. . . except when you don’t follow him. Hear Bryan Cross:
Hence Clark cannot without inconsistency simultaneously stand as a Protestant on Luther’s “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason …” and decry both “cafeteria Calvinism” and the very biblicism by which Luther and Calvin justified their rebellion against and separation from the magisterium of the Church into which they both had been baptized. Clark is trying to maintain middle positions that are not available, such as the position according to which confessions formed without magisterial authority but rather as expressions of private judgments concerning the meaning of Scripture are to be treated as having such ecclesial authority, and the position in which ‘church authority’ chosen on the basis of its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture is an actual binding authority, and not something that loses its ‘authority’ as soon as it fails to conform to the criterion by which one chose it as ‘authoritative.’ But when one sees the delusion of derivative authority, one sees that the solution cannot be to write another confession, or even revise a confession. And when one sees the farce of painting an ecclesial-authority target around one’s interpretive arrow, one sees that the solution cannot be to fire one’s arrow again, and paint another target. At that point, the paradigm begins to crumble, and one either consigns oneself to solo scriptura biblicism, or one begins to seek out the answer to the following question: Where is the Church Christ founded?
Hear Pope Francis:
“While these drawbacks are real, they do not justify rejecting social media; rather, they remind us that communication is ultimately a human rather than technological achievement … We need, for example, to recover a certain sense of deliberateness and calm. This calls for time and the ability to be silent and to listen … Effective Christian witness is not about bombarding people with religious messages, but about our willingness to be available to others “by patiently and respectfully engaging their questions and their doubts.”
Francis uses the example of the Good Samaritan as an illustration: “Let our communication be a balm which relieves pain and a fine wine which gladdens hearts. May the light we bring to others not be the result of cosmetics or special effects, but rather of our being loving and merciful “neighbours” to those wounded and left on the side of the road.” The image of the Good Samaritan was also a warning against the risks of communication: “Whenever communication is primarily aimed at promoting consumption or manipulating others, we are dealing with a form of violent aggression like that suffered by the man in the parable.”
I appreciate Bryan’s candor about Luther and Calvin’s rebellion and separation from the magisterium of his church. I don’t think it’s going to be a very effective Call to Communion (not to mention that it doesn’t do much justice to the prayer for Christian unity). But if Luther and Calvin were supposed to obey the pope, why doesn’t Bryan Cross need to?
Old Life 
You can take Bryan out of presbyism, but not the presbyism out of Bryan?
Bryan, I created a playground yesterday. I’ll make it my goal to some day write something even you would read, and comment on, so that we can play. What can I say, shooting for the stars much, over here, yo
Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
LikeLike
Oh enlightened one (yes you, Bryan), un-delude us, please.
What on earth are you saying in this sentence at CtC, re-posted here at Hart’s blog?
Peace.
LikeLike
Humbly submitted:
LikeLike
Bryan – Clark is trying to maintain middle positions that are not available
Erik – I’d love to see Bryan drive. His car must be either sitting in the garage with no gas in it and the spark plugs disconnected for safety reasons or speeding down the road at 120 miles-per-hour.
LikeLike
Source for directly above: http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=375&C=23
LikeLike
Tom Brown’s carrying on a scintillating discussion of ecumenism over there, sans any Protestants. The crickets are deafening.
LikeLike
Erik, my mission is flood them with our liberals’ words.
That’s who they are now. We have to speak their language.
Woof.
LikeLike
Erik,
Tom Brown’s carrying on a scintillating discussion of ecumenism over there, sans any Protestants. The crickets are deafening.
Hey but as long as they’re talking about it, true ecumenicity must exist. It’s kind of like their argument for papal infallibility. As long as its claimed, we must assume that it is true, at least we must assume that it is true in order to critique it.
LikeLike
Yes, please — Bryan needs to be more about balm and wine than piss and vinegar shaken (not stirred) with logic bitters. Why can’t he be cuddly like Bergoglio? Get with the program indeed!
LikeLike
Andrew – Erik, my mission is flood them with our liberals’ words.
Erik – If you can get through there, go for it.
LikeLike
Robert,
I asked you for some biographical information but can’t remember where. Did you answer? I like your work a lot. Your the best new mind we’ve had here in quite some time.
