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

[Cruciform]

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.

Already answered.

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

Jesus of Nazareth (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), when he founded his one historic Catholic Church in 33 A.D.

Protestantism is no less nor no more man made than the Catholic sect.

Already decisively answered here.

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

Only according to the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which possesses no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. Try again.

Nor can yours. You claim it but remain unable to give a definitive answer as to who Peter anointed to take his place.

Of course, it's been proven numerous times on this forum. Also, Peter ordained Linus to take his place. So much for your claims.

Your arguments are only convincing to those who already share your belief.

...or who are willing to accept those divine truths delivered by Christ's one historic Church---just as they have been since the 1st century A.D., and always will be.

I never claimed such authority. I do claim authority to test things against scripture and to point out to others...

Good, then your personal opinions about what supposedly constitutes "truth" versus "error" can simply be ignored by all believers. Your doctrinal claims simply have no way of rising above the status of mere human opinion.

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.

Of course, the only way that we know that Paul was genuinely "called by Jesus" was that he (Paul) was accepted, confirmed, and sent out by the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church. Again, Jesus works in and through the Church that he himself founded in 33 A.D.

Your standard. You were the one who established by asking me to show you where Jesus said we couldn't do something.

Not my standard. I merely tried to get you to prove your position using your own standard, which you could not do, thus showing the inherent inconsistency of that position. Try again.

Your standard of proof and sola scriptura fits it.

See above.

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

Another lie (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5), or perhaps you're simply ignorant. Catholics do indeed hold that the Bible is complete and sufficient as the written aspect of the word of God. However, that does not mean that there is not more to the word of God than the written texts, which even the Bible itself indicates. So no, the Bible is not the Christian's only authority for the simple reason that it is not the totality of Divine Revelation (God's word). But as the written aspect of that word, the Bible is complete and sufficient.

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

...except for the particular man-made non-Catholic traditions to which you happen to adhere. :doh:

As I said earlier, there is no difference between us there.

...except that while Catholics can demonstrate the fact that the Catholic Church is that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. (and therefore possesses his very doctrinal authority ~ Mt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15), your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect decidedly cannot. :nono:

I can respond, point for point. You cannot.

Of course I can, and have. Try again.

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.

Already decisively answered. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already answered.

No is an answer and I suppose that is as good as I can expect.

Jesus of Nazareth (Mt. 16:18-19; 1 Tim. 3:15), when he founded his one historic Catholic Church in 33 A.D.

Factually wrong. Jesus founded the Body of Christ, men founded the Catholic sect of Christianity. Big difference there.

Already decisively answered here.

Well, it is your answer but is far from decisive.

Only according to the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which possesses no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. Try again.

Oh no, that is according to scripture. You follow a God or you follow men. Your fist appeal is always to men, mine is always to God.

Of course, it's been proven numerous times on this forum. Also, Peter ordained Linus to take his place. So much for your claims.

Then why does so much historical debate still exist?

...or who are willing to accept those divine truths delivered by Christ's one historic Church---just as they have been since the 1st century A.D., and always will be.

Catholic's have abandoned divine truths a long time ago. Mary, purgatory, indulgences and the list goes on.

Good, then your personal opinions about what supposedly constitutes "truth" versus "error" can simply be ignored by all believers. Your doctrinal claims simply have no way of rising above the status of mere human opinion.

Which is why I never state anything as doctrine, I always ask questions. You proclaim and ecpect people to blindly follow you because you claim authority. But when push comes to shove, you cannot actually defend what you believe. So I ask questions to get people to think about it. Then the Holy Spirit can take over.

Of course, the only way that we know that Paul was genuinely "called by Jesus" was that he (Paul) was accepted, confirmed, and sent out by the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church. Again, Jesus works in and through the Church that he himself founded in 33 A.D.

There was only Jesus on that road. Only Jesus chose Paul. And Jesus sent Pail to Peter to put Peter back on the correct path.

Not my standard. I merely tried to get you to prove your position using your own standard, which you could not do, thus showing the inherent inconsistency of that position. Try again.

The argument that you chose set the standard for the argument you would accept. Your argument was that if the bible does not say something specifically against a practice then the practice is okay. Your argument completely validates sola scriptura.

Another lie (Ex. 20:16; Prov. 19:5), or perhaps you're simply ignorant. Catholics do indeed hold that the Bible is complete and sufficient as the written aspect of the word of God. However, that does not mean that there is not more to the word of God than the written texts, which even the Bible itself indicates. So no, the Bible is not the Christian's only authority for the simple reason that it is not the totality of Divine Revelation (God's word). But as the written aspect of that word, the Bible is complete and sufficient.

The title of this thread outs the lie to your words. If Catholics truly believed that Bible is complete and sufficient, you would need a thread dedicated to convincing people that the Bible is not the Christians only authority. More logic errors for the philosopher.

...except for the particular man-made non-Catholic traditions to which you happen to adhere. :doh:

Such as?

...except that while Catholics can demonstrate the fact that the Catholic Church is that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. (and therefore possesses his very doctrinal authority ~ Mt. 28:18-20; 1 Tim. 3:15), your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect decidedly cannot. :nono:

No, they lat claim to such but they cannot prove it. authority is derived from Hod, not from your church. You urserp a God.

Of course I can, and have. Try again.

Please link to you point by point refutation of post 518.

Already decisively answered. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Again, I accept your "no" as a complete answer.

 

[Cruciform]

No is an answer and I suppose that is as good as I can expect.

Already answered.

Factually wrong. Jesus founded the Body of Christ...

