ECT NO, THE BIBLE IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN'S ONLY AUTHORITY

[oatmeal]

Then what exactly is your point?


Why not?


By the way, I'm still waiting for your response to Post #275 above. What say you?

What is wrong with your altars?

You didn't read the verse I posted from Exodus 20?

The problem with your theology is again coming to the forefront, it is not that you want more authority than scripture, you simply ignore scripture when it contradicts your chosen ignorance.

Exodus 20:25 KJV

And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone: for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

Your altars are polluted.

Not that God or Jesus Christ or Paul or Peter wants Christians to build altars, for the ultimate sacrifice once and for all has been made, the perfect sacrifice of the life of Jesus Christ.

There is no more need for altars for there is no more need for atonement for sin, "it is finished."

 

[oatmeal]

[1] Sola scriptura is itself utterly unbiblical, and so merely refutes itself (see this).

[2] I challenge you to cite a single biblical text that teaches---or even implies---the numerical sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura).​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Scripture alone is scripture.

It is the only written record of truth God authored. II Timothy 3:16

But you don't think God's word of life is enough.

You want to add millions of pages of regulations and laws and traditions, much like Obama and the libs

All your extrabiblical writings distract people from truth

Which is exactly what the adversary wants.

Hence Jesus Christ responded with "it is written" to the temptations.

Not, the RCC says , or St. Auggie or St Bernard or the patron saint of stubbed toes says.

James 4:7

Submit yourself to God

 

[Nick M]

No more Friday fish frys for you.

There is always the VFW. And the brewski is priced right.

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

There is always the VFW. And the brewski is priced right.

I wonder if saint john w, the great, still drinks brewskis.

 

[Cruciform]

Hope you and yours had a pleasant Christmas, CM. Now, let's see if there's anything here that hasn't already been answered...

My church us as old ad Jesus because we follow what Jesus taught.

Given that your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect was only invented during the past couple of centuries, it cannot---by that simple undeniable fact---be "as old as Jesus." Try again.

It's not a lie, it's a conclusion I have reached based on your participation on those site.

Your claim that I "do not believe that scripture contains God inspired word" is a straightforward and deliberate lie (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). If you wish to deny this, you'll need to cite a single statement of mine in which---completely contrary to Catholic teaching---I state that I do not believe that Scripture contains God's inspired word. Go ahead, then...

Which one of the original twelve Apostles appointed Paul?

According to Paul himself, Peter and the other apostles confirmed Paul's teaching and approved of his inclusion as an apostle (Gal. 1:18). The New Testament indicates that Paul was himself subject to the authority of the apostolic college (i.e., the Magisterium, the Church) (Ac. 9:30; 17:10, 14). Paul certainly did not operate on his own, independently of Peter and the rest of the apostles.

You cannot corrupt that which is already corrupt so the Protesants are doing nothing more than attempting to correct it.

QUESTION: Which of the some 50,000+ recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to declare which doctrines are in fact "corrupt," and which are not, in a manner which is binding upon all believers everywhere?

Sadly, Protesants can and do add their own corrupt teachings to scripture. Prosperity Gospels comes to mind.

Sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, anti-sacramentalism, etc., etc., etc...

You claim to have a degree in philosophy and this is your argument?

If you can't provide the requested biblical texts, just say so.

You just proved sola scripture is doctrinally sound. Don't believe me? Cite one gospel text in which Jesus states the doctrine of sola scriptura is unacceptable.

I don't need to, since I do not hold to your view of the formation of doctrine. It is you---not Catholics---who needs to provide positive prohibitions by Jesus of these various Catholic doctrines.

You haven't cited any versus, you have only cited Catholic interpretations of those versus. Big difference there.

Rather, I cited the verses themselves---here they are again: Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

What is wrong with your altars? You didn't read the verse I posted from Exodus 20?

Sorry, but I simply don't accept your glaringly anachronistic application of this Old Testament text. Try again.

...you simply ignore scripture when it contradicts your chosen ignorance.

Pot, meet Kettle.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Scripture alone is scripture.

And Tradition alone is Tradition.

It is the only written record of truth God authored. II Timothy 3:16

It is the only unwritten record of truth God employs.

But you don't think God's word of life is enough.

Nonsense. I simply disagree with your erroneous assumption that God's word of life is restricted to "the Bible alone," a notion that is itself nowhere taught in the Bible, and so which merely refutes itself.

Hence Jesus Christ responded with "it is written" to the temptations.

No one is denying that Scripture is authoritative. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[dreadknought]

And Tradition alone is Tradition.


It is the only unwritten record of truth God employs.


Nonsense. I simply disagree with your erroneous assumption that God's word of life is restricted to "the Bible alone," a notion that is itself nowhere taught in the Bible, and so which merely refutes itself.


No one is denying that Scripture is authoritative. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Odd, you invoke fear. Submit z'[;somr Its no small wonder why there are Protestants.

 

[Cruciform]

Odd, you invoke fear.

Where exactly have I supposedly "invoked fear"...?

