Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How is a church apostolic?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Calsgal
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Stanton View Post

    and thanking me for spending quality time on this site teaching you the truth about His Church. AMEN
    For what partnership can righteousness have with wickedness? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness? 15What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?c Or what does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? 16What agreement can exist between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said:
    17“Therefore come out from among them

    and be separate, says the Lord.

    Touch no unclean thing,

    and I will receive you.”



    Leave a comment:


  • ramcam2
    replied
    Originally posted by Nic View Post
    Here's another tidbit from our symbols via Beggarsallblogspot
    "The style of this document is a bit difficult, since what Eck is doing is recounting, with separate paragraphs, the alleged errors of his opponents, at different times, in differing circumstances, on a wide variety of topics. Eck's assertions are a mixture or rumor, myth and fact, generally asserted with no citations and nearly always taken completely out of context. This is a work of propaganda more than theology. He pauses to interject comments and then moves on to his next set of assertions, or theses."


    Nic
    there are many commentaries against and in favor of eck's thesis but I am just wondering if there is mention in the commentaries against eck of what the apostolic/universal church really believed and practice before the reformation started. it seems that the doctrines that was believed by the church in the first 5 centuries of christianitye was ignored or rejected. there is no evidence presented that sola scriptura, sola fide, and OSAS were believed and practice by the apostolic/universal church. here is an example from luther….
    “There is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments.”

    this is not according to what the early apostolic/universal church believed. st. vincent of lerins wrote in the 5th century...
    “It is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.”. it is not the scripture that refutes what is heretical or not but the correct interpretation of the scripture.

    as a matter of fact, the early christians condemned protestant doctrines. st augustine writes...
    , “We should advise the faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on the false assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good works in order to be saved” (On Faith and Works14.21). this, luther ignored... “At first I devoured, not merely read, Augustine. But when the door was opened for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine” (Luther’s Works, 54:49–50).

    It is unfortunate that n all these protestant commentaries, no reclamation of the belief of the ancient apostolic/universal church was ever attempted nor made.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nic
    replied
    Here's another tidbit from our symbols via Beggarsallblogspot
    "The style of this document is a bit difficult, since what Eck is doing is recounting, with separate paragraphs, the alleged errors of his opponents, at different times, in differing circumstances, on a wide variety of topics. Eck's assertions are a mixture or rumor, myth and fact, generally asserted with no citations and nearly always taken completely out of context. This is a work of propaganda more than theology. He pauses to interject comments and then moves on to his next set of assertions, or theses."


    Nic
    Last edited by Nic; 05-07-2020, 12:51 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nic
    replied


    Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

    he was a theologian parexemplar and his 404 thesis remained unchallenged. all luther and company did was to lampoon and abuse him publicly.
    Personally I know little to nothing about Eck except what I wrote and that he tried to lump all the reformers together in conflict with each other. Maybe his theses would of merited and received a better response if he had chosen a different tact? As for Luther he is perhaps the greatest exegete the western church has ever produced. Eck was a valid theologian as I said, by that I give him honors as I would Luther a handful of others. Can you provide the documentation that supports your narrative? Medieval theologians had a way with words Luther often spoke in hyperbole. I suspect Eck's "unanswered objections" [if founded] is because he ascribed every ongoing reforming movement to Luther. Why would you or anyone expect an answer from a position you did not support in the first place? That seems silly to me, but maybe you could explain why that expectation wouldn't be silly?
    If Eck was in any way responsible for the Roman Confutio (and I believe he was), he was answered and it was the Roman Catholics to this day that have never answered.
    The confutio was so bad that the Catholics would only read it aloud. When the Lutherans asked for a copy the R. Church made ridiculous requirements.

    The Confutation was regarded as being so bad, even by the Roman Catholics, that they did not allow the Lutherans to have a copy. Fortunately Lutheran scribes had copied every word down during its reading. It was not published until 1573, in Latin, and did not appear in German until 1808. The Lutherans asked for a copy after it was read, and were told by the Emperor on August 5 that they would not receive a copy, unless they met three conditions: (1) They that do not reply in writing; (2) They not print anything about it, or do anything to publicize it, a demand made specifically by the Roman theologians; (3) That they join with the Emperor and the Roman Catholic estates and concur with the Confutation, in every point. These demands were soundly rejected.

    A conference between Roman Catholic and Lutheran theologians was convened and met from August 13-21, during which the Confutation was discussed, but neither party was willing to compromise. As a result of the conference, the Lutheran estates agreed that a response to the Confutation should be prepared, and commissioned Philip Melanchthon to prepare a first draft. Though he was not present when the Confutation was read, Melanchthon worked from the very accurate notes made by Camerarius and others. On September 22, Melanchthon presented his first draft of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, Apology meaning "defense." The Apology was offered by Chancellor Brück to the Emperor, and was received in the name of the Emperor by the count palatinate Frederick, in the name of the Emperor, but was quickly returned after his brother, Ferdinance, whispered an order in his ear.

    Editor's Introduction to the Roman Confutation


    Here's a bit more:


    Reading through Eck's accusations is an illuminating exercise, since it presents the points at which Rome was disagreeing with Luther and illuminates the depth of the Roman Catholic misunderstanding of the position of the Lutherans.

    Also to be noted is how Eck attempts to lump all the reforming movements together, identifying as a group, Luther and Zwingli, men who were sharply at odds with each other.

    Editor's Introduction of Johann Eck's 404 Theses,1530





    Nic
    Last edited by Nic; 05-06-2020, 05:57 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Arch Stanton
    replied
    Originally posted by Calsgal View Post

    Christ is calling out to you Arch ...
    and thanking me for spending quality time on this site teaching you the truth about His Church. AMEN

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackie
    replied
    Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

    what is heretical in the bible is how one misinterpret it.
    .
    Proverbs 4:25
    Let thine eyes look right on,
    and let thine eyelids look straight before thee.
    .
    Matt.6:22
    The light of the body is the eye:
    if therefore thine eye be single,
    thy whole body shall be full of light.

    23 But if thine eye be evil,
    thy whole body shall be full of darkness.
    If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness,
    how great is that darkness!

    24 No man can serve two masters:
    for either he will hate the one,
    and love the other;
    or else he will hold to the one,
    and despise the other.
    Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

    .
    26 Ponder the path of thy feet,
    and let all thy ways be established.

    27 Turn not to the right hand
    nor to the left
    :
    remove thy foot from evil.


    Ram; you cannot have Two (2) Masters;
    You need to be listening to these Teachers
    .
    Isaiah 30:21
    And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee,
    saying,
    This is the way, walk ye in it,
    when ye turn to the right hand,
    and when ye turn to the left.

    .
    They will keep you on the straight and Narrow
    and not espousing nor promoting that not found in Scripture
    Last edited by Blackie; 05-06-2020, 08:53 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • ramcam2
    replied
    Originally posted by Nic View Post
    I've benn wondering how to address this because Eck and his 23 sophists were charged to refute the Confedsion of Augsburg, which by Catholic heritage, it should be understood as previously accepted Catholic teaching. So I'm still contemplating how or if this is a sufficient address of your query.
    Eck himself was legitmate but his associates weren't esteemed as he was. My confession describes them as sophists so I used the same.

    Nic
    he was a theologian parexemplar and his 404 thesis remained unchallenged. all luther and company did was to lampoon and abuse him publicly.

    Leave a comment:


  • ramcam2
    replied
    Originally posted by Blackie View Post

    .
    a Heretic
    Definition of heretic


    1religion : a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma
    (see DOGMA sense 2) especially :
    a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth
    The church regards them as heretics.
    2: one who differs in opinion from an accepted belief or doctrine :
    The church regards them as heretics.


    Galileo was condemned as a heretic for supporting Copernicus's thesis
    that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.

