Another stunning cliche....
ECT THE PRACTICAL NECESSITY OF AN INFALLIBLE & AUTHORITATIVE INTERPRETER
- Thread starter Cruciform
- Start date
Another stunning cliche....
Cruciform
New member
Christ's one historic Catholic Church authoritatively defined the biblical canon in the 4th century A.D.
Apostolicity is only one of the criteria used by the Church in defining the biblical canon.
Translation: Fallible men were responsible for the "defining" of the biblical cannon, not the LORD God.
=humanism, satanism, as the RCO shill attributes the authorship, and subsequent preservation, of the word of God, including "what's in/out," to men, not the LORD God.
Sssssssssssssssssssss....
whitestone
Well-known member
Are you quite sure? In Acts 14:14 Luke states that Barnabas is an Apostle,,,And in Colossians 4:10 KJV Paul tells the Colossians if he comes to receive him,are you quite sure?
If Clement and Hermas are both endorsed by Paul(an Apostle),,how do men reject them?,,,
If Luke was an workman with Paul,and Clement,and Hermas,,,,and the Gospel of Luke and Acts are included then why not the others?
Mind you I'm not in the least suggesting to omit Luke or Acts,,,,but how can it be said Apostolic criteria is the answer when some are omitted who are and and others who were not are admitted?
So at the end in the fourth century "somebody",you say the Catholic Church seems to have decided that their wisdom was far greater than Paul's.
Cruciform
New member
Because apostolicity is not the ONLY criterion used by the Church in defining the biblical canon.
HisServant
New member
The only 'necessity for authority' is so that they can bully, strong arm and kill people and feel no remorse doing it. And the RCC has certainly lived up to that.
RCC = Religious Mafia.... kiss the ring of the Don!
RCC = Religious Mafia.... kiss the ring of the Don!
whitestone
Well-known member
oh,lol what are the others?
Catch that-again? This "the Church," which, despite this shill's rumblings, snorts, to the contrary,is comprised of fallible members of the boc, was/is responsible for defining the word of God, not the LORD God.
Sssssssssss......................
Cruciform
New member
Now go ahead and document your wholly unsubstantiated claim from reputable and qualified academic historical sources.
Interplanner
Well-known member
I can't read that. I do recognize one word, just a 'kai' in the 4th line. It means "and". Big help!!!
whitestone
Well-known member
hmm,,,and see kai is in the 7th line from the top,or the 2nd line from the bottom ,,,,"did I pass the pop quiz"?
You all invented human freedom and put away sovereign election because, in that way, you can have an 'authoritative' leader to open and shut salvation to people.
This is why the Reformed tradition was born- to bring back the actual gospel and reverse the Catholic heresy. There is no 'practical need' for a pope, unless it is to control people with religion, which is no doubt what the Roman Church was doing long before it adopted Christianity.
No coincidence there
This is why the Reformed tradition was born- to bring back the actual gospel and reverse the Catholic heresy. There is no 'practical need' for a pope, unless it is to control people with religion, which is no doubt what the Roman Church was doing long before it adopted Christianity.
No coincidence there
Interplanner
Well-known member
Alcazar, huh? So why are you spending time on this? Here is a comparable from Francis Schaeffer:
Savio
world
the flo
made
broke
You probably don't have the tools to find this fragment in Schaeffer either. But you could go buy 3 of his books and get an idea what he taught, right?
Cruciform
New member
Your comments merely betray a vast basic ignorance of both Christian history in general and of the teachings and practices of the Catholic faith in particular. Here you commit at least four direct factual errors in your posted statements. Try again.You all invented human freedom and put away sovereign election because, in that way, you can have an 'authoritative' leader to open and shut salvation to people. This is why the Reformed tradition was born- to bring back the actual gospel and reverse the Catholic heresy. There is no 'practical need' for a pope, unless it is to control people with religion, which is no doubt what the Roman Church was doing long before it adopted Christianity. No coincidence there
Nope, no factual errors at all. Historically, Greek and Roman paganism was built on constructs of rites, free will philosophy, and praying for necessities. They had a god for each one, and it was a requirement of a citizen to obey the religious structure. Their religion and government were literally a single entity.
Isn't a bit coincidental that Christianity comes in and, all of a sudden, it follows the same exact paradigm? The only difference is that they replaced gods with patron saints.
The early Christians believed in sovereign election. It is what Saint Augustine believed, and it is what both Luther and Calvin reinstated.
No, you!
:chuckle:
If it makes you feel any better, I think Arminians and counter-Reformists are nuttier than Catholics :idunno:
Last edited:
whitestone
Well-known member
alcazar,,,well i'm not really a fan of alcazar and the link to schaeffer,well I guess if I couldn't read what the manuscript said then I would be dependent on what other men told me it meant,but thats a misnomer I can read it but very few will take my advice on the matter because I'm a dispy/futurist I suppose thats the necessity in having faith in someone else,but thanks anyway.
Interplanner
Well-known member
What did Alcazar contribute theologically?