Submit z'[;somr

Is this intended to have meaning for English-speaking readers?

 

[dreadknought]

Where exactly have I supposedly "invoked fear"...?



Is this intended to have meaning for English-speaking readers?

You invoke fear with your tone. Rome has done this.

 

[Cruciform]

You invoke fear with your tone. Rome has done this.

Please demonstrate that my "tone" is somehow intended to "invoke fear" any more than yours is.

 

[dreadknought]

Please demonstrate that my "tone" is somehow intended to "invoke fear" any more than yours is.

Right, Socrates.

 

[Cruciform]

Right, Socrates.

So you're not able to demonstrate any such "fear-invoking" tone. You may, therefore, want to retract your false claim.

Also, the mockery of your comment merely proves my prior observation that this is the last resort of one with no actual argument to make.

 

[dreadknought]

So you're not able to demonstrate any such "fear-invoking" tone. You may, therefore, want to retract your false claim.

When Romes history is honestly vouched for, you'll have my retratction against the Church. As for you, your a bully. ... I don't do the this this this this this this this this this this this thing.

 

[Cruciform]

When Romes history is honestly vouched for, you'll have my retratction against the Church.

Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with your smokescreen of "church history," but solely about your own posted statements above.

As for you, your a bully. ... I don't do the this this this this this this this this this this this thing.

Please demonstrate---rather than merely asserting---that documenting my statements in any way equates with "bullying." Also, explain how this is not merely an Ad Hominem Fallacy on your part.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Hope you and yours had a pleasant Christmas, CM.

I hope that you and your family enjoyed a blessed and Merry Christmas.

Now, let's see if there's anything here that hasn't already been answered...

That would be everything.

Given that your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect was only invented during the past couple of centuries, it cannot---by that simple undeniable fact---be "as old as Jesus." Try again.

We are falling doctrines taught by Jesus and that means our faith, our church, was founded by Jesus. Any church that looks to Jesus and follows his teachings is part of the Body of Christ. Any church who looks to men for doctrines is not part of the Body.

Your claim that I "do not believe that scripture contains God inspired word" is a straightforward and deliberate lie (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). If you wish to deny this, you'll need to cite a single statement of mine in which---completely contrary to Catholic teaching---I state that I do not believe that Scripture contains God's inspired word. Go ahead, then...

I think that highlighted part pretty well sums you up. You are not worried about being seen as a good Christian, you are more concerned about being seen as a good Catholic. And yes, there us a difference. You can be Catholic (or Protestant) and not be Christian.

According to Paul himself, Peter and the other apostles confirmed Paul's teaching and approved of his inclusion as an apostle (Gal. 1:18). The New Testament indicates that Paul was himself subject to the authority of the apostolic college (i.e., the Magisterium, the Church) (Ac. 9:30; 17:10, 14). Paul certainly did not operate on his own, independently of Peter and the rest of the apostles.

Who chose Paul?

QUESTION: Which of the some 50,000+ recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects possesses the inherent doctrinal authority to declare which doctrines are in fact "corrupt," and which are not, in a manner which is binding upon all believers everywhere?

The majority of them. There are plenty that are not part of the Body of Christ, but there are many more that are. Those that strive to follow scripture are the ones that posses the truth that the RCC has squandered on its alters of man made traditions.

Sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, anti-sacramentalism, etc., etc., etc...

please quote the scripture where Jesus said we couldn't hold those doctrines. This us your standard of proof you established above. You must abide by it so, post the scripture where Jesus said no to these.

If you can't provide the requested biblical texts, just say so.

Nor can you. And now you are are trying to get away with a bit of hand waving hoping that people won't notice you couldn't abide by your own standard if proof.

I don't need to, since I do not hold to your view of the formation of doctrine. It is you---not Catholics---who needs to provide positive prohibitions by Jesus of these various Catholic doctrines.

again, by the standard of care you have established for your chosen man made doctrines of the Catholic Church. By that standard, you cannot now say that it does not support sola scripture.

Note that you are on a Protestant forum. You are witnessing to us. You are trying to convince us that Catholicism is far better than Protestantism so it is up to you to prove and defend your claims.

Rather, I cited the verses themselves---here they are again: Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You post versus, but it is still the Catholic interpretation of those versus that you post. You do not believe that scripture is complete and sufficient. You believe that one must also have the catechism and RCC traditions. You are incapable of posting anything other than Catholic interpretations.

 

[Cruciform]

That would be everything.

Already answered.

We are falling doctrines taught by Jesus and that means our faith, our church, was founded by Jesus.

Unless it in fact wasn't founded by Jesus---for example your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect, which was invented by mere men within the last couple of centuries.

Any church that looks to Jesus and follows his teachings is part of the Body of Christ. Any church who looks to men for doctrines is not part of the Body.

That excludes every single one of the myriad sects of Protestantism (including yours), which were invented by mere men during the past five centuries, and which have departed to varying degrees from the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. And to depart from Christ's historic Church is to depart from the teachings of Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).

I think that highlighted part pretty well sums you up. You are not worried about being seen as a good Christian, you are more concerned about being seen as a good Catholic.

False Dilemma Fallacy, according to Jesus himself (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 9:4-5; 1 Tim. 3:15).

The majority of them.

And yet they all hold mutually exclusive doctrines and practices which place them in direct theological conflict with one another (and with Christ's one historic Catholic Church), and not one of them (including yours) is able to demonstrate that it is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Your claim here, therefore, simply falls flat.

There are plenty that are not part of the Body of Christ, but there are many more that are.

Exactly what doctrinal authority do you possess that would qualify you to make such a declaration and expect it to apply to all believers everywhere? Please demonstrate this authority.

Those that strive to follow scripture are the ones that posses the truth...

Every rank heretic who has ever cracked a Bible has "striven to follow scripture," and yet they decidedly did not "possess the truth." Try again.

...please quote the scripture where Jesus said we couldn't hold those doctrines. This us your standard of proof you established above. You must abide by it...

Wrong again. This is the standard that you established, and you are obligated to conform to it. Catholics hold to no such criterion, and so are bound by no such standard. Try again.

Nor can you. And now you are are trying to get away with a bit of hand waving hoping that people won't notice you couldn't abide by your own standard if proof.

See just above.

You post versus, but it is still the Catholic interpretation of those versus that you post.

Just as when you post your proof-texts, you also post the interpretations you've derived from your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect.

You do not believe that scripture is complete and sufficient.

And you are a liar (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). The Bible is fully complete and sufficient as the written word of of God.

You believe that one must also have the catechism and RCC traditions.

Just as you believe that one must have the doctrinal traditions and interpretations of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

You are incapable of posting anything other than Catholic interpretations.

You are incapable of posting anything other than the interpretations of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

Keep believing in that Traditional Church Authority. BTW when did that Traditional Authority take effect.

 

[Cruciform]

Keep believing in that Traditional Church Authority.

It's either that or I must believe in the authority of one of the tens-of-thousands of recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in the world to date, with more being invented every week. No thanks.

BTW when did that Traditional Authority take effect.

Right here---Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already answered.

So it should be easy to link to a post listing exactly what traditions Paul was referring to. Or a post where you rebut every point I raised regarding Marian traditions. Go on, we'll wait you find the links.

Unless it in fact wasn't founded by Jesus---for example your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect, which was invented by mere men within the last couple of centuries.

Who, exactly, do you think founded the Christian faith?

That excludes every single one of the myriad sects of Protestantism (including yours), which were invented by mere men during the past five centuries, and which have departed to varying degrees from the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church. And to depart from Christ's historic Church is to depart from the teachings of Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15).

Protestantism is no less nor no more man made than the Catholic sect. That is a simple fact.

False Dilemma Fallacy, according to Jesus himself (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 9:4-5; 1 Tim. 3:15).

it is a false dr!I a only to those for whom Jesus is not the primary author of their fsith.

And yet they all hold mutually exclusive doctrines and practices which place them in direct theological conflict with one another (and with Christ's one historic Catholic Church), and not one of them (including yours) is able to demonstrate that it is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and against which he declared that the gates of Hades would never prevail (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15). Your claim here, therefore, simply falls flat.

Nor can yours. You claim it but remain unable to give a definitive answer as to who Peter anointed to take his place. Your arguments are only convincing to those who already share your belief.

Exactly what doctrinal authority do you possess that would qualify you to make such a declaration and expect it to apply to all believers everywhere? Please demonstrate this authority.

I never claimed such authority. I do claim authority to test things against scripture and to point out to others when they too should take close look at what they believe and why they believe it. I never claim authority to judge. Others suffer that hubris.

Every rank heretic who has ever cracked a Bible has "striven to follow scripture," and yet they decidedly did not "possess the truth." Try again.

True. But it is equally true of every man called directly by God to service. There was a question I asked you several times that you steadfastly refused to answer and know you know why it's important. Jesus called Paul. Jesus set a pre ident for calling whom He wills.

Wrong again. This is the standard that you established, and you are obligated to conform to it. Catholics hold to no such criterion, and so are bound by no such standard. Try again.


See just above.

Your standard. You were the one who established by asking me to show you where Jesus said we couldn't do something. Your standard of proof and sola scriptura fits it.

Just as when you post your proof-texts, you also post the interpretations you've derived from your chosen man-made non-Catholic sect.

Oh no, not even close. You post scriptures

And you are a liar (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5). The Bible is fully complete and sufficient as the written word of of God.

Of course it is. You just don't believe it. Did you forget the title of your thread?

Just as you believe that one must have the doctrinal traditions and interpretations of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

I don't believe that, not even close. There is no doctrine nor tradition that redeems one to God.

You are incapable of posting anything other than the interpretations of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

As I said earlier, there is no difference between us there. Where the difference comes in is when we are challenged on what we post. I can respond, point for point. You cannot. You cannot link to a post where you enumerate the specific traditions Paul was referring to. You cannot link to a post where you respond, point by point, to the issues I raised regarding the Marian doctrines. Simple facts.