LikeLike
“You’re”, not “your”. I don’t usually offer corrections but I can’t look like a dunce complimenting someone’s mind.
LikeLike
More “Bryan vs History”:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/bryan-cant-see-forest-while.html
LikeLike
And there is no difference between a republican and an anarchist. They both reject the monarchy.
LikeLike
Dudes, anyone with a penchant for power needs to create a blog. Just seeing now the levers as a man behind the curtain (i.e. blog owner) are a trip, and make it well worth the effort.
G’night gents.
LikeLike
Bryan Cross obeys man!
He is immortal. Born in the Highlands of Scotland 400 years ago. He is not alone. There are others like him, some good, some evil. For centuries he has battled the forces of darkness, with holy ground his only refuge. He cannot die, unless you take his head, and with it his power. In the end there can be only one. He is Bryan Cross, the Highlander.
LikeLike
“cafeteria Calvinism”
But when one sees the delusion of derivative authority, one sees that the solution cannot be to write another confession, or even revise a confession.
I’ve been wondering about that. What if you can’t swallow the whole TULIP? What if you’re a TULI?
Or an ULP?
Do they put you on trial? Or do you just write another confession, rent a basement somewhere, put a sign out and hope somebody shows up?
LikeLike
Darryl,
What think ye of the following from Francis:
“One of the more serious temptations which stifles boldness and zeal is a defeatism which turns us into querulous and disillusioned pessimists, ‘sourpusses’. Nobody can go off to battle unless he is fully convinced of victory beforehand. If we start without confidence, we have already lost half the battle and we bury our talents. While painfully aware of our own frailties, we have to march on without giving in, keeping in mind what the Lord said to Saint Paul: ‘My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness’ (2 Cor 12:9). Christian triumph is always a cross, yet a cross which is at the same time a victorious banner borne with aggressive tenderness…”
LikeLike
james van dame, I think Francis talks too much. So how does that jibe with what he said about dialogue? Or, so what’s your point, that he is a rorschach test in which any of us with any opinion can find what we want, sort of like evangelicalism?
And then he speaks again:
Stop being contentious. Love me.
LikeLike
Stop being contentious. Love me.
Using this line on the wife. Will let you know how it goes.
LikeLike
Tom – Do they put you on trial? Or do you just write another confession, rent a basement somewhere, put a sign out and hope somebody shows up?
Erik – Trial? Maybe
Another confession?, rent a basement?, put a sign out? – It’s a free country
View Rome as just one old, big denomination and this isn’t hard to understand.
LikeLike
Tom – Do they put you on trial? Or do you just write another confession, rent a basement somewhere, put a sign out and hope somebody shows up?
Erik – Trial? Maybe
Another confession?, rent a basement?, put a sign out? – It’s a free country
View Rome as just one old, big denomination and this isn’t hard to understand.
I don’t see you as a big tent religion kind of guy, Tom. You want to commune in the same church as Nancy Pelosi? Really?
LikeLike
When I hear talk of ecumenism, of churches getting bigger through merger, I think not in terms of benefits but in what I have to give up.
People are goofy and they bring that into church with them. Presbyterian & Reformed people are goofy, too. I try to commune with the less goofy variety.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 27, 2014 at 11:39 am | Permalink
Tom – Do they put you on trial? Or do you just write another confession, rent a basement somewhere, put a sign out and hope somebody shows up?
Erik – Trial? Maybe
Another confession?, rent a basement?, put a sign out? – It’s a free country
View Rome as just one old, big denomination and this isn’t hard to understand.
I don’t see you as a big tent religion kind of guy, Tom. You want to commune in the same church as Nancy Pelosi? Really?
Well, as Cletus points out, Rome’s claim to the guidance of the Holy Spirit is different in kind than its competitors. If you pointed at the Bible and showed where starting dozens of new churches in the 1500s would be God’s will, you’d be on the same plane, but you don’t.
As for Nancy Pelosi, the difference is that she and her cohorts can’t take over the Catholic “denomination,” as they did your parent denomination and gave Mr. Machen such a hard time. Whose Catholicism is it anyway? A: The Magisterium’s, not the Democratic Party’s.
Not that I blame y’all for separating from the liberals. But it never ends.
LikeLike
Scott Clark— “Contemporary evangelicals use the idea of Christian worldview much like liberal Christians once used the phrase “Fatherhood of God and brotherhood of man”—a large accommodating umbrella sheltering delimited political and social expressions of Christianity. Theological details matter peripherally to the big-picture picture possibility of redeeming the culture. …Confessions speak to particular details, but at price worldview proponents do not want to pay, namely, the collapse of consensus and visible unity in a democratized religious climate.”
LikeLike
Tom,
s for Nancy Pelosi, the difference is that she and her cohorts can’t take over the Catholic “denomination,” as they did your parent denomination and gave Mr. Machen such a hard time. Whose Catholicism is it anyway? A: The Magisterium’s, not the Democratic Party’s.
Not “directly.” But she and her cohorts have already taken over the American Church which could care less about what comes out of the Vatican since American RCs are overwhelmingly liberal on issues about which the Vatican is staunchly conservative. And this whole charism of the liberal laity is already starting to work on the Magisterium, hence its ever-softening language on issues such as homosexuality, the recent papal survey on ministering to non-traditional families, and so on.
If you think conservatives aren’t being marginalized in the big tent that is Rome, then you aren’t paying attention. The Magisterium has lost the sword and it can’t control the laity anymore. V2 and its implementation are proving that every day.
The illusion of CTC is that the Magisterium is the Church. It isn’t. Even the Magisterium knows that, which is why it is playing tap dance to stay alive. Gotta keep those coffers full, you’know.
LikeLike
Tom – Well, as Cletus points out, Rome’s claim to the guidance of the Holy Spirit is different in kind than its competitors
Erik – So it’s different, so what? How does that make it true. I could have worn my underwear on my head to work today. That would have been different.
Tom – . If you pointed at the Bible and showed where starting dozens of new churches in the 1500s would be God’s will, you’d be on the same plane, but you don’t.
Erik – Point to the Bible and show where Roman Catholicism is God’s will.
Tom – As for Nancy Pelosi, the difference is that she and her cohorts can’t take over the Catholic “denomination,”
Erik – How do you know? What was Vatican II? What is Pope Francis? Would a 19th century Pope recognize either?
LikeLike
Robert
Posted January 27, 2014 at 1:28 pm | Permalink
Tom,
>>As for Nancy Pelosi, the difference is that she and her cohorts can’t take over the Catholic “denomination,” as they did your parent denomination and gave Mr. Machen such a hard time. Whose Catholicism is it anyway? A: The Magisterium’s, not the Democratic Party’s.<<
Not “directly.” But she and her cohorts have already taken over the American Church which could care less about what comes out of the Vatican since American RCs are overwhelmingly liberal on issues about which the Vatican is staunchly conservative. And this whole charism of the liberal laity is already starting to work on the Magisterium, hence its ever-softening language on issues such as homosexuality, the recent papal survey on ministering to non-traditional families, and so on.
If you think conservatives aren’t being marginalized in the big tent that is Rome, then you aren’t paying attention. The Magisterium has lost the sword and it can’t control the laity anymore. V2 and its implementation are proving that every day.
The illusion of CTC is that the Magisterium is the Church. It isn’t. Even the Magisterium knows that, which is why it is playing tap dance to stay alive. Gotta keep those coffers full, you’know.
But Pelosi and the libs HAVEN’T taken over Catholic Church, whereas the liberals DID take over Machen’s [your] church, which is why you started a new one.
The difference is that the magisterium DOES own the CC and defines what its theological truth is, whereas with Protestant denominations, theological truth is whatever the majority says it is.
That’s not a pejorative, not mere opinion, just a structural fact, and it’s the core of the argument.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 27, 2014 at 2:23 pm | Permalink
Tom – Well, as Cletus points out, Rome’s claim to the guidance of the Holy Spirit is different in kind than its competitors
Erik – So it’s different, so what? How does that make it true. I could have worn my underwear on my head to work today. That would have been different.
I don’t litigate truth claims here or pretty much anywhere. If you tell me God told you to wear your underwear on your head, I can have my doubts but i won’t call you a liar.
Tom – . If you pointed at the Bible and showed where starting dozens of new churches in the 1500s would be God’s will, you’d be on the same plane, but you don’t.
