Status
Not open for further replies.

Citizen of the Kingdom

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 31, 2006
44,327
14,493
Vancouver
Visit site
✟303,748.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
All the graphics in the world will not change what survey after survey shows (Catholics being liberal), including that commissioned by your church, and is evidenced wherever Catholicism abounds and (votes.)
That has nothing to do with infallibility.
Nor can you deny that your church counts and treats proabortion, prosodomite Ted Kennedy-type RCS as members in life and in death, as Ted-hands are red, was.
These sins may exist, but that does not mean they are endorsed.
Nor can you deny the other divisions within Catholicism, Catholics, with each side calling each other cafeteria Catholics based upon their judgment of what church teaching means. Thus there are different forum categories here, including one for "TradCats" I assume, with different favorite Bibles (Douay-Rheims for most TradCats).
These divisions may may exist, but that does not mean there are separate doctrines. There is only one set of unchanging doctrines.
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That has nothing to do with infallibility.
If you read what I was responding to, which it seems you do not, then you might just realize it does, for the OP argues that an infallible magisterium is essential for unity. Yes Catholics interpret their church, from TradCats to Ted Kennedy-Cats, all of whom Rome counts and treats as members in life and in death, thus showing what she really believes, interpreting herself. For the evidence of what one really believes is what one does.

These sins may exist, but that does not mean they are endorsed.
Not "may," but do, and it means that Rome implicitly conveys that these sins are to be tolerated without being excommunicated. Your current pope, elected by your pastors, even seems to be censoring the few conservative bishops who attempt to correct some his interpretation of what Catholic teaching means.
These divisions may may exist, but that does not mean there are separate doctrines. There is only one set of unchanging doctrines.
Nonsense. Sects are formed based upon beliefs, even if in matters of interpretation, and what one believes is doctrine.

82% of Mainline Churches, 77% of Catholics and 53% of Evangelical Churches affirmed, "There is MORE than one true way to interpret the teachings of my religion ." U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Religious Landscape Study

73% (highest) of Pentecostal/Foursquare believers strongly affirm that Christ was sinless on earth, with Catholics , Lutherans and Methodists being tied at 33% , and the lowest being among Episcopalians with just 28% http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/5-barna-update/53

66% of Catholics supported women's ordination to the priesthood, and 73% approved of the way John Paul II leads the church. Surveying the Religious Landscape: Trends in U.S. Beliefs by George Gallup, Jr. and D. Michael Lindsay (Morehouse Publishing, 1999). Copyright © 2004 -- The Gallup Organization www.gallup.com

80% of Catholics believe it is possible to disagree with the pope on official positions on morality and still be a good Catholic. Time/CNN nationwide poll of 1,000 adults, conducted by Yankelovich Partners, Sept. 27-28, 1995; subsample of 500 Catholics, MOE ± 4.5%

77% of Catholics polled "believe a person can be a good Catholic without going to Mass every Sunday, 65 percent believe good Catholics can divorce and remarry, and 53 percent believe Catholics can have abortions and remain in good standing. 1999 poll by the National Catholic Reporter. http://www.catholictradition.org/v2-bombs14b.htm

40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% Catholics Similar to Mainstream on Abortion, Stem Cells

Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% of R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^

Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view inappropriate contentographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^

73 percent of Catholics rejected Catholic teaching artificial methods of birth control. Catholic World Report; 1997 survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut

Only 20 percent strongly agreed with the Church teaching that only men may be ordained. ^

Just 15% of U.S. Catholics say that using contraceptives is morally wrong. 41% say that using contraceptives is morally acceptable, while 36% say it is not a moral issue. 37% of Catholics who attend Mass at least once a week say using contraceptives is morally wrong while 33% say it is morally acceptable and 30% say it is not a moral issue. http://www.pewresearch.org/key-data-points/u-s-catholics-key-data-from-pew-research/#abortion