Biblically wrong. Jesus founded his Church (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15) upon the foundation of the apostles (Eph. 2:20) with Peter as leader of the Magisterium (Mt. 16:18-19; cf. Matt. 10:2; Mk. 16:7; Lk. 22:31; Jn. 17:15-19; Ac. 1:15-22; 2:14-36; 15:7-11; 1 Cor. 15:5), who then ordained successors to their apostolic office. Thus, the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D. was and is hierarchically structured and organized around the three ecclesial offices of bishop, priest, and deacon, just as the Lord intended. This one historic Church established by Christ himself is itself the "Body of Christ" (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24).

...men founded the Catholic Church of Christianity.

The apostles who were personally chosen by Jesus Christ to accomplish exactly that (see above). You're not helping your argument here.

Oh no, that is according to scripture. You follow a God OR you follow men.

False Dilemma. According to Christ himself, to follow the teachings of the apostles and bishops IS to follow God (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:15).

Then why does so much historical debate still exist?

"Debate" from Protestants, you mean? Uninformed denial hardly qualifies as "debate."

Catholic's have abandoned divine truths a long time ago.

You've already admitted that you possess no authority whatsoever to make any such binding declaration. Since the recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect from which you've derived your beliefs and opinions is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., your assertions can never rise above the level of mere human opinion. Thus, your personal declaration here simply falls flat.

Mary, purgatory, indulgences and the list goes on.

Of course, these are no more an "abandonment of divine truths" than are the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Eucharist, justification by faith, etc. The fact is that you (i.e., your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect) simply lack(s) the necessary doctrinal authority to bindingly declare what is, or is not, a "divine truth" (see above). You have nothing to offer but mere human opinion.

Which is why I never state anything as doctrine, I always ask questions.

Your declarations about the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, etc. are themselves statements of doctrine. Try again.

You proclaim and ecpect people to blindly follow you because you claim authority.

...just as the apostolic Church proclaimed its doctrines and expected believers to follow them because they (the apostles and bishops) claimed---and possessed---Christ's own authority (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

(BTW, I don't expect anyone to follow me because of my authority, but to follow Christ's Church because of her---and thus His---authority.)

There was only Jesus on that road. Only Jesus chose Paul. And Jesus sent Pail to Peter to put Peter back on the correct path.

Here's that uninformed denial again. Jesus chose all the other apostles, too (not just Paul), while He was here on earth. Then later, when Paul was chosen, he ultimately had to visit (the Greek term used in Galatians is literally rendered as "interview") with Peter and the rest of the apostles, be confirmed in his apostleship, and authoritatively sent out by his fellow apostles and bishops (see the Acts of the Apostles). He did nothing on his own, but only with the endorsement and sanction of the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church.

In any case, you and I are not apostles or bishops, and so the exceptional manner in which God may or may not have guided them is entirely irrelevant when it comes to how God chooses to guide the average believer. And, according to the NT, the normative way in which the lay faithful are led by Christ is by means of the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (see biblical citations above).

The argument that you chose set the standard for the argument you would accept.

Nope. The standard that I challenged you to meet was your own standard. You failed to meet that standard. Thus, you could not even prove your position according to your very own proposed criterion.

The title of this thread outs the lie to your words. If Catholics truly believed that Bible is complete and sufficient, you would need a thread dedicated to convincing people that the Bible is not the Christians only authority. More logic errors for the philosopher.

Try to follow. I believe that the Bible is fully complete and sufficient in its function as the written aspect of Divine Revelation (God's Word). Likewise, I also believe that Tradition is fully sufficient in its function as the unwritten aspect of Divine Revelation (God's Word). Each aspect is entirely sufficient to function in the capacity for which God intends it. Therefore, Catholics do indeed hold that the Bible is complete and sufficient as the written aspect of the Word of God. Your assertion, then, is simply and entirely false.

Such as?

For example: sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, sola fide, anti-sacramentalism, the "invisible church" doctrine, etc.

No, they lat claim to such but they cannot prove it.

Nonsense. Name another Christian group that can trace its leadership back to Christ and the apostles, and which fulfills the biblical depiction of Christ's one historic Church, as well as conforming to the apostolic testimony of the early Christian Church.

...authority is derived from God, not from your Church.

...from God through the Church, you mean. Your glaring False Dilemma Fallacy, however, is noted.

Please link to you point by point refutation of post 518.

Genuinely interested and honest readers can consider my answer posted here and here.

Again, I accept your "no" as a complete answer.

See just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already answered.


Biblically wrong. Jesus founded his Church (Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15) upon the foundation of the apostles (Eph. 2:20) with Peter as leader of the Magisterium (Mt. 16:18-19; cf. Matt. 10:2; Mk. 16:7; Lk. 22:31; Jn. 17:15-19; Ac. 1:15-22; 2:14-36; 15:7-11; 1 Cor. 15:5), who then ordained successors to their apostolic office. Thus, the Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D. was and is hierarchically structured and organized around the three ecclesial offices of bishop, priest, and deacon, just as the Lord intended. This one historic Church established by Christ himself is itself the "Body of Christ" (Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24).

Nope, still wrong. the RCC is an exclusive sect if Christianity. Exclusive here means that they exclude who do not share their specific doctrines. They even "celebrate" the Lords Super with a closed table. Jesus came to save all men so His table should be open to all who believe. Not those that also bow to Mary. And pray to the dearly departed.

The apostles who were personally chosen by Jesus Christ to accomplish exactly that (see above). You're not helping your argument here.

Right, JESUS chooses. Do you think Peter would have chosen Saul if left to his own devices? Jesus chooses and He sometimes chooses those who are "outside" to correct those on the "inside".

False Dilemma. According to Christ himself, to follow the teachings of the apostles and bishops IS to follow God (Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 1 Tim. 3:15).

Right, and Protestants do follow the teachings of the Apostles. But the Apostles did not teach the Marian doctrines or purgatory or indulgences or unlimited tradition. Jesus does not want us to follow false traditions of men.

"Debate" from Protestants, you mean? Uninformed denial hardly qualifies as "debate."

The debate continues because Catholic are so very poor at defending their proclamations. There is what the church claims and then there is history.

You've already admitted that you possess no authority whatsoever to make any such binding declaration. Since the recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect from which you've derived your beliefs and opinions is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D., your assertions can never rise above the level of mere human opinion. Thus, your personal declaration here simply falls flat.

We have established that my church was indeed founded by Jesus as Jesus us the founder of Christianity so your assertion that my church is man made falls somewhat short of truth. Second, I do have authority to question those doctrines and beliefs that are not found in scripture. Know what you believe and why you believe it. We are not judged based on what our church teaches, we are judged on wether we are in Christ or not.

Of course, these are no more an "abandonment of divine truths" than are the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, Incarnation, Eucharist, justification by faith, etc. The fact is that you (i.e., your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect) simply lack(s) the necessary doctrinal authority to bindingly declare what is, or is not, a "divine truth" (see above). You have nothing to offer but mere human opinion.

Divine truth is in scripture and scripture alone. If you declare a doctrine that us not in scripture then all believers have the authority, and the duty, to challenge it.

Your declarations about the Marian dogmas, purgatory, indulgences, etc. are themselves statements of doctrine. Try again.

Actually they are statements of fact. This is easily proved by your inability to post a list of Paul's traditions or to respond point by point to post 518.

...just as the apostolic Church proclaimed its doctrines and expected believers to follow them because they (the apostles and bishops) claimed---and possessed---Christ's own authority (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

They had only the authority to keep pure the Gospel send to spread it, not add to it. As soon as they started adding their own very man made traditions they lost their authority to speak for Jesus.

(BTW, I don't expect anyone to follow me because of my authority, but to follow Christ's Church because of her---and thus His---authority.)

Interesting how little Jesus actually matters to you. You don't want people yo follow Jesus, you want them to follow your sect. And, no, this is not a false dilemma, it is a very real dilemma as churches do not save people, only God does.

Here's that uninformed denial again. Jesus chose all the other apostles, too (not just Paul), while He was here on earth. Then later, when Paul was chosen, he ultimately had to visit (the Greek term used in Galatians is literally rendered as "interview") with Peter and the rest of the apostles, be confirmed in his apostleship, and authoritatively sent out by his fellow apostles and bishops (see the Acts of the Apostles). He did nothing on his own, but only with the endorsement and sanction of the Magisterium of Christ's one historic Church.

Actually, Paul did what he did on the authority of Jesus which is why Paul was sent to correct Peter. They did form the core of the early church and then that church cast aside Jesus in favor of their own traditions. Oh sure, you give Jesus great lip service, but when pressed, it is always about your church and never about Jesus. Again, it is not a false dilemma as Jesus said no man comes to the Father except through Me. Not the church, Jesus.

In any case, you and I are not apostles or bishops, and so the exceptional manner in which God may or may not have guided them is entirely irrelevant when it comes to how God chooses to guide the average believer. And, according to the NT, the normative way in which the lay faithful are led by Christ is by means of the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (see biblical citations above).

In the earliest days of the church, that was true. But God gave is scripture to make sure that through the following centuries the Body would always have an anchor. The RCC is no longer anchored to scripture, they have failed to keep pure the Gospel.

Nope. The standard that I challenged you to meet was your own standard. You failed to meet that standard. Thus, you could not even prove your position according to your very own proposed criterion.

I asked you a question. You responded with, "Show me where Jesus says you can't." That was your response, your reasoning. You have been hoisted by your own petards maty.

Try to follow. I believe that the Bible is fully complete and sufficient in its function as the written aspect of Divine Revelation (God's Word). Likewise, I also believe that Tradition is fully sufficient in its function as the unwritten aspect of Divine Revelation (God's Word). Each aspect is entirely sufficient to function in the capacity for which God intends it. Therefore, Catholics do indeed hold that the Bible is complete and sufficient as the written aspect of the Word of God. Your assertion, then, is simply and entirely false.

The third sentence puts the lie to your first sentence. If you believed that the Bible was complete, you wouldn't need tradition. If you believed tradition is complete, you wouldn't need the Bible. If you believe you need both the, be definition, neither is complete.

For example: sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, sola fide, anti-sacramentalism, the "invisible church" doctrine, etc.

Don't forget to add all the Marian doctrines, indulgences, catholic traditions to that list.

Nonsense. Name another Christian group that can trace its leadership back to Christ and the apostles, and which fulfills the biblical depiction of Christ's one historic Church, as well as conforming to the apostolic testimony of the early Christian Church.

It's not the leadership that matters, it is the churches commitment to Christ. Leaders fail. The Pharisees prove this. God warns us to test all things so blind following based on an assumed pedigree is foolish.

...from God through the Church, you mean. Your glaring False Dilemma Fallacy, however, is noted.

No, I don't mean that at all. From God, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Genuinely interested and honest readers can consider my answer posted here and here.


See just above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Truly interested readers will note that neither of those links actually address the points I raised regarding Marian doctrines or Paul's traditions. They are actually posts amounting to Cruciform stating I don't have the authority to challenge his church. So here is the question to the truly interested reader; if you have been rolling the discussion about either Marian doctrines or Pauline traditions, do Cruciform's links provide you anything that advances those conversations?

 

[Cruciform]

I'll humor you with a response to this final post.

Nope, still wrong. the RCC is an exclusive sect if Christianity.

Already answered here.

Right, JESUS chooses. Do you think Peter would have chosen Saul if left to his own devices?

Jesus' choice was then confirmed and endorsed by the apostolic college, just as vocations to the episcopal office are confirmed and endorsed by the Magisterium today. Peter confirmed Paul as a apostle not because Paul claimed that Jesus chose him (anyone can make such a claim), but because Paul's doctrines comported with those of the apostolic leadership of Christ's one historic Church.

Right, and Protestants do follow the teachings of the Apostles.

...except for where they don't.

But the Apostles did not teach the Marian doctrines or purgatory or indulgences...

How do you know?

Jesus does not want us to follow false traditions of men.

Yes---those that fail to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (e.g., sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, anti-sacramentalism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, etc.).

The debate continues because Catholic are so very poor at defending their proclamations. There is what the Church claims and then there is history.

Feel free, then, to provide historical proof that the Christian Church believed and taught Protestant opinions such as sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, and the Eucharist as a mere memorial during its first fifteen centuries, and did not believe and teach what history shows that the Church in fact did, namely such distinctly Catholic doctrines as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Tradition as the word of God along with Scripture, the role of good works in salvation, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, the Mass as a genuine sacrifice, etc. Post your proof.

We have established that my church was indeed founded by Jesus as Jesus us the founder of Christianity so your assertion that my church is man made falls somewhat short of truth.

Your particular man-made sect was invented in the mid 20th century, if memory serves. So much for your sect being the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Try again.

We are not judged based on what our church teaches, we are judged on wether we are in Christ or not.

Your claim that you can knowingly deny and reject the authoritative teachings of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15), and still claim to be "in Christ," is noted.

Divine truth is in scripture and scripture alone.

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

[2] You have yet to cite a single biblical text that actually teaches---or even implies---the numerical sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura).​

If you declare a doctrine that us not in scripture then all believers have the authority, and the duty, to challenge it.

See just above.

Actually they are statements of fact.

They are doctrinal claims derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

They had only the authority to keep pure the Gospel send to spread it, not add to it.

Answered here and here. Please adequately educate yourself.

Interesting how little Jesus actually matters to you.

If Jesus mattered at all to you, you would faithfully obey Christ's own authoritative teachings delivered through the one historic Church that he himself founded for that very purpose. But, as it is, you prefer to follow the assumptions and opinions (corrupt traditions) of one of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more being invented every week. Yet, you can hardly claim to care about Jesus while at the same time pridefully and arrogantly presuming to replace his own authoritative teachings with your personal preferences and opinions. As tragic as it is pathetic.

Actually, Paul did what he did on the authority of Jesus which is why Paul was sent to be confirmed by Peter.

Fixed.

They did form the core of the early church and then that church cast aside Jesus in favor of their own traditions.

Merely one more corrupt tradition promoted by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. As such, it---like your sect---carries no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever.

In the earliest days of the church, that was true. But God gave is scripture to make sure that through the following centuries the Body would always have an anchor.

In fact, God didn't "give it Scripture" until the 4th century A.D., when the Bible was finally canonized. The anchor of the Christian faith has always been the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (of which the Bible is but a part). Try again.

The RCC is no longer anchored to scripture, they have failed to keep pure the Gospel.

...according to the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. Too bad your sect possesses no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. Try again.

The third sentence puts the lie to your first sentence. If you believed that the Bible was complete, you wouldn't need tradition. If you believed tradition is complete, you wouldn't need the Bible. If you believe you need both the, be definition, neither is complete.

Not very bright, are you. Try to follow: I believe that the Bible is sufficient as the written aspect of God's word, while Tradition is sufficient as the unwritten aspect of God's word. Each is sufficient for the particular task for which God intends it. And both together comprise the totality of Divine Revelation (God's word).

It's not the leadership that matters, it is the churches commitment to Christ. Leaders fail.

Please indicate exactly where the 1st-century apostolic Church's leaders (the apostles) "failed" to teach infallible divine truth in their canonical New Testament writings. Go ahead and cite their many supposed errors.

No, I don't mean that at all. From God, through Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

...and the Holy Spirit through Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

They are actually posts amounting to Cruciform stating I don't have the authority to challenge his Church.

Question all you like. However, none of the assumptions and opinions that you might propose as supposed doctrinal alternatives to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church can possibly ever rise above the level of mere human opinion, since the preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect from which you have derived your beliefs and opinions is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Try again.


The discussion here is starting to circle and, in any case, you've already been answered on every point. The paragraph just above really spells out the bottom line of any dialogue we might have on these issues. What you do---or fail to do---with the information that's been provided you is entirely your responsibility before God.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

I'll humor you with a response to this final post.

Very well. I'll put in a final word as well.

Already answered here.

Catholic tradition is not the one and only Church founded by Jesus. It has been around the longest and is guilty of many atrocities through out history. It is also guilty of not keeping God's word pure by adding heresy to it in the form of Marian doctrins and unjustifiable traditions if their own very man-made design.

Jesus' choice was then confirmed and endorsed by the apostolic college, just as vocations to the episcopal office are confirmed and endorsed by the Magisterium today. Peter confirmed Paul as a apostle not because Paul claimed that Jesus chose him (anyone can make such a claim), but because Paul's doctrines comported with those of the apostolic leadership of Christ's one historic Church.