Erik – Point to the Bible and show where Roman Catholicism is God’s will.
Addicted to polemics. A habit you’ve picked up here at OLTS. Making the other fellow wrong doesn’t make you right. You need to argue affirmatively for your own church. You may not accept the “thou art Peter” riff as the correct interpretation, but it’s coherent. Where is your Biblical prophecy and warrant for schism 1000 years after the fact?
http://www.therealchurch.com/church_splits/the_sin_of_schism.html
LikeLike
Erik,
“Erik – So it’s different, so what? How does that make it true. I could have worn my underwear on my head to work today. That would have been different.”
Yep, maybe Rome’s wrong. At least you recognize the claim is different (and so would revise your prior statement of viewing Rome as just another denomination), yet you just shrug it off. So seems like that leads you to 2 options – some other similar claimant to Rome is right, or all religious truth reduces to opinion. Unless you have some other option you’d like to present.
LikeLike
Tom – with Protestant denominations, theological truth is whatever the majority says it is.
Erik – No, truth has nothing to do with majority vote. Your contention would only make sense if Scripture was unclear. It isn’t. Lots of people (Catholic, Protestant, irreligious) just don’t believe what it says.
Is the U.S. Constitution what the majority says it is?
LikeLike
Tom – Where is your Biblical prophecy and warrant for schism 1000 years after the fact?
Erik – The warrant is apostolic teaching. Accept those who have it, reject those who don’t, regardless of the label they put on themselves or the claims they make about themselves. Rome had a chance to come clean at Trent but they instead doubled down. Case closed.
LikeLike
Tom,
Prove the physical, historical link from Pope Francis all the way back to Peter. If you can’t, no schism is present. You like history, so do some. The burden of proof is on you.
LikeLike
Clete – Unless you have some other option you’d like to present.
Erik – I do. See above:
“The warrant is apostolic teaching. Accept those who have it, reject those who don’t, regardless of the label they put on themselves or the claims they make about themselves.”
You’re really impressed with physical credentials. Is God? If He is, what became of the Jews? Of circumcision?
You’ll reply that that was the Old Covenant & this is the New. but your mindset is very similar to the Jews.
LikeLike
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb
Why is he here?
Read this after chapters 1-24:
Long way to go, folks.
LikeLike
Galatians 1:
No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!
LikeLike
Paul doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room for “development of doctrine” with regards to the gospel that he teaches. Make a biblical case that the Roman Catholic gospel is Paul’s gospel and I’m willing to listen.
Getting you guys to talk about the Bible is like offering a vampire a wooden stake.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 28, 2014 at 10:48 pm | Permalink
Tom – with Protestant denominations, theological truth is whatever the majority says it is.
Erik – No, truth has nothing to do with majority vote. Your contention would only make sense if Scripture was unclear. It isn’t. Lots of people (Catholic, Protestant, irreligious) just don’t believe what it says.
Is the U.S. Constitution what the majority says it is?
Sort of. I’m not sure you follow law and politics if you ask that. Obama appoints “Living Constitutionalist” Supreme Court justices. In the end, yes–the Constitution means whatever 5 SC justices say it means. I’m not particularly fond of comparing the American constitutional system to Christ’s church, or the Constitution to the Bible. The analogy seldom holds.
Your contention would only make sense if Scripture was unclear. It isn’t.
Now you’re really pulling my leg, right?
Let’s leave the Catholic Church out of it. “Protestantism” isn’t even an affirmative term–it basically means not- [or anti-] Catholic. If there were no Catholic Church, Lutherans would still be a million theological miles away from the Calvinists from the Anabaptists–all claiming that the Bible “plainly” says this or—180 degrees in the other direction–that.
Hell, Machen’s Warrior Presbyterians split from the normal Presbyterians [after they took away Machen’s ministership]. So it goes. And it goes and it goes.
“Truth is what the majority says” was an observation of schisms and synods, whathaveyou, not an evaluation of truth claims. If you want another bite at the apple, try again. The assertion holds:
LikeLike
Flip this on its head. Why should Roman Catholics be comfortable with practices that do not have clear Biblical warrant? What are they placing their trust in when they do?