31% of faithful Catholics (those who attend church weekly, 2004) say abortion should be legal either in "many" or in "all" cases.. 2004, The Gallup Organization Gallup Survey for Catholics Speak Out: 802 Catholics, May 1992, MOE ± 4%;

26 percent of Catholics (2007) polled strongly agree with the Church's unequivocal position on abortion Catholic World Report; survey of 1,000 Catholic Americans by Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut; http://www.adoremus.org/397-Roper.html

A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf FindArticles.com | CBSi

The survey also found that 80% of Roman Catholic priests referred to themselves as “mostly” heterosexual in orientation, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual class. Among younger priests (those ordained for 20 years or less) the figure was 23%. ^

After examining the official web sites of 244 Catholic universities and colleges in America, the TFP Student Action found that 107 – or 43% have pro-homosexual clubs. TFP Student Action Dec. 6. 2011; studentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/pro-homosexual-clubs-at-107-catholic-colleges/print.html

79 percent of American Jews , 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality , versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. Religious Landscape Study

56% of Catholics overall (and 46% of the general public) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin, while 39%. of Catholics say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, (versus 76% of white evangelicals and 66% of black Protestants, and 40% of Mainline Protestants). 41% of Catholics do not consider homosexual behavior to be a moral issue. (Pew Research Center, Religion & Politics Survey, 2009; PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey, October 2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-c...6/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf)

Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre--election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-c...6/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)

More
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is the classic error of assuming the term "Word of God" means Sacred Scripture, when in reality the term Word of God can mean a whole host of other things, the most obvious being, God the Son, as it does in The Last Gospel. (John 1:1-14) This is guilty of the fallacy of Begging the Question (as are many of these assertions) as these passages don't at all affirm that the "Word of God," whatever that may be is formally sufficient, they merely show a certain aspect of the Word of God, namely, that is stands firm in the heavens, and that it is above all things, and is only equal with the Name of God.


Does the Holy Gospel record ALL of the words spoken by Jesus? Either way, this passage only affirms the Infallibility of Sacred Scripture, not that it is formally sufficient, or the only infallible authority.


All these merely affirm the infallibility of Sacred Scripture, they don't affirm that Scripture alone is the only Infallible Authority. On top of that, the vast majority of these refer only to the Old Testament.


Strawmans


These three quotes do not even assert that what is being written here, is infallible, let alone that what is written here is the only infallible authority (imagine how ridiculous that would be!)

Before starting this debate, I discussed it with my friends on the FishEaters Forum, (in which they warned me, that very thing that would happen on this debate, would happen, namely, that the vast majority of Protestants would dodge my arguments, and attack Catholic Dogma, but I'm not going to harp on that.) during our discussion, I talked about some of the arguments, I was considering using during this debate, and my friend at FishEaters told me I was overthinking things. Now imagine if, one of my FishEater friends in effort to prevent me from overthinking things told me, "don't think beyond what I have typed!" would that mean I should base my arguments only on what was type in his post? That should throw-out everything I've researched leading up this debate?


Jesus was only condemning traditions of men, not oral traditions, not traditions in general.


No, not all oral traditions were wrong about Jesus, the Bible proves it:

And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.
- St. Matthew 2:23 DR
No where in the Old Testament is this prophet about the Messiah written, it's an oral tradition.

Oh and by the way, while we're on the subject of Tradition in the Bible, you know the "proof-text" for Sola Scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16? Well look at what it says earlier in the same chapter:

Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.
- 2 Timothy 3:8 DR
Now where in the Old Testament, do we here of Jannes and Mambres resisting Moses? We don't, this also is a tradition, and St. Paul has now qualms about putting it in his Epistle.

I do not care one little bit if you choose to argue with me. It is however very sad to see you or for that matter so entrenched in their "religion" that they argue with God and His Words as found in the Bible.

YOU as a present day Catholic want people to believe that the YOU and the Catholic Church has faith in the Bible, and that it is the church of the Bible, and encourages its members to read and study the Bible. However, when Catholics try to disprove the Bible as the only authority in religion, their true attitude toward the Bible is revealed just as you have just done.

