Josheb,
No, I am not and I have gone on record stating that is not the case.
I agree.
No, it would not.
That too is incorrect. What I have posted may not be understood, but I have explained how and why it is wrong. It's not wrong because it is extra-biblical. It is wrong because it is directly, explicitly, and overtly contrary, contradictory, and in conflict with scripture both in word and precedent.
here
Indeed it is your personal interpretations [about idolatry]. refer to Acts 8:30-31 for a teaching authority
and yet St. Paul and Christ were not married.
absolutely not
His commandments yesI would just add v20 to Mt 28 [teaching them]
Then the RCC "discipline" and it's required prohibition against clerical celibacy, and the promotion of singlehood should not be trusted. As I have stated a couple of times, no one in the RCC has any business institutionally telling anyone, cleric of not, they should not marry because it contradicts scripture both in word and precedent.
got no one to blame but yourself. In the recently timely and immortal words of Golda Meir, "It's hard to negotiate peace with someone trying to kill you." The checks and balances within the RCC should have stopped that. Not just because the early Reformers were Catholics who did NOT want to leave. but because it is immoral - wholly unscriptural.Absolutely not? The murder of reformers is contrary to scripture. Therefore, BOTH the RCC murder of reformers is not to be trusted AND neither are those who condone, justify, defend, and approve of the murderers. There is a reason the RCC stopped murdering people (unless you're a fan of Dan Brown
).Yep
Nope.
. I wonder how it is an op that concludes with.......does not include one single scripture using the word "initiation"
, and how it is no one until now thought to comment or inquire about that .
You and I both know that when a poster brings up A,B,C,D, and E, they have lost the battle. You are all over the map sir! Bottom line-- Christ instituted ONE Church that is protected by the HS. There was no expiration date! You keep mentioning 'reformers' and don't seem to realize that 'reform' is from within. Revolt, is the better word for what happened in the 16th century. They all became mini-popes [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.]. How do you not see that?Then the RCC "discipline" and it's required prohibition against clerical celibacy, and the promotion of singlehood should not be trusted. As I have stated a couple of times, no one in the RCC has any business institutionally telling anyone, cleric of not, they should not marry because it contradicts scripture both in word and precedent.
Clerical celibacy and the "discipline" against marriage is a moderate matter, imo, compared to some of the more severe problems with the RCC (and other religious institutions). Clerical celibacy does not compare to murder. Murder probably tops the list, although I suppose a case could be made for idolatry being more severe. This murder thing gets us straight back to the dividing moment in Church history and the chief reason Prots even exist. If the Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope, and the Magisterium had listened to the reformers then the reformer would never have become the Reformers. You guy
Exodus 20:13
You shall not murder.
Does not get any plainer than that. No murder.
Absolutely not? The murder of reformers is contrary to scripture. Therefore, BOTH the RCC murder of reformers is not to be trusted AND neither are those who condone, justify, defend, and approve of the murderers. There is a reason the RCC stopped murdering people (unless you're a fan of Dan Brown
Which brings me to another matter more severe than cleric celibacy and most of the other complaints RCC-raggers protest about, and with which you two have problem argued til you're proverbially blue in the face. I sympathize. What is not acceptable are those occasions when the Popes or others high in the RCC abused their power, authority, privilege, and resources and those with power and authority to stop it did nothing. To be fair, it's not a uniquely RCC problem but in any objective comparison the RCC makes everyone else look like amateurs when it comes to corruption. Even Dispensationalist end-times prognosticators (200 years and they haven't got one prediction correct) look sophomoric in comparison to both RCC perpetrators and those covering for them.
Every time an RC points to Protestant misbehavior to justify the defense of RCCism they look like hypocrites.
So, lighten up.
If you, don, and you, Arch, have a salvific relationship with God through His resurrected and ascended Son, Jesus Christ through whom alone we have access to God, then don't let any Prot tell you you're not Christian. Conversely, If you're not equally honest with the very real and undeniable problems in RCCism you've got no business defending the RCC.
And to tie this all back to the op.....
Yep
Nope.
The covenants are all initiated monergistically by God. The covenants are all initiated monergistically by God. Time after time after time throughout the Bible from beginning to end the example established is God chooses a person without them knowing it. He initiates the covenant relationship without their knowing it. He calls them without their ever knowing they are going to be called, without their ever being given a say whether they want to be called (some didn't), and without their having any opportunity not to be called. God also commands those He has chosen and called without ever asking them if they want to be commanded and whether or not they want to obey. They are all commanded with an expectation of obedience.
One after that happens are any choices made on the creature's end of the covenant relationship.
When the New Testament speaks of Abraham's faith and his faith being credited to him as righteousness two things are important to understand: 1) Abraham could not not-believe the moment God summoned him and He heard from God Himself, and 2) faith is not faithfulness. Faithfulness is works. Faith begets faithfulness. Faith is "the certainty of things hoped for, a proof of things not seen," baptism is a work. They both follow initiation into the covenant of grace.
I'm not a big fan of the phrase "covenant of grace," because it's not actually a term scripture uses, but I understand the inferential case made to justify it. What is important to know is the covenant of grace began,
1 Peter 1:20
For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world....
That is when the covenant was initiated and none of us here were yet born.
1 Peter 1:17-21
If you address as Father the One who impartially judges according to each one's work, conduct yourselves in fear during the time of your stay on earth; knowing that you were not redeemed with perishable things like silver or gold from your futile way of life inherited from your forefathers, but with precious blood, as of a lamb unblemished and spotless, the blood of Christ. For He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but has appeared in these last times for the sake of you who through Him are believers in God, who raised Him from the dead and gave Him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.
An op on the mystery and power of God's grace should certainly include the foreknowledge of God concerning His Son's sacrifice. Yes?
I trust that was a simple lapse in attentiveness
...does not include one single scripture using the word "initiation"
You can see it in scripture and the ECF's.
I don't know that. I did not bring any of this up; I was asked for examples. Using your logic, I could just as easily as you say the person who asks for examples and trashes the one answering the question has lost the battle.
No, I am not. I am answering th question asked with multiple examples and receiving fallacious ad homnem in response.
I agree.
Red herring. I never said there was.
Yep. Luther was RCC. So was Calvin. So were Wycliffe, Hus, Zwingli, Bucer, Erasmus, Melanchthon, Karlstadt, Bullinger, Beza, Knox, Hamilton, and Vermigli. ALL of them sought first to effect reform from within. None of them wanted to leave the RCC. All of them would have stayed in the RCC had the RCC not abused them, excommunicated them (often without cause and even more often without due process), persecuted them even after they forced out and, on many occasions, either murdered them openly under the auspices of RCC authority or clandestinely. Most of them were correct (a few were not) and many of their views were later instituted by the RCC's own Catholic, or Counter Reformation that ensued (like the discontinuation of abusing indulgences). Had the RCC corrected the abuses of indulgences when Luther first broached the problem to those in authority the Protestant Reformation might never have happened. Even some of Wycliffe's views were later instituted! Luther had been a RCC apologist defending some of the RCC's critics (like Agricola). These men were ardent Augustinians, Dominicans, and Cistercians. Calvins' "Institutes of the Christian Religion" was originally a Roman Catholic treatise recommending reforms within the RCC! No reason to persecute, let alone murder, either of them. ALL OF THE EARLY REFORMERS WERE FAITHFUL ROMAN CATHOLICS SEEKING REFORMS FROM WITHIN!
That is quite possibly the stupidest sentence posted in this entire thread.
And yet history says otherwise.
Nonsense. None of them wanted to establish new sects or denominations, all of them sought orthodoxy and unity, and not a single one of them every called himself the leader of a church.
Because it is not true.How do you not see that?
All of whom the Protestant Reformers abided, and for few was there any dissent. Both Wycliffe, Luther and Calvin in particular were ardently Augustinian.
It looks like you do not believe what you say.
...and my dissent with....
...because Christ is the mediator of the covenant that brings sinners into union and communion with God but faith and baptism are not the initiation of the covenant of grace. Initiation into the covenant with God by grace through faith in the resurrected and ascendant Christ is initiated monergistically, not synergistically. Even faith is a gift from God; one that is alien to non-believing sinful flesh. Faith and baptism follow the monergistic initiation into the covenant of grace and they both occur solely at the behest of God the initiator, and Christ the mediator of that covenant. I'm a little curious at the use of the phrase "covenant of grace," because it is generally a phrase thought to have originated with Protestant Reformers like Zwingli and Bullinger
specifically in dissent with RCC soteriology.
Christ's Church gave us the Bible.... the Bible did not give us the Church.
With no expiration date, Luther had no authority to separate from Christ's church and consider his ecclesial community authoritative.
and yet they put themselves over Christ's wishes--promises
The church was given the power to excommunicate -- whatever you bind; whatever you loose
Council of Trent was clear.
reform stays within.... revolt is from the outside
Indeed! No one has the authority to create a new church and claim it as Christ's Church. [see above -- pillar of truth; wisdom of God made known through Her; keys of authority to Peter; bind/loose; whoever hears you hears Me; etc.]
Zwingli, Calvin, and Luther couldn't even agree on the Eucharist. It went downhill from there-- why? because they all used personal, fallible, interpretations of scripture to lead men astray. We were warned:
Lets test that [1Thess 5:21] -- Quite Catholic of a Catholic Bishop [Hippo]
AMEN!!!
God gave us scripture.
and His Catholic Church chose the 73 books, and bound them.
I was hoping you would read the actual words of Augustine and see if anything stands out to you.