LikeLike
Tom – I’m not particularly fond of comparing the American constitutional system to Christ’s church, or the Constitution to the Bible
Erik – Especially when the comparison is not helpful to the point you just tried to make.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 28, 2014 at 11:05 pm | Permalink
Paul doesn’t seem to leave a lot of room for “development of doctrine” with regards to the gospel that he teaches. Make a biblical case that the Roman Catholic gospel is Paul’s gospel and I’m willing to listen.
Getting you guys to talk about the Bible is like offering a vampire a wooden stake.
Well, as a formal observation, you set the rules and standard: sola scriptura. Your theology, not theirs. [And one that ex-Protestants such as Bryan Cross and Jason Stellman argue you can’t even find in the Bible. You don’t even have circularity going for you!]
But to reject your premise once again, that attacking Catholicism justifies your own theologizing/churchiness [“private judgment”], the Catholic argument isn’t just
“I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”
for which the rebuttal is well known, it’s the next part:
“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”
or if that’s still debatable
See, Luther and Calvin–even by their own theological standards–don’t have as good a case for their/your churches–unless they want to plant their flag on that last bit, that whatever Luther and Calvin bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.
Although basically, that would be trading one magisterium for another.
Biblical argument, EC. As you requested. It’s a pretty well-known riff.
LikeLike
Tom – Protestantism” isn’t even an affirmative term–it basically means not- [or anti-] Catholic
Erik – It’s you guys (you, Clete, The Callers) who always want to talk about generic “Protestants”, not us. There is only one Presbyterian or Refomed Church that uses “Protestant” in its name that I can think of. The Protestant Reformed and they’re really small.
If we’re “anti-Catholic” in an historical sense it’s because of the Constantinian paradigm (now I sound like Bryan) which allowed Rome to be the only show in town for 1,000 years. Once that went away Rome had competitors and it hasn’t gone so well for her since.
If Constantinianism was God’s blessing on Rome, why did He withdraw the protective hand of the Magistrate?
LikeLike
Tom – Hell, Machen’s Warrior Presbyterians split from the normal Presbyterians [after they took away Machen’s ministership]. So it goes. And it goes and it goes.
Erik – Actually when you use Machen as an example, the only “split” after that was the Bible Presbyterians splitting off from the OPC a very short time after the beginning. How is one more split after Machen “three goes”.
Precision, Tom. Precision.
LikeLike
Tom – Pelosi and the libs HAVEN’T taken over Catholic Church
Erik – What would a takeover look like? Pelosi communes with the Callers. She must be pretty comfortable. No one with any authority opposes her. Kind of sounds like a takeover to me.
LikeLike
Tom,
So Christ meant to give the church infallible authority? Why limit it just to dogma? Why assume that the church could ever make any error at all?
The RC position would be more respectable if they tried to claim infallibility for it all. This “the pope is infallible except when he’s not” definition of infallibility just isn’t credible. It allows one to weasel out of tight spots far too easily. “Well, only the statement is infallible, who cares what people actually believed about it when it was first spoken.”
LikeLike
Tom – Well, as a formal observation, you set the rules and standard: sola scriptura
Erik – They claim to accept Scripture. So show either the Scriptural warrant for their doctrines or why Scripture was insufficient and they had to add to it or depart from it. I’m willing to discuss those instances, too.
LikeLike
¿Warriors?
No.
Yet, for all his enthusiasm, Machen was also cautious.
LikeLike
Tom,
Is Jesus giving Peter the keys the only Catholic doctrine you know?
If it is, show me the biblical support for him passing them on to an infallible line of successors.
You’re an inch deep on some of this stuff because you don’t want to do the hard work to be truly fluent in it.
LikeLike
Tom,
Pelosi and the libs HAVEN’T taken over Catholic Church
Sure they haven’t. Just like my neighbors kids who pretty much get away with what they want as long as they say “I love you daddy.” When the teacher is lecturing and the kids are throwing paper airplanes and spitballs, not to mention running around the classroom whose really in charge? Maybe its not the kids, but it sure ain’t the teacher.
LikeLike
Peter – An Apostle – could bind and loose. Paul – an apostle – worked miracles. They were apostles. They’re dead. There are no more apostles. It’s not that hard.