You imply that if the others had not approved of Paul then Jesus would have accepted their decision. Those whom Jesus chooses need no approval from any man. It is His Body, not the RCC's.

...except for where they don't.

yep, there are sects of Christianity that don't follow everything the apostles taught. Chief among the sects that don't do well at following the apostles teachings is Catholicism.

How do you know?

That which the Aposyles taught is in Scripture and found in the bible. I know this to be true because when I confronted the Catholic teaching you posted on Marian doctrines, you could not refute a single point point.

Yes---those that fail to comport with the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (e.g., sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, anti-sacramentalism, the Eucharist as a mere memorial, etc.).

To you, following your man-made institution is far more important than actually following Christ. Statements like this one clearly show where your faith truly lies. In any case, you claim that sola scriptura is not in scripture and is therefore, false. But you cannot find indulgences, Marian doctrines, bowing before statues and purgatory in scripture either. On the one hand you attempt to claim that if it is not in scripture then it is false, on the other hand you attempt to claim that if it can be interpreted from scripture then it is okay. I have pointed out to you that sola scriptura is biblical based on God's command to us to test all things.

Feel free, then, to provide historical proof that the Christian Church believed and taught Protestant opinions such as sola scriptura, "believers-only" baptism, sola fide, and the Eucharist as a mere memorial during its first fifteen centuries, and did not believe and teach what history shows that the Church in fact did, namely such distinctly Catholic doctrines as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Tradition as the word of God along with Scripture, the role of good works in salvation, baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, the Mass as a genuine sacrifice, etc. Post your proof.

Just read scripture. Jesus did not hatch of hunks of His flesh and fill the cup with His blood at the last supper. He used bread and wine as symbols and the Apostles understood that. Believing that bread and wine are transmitted into flea hand blood is a deeply pegan belief. We are taught by the Apostles to test all things and the only reliable standard we have today is scripture. Even traditions must be tested against God's Word as found in scripture. Matthew 25 is Jesus actually teaching on good works and it clearly shows that good works are. Result of salvation and not a requirement for it. Just read the Bible, one book at a time and keep it context.

Your particular man-made sect was invented in the mid 20th century, if memory serves. So much for your sect being the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Try again.

The church that I go to on Sundays is irrelevant as what is preached there was taught by Jesus and His Apostles. The true leadership of my church is Jesus. That means my church was founded by Jesus

Your claim that you can knowingly deny and reject the authoritative teachings of Jesus Christ himself (Lk. 10:16; 1 Tim. 3:15), and still claim to be "in Christ," is noted.

Where those teachings are demonstratably wrong, and they have been demonstrated to be wrong, then yes, I have the right and obligation to reject those teachings. In other words, when the church teaches error, leave that church.

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

[2] You have yet to cite a single biblical text that actually teaches---or even implies---the numerical sufficiency of Scripture (sola scriptura).​

See just above.

I dealt with this above. Sola scriptura is biblical based on the Apostels teaching that we are to test all things. As you have so richly proven in thus thread, nobody knows the exact traditions Paul was referring to in his ketter. The only thing we have left to test against is God's Word that He preserved for us in Scripture.

They are doctrinal claims derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Actually, this is you creating a straw man to argue against as you cannot refute what I actually said. I do not make doctrinal statements. I have not ever told anybody you must believe this or act line that to be save.

Answered here and here. Please adequately educate yourself.

I am already well educated about this. That is why I stand in opposition to Catholic traditions that are against God'sWord as preserved by God in the Bible.

If Jesus mattered at all to you, you would faithfully obey Christ's own authoritative teachings delivered through the one historic Church that he himself founded for that very purpose. But, as it is, you prefer to follow the assumptions and opinions (corrupt traditions) of one of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects in existence today, with more being invented every week. Yet, you can hardly claim to care about Jesus while at the same time pridefully and arrogantly presuming to replace his own authoritative teachings with your personal preferences and opinions. As tragic as it is pathetic.

If Jesus mattered to me I would witness for Him and not for a church. Oh, wait. I do do that. I guess Jesus does matter to me.

Fixed.

Goebbles would be proud of what you did here.

Merely one more corrupt tradition promoted by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. As such, it---like your sect---carries no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever.

As soon as you can refute post 518 or post a list of the specific traditions Paul taught, you will be able to use this argument. Until then, it's just a straw man you use to make people think you have done something you cannot do.

In fact, God didn't "give it Scripture" until the 4th century A.D., when the Bible was finally canonized. The anchor of the Christian faith has always been the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church (of which the Bible is but a part). Try again.

Pitty they squandered it. Bowing before statues, praying to Mary, trading indulgences. Truly tragic what has happened to the RCC.

...according to the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. Too bad your sect possesses no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. Try again.

The only reason a church has authority over its members is because they surrender to it. You have surrendered to the Catholic Church. Protestants have surrendered to the leadership of their churches. When a Protesant churches what Jesus and His apostles taught, they are teaching with His authority. Authority does not come through a church, it comes to those who God chooses through the Holy Spirit.

Not very bright, are you. Try to follow: I believe that the Bible is sufficient as the written aspect of God's word, while Tradition is sufficient as the unwritten aspect of God's word. Each is sufficient for the particular task for which God intends it. And both together comprise the totality of Divine Revelation (God's word).

you are far to illogical to follow. God has one goal. Either scripture or tradition is complete if either by itself is sufficient to accomplish that goal. If it requires scripture and tradition than neither is complete. Surly a philosophy major can understand that.