    ,
    A heretic I am, I, a heretic am
    yes Sir- Ree-
    just Label me Guilty
    what is heretical in the bible is how one misinterpret it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nic
    replied
    Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

    what about johann eck's 404 thesis, is it less apostolic/catholic in heritage than the Augsburg confession and why?
    I've benn wondering how to address this because Eck and his 23 sophists were charged to refute the Confedsion of Augsburg, which by Catholic heritage, it should be understood as previously accepted Catholic teaching. So I'm still contemplating how or if this is a sufficient address of your query.
    Eck himself was legitmate but his associates weren't esteemed as he was. My confession describes them as sophists so I used the same.

    Nic

    Leave a comment:


  • Calsgal
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Stanton View Post

    Korah is calling you Calsgal
    Christ is calling out to you Arch

    Leave a comment:


  • Calsgal
    replied
    Originally posted by Arch Stanton View Post

    Korah is calling you Calsgal
    Christ is calling out to you Arch ...

    Leave a comment:


  • Blackie
    replied
    Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

    the is infallible on matters of faith and morals. if it were heretical, why base your belief on it?
    .
    a Heretic
    Definition of heretic


    1religion : a person who differs in opinion from established religious dogma
    (see DOGMA sense 2) especially :
    a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who refuses to acknowledge or accept a revealed truth
    The church regards them as heretics.
    2: one who differs in opinion from an accepted belief or doctrine :
    The church regards them as heretics.


    Galileo was condemned as a heretic for supporting Copernicus's thesis
    that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa.

    ,
    A heretic I am, I, a heretic am
    yes Sir- Ree-
    just Label me Guilty

    Leave a comment:


  • mica
    replied
    Originally posted by galatict View Post
    Did anyone see anything wrong with this analogy? I didn't see any responses
    ...

    God makes Scriptures

    People read Scriptures and try to make it fit what benefits them the most ( or try their best to understand original intent )
    yes, many do that, like the RCC.
    and others do that.
    then there are those who have a great desire to read, study and understand His word because He is the desire of their heart and they want to know everything He has to say to them. with the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their reading and study they will in time understand a good deal of it. as time continues they will understand more and more of it.

    Many different People read the Scriptures differently and apply their
    understanding differently when applied to life
    this is true. there are those who read as someone else tells them to read and understand it. and then there are those who read and study for themselves with the Holy Spirit guiding them until they do understand it.

    The Church, that God made, makes rulings on how to interpret Scripture
    the RCC wasn't made by God. It is contrary to His own word. it has no understanding of how to interpret it. or it does and deliberately detours others from the truth in order to achieve its agenda.

    Now People must follow the ruling made by the Church
    only those foolish enough to believe that what the RCC teaches is the truth.



    Last edited by mica; 05-05-2020, 05:56 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mica
    replied
    Originally posted by ramcam2 View Post

    the is infallible on matters of faith and morals. if it were heretical, why base your belief on it?
    that's it?

    Leave a comment:


  • galatict
    replied
    Originally posted by Nimbus View Post

    Have you ever read Scripture with the desire to know God and about God?

    My earliest takeaway was just how surprising God was, in that He did not do things in the way men would do.

    Your above post certainly fits into a reasonable way of going about things for man.

    But God says to man, "Your thoughts are not My thoughts, and your ways are not My ways."

    God says, "the LORD does not see as man does. For man sees the outward appearance, but the LORD sees the heart.”"

    God's call was for a peculiar people. A people who were not going to look, act, and do things the way the people around them did.

    He didn't choose and love Israel because they were numerous, or impressive. He didn't choose disciples who held high rank in the synagogue.

    He didn't call us to a super organization, or an impressive institution, or a sacerdotal hierarchy. He called us to be a body.

    An incredible conglomeration of varied living parts, with Him as the head
    If my analogy about the relation of God, Scripture, People, and Interpretation is wrong then what alternative do you think is truly viable?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X