Unam Sanctam--only Catholics go to Heaven

[church mouse guy]

Well, HP, I am as poor as a church mouse and I will draw Social Security in a couple of months so I am relying on the translation provided on the internet, my high school Latin, and about 20 years of interest in what we believe and why we believe it.

Catholicism seems unable to reform. The Orthodox left in 1054 AD over the issue of the Pope having no right to call himself the head of all Christians. The Protestants left about 500 years ago over many issues. The RCC should be ashamed of not overturning the Papal Bull that says that to obtain Salvation you have to be a Catholic. It is judgmental by the RCC and it is very poor doctrine in reference to the Scripture. Scripture does not say that Salvation is found only in being subject to the RCC and the Roman Pope. Hasn't the RCC read John 3:16?

cmg

 

[DHK]

2 Timothy 2:16, says nothing about Scripture being 'sufficient'.

NO, It says Scripture is inspired, not the tradition of the Catholic Church nor any other kind of literature. Thus, by logical deduction it is our final authority. It is the only authority that is the inspired authorite; the direct revelation of God.

The Apostle Paul here requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15).
This is the lamest excuse that the Catholics use time and time again. It would be good if they would just learn the meaning of the verse so it wouldn't have to be explained a gazillion times on the BB.
First Jesus ministry last just over three years. He died about 29 A.D., and Pentecost happened shortly after that. The epistle was written between 53-55. So your contention is that this church in Thessalonica had "Christian Tradition" established within a period of less than 15 years! Absurd! The Catholic Encyclopedia defines "tradition" as oral or written knowledge passed down from generation to generation over a period of centuries. 15 years does not make a period of centuries. Where on earth are you going to fit your Catholic definition of "tradition" into this verse. It is the most absurd reasoning I have ever heard from Catholics who try to justify their "tradition" by misconstruing this verse.

Tradition simply means "truth" in this verse. It means the truth that Paul had been teaching them--both orally and written. There was no tradition in the Catholic sense of the word. He was speaking of the truth that he had been teaching them in recent days.
Ye do err not knowing the scriptures neither the power of God.

Moreover, the Apostle Paul here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now a good part of the New Testament was NOT written in his boyhood, even some of the Epistles were not written even when Paul penned this letter and NONE of the Books of the NT were placed on the canon of Scripture books. Paul refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from 2 Timothy 2:16 proved anything, it would prove too much, that the Scriptures of the NT were not necessary for a rule of faith.

The BIBLE is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice. We don't isolate any book. We appeal to the OT as much as we do to the NT. What makes you think that we have thrown out the OT? We haven't. When the NT canon was completed it made the Bible a complete inspired Book. Inspiration was extended. 2Pet.1:20,21 indicates that along with 2Pet.3:1,2. In fact 2Pet.3:2 demands that we take heed to the words of both the apostles and the prophets, and Peter refers to the epistles of Paul as Scripture. They knew which books were inspired and which were not. There is a NT canon, and there is an OT canon. Together they make up our present day Bible. Together they are our authority, the final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

Also the Bible denies that its the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture (Jn 21:15). In addition Paul says that much of Christian teaching is to be found in Tradition handed down by word of mouth (2 Timothy 2:2).

I have never heard someone take so much Scripture out of context. Let's see what these Scriptures actually say.

John 21:15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
--This is a command for Peter to feed the sheep; just as it is a command for every pastor of every church to feed their members the word of God. You said: this verse "tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture."

2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
--You say that "Paul says that much of Christian teaching is to found in Tradition handed down by word of mouth," and then quote this scripture. And then you have the gall to quote this Scripture.
It hasn't got anything to do with Tradition. This verse deals only with evangelization and spiritual reproduction. It has to do with discipleship. When I go and teach others I don't take a body of "Tradition" with me, I take a Bible. I teach out of a Bible. That is all I need. I don't need the Catholic catechism, their body of Traditon, the dogmas of the RCC, their Papal bulls, etc. I have the Bible, and that is all I need. That is all that Paul needed as well, and as he had much of it memorized he probably didn't need it all the time either.
However the verse is speaking about Paul teaching Timothy, and then Timothy teaching other faithful men. It says nothing about tradition. Why have you endeavoured to take Scripture out of context to make them mean something entirely different?

