallible."<br /><br />As well as their identification of said Bible and the view it is inerrant, inspired, and authoritative.<br /><br />"Church leaders are to conform themselves to the the infallible words of God."<br /><br />No RC disagrees.<br /><br />"It simply does not follow that simply because Christ established a visible church, the leaders in the early church transferred an infallible understanding of the Bible along with it."<br /><br />This might carry more weight if Scripture predated the church. But the church was operating for decades before Scripture was complete - the identification of the canon was based in part on the life of the church.<br /><br />"The only thing free of corruption is the Holy Scriptures."<br /><br />Except the identification of the extent/scope of Scripture is not guaranteed to be free of corruption by your own principles.<br /><br />"The church is made up of sinners, even the leaders of the church."<br /><br />No RC disagrees.<br /><br />"He goes as far to indict Peter for not "acting in line with the truth of the gospel.""<br /><br />Many popes have been criticized similarly so again no RC disagrees.<br /><br />"Why would an apostle say that a layman had the ability to to judge the words of an apostle, and condemn them if they were at odds with this gospel?"<br /><br />Cart before the horse - Paul presupposes the layman accepted his previous preaching of the gospel ("other than the one we preached to you") that he preached based on apostolic authority. By this logic, such a layman would be justified in rejecting Paul's original preaching in the first place.<br /><br />"The apostles taught authoritatively, and left behind them Scriptures, not more apostles."<br /><br />As said above, Scripture came out of the church which was operating with their successors before Scripture was completed. Therefore, they left behind both, not just one.Cletus Van Dammehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13749634619890462132noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76122042025831187442015-01-16T08:35:53.089-05:002015-01-16T08:35:53.089-05:00Not to worry, I came to the conclusion a long time...Not to worry, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that God gave me a brain so that I could use it. <br /><br />The problem that Catholics like Devin Rose have is that their arguments are not convincing. Specifically, the arguments supporting infallibility. EAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03649331234241764065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9384425475960718782015-01-16T07:01:59.279-05:002015-01-16T07:01:59.279-05:00Guy: this caused your other comment to be deleted:...Guy: this caused your other comment to be deleted:<br /><br /><i>Now, hide this before someone sees it like you did with my criticism of Sven's faulty logic! You have to control what EA and Zipper read or they just might form an opinion other than the one you want them to.</i><br /><br />Do you see a pattern?James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37462871812535567842015-01-16T07:00:42.533-05:002015-01-16T07:00:42.533-05:00Guy:
This is what got your last comment deleted:
...Guy:<br /><br />This is what got your last comment deleted:<br /><br />You said:<br /><br /><i>"Now, hit "DELETE" before the boys who check their minds at the door of this blog see it and start to think!"</i><br /><br />If you keep behaving like a troll, you'll be treated like a troll.James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-43327863653864780552015-01-16T06:23:46.665-05:002015-01-16T06:23:46.665-05:00The Church is not sinful in her Sacraments nor in ...<i>The Church is not sinful in her Sacraments nor in her doctrines due to being the Body of Christ. The sinfulness of the priest does not take away from the grace given in a Sacrament. Remember, the Holy Spirit has been given to the Church, the "pillar and bulwark of truth".</i><br /><br />...and this proves that the magisterium is infallible...how?James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-34217338767635867722015-01-16T06:22:06.404-05:002015-01-16T06:22:06.404-05:00Obviously Jesus knowing those 11 men would all be ...<i>Obviously Jesus knowing those 11 men would all be dead within a few decades, dontcha' think He intended for them to have successors?</i><br /><br />Where exactly does it say this in Luke 10:16? Or, is this your private interpretation as well? Why should your private interpretation be believed? James Swanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.com