YOU and The Catholic Church oppose the Bible as the sole guide and standard in religion and whenever it tries to disprove it as such, its true attitude toward it is manifested.

You asked.............
"Does the Holy Gospel record ALL of the words spoken by Jesus?"

NO, of course not. Any one who has read the Bible knows that.

The Catholic church itself has said..............
"Is it not strange that if Christianity were to be learned from the Bible only, that Christ himself never wrote a line or commanded his apostles to write; for their divine commission was not to write but to preach the gospel." (Question Box, p. 70).

"Christ gave his disciples no command to write, but only to teach." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 767).

The only reason why the Catholic Church would say that was to establish that the Bible alone is not the standard of authority.

Christ didn't actually take a pen in His hand and write the New Testament; nevertheless, it is His production. The Old Testament declares that God built the temple in 1 Kings 8:16,20, but do YOU think that God actually came down and build it Himself???????

He built it through the agency of men and believers in God. Likewise, the written New Testament is the will of Christ. He wrote it through those commissioned by Him. It contains His laws as seen in 1 Cor. 14:37 and produces the faith which brings life in His name as recorded by John 20:30-31.

Christ commanded the apostle John in Revelation 1:19.......
"Write therefore the things that thou hast seen, and the things that are, and the things that are to come hereafter."

Thus, the Catholic Church and YOU are incorrect when they say Christ never commissioned His apostles to write. In many books of the prophets of the Old Testament there are no commands to write, but it was God's will that they do so in order to preserve their words for all generations.

The Catholic officials and YOU have assumed that the command to the apostles to teach excluded written instruction. However, writing the inspired Scriptures was part of the work of the apostles and prophets in delivering God's message to man.

Jesus said in Matthew 24:35..........
"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away."

In John 12:48 Jesus taught that His word would be the standard of judgment in the last day. He said.........
"He that despiseth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him, the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day."
(Catholic Rheims Translation).

Companion verses show that men will be judged by "the gospel" in Rom. 2:16, and "the law of liberty" in James 2:12, and "the books" in Rev. 20:12. All of these are similar and reveal that men will be judged by the New Testament of Christ in the last day.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
View attachment 209704
Wow, you folk really are desperate! Yep, this debate definitely is winding down. I guess have to worry about this to much as I work on finishing my college papers. I'll be back tomorrow evening to continue this debate.

See you all later.

Since you are attending college, I would encourage you take some classes in Bible Christianity 101.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
"Christ gave his disciples no command to write, but only to teach." (Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, p. 767).
Only expressly 12 times,
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:19
Revelation 2:1
Revelation 2:8
Revelation 2:12
Revelation 2:18
Revelation 3:1
Revelation 3:7
Revelation 3:14
Revelation 14:13
Revelation 19:9
Revelation 21:5

And Christ abundantly affirmed the writing of God's word, that being the most authoritative means of preservation, and since it is the Spirit of Christ who inspired the writers of the NT, then to claim "Christ gave his disciples no command to write" means that the Holy Spirit did this on His own, which is heretical:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:13-14)
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
It doesn't work and you are correct to "call that hand."

As many here pointed out we need to know which version of Roman Rite Catholicism we are dealing with.

-Vat 2?
-SSPX?
-traditionalist within Vat 2 but opposed to some or many tenents?
-Liberal RCs who embrace the changes Pope Francis champions.

There are three Roman Catholic communities here on CF last I checked.

So you bring up a valid point which @PeaceByJesus and @Major1 brought up as well.

For example, I debate often on other forums self proclaimed pro choice Catholics. Yet when confronted with their own catechism on the sin of abortion tell me they agree with said catechism but are still pro choice.

Yet we are told Prots and Evangelicals have 33,000 differing views yet right here we have Presbyterians, Evangelicals, Baptists and Pentecostals all in unison with regards to the authority of Holy Scriptures.
[/QUOTE]

I truly wonder if the majority of people pray and ponder their own thinking??????

We as a country and Christians in particular rant and rave about what you just said......
"abortion---Prochoice".

The Catholic Church says that they are against abortion. The Baptist's declare their objection as do the Pentecostals and Methodists and all the others.

But year after year we continue to reelect and elect those people who are openly Pro-choice. WHY?????

IF the people who claim to be Christians actually were Christians and they obeyed the Word of God .......Abortion would never be an issue at all.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Only expressly 12 times,
Revelation 1:11
Revelation 1:19
Revelation 2:1
Revelation 2:8
Revelation 2:12
Revelation 2:18
Revelation 3:1
Revelation 3:7
Revelation 3:14
Revelation 14:13
Revelation 19:9
Revelation 21:5

And Christ abundantly affirmed the writing of God's word, that being the most authoritative means of preservation, and since it is the Spirit of Christ who inspired the writers of the NT, then to claim "Christ gave his disciples no command to write" means that the Holy Spirit did this on His own, which is heretical:

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. (John 16:13-14)

You do realize I hope that the comment I posted was not from me, but was from the Catholics own teaching.

And I agree 100% with you in that ..................
"then to claim "Christ gave his disciples no command to write" means that the Holy Spirit did this on His own, which is heretical".
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

JesusLovesOurLady

Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord
Feb 15, 2017
2,227
1,657
32
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nelson
✟6,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Okay, so PeaceByJesus, and JayW have resorted to boarderline ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is pretty much instant-lose in debates, the only people who are really debating right now are Major1 and redleghunter, although even redleghunter is trying lure me off topic a bit.

I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th, I'll be starting a Mother of God debate, which I highly encourage you to join. Here's my offer, we can either continue this debate as usual and I will continue to debunk Sola Scriptura, or I can give you what you all, which is a Catholic proof-text. If you're willing, I can give a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith, and we spend the last week debating that. The choice is yours' you have until this evening to decide.
 
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
This is the classic error of assuming the term "Word of God" means Sacred Scripture, when in reality the term Word of God can mean a whole host of other things, the most obvious being, God the Son, as it does in The Last Gospel. (John 1:1-14) This is guilty of the fallacy of Begging the Question (as are many of these assertions) as these passages don't at all affirm that the "Word of God," whatever that may be is formally sufficient, they merely show a certain aspect of the Word of God, namely, that is stands firm in the heavens, and that it is above all things, and is only equal with the Name of God.


Does the Holy Gospel record ALL of the words spoken by Jesus? Either way, this passage only affirms the Infallibility of Sacred Scripture, not that it is formally sufficient, or the only infallible authority.


All these merely affirm the infallibility of Sacred Scripture, they don't affirm that Scripture alone is the only Infallible Authority. On top of that, the vast majority of these refer only to the Old Testament.


Strawmans


These three quotes do not even assert that what is being written here, is infallible, let alone that what is written here is the only infallible authority (imagine how ridiculous that would be!)

Before starting this debate, I discussed it with my friends on the FishEaters Forum, (in which they warned me, that very thing that would happen on this debate, would happen, namely, that the vast majority of Protestants would dodge my arguments, and attack Catholic Dogma, but I'm not going to harp on that.) during our discussion, I talked about some of the arguments, I was considering using during this debate, and my friend at FishEaters told me I was overthinking things. Now imagine if, one of my FishEater friends in effort to prevent me from overthinking things told me, "don't think beyond what I have typed!" would that mean I should base my arguments only on what was type in his post? That should throw-out everything I've researched leading up this debate?


Jesus was only condemning traditions of men, not oral traditions, not traditions in general.


No, not all oral traditions were wrong about Jesus, the Bible proves it:

And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene.
- St. Matthew 2:23 DR
No where in the Old Testament is this prophet about the Messiah written, it's an oral tradition.

Oh and by the way, while we're on the subject of Tradition in the Bