Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

9161[Covenanted Reformation] Re: Going back to Rome is COVENANT BREAKING

Expand Messages
  • thebishopsdoom
    Oct 30, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I spent some time working on a response to your post, only to get
      booted offline and lose all my work just as I went to view the
      message before sending. So I'm giving the abridged version now.
      It is important always to understand what an opposing side is
      actually stating before launching a critique of them. These
      corrections are NOT to support that woman that sits on the 7 hills,
      but are in the interests of accuracy. It does no good to critique
      someone and then misstate their position.

      "1. The Scriptures are not only insufficient, but they are also in
      If you mean that they teach that what Scripture actually teaches is
      erroneous by holding different views, agreed. If you mean they teach
      the Bible contains errours, I find no such thing in a cursory review
      of "Divine Revelation" from Vatican II. If you mean a statement the
      pope made about evolution some time ago, it was not an ex cathedra
      statement (essential for infallibility, see my correction of point 10

      "2. Head coverings are not necessary or right after all."
      Many Roman churches to my understanding used to teach that it was an
      act of worship and require them. Not sure what the going idea is now.

      "3. Psalm singing in the public worship of God ain't no big thing."
      And exclusive psalmody is against every Roman liturgy that I can
      think of since at least the fall of the Gallican movement in France,
      which attempted in the reformation era to oppose uninspired hymns in
      the liturgy and had not used them for apparently for some substantial
      length of time.

      "5. The First and Second commandments are redundant and
      indistinguishable. There is no way to break the second without
      breaking the first."
      Perhaps better stated this way:
      They renumber the commandments so that they have 2 barely
      distinguishable 10th commandments, and so merge the 2nd and 1st into
      one commandment as to open the door to make violations of the 2nd
      commandment really only violations of the moral law if they clearly
      violate the first, since it is all regarded as one commandment.

      "6. The Arminian's were right, except that they didn't go far enough."
      Depends on what doctrine you are looking at, and what school you are
      looking to. That may be true of Jesuits and Fransiscans, but Thomas'
      views of efficacy of divine grace, necessity of efficacious
      prevenient grace as the initial cause of an inclination in the will
      of a sinner to turn the will towards God in the initial act of
      conversion, uncaused by nor responding to anything in the sinner
      inclining Him to move that way, and certain elements of
      predestination are closer cousins to calvinism than to arminianism.

      "7. "Hail Mary" means way more than hurling a football down the
      field, for Mary is a god."
      You mean goddess.

      "10. The Church of Rome and the Pope have never ever ever been wrong
      about anything, ever."
      Papal infallibility only applies to a certain very limited set of
      pronouncements made by the papacy, and not to any other ideas,
      teachings, or pronouncements by the papacy, even on matters of
      doctrine, where it is believed that the pope may err. It is a
      convenient way for their apologists get around issues like Honorius
      being condemned in a church council for heresy, or other acts, ideas,
      or pronouncements that were heretical or just plain full of
      naughtiness. To put it in simple terms, the Wizard of
      Oz can in fact err, but not when he sits on his throne in the Ruby
      City and says "The Great and Powerful Oz has spoken!!!" (Oh, and pay
      no attention to that man behind the curtain.)
      "The most authoritative research indicates that, unlike certain other
      sees such as Antioch in Syria, the Roman see did not possess a
      monarchical bishop until the mid-second century. Until that time the
      church in the capital of the empire was governed by a college of
      presbyters or presbyter-bishops." William J. La Due, former
      professor, St. Francis Seminary and Catholic University. Doctorate in
      canon law from Lateran University.
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic