Still waiting for your answer to Post #171 above.
I am a "Bible Only" believer. I do not and could not believe in the traditions of the Catholic Church. There is no mention of the Catholic Church or its traditions in scripture.
Still waiting for your answer to Post #171 above.
The question is "WHY?, since sola scriptura is a thoroughly unbiblical, self-refuting notion that did not even exist in the Christian Church until being invented by mere men during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Please disprove the information provided here.I am a "Bible Only" believer.
Only because your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow you to contradict its particular traditions of men.I do not and could not believe in the traditions of the Catholic Church.
There is no mention of the Catholic Church or its traditions in scripture.
The question is "WHY?, since sola scriptura is a thoroughly unbiblical, self-refuting notion that did not even exist in the Christian Church until being invented by mere men during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Please disprove the information provided here.
Only because your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow you to contradict its particular traditions of men.
- First, your comment here assumes the validity of the unbiblical and self-refuting---and therefore false---notion of sola scriptura, and so your claim simply falls flat.
- Second, all Catholic teaching is contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, so your claim is straightforwardly false.
- Third, as far as there supposedly being "no Catholic Church in Scripture," you're simply and demonstrably wrong [SOURCE][SOURCE].
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Come back if you ever manage to stumble upon an actual argument---sorry, but Ad Hominem Fallacies of the kind you're attempting here just don't count. :yawn:Cruciform... an undefeated legend in his own mind... that 95% of the people that use this site know to be a lunatic.
The question is "WHY?, since sola scriptura is a thoroughly unbiblical, self-refuting notion that did not even exist in the Christian Church until being invented by mere men during the 16th-century Protestant Rebellion. Please disprove the information provided here.
Only because your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect won't allow you to contradict its particular traditions of men.
- First, your comment here assumes the validity of the unbiblical and self-refuting---and therefore false---notion of sola scriptura, and so your claim simply falls flat.
- Second, all Catholic teaching is contained in Scripture, either explicitly or implicitly, so your claim is straightforwardly false.
- Third, as far as there supposedly being "no Catholic Church in Scripture," you're simply and demonstrably wrong [SOURCE][SOURCE].
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Come back if you ever manage to stumble upon an actual argument---sorry, but Ad Hominem Fallacies of the kind you're attempting here just don't count. :yawn:
So, then, no actual disproof whatsoever---not even an attempt at it. That's what I thought. Your utter inability to refute the counterargument to your core assumption (sola scriptura) is noted. Therefore, your reliance upon sola scriptura simply collapses.I do not have to disprove what is posted...
According to Scripture itself, we also need the Church's apostolic Tradition. Indeed, if you were truly a "Bible-Only" believer as you claim, you would eagerly reject sola scriptura as unbiblical!...what else do we need:
2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
I am a "Bible Only" believer. I do not and could not believe in the traditions of the Catholic Church. There is no mention of the Catholic Church or its traditions in scripture.
Some of the traditions are there. You have to look in the right place. Like instructions for Levi on how to dress.
Try again. I post arguments all the time (see Post #208 just above, for example), as opposed to the contralogical joke you attempted in Post #203.All I am doing is giving you a dose of your own medicine.I've been here for quite a few years and have never seen you put for a valid argument... not even once.
His Servant is correct. Will you ever answer a question without the aide of a Catholic based website. Show some scholarship and do it yourself.So, then, no actual disproof whatsoever---not even an attempt at it. That's what I thought. Your utter inability to refute the counterargument to your core assumption (sola scriptura) is noted. Therefore, your reliance upon sola scriptura simply collapses.
According to Scripture itself, we also need the Church's apostolic Tradition. Indeed, if you were truly a "Bible-Only" believer as you claim, you would eagerly reject sola scriptura as unbiblical!
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
Post #207:darwinsm:
Nice Red Herring Fallacy---you really are desperate to avoid facing the utter bankruptcy of your naive reliance upon the hopelessly self-defeating notion of sola scriptura, aren't you. Back to Post #207.His Servant is correct. Will you ever answer a question without the aide of a Catholic based website. Show some scholarship and do it yourself.
Nice Red Herring Fallacy---you really are desperate to avoid facing the utter bankruptcy of your naive reliance upon the hopelessly self-defeating notion of sola scriptura, aren't you. Back to Post #207.
Already decisively answered (Post #213). Back to Post #207 above.You have nothing but your Catholic websites. No scholarship of your own.
Utterly undone and categorically refuted here and here. Back to Post #207 above.What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Check this out! http://www.bible.ca/sola-scriptura-proof-texts.htm
Same thing I would say to you. How about an answer from you and not a website?
Then the only question left is which of our chosen doctrinal tradition's is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and therefore teaches in his own name and by his very authority? Is it [1] the one historic Catholic Church, or is it [2] your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?Same thing I would say to you.
Then the only question left is which of our chosen doctrinal tradition's is in fact that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, and therefore teaches in his own name and by his very authority? Is it [1] the one historic Catholic Church, or is it [2] your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect?
Please post your proof in support of your preferred non-Catholic sect.