Please indicate exactly where the 1st-century apostolic Church's leaders (the apostles) "failed" to teach infallible divine truth in their canonical New Testament writings. Go ahead and cite their many supposed errors.

The instant they introduced the first Marian doctrine.

...and the Holy Spirit through Christ's one historic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6).

the god you worship is certainly not the God of scripture if you believe that God limits Himself to your church.

Question all you like. However, none of the assumptions and opinions that you might propose as supposed doctrinal alternatives to the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church can possibly ever rise above the level of mere human opinion, since the preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect from which you have derived your beliefs and opinions is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Try again.

And I will continue to point out the very best you can do when questions is to reply as you did above. You can only claim that I don't have the authority to question your church without ever actually addressing the questions raised.

The discussion here is starting to circle and, in any case, you've already been answered on every point. The paragraph just above really spells out the bottom line of any dialogue we might have on these issues. What you do---or fail to do---with the information that's been provided you is entirely your responsibility before God.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

and there we have it, Cruciform's final position. Nobody has the authority to question the teachings of his church. Please note that he claims I have been answered on all points. My one question was, can you produce a list of the exact traditions Paul was referring to in his letter. Has anybody seen this list?

If you have been following thus thread, what do you think?
Was I fully answered on all points by Cruciform?
Did Cruciform provide a good representation of Catholic beliefs?
Did Cruciform provide an effective witness for Christ?
Did I do a good job of representing Christ?
Was I reasonable in me dealings with Cruciform?

 

[SaulToPaul 2]

Very well. I'll put in a final word as well.


Catholic tradition is not the one and only Church founded by Jesus. It has been around the longest and is guilty of many atrocities through out history. It is also guilty of not keeping God's word pure by adding heresy to it in the form of Marian doctrins and unjustifiable traditions if their own very man-made design.


You imply that if the others had not approved of Paul then Jesus would have accepted their decision. Those whom Jesus chooses need no approval from any man. It is His Body, not the RCC's.


yep, there are sects of Christianity that don't follow everything the apostles taught. Chief among the sects that don't do well at following the apostles teachings is Catholicism.


That which the Aposyles taught is in Scripture and found in the bible. I know this to be true because when I confronted the Catholic teaching you posted on Marian doctrines, you could not refute a single point point.


To you, following your man-made institution is far more important than actually following Christ. Statements like this one clearly show where your faith truly lies. In any case, you claim that sola scriptura is not in scripture and is therefore, false. But you cannot find indulgences, Marian doctrines, bowing before statues and purgatory in scripture either. On the one hand you attempt to claim that if it is not in scripture then it is false, on the other hand you attempt to claim that if it can be interpreted from scripture then it is okay. I have pointed out to you that sola scriptura is biblical based on God's command to us to test all things.


Just read scripture. Jesus did not hatch of hunks of His flesh and fill the cup with His blood at the last supper. He used bread and wine as symbols and the Apostles understood that. Believing that bread and wine are transmitted into flea hand blood is a deeply pegan belief. We are taught by the Apostles to test all things and the only reliable standard we have today is scripture. Even traditions must be tested against God's Word as found in scripture. Matthew 25 is Jesus actually teaching on good works and it clearly shows that good works are. Result of salvation and not a requirement for it. Just read the Bible, one book at a time and keep it context.


The church that I go to on Sundays is irrelevant as what is preached there was taught by Jesus and His Apostles. The true leadership of my church is Jesus. That means my church was founded by Jesus


Where those teachings are demonstratably wrong, and they have been demonstrated to be wrong, then yes, I have the right and obligation to reject those teachings. In other words, when the church teaches error, leave that church.


I dealt with this above. Sola scriptura is biblical based on the Apostels teaching that we are to test all things. As you have so richly proven in thus thread, nobody knows the exact traditions Paul was referring to in his ketter. The only thing we have left to test against is God's Word that He preserved for us in Scripture.


Actually, this is you creating a straw man to argue against as you cannot refute what I actually said. I do not make doctrinal statements. I have not ever told anybody you must believe this or act line that to be save.

I am already well educated about this. That is why I stand in opposition to Catholic traditions that are against God'sWord as preserved by God in the Bible.


If Jesus mattered to me I would witness for Him and not for a church. Oh, wait. I do do that. I guess Jesus does matter to me.


Goebbles would be proud of what you did here.


As soon as you can refute post 518 or post a list of the specific traditions Paul taught, you will be able to use this argument. Until then, it's just a straw man you use to make people think you have done something you cannot do.


Pitty they squandered it. Bowing before statues, praying to Mary, trading indulgences. Truly tragic what has happened to the RCC.


The only reason a church has authority over its members is because they surrender to it. You have surrendered to the Catholic Church. Protestants have surrendered to the leadership of their churches. When a Protesant churches what Jesus and His apostles taught, they are teaching with His authority. Authority does not come through a church, it comes to those who God chooses through the Holy Spirit.


you are far to illogical to follow. God has one goal. Either scripture or tradition is complete if either by itself is sufficient to accomplish that goal. If it requires scripture and tradition than neither is complete. Surly a philosophy major can understand that.


The instant they introduced the first Marian doctrine.


the god you worship is certainly not the God of scripture if you believe that God limits Himself to your church.


And I will continue to point out the very best you can do when questions is to reply as you did above. You can only claim that I don't have the authority to question your church without ever actually addressing the questions raised.



and there we have it, Cruciform's final position. Nobody has the authority to question the teachings of his church. Please note that he claims I have been answered on all points. My one question was, can you produce a list of the exact traditions Paul was referring to in his letter. Has anybody seen this list?