LikeLike
Erik Charter
Posted January 28, 2014 at 11:16 pm | Permalink
Flip this on its head. Why should Roman Catholics be comfortable with practices that do not have clear Biblical warrant? What are they placing their trust in when they do?
Well, Darryl made an undeveloped form of the same objection, that somehow “deriving” sacramental theology from the Bible is somehow “putting the Pope above the Bible.”
But that was an overreach. Catholic theology never claims that the Bible is in error and the magisterium [Pope, councils] is correcting it. Darryl’s charge that the pope contradicts the Bible was an accusation, a theological opinion. It was not an accurate representation of Catholicism as it understands itself—Tradition and Magisterium clarify the meaning of scripture and bring it into fullness–they do not correct it, override it, or claim to surpass it. The Bible is perfect, and no theology is valid that contradicts it.
LikeLike
Erik,
“The warrant is apostolic teaching. Accept those who have it, reject those who don’t, regardless of the label they put on themselves or the claims they make about themselves.”
Regardless of the claims they make about themselves. By ignoring that distinction, you reduce everything to opinion and paper tiger authority. The warrant is apostolic teaching aka The warrant is what conforms to my current provisional interpretation of what provisional books/passages I consider Scripture. Solo, not sola.
“You’re really impressed with physical credentials.”
I’m really impressed with coherent and consistent principles to hold when assenting with faith to divine truths. God’s not incoherent.
“Is God? If He is, what became of the Jews? Of circumcision? You’ll reply that that was the Old Covenant & this is the New. but your mindset is very similar to the Jews.”
Brilliant “You’ll talk about the NC, but really that’s not important” As I’ve said before, your mindset is the one that keeps us in the OC like the NC never did anything, acting like revelation is not complete with endless non-definitive squabbling over things never proposed as articles of faith.
LikeLike
Tom, stay focused. Some conservatives think Francis is liberal. SSPXers, who are still part of the RCC in such an oh so disciplined way, also think every pope since Vat 2 is liberal.
So there are Machens in the RCC.
The so-called conservatives are basically to Roman Catholicism what the Evangelical Presbyterian Church is to American Presbyterianism.
LikeLike
“‘Protestantism’ isn’t even an affirmative term.”
And what exactly do you affirm?
LikeLike
D. G. Hart
Posted January 29, 2014 at 6:07 am | Permalink
Tom, stay focused. Some conservatives think Francis is liberal. SSPXers, who are still part of the RCC in such an oh so disciplined way, also think every pope since Vat 2 is liberal.
Yes, but your rhetorical approach is always bottom feeding, exceptions rather than the rule, which is not the way of seeking truth. If it’s not the hard core revanchists such as the SSPXers, it’s the liberals of National Catholic Reporter.
The blind spot is exactly where the Church is, looking at everything but the thing itself.
So there are Machens in the RCC.
The so-called conservatives are basically to Roman Catholicism what the Evangelical Presbyterian Church is to American Presbyterianism
Interesting. Forgive me having trouble keeping up with all the splits and schisms. You’re Old School Presbyterianism, they’re “New School”? Hodge, Edwards? Slavery?
There is a limit to my interest; at some point the theological hairsplitting makes the eyes glaze over, I suspect even among your co-religionists, few of whom I’d imagine could run the column for Alex Trebek. But thx for the clarification.
LikeLike
Tomvd, glaze over my ass. You love OL. Another 8 comments in 2 hours.
LikeLike
Cletus,
The warrant is apostolic teaching aka The warrant is what conforms to my current provisional interpretation of what provisional books/passages I consider Scripture. Solo, not sola.
And for Rome the warrant is apostolic teaching succession, is what conforms to your current provision interpretation of what teachings of Rome you consider infallible and your provisional interpretation of Rome’s ever-changing provisional interpretation of what it has said.
LikeLike
When it comes to canonization, the pope holds all the cards:
LikeLike
Dr. Hart quoted another as saying:
The only one allowed to break his own laws is the pope himself.
So much for the king being bound to the same laws as the rest of the people. Yet another reason to reject Rome as an unbiblical corruption of the teaching of Scripture. David, who was fully divinely inspired and not partially so (like Rome claims for itself) was not above the law. How much less should the pope be.
LikeLike
But what if the Supreme Bishop is more extrovert than introvert?
LikeLike