 

[donnA]

I can't speak for DonnA's church but our church will not allow into membership a believer who has not had a believer's baptism. It's in obedience to Jesus' command and if someone is unwilling to obey Jesus, then they are not going to become members of a church. I was baptised as a teen in another Baptist church and DH was baptised in a river at a Christian music festival. Since both were done after faith in Christ, they were valid baptisms and we did not have to be rebaptized to join our church. I think it is the same in most Baptist churches - a believer's baptism is valid.

exactly ann!:applause:

 

[donnA]

HP: I do recall reading about baptism. What I do not recall is where Scripture informs us to treat those believers that have been baptized in our tank differently than we would in some other tank or even in some cases, not at all.
What is so sad about the view you are expressing, is that if Jesus where to come to earth Himself, your church would have to re-baptize Him in your tank to accept Him as a fellow member. It is obvious, whatever you are baptizing for or into has nothing to do with the body of Christ in the least.

What does Scripture inform us is that which we are to be baptized into and by? Christ and the Holy Spirit, or your denomination by your pastor?

I noticed on your profile you are part of a church that requires baptism for membership.
do you believe that a person does not need baptism at all?

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Now Class, Sola Scriptura is exactly what caused the formation of the Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism, since these cults originated after the Reformation and the invented battle cry of Sola Scriptura. Since the Reformation and Sola Scriptura, what class has been the fruit of Sola Scriptura?

Sola Scriptura did not produce JWs and Mormons. Those groups - plus most cults - always have the Scriptures plus their own writings.

 

[Darron Steele]

Let’s examine this statement class. D28guy believes that Sola Scriptura, which wasn’t ‘invented’ until the Reformation caused the Great Schism between the East and West in 1054…what an absurd statement and a disregard for Church History.

Now Class, Sola Scriptura is exactly what caused the formation of the Jehovah’s Witness and Mormonism, since these cults originated after the Reformation and the invented battle cry of Sola Scriptura. Since the Reformation and Sola Scriptura, what class has been the fruit of Sola Scriptura?

You’re right…Protestantism. What evidence do we have class?

Freewill Baptist
Independent Baptist
Progressive Baptist
Reformed Baptist
First Reformed Baptist
New Reformed Baptist
Missionary Baptist
First Baptist
American Baptist
Methodist
Free Methodist
United Methodist
Wesleyan
Presbyterian
Reformed Presbyterian
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran – Missouri Synod
Your corner Joe Blow Christian Church…ect..ect

Now class for your assignment, read the Bible using Sola Scriptura and develop your own doctrine, since the Holy Spirit will be leading you and start your own corner Church…now be original with the name…

What a shame…and a disregard for unity…

Actually, the Reformation started in the 1500's and resulted in numerous Protestant congregations, and the Orthodox-Catholic split was in 1054.

It is also an extrabiblical tradition that church unity depends upon high levels of agreement on each other's mutually separate worship meetings. Disagreement is not disunity unless someone makes it that way.

 

[Darron Steele]

2 Timothy 2:16, says nothing about Scripture being 'sufficient'. The Apostle Paul here requires the aid of Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15). Moreover, the Apostle Paul here refers to the Scriptures which Timothy was taught in his infancy. Now a good part of the New Testament was NOT written in his boyhood, even some of the Epistles were not written even when Paul penned this letter and NONE of the Books of the NT were placed on the canon of Scripture books. Paul refers, then, to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and if the argument from 2 Timothy 2:16 proved anything, it would prove too much, that the Scriptures of the NT were not necessary for a rule of faith.

Also the Bible denies that its the complete rule of faith. John tells us that not everything concerning Christ's work is in Scripture (Jn 21:15). In addition Paul says that much of Christian teaching is to be found in Tradition handed down by word of mouth (2 Timothy 2:2).

Actually, the New Testament was considered Scripture at the time 2 Timothy was written, and it is 2 Timothy 3:16-7 that says Scripture is sufficient, ASV "complete."

Sola Scriptura is taught at 1 Corinthians 4:6, where a principle called το μη υπερ α γεγραπται is mentioned, literally το = “the,” μη = “not,” υπερ = “beyond,” α = “what,” γεγραπται = “has been written” --> "the not beyond what has been written"
--McReynolds, Word Study Greek-English New Testament, page 603.

1 Timothy 5:18 quotes a written source "Scripture" here:

Luke 10:7 has αζιος γαρ ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου
1 Timothy 5:18 has αζιος ο εργατης του μισθου αυτου​

Looks like Luke-Acts was at least considered Scripture then. When 2 Timothy 3:16 -7 says "All Scripture" (ESV) that meant all of it, including New Testament writings.

As for "tradition" in 2 Thessalonians, there is the mention at 2:15, but also at 3:6-7

“Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you” (NASB).​

The "tradition" here is about conduct in regular life. The strictly-religious "Tradition" of Catholicism cannot reasonably be linked to this.

 

[DHK]

HP: What about God instilled conscience? Does not Scripture itself tell us that it is our conscience that determines whether or not something is sin? How could the heathen arrive at truth in relationship to the law without the law if truth was only found “sola Scriptura?”

General revelation is not inspired revelation. God has instilled his moral law on the hearts of every man (Rom.2:14,15). The basic knowledge that man knows it is wrong to steal; wrong to commit adultery and wrong to murder; does not mean that that knowledge is inspired of God. It only means that God gave him a conscience with His moral law written on it.

HP: No this is not sola Scriptura. A final guide does not equate to the 'only source' of truth which the term ‘sola Scriptura’ lends itself.

It is the only "all sufficient" source of truth that we have. No one said that it is the "only" source. It is all-sufficient. If we had no other source of revelation but the Bible, then that is all that we would need. We need no other revelation. The Bereans had the Scripture, albeit the OT, as their final guide. That is all they needed to verify Paul's message as being true. That is the essence of sola scriptura. The Scripture is the final authority, and became the final authority then in scrutinizing Paul's message. (What do you think they used to compare it to--the Koran?)

HP: Again you miss the point. The question is not whether or not one can hold truth in direct opposition to Scripture, for we know that canot be the case. The question is whether or not Scripture is 'the only' source of truth.

I haven't missed the point at all. You have. I will repeat it again. Sola Scriptura teaches that the Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. There are many sources of truth--Math books, Chemistry texts, History books, reference books of various kinds, etc. I didn't rule out other sources of truth. I said that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and doctrine. Note the importance I put on the word final.
On the other hand one must recognize that it was Jesus Himself who said "I am the way the truth and the life..." He said "I am the truth"
There is no truth apart from Jesus Christ; and the Word of God reveals who Christ is. The truth of the Word reveals "The Truth."

HP: Our appeal is NOT always to Scripture, and if it is you are beating your head against the wall. Whose interpretation is infallable? Trading proof text for proof text will never establish some truth, for some truth must appeal to a man’s God instilled conscience in order for truth to be revealed. The Scripture consistently appeals to the conscience of man and even those things we see around us.

It sounds like you are a humanist or a rationalist, denying the leading of the Holy Spirit. Certainly a man must use his intellect, but he also must lean on the leading of the Holy Spirit. He must use the resources that God has given him. But the primary resource that a man has is the Bible. It is his final authority. Again, I never ruled out other books or sources. I have always maintained that the Bible is our final authority; that the meaning of sola scirptural in its strictest sense is all suffficient, that is that the Bible is all sufficient for us when it comes to matters of faith and doctrine. We don't need any other source. That doesn't mean we can't use them.

HP: Amen. We agree on this point entirely. Just the same for the interpretation of many passages and commands an appeal to ones conscience must be made and that on the authority of Scripture. Reason attests to that fact, and if I had never read Scripture according to Romans, I still as a heathen would attest to the same truth concerning the law.

I don't believe that an appeal to man's conscience has anything to do with this subject whatsoever. The Bible has only one interpretation. It interprets itself. Someone is right and someone is wrong. It is our duty to find out the truth. It is as simple as that. In many areas good people may disagree. That is the perogative that believers have that we call soul liberty. One day in heaven we will find out on what matters of doctrine we differ, who is right and who is not. But there can be no variance on the fundamentals of the doctrine which almost all evangelicals agree on. It unites them in the message of salvation to reach the lost for Jesus Christ. It is the one thing that the Catholic Church fails to see when they continually attack Protestant churches for divisiveness. If they look within their own they would see just as much divisiveness.

HP: That is not Sola Scriptura. All truth will line up wit the Word of God, but all truth comes not by the Word of God alone. Sola Scriptura induces the false idea that 'all truth' is revealed in Scripture. That is simply not the case. God reveals to me truth, almost if not on a daily basis, that is not specifically set forth in Scripture. Scripture, due to the fact that its truths have been made available to me, serve as a source to judge all ideas I might at first believe are truth via conscience, and clearly a source to refine the meanings of all impulses of conscience once Scripture is made available, yet conscience is ones first and basic revelation of truth in many matters.

What truth (spiritual truth) does God reveal to you outside of the Bible? If you were a prophet of the OT, as I mentioned and it did not line up with the OT you would be stoned. And you are saying this is not the case today? The punishment is not the same but the truth is. If it does not line up with the word of God you are a false prophet. You are a Benny Hinn, a Jim Jones, a Sun Myung Moon, a Charles Taze Russell. So make your choice! What spiritual truth outside of the Bible is God revealing to you? This should be interesting.

HP: That does not make them Sola Scriptura. God revealed Himself to the Apostle Paul on the road to Damascus and spoke to Moses out of the burning bush, and can do the same for any or all of us if He so wills. One can be assured that He will never contradict Scripture, but God may reveal truth to our hearts in direct opposition to what we have in the past felt was the truth of the matter according to our interpretation or past understanding.

Of a truth, a general statement can be made that Scripture is indeed the only source given to man that reveals the truth of salvation. Just the same, God is sovereign and could if He so desires reveal Himself in any way He would so desire and circumstances demand, much as He has led at least one in the recent past out of the jungles by a flaming light. Can anyone recall the story of that African lad led out of the jungle by an angel of God? Sorry, his name has slipped my mind.

Jesus said to search the scriptures.
Paul said to study to show yourself approved unto God.
David said "Thy word have I hid in my heart that I might not sin against thee."
The Lord said to Joshua: "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth but thou shalt meditate on it day and night..."
He said to Isaiah: "To the law and to the testimony if they speak not according to this word it is because there is no light in them."

God speaks through His word; not through general revelation; not through our conscience in general, but the word. The Word will convict our hearts or conscience, but not the conscience in and of itself. God has chosen to use his word. It is not a matter of what God can or cannot do. It is a matter of what God has chosen to do.

 

[Darron Steele]

We hear a lot of derogatory remarks from you, Tragic Pizza, about Baptist Faith and Message and Practice....

Tragic_Pizza is very likely trying to get everyone to be more gracious to Catholics by pointing out that no religious group is perfect. To do so, he points to what he thinks are problems with some Baptist distinctives.

I have major problems with the Catholic system, but like him, I hate to see anyone reviled falsely -- regardless of whom. At present, Catholics simply no longer agree with what is in that 1302 document -- I know this for a fact, because I read Catholic writings for Catholics, plus I have also heard Catholics speak on this at Catholic functions. To me, "neither accuse any one wrongly" (ASV) Luke 3:14 applies to our dealing with all people.

In defense of Tragic_Pizza, Tragic_Pizza did not start a thread bashing a religious group for a belief it does not hold. Nor did Tragic_Pizza persist in bashing that religious group for the belief it does not hold even after being informed.

Tragic_Pizza has debated real beliefs held by Baptists. I do not agree with him on some things he has posted on this thread -- but he has kept it to authentically held current beliefs/practices.

I know that you object to him doing this, but I believe it is still on a `higher road' than the purpose of this thread. Jesus did teach the Golden Rule at Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. I do not believe that this honors the standards of conduct that the Savior calls us to. I beg you to consider the following: if you object to Tragic_Pizza debating authentic and current Baptist beliefs/practices, please, please, please rethink what you are trying to do with this thread.

 

[D28guy]

Heavenly Pilgrim,

"HP: Scripture informs us that such a view is at antipodes with truth. Every moral agent, including the heathen who have not even heard of Scripture, have a guide given to them by God."

And God will deal with them justly, based on what revelation he has given them. But that does not apply to you and I.

"I would like to see some scriptural support for your statement. Where does Scripture inform us that it alone is our only guide to truth?"

What was Jesus always saying? He sounded like a broken record during His ministry during conversations...

"Is it not written?"..."Have you not read?"..."Is it not written?"..."Have you not read?" Over and over and over again He pointed to the scriptures.


"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work...."

The scriptures couldnt make us complete and thoroughly equipped, if we needed more, could they? They could only make us partially complete, and partially equipped.

And what will happen if we neglect this foundational truth? Just keep reading. If the proclaimed word of God...the scriptures...is not preached and taught...

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers' and they will turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to fables."

Turned aside to fables?...

Roman Catholicism
Eastern Orthodoxy
Jehovahs Wittneses
Mormonism

etc etc etc.

What was the attitude of the Bereans, regarding any doctrine brought to them? Paul commended them because...

"These were more noble than those in Thessolanica, in that they searched the scriptures daily to see whether these things be so"

Read Psalm 119 sometime.

On and on and on it goes. The scriptures thunder this truth home to us.

God bless,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

"Let’s examine this statement class. D28guy..."

1st of all, please feel free to call me Mike. :wavey:

"...believes that Sola Scriptura, which wasn’t ‘invented’ until the Reformation caused the Great Schism between the East and West in 1054…"

Oh really?

I believe that when the book of Isaiah was written it was substantially prior to your 1054 date...

"To the Law and to the testimony. If they do not speak according to this word, it is because their is no light in them"

And I believe when the book of 2 Timothy was written it was prior to 1054 as well...

"All scripture is given by inspirtation of God, and is profitable for reproof, correction, instruection in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

"what an absurd statement and a disregard for Church History.

Why are you choosing to disregard the church history from when the books of Isaiah and 2 Timothy were written?

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

[D28guy]

Agnus Dei,

"You’re right…Protestantism. What evidence do we have class?

Freewill Baptist
Independent Baptist
Progressive Baptist
Reformed Baptist
First Reformed Baptist
New Reformed Baptist
Missionary Baptist
First Baptist
American Baptist
Methodist
Free Methodist
United Methodist
Wesleyan
Presbyterian
Reformed Presbyterian
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Lutheran – Missouri Synod"

Good grief, Agnus. Why stop there? You left out so many.

There are the Pentecostals and Charismatics and so many others.

And what does God tell us about all of these brothers and sisters who are all a part of the one body of Christ regarding their different views of *some* non-foundational beliefs and convictions?...

"Let your brother be fully convinced in his own mind, for who are you to judge anothers servant."

Sure there are different facets of the one diamond. Some are an ear, some are a hand. Some are a foot, while others are a mouth. Some are stronger in areas where others are weak, while the weakers ones are stronger in areas where the strong are weak. And the body functions under the direction of the head...Almighty God, the giver of the gifts.

Isnt God just wonderful!

God bless,

Mike

 

[church mouse guy]

When did the RCC change the legal status of that bull?

Tragic_Pizza is very likely trying to get everyone to be more gracious to Catholics by pointing out that no religious group is perfect. To do so, he points to what he thinks are problems with some Baptist distinctives.

I have major problems with the Catholic system, but like him, I hate to see anyone reviled falsely -- regardless of whom. At present, Catholics simply no longer agree with what is in that 1302 document -- I know this for a fact, because I read Catholic writings for Catholics, plus I have also heard Catholics speak on this at Catholic functions. To me, "neither accuse any one wrongly" (ASV) Luke 3:14 applies to our dealing with all people.

In defense of Tragic_Pizza, Tragic_Pizza did not start a thread bashing a religious group for a belief it does not hold. Nor did Tragic_Pizza persist in bashing that religious group for the belief it does not hold even after being informed.

Tragic_Pizza has debated real beliefs held by Baptists. I do not agree with him on some things he has posted on this thread -- but he has kept it to authentically held current beliefs/practices.

I know that you object to him doing this, but I believe it is still on a `higher road' than the purpose of this thread. Jesus did teach the Golden Rule at Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. I do not believe that this honors the standards of conduct that the Savior calls us to. I beg you to consider the following: if you object to Tragic_Pizza debating authentic and current Baptist beliefs/practices, please, please, please rethink what you are trying to do with this thread.

We have also had people say that the bull still stands legally on this thread. The trouble with Tragic Pizza's remarks about Baptists and his endorsement of the RCC doctrine is that his own PCUSA endorses abortion, as I myself linked above. That is really worse than the silly RCC doctrine that they are the only ones going to Heaven and all others, Christian and non-Christian go to hell. A bull is an official statement with legal status in the RCC. There has been nothing cited that overthrows that bull.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Donna: I noticed on your profile you are part of a church that requires baptism for membership.
do you believe that a person does not need baptism at all?

HP: Sorry Donna. I missed your post. I attend the Church that I am going to. I am not part due to the fact that I will not raise my hand to the doctrines of the Church. I do not believe, as many believe, that baptism is a condition of salvation, nor do I believe that any Christian water baptism should be the entrance exam for fellowship into a specific body, and I sure do not believe it matters who it is doing the dunking.

I also believe that many will be in heaven, primarily of the Quaker ranks and branches of that persuasion, that did not practice water baptism at all. With groups still around as the group you say you are a part of, there still remains a need to place water baptism in perspective. That may indeed call for some to refuse to submit to water baptism. That in no wise indicates that baptism into Christ by the Holy Spirit is not essential for salvation, for if a person does not eat of His flesh, and drink of His blood, according to Scripture, they will have no part in Him.

As for water baptism into denominations as the practice of the church you attend obviously is, let everyman be assured in their own mind.

I personally felt the need for water baptism in my own life and did just that.

 

[BobRyan]

You think its possible Bob that I could cut and paste Mrs Ellen G White's writings to show that the SDA is the one true religion in which salvation is attainable?

She said the "vast majority of God's people are to be found outside of the Adventist church" -- i suppose you could twist that in some way...

But in my quote - I was simply posting what was already posted here. And the post listed the statements of Popes within the RCC. Is it your claim that Catholics are to ignore the statements of their own Popes?

In Christ,

Bob

 

[johnk48]

The baptism that saves is the one performed by the Holy Spirit baptizing an individual into the body of Christ and it takes place at the moment of salvation. Water baptism, always performed sometime later, is only an outward expression of what has already taken place identifying a saved person with Christ. So even if one has accepted Christ as the only means of salvation and never receives water baptism he is saved. Adding anything to the salvation experience is works.

 

[tragic_pizza]

We hear a lot of derogatory remarks from you, Tragic Pizza, about Baptist Faith and Message and Practice.

But your own church, the Presbyterian Church USA, is really advocating murder of the unborn. Here is the PCUSA's hypocrital statement in support of abortion:

"When an individual woman faces the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy, the issue is intensely personal, and may manifest itself in ways that do not reflect public rhetoric, or do not fit neatly into medical, legal, or policy guidelines. Humans are empowered by the spirit prayerfully to make significant moral choices, including the choice to continue or end a pregnancy. Human choices should not be made in a moral vacuum, but must be based on Scripture, faith, and Christian ethics. For any choice, we are accountable to God; however, even when we err, God offers to forgive us."

The PCUSA should be held responsible for advocating and applauding the murder of tens of millions of American citizens. What a bloody church!

The source is your own website:

http://www.pcusa.org/101/101-abortion.htm

There is more about the PCUSA hypocrisy on this issue at this link, but I have not bothered to quote it.

Hey, good job of trying to change the subject, cmg.

And I agree, the PC(USA) is to be reviled and derided for daring to suggest that moral choices are to be based upon Scripture, faith, and Christian ethics. After all, that's why we have a theocracy in this country - so that the government can tell us what choices to make!

 

[Eliyahu]

Mike, How is your guitar D 28 these days?

You pointed out a very good choice of Bible, Isaiah 8:20

Isa 8:20 - Show Context To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them ( www.crosswalk.com)

What Roman Catholic could never answer is this question.
What if Apocrypha and Tradition contradict Bible Scriptures? If they contradict, they cannot become the authority for the doctrines.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

But in my quote - I was simply posting what was already posted here. And the post listed the statements of Popes within the RCC. Is it your claim that Catholics are to ignore the statements of their own Popes?

My claim is not that that's the Popes statement, only that the statements posted are a misrepresentation of the actual quote. Anybody can take a statement and cut and rearrange it to achieve whatever agenda their pushing.

Being an SDA Bob, you should be familiar with this nifty trick. Fundamentalist believe that the SDA’s are a cult, more so than the RCC. The Fundamental Churches I’ve been members of all claimed this, but stopped short calling RCs a cult only that their not Christian.

I’ve seen you numerous times correct those quoting Ellen G. White, due to a misrepresentation. If they’ll do it to the SDA’s, what’ll stop them from doing the same to the RC? And here you are jumping right on the bandwagon, just as I used to, until I informed myself of the truth of just how dirty these fundies are when a theology or interpretation of scripture conflicts with theirs.

 

[Eliyahu]

My claim is not that that's the Popes statement, only that the statements posted are a misrepresentation of the actual quote. Anybody can take a statement and cut and rearrange it to achieve whatever agenda their pushing.

.

Sounds like politicians evading the responsibility for what they said. Do you have another interpretations for the papal bulls, Council anouncements and declarations?