If you have been following thus thread, what do you think?
Was I fully answered on all points by Cruciform?
Did Cruciform provide a good representation of Catholic beliefs?
Did Cruciform provide an effective witness for Christ?
Did I do a good job of representing Christ?
Was I reasonable in me dealings with Cruciform?

See post#325

 

[CabinetMaker]

See post#325

I saw it.

 

[OCTOBER23]

CONSTANTINES PAGAN CHURCH IS PROPHECIED TO EXIST TILL JC COMES BACK.

2 Legs of Iron = Rome and Constantinople - Italy and Moslem - Catholic and Islam.

10 states of the Roman Empire = 5 + 5 Toes.

 

[Cruciform]

Very well. I'll put in a final word as well.Catholic tradition is not the one and only Church founded by Jesus. It has been around the longest and is guilty of many atrocities through out history. It is also guilty of not keeping God's word pure by adding heresy to it in the form of Marian doctrins and unjustifiable traditions if their own very man-made design.You imply that if the others had not approved of Paul then Jesus would have accepted their decision. Those whom Jesus chooses need no approval from any man. It is His Body, not the RCC's.yep, there are sects of Christianity that don't follow everything the apostles taught. Chief among the sects that don't do well at following the apostles teachings is Catholicism.That which the Aposyles taught is in Scripture and found in the bible. I know this to be true because when I confronted the Catholic teaching you posted on Marian doctrines, you could not refute a single point point.To you, following your man-made institution is far more important than actually following Christ. Statements like this one clearly show where your faith truly lies. In any case, you claim that sola scriptura is not in scripture and is therefore, false. But you cannot find indulgences, Marian doctrines, bowing before statues and purgatory in scripture either. On the one hand you attempt to claim that if it is not in scripture then it is false, on the other hand you attempt to claim that if it can be interpreted from scripture then it is okay. I have pointed out to you that sola scriptura is biblical based on God's command to us to test all things.Just read scripture. Jesus did not hatch of hunks of His flesh and fill the cup with His blood at the last supper. He used bread and wine as symbols and the Apostles understood that. Believing that bread and wine are transmitted into flea hand blood is a deeply pegan belief. We are taught by the Apostles to test all things and the only reliable standard we have today is scripture. Even traditions must be tested against God's Word as found in scripture. Matthew 25 is Jesus actually teaching on good works and it clearly shows that good works are. Result of salvation and not a requirement for it. Just read the Bible, one book at a time and keep it context.The church that I go to on Sundays is irrelevant as what is preached there was taught by Jesus and His Apostles. The true leadership of my church is Jesus. That means my church was founded by JesusWhere those teachings are demonstratably wrong, and they have been demonstrated to be wrong, then yes, I have the right and obligation to reject those teachings. In other words, when the church teaches error, leave that church.I dealt with this above. Sola scriptura is biblical based on the Apostels teaching that we are to test all things. As you have so richly proven in thus thread, nobody knows the exact traditions Paul was referring to in his ketter. The only thing we have left to test against is God's Word that He preserved for us in Scripture.Actually, this is you creating a straw man to argue against as you cannot refute what I actually said. I do not make doctrinal statements. I have not ever told anybody you must believe this or act line that to be save.I am already well educated about this. That is why I stand in opposition to Catholic traditions that are against God'sWord as preserved by God in the Bible.If Jesus mattered to me I would witness for Him and not for a church. Oh, wait. I do do that. I guess Jesus does matter to me.Goebbles would be proud of what you did here.As soon as you can refute post 518 or post a list of the specific traditions Paul taught, you will be able to use this argument. Until then, it's just a straw man you use to make people think you have done something you cannot do.Pitty they squandered it. Bowing before statues, praying to Mary, trading indulgences. Truly tragic what has happened to the RCC.The only reason a church has authority over its members is because they surrender to it. You have surrendered to the Catholic Church. Protestants have surrendered to the leadership of their churches. When a Protesant churches what Jesus and His apostles taught, they are teaching with His authority. Authority does not come through a church, it comes to those who God chooses through the Holy Spirit.you are far to illogical to follow. God has one goal. Either scripture or tradition is complete if either by itself is sufficient to accomplish that goal. If it requires scripture and tradition than neither is complete. Surly a philosophy major can understand that.The instant they introduced the first Marian doctrine.the god you worship is certainly not the God of scripture if you believe that God limits Himself to your church.And I will continue to point out the very best you can do when questions is to reply as you did above. You can only claim that I don't have the authority to question your church without ever actually addressing the questions raised.and there we have it, Cruciform's final position. Nobody has the authority to question the teachings of his church. Please note that he claims I have been answered on all points. My one question was, can you produce a list of the exact traditions Paul was referring to in his letter. Has anybody seen this list?If you have been following thus thread, what do you think?Was I fully answered on all points by Cruciform?Did Cruciform provide a good representation of Catholic beliefs?Cruciform provide an effective witness for Christ?Did I do a good job of representing Christ?Was I reasonable in me dealings with Cruciform?

Every single one of CM's claims here have already been answered on numerous occasions by myself and other Catholics on TOL. If anyone following this thread is genuinely interested in an answer to any of CM's anti-Catholic claims, simply PM me and I will answer on an individual basis---no sense in continuing to waste time addressing already-answered anti-Catholic claims on this thread (the whole "pearls before swine" thing).

In the end, what CM has offered here are nothing more than the mere assumptions and opinions of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which---since it is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.---carry no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. What CM offers are merely the corrupt traditions of men, and the claims of his chosen man-made sect can never rise above that entirely non-authoritative level. Nothing more really needs to be said on the matter. Be well, and God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Every single one of CM's claims here have already been answered on numerous occasions by myself and other Catholics on TOL. If anyone following this thread is genuinely interested in an answer to any of CM's anti-Catholic claims, simply PM me and I will answer on an individual basis---no sense in continuing to waste time addressing already-answered anti-Catholic claims on this thread (the whole "pearls before swine" thing).

In the end, what CM has offered here are nothing more than the mere assumptions and opinions of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which---since it is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.---carry no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. What CM offers are merely the corrupt traditions of men, and the claims of his chosen man-made sect can never rise above that entirely non-authoritative level. Nothing more really needs to be said on the matter. Be well, and God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

You claim to have answered everything yet you cannot point the post where you addressed the points raised regarding the Marian doctrines. You cannot point to a post where you listed the specific traditions Paul was referring to. You have responded to my posts without ever actually answering the question actually asked.

 

[Cruciform]

You claim to have answered everything yet you cannot point the post where you addressed the points raised regarding the Marian doctrines. You cannot point to a post where you listed the specific traditions Paul was referring to. You have responded to my posts without ever actually answering the question actually asked.

Thus, CM merely proves the points made in Post #330 above, which stand exactly as given.

 

[OCTOBER23]

DO ALL CATHOLIC PRIESTS LIKE THE ORAL TRADITION ????

 

[Dona Bate]

Every single one of CM's claims here have already been answered on numerous occasions by myself and other Catholics on TOL. If anyone following this thread is genuinely interested in an answer to any of CM's anti-Catholic claims, simply PM me and I will answer on an individual basis---no sense in continuing to waste time addressing already-answered anti-Catholic claims on this thread (the whole "pearls before swine" thing).

In the end, what CM has offered here are nothing more than the mere assumptions and opinions of his preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, which---since it is decidedly not that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D.---carry no inherent doctrinal authority whatsoever. What CM offers are merely the corrupt traditions of men, and the claims of his chosen man-made sect can never rise above that entirely non-authoritative level. Nothing more really needs to be said on the matter. Be well, and God bless.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Too right!

CM and his chosen man made anti Catholic sectarian beliefs have been completely refuted by you and other Catholics on many many occasions. He just does not get any of it. Why? Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 is one possibility. Another more likely is that there is one specific teaching more close to home which he just cannot accept Church teachings on. CM's in denial. He HAS to convince himself that Jesus Christ's One True Church is not Catholic.



God Bless!

 

[Nick M]

DO ALL CATHOLIC PRIESTS LIKE THE ORAL TRADITION ????

:down:

 

[CabinetMaker]

Too right!

CM and his chosen man made anti Catholic sectarian beliefs have been completely refuted by you and other Catholics on many many occasions. He just does not get any of it. Why? Perhaps 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 is one possibility. Another more likely is that there is one specific teaching more close to home which he just cannot accept Church teachings on. CM's in denial. He HAS to convince himself that Jesus Christ's One True Church is not Catholic.



God Bless!

I was born and raised Catholic, I know its traditions and doctrines. The reason I don't accept them is that I have also taken the time to just read the bible. I set aside all that the Catholics said, all that the Protesants said and all that I had heard on the radio and read. I asked God to be with me and I read. That is when I learned that the traditions and the doctrines that I had been raised with could not be found in scripture. So, for those Catholics who wish to discuss it, I discuss it.

Does that make me anti Catholic? No. My Mom and Dad are still very Catholic. One of my very best friends just went through RICA classes and was baptized Catholic. I didn't try to talk her out of it because she found something there that she liked. I'm not anti Catholic, but if you wish to discuss Catholic traditions and doctrines, I am only to happy to to do so. Know what you believe and why you believe it. I find that it's the why that fascinates me.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Thus, CM merely proves the points made in Post #330 above, which stand exactly as given.

You mean the post that continues to avoid answering the questions that I asked? What did you prove there, that you can't answer a simple question or two?

 

[Cruciform]

I was born and raised Catholic, I know its traditions and doctrines.

:darwinsm:​

The reason I don't accept them is that I have also taken the time to just read the bible. I set aside all that the Catholics said, all that the Protesants said and all that I had heard on the radio and read.

:darwinsm:​

I asked God to be with me and I read.

Irrelevant. So did Joseph Smith, and he was no more thereby guaranteed that his interpretations and doctrines would be true than you were.

The fact is that you pridefully presumed to depart from the normative means chosen by God by which lay believers are to come to know divine truth, that is, by receiving and following the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Catholic Church (Mt. 28:18-20; Lk. 10:16; Ac. 16:4; 2 Thess. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:15; 1 Jn. 4:6)..

That is when I learned that the traditions and the doctrines that I had been raised with could not be found in scripture.

Already decisively answered---and corrected---here. Try again.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

You mean the post that continues to avoid answering the questions that I asked?

Already answered (Post #330).

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already answered (Post #330).

For a philosophy major, I am very surprised you don't seem to grasp that your response in post 330 does not amount to an answer. I have asked very specific questions regarding Marian doctrines and Paul's traditions. Post 330, and every other post you point to, do not answer these questions. Post 330, and all the others that you link to, is your response that amounts to nothing more than you saying I don't have the authority to question your church. An answer conveys information, a response, your response, is your attempt to avoid dealing with subjects you are unable to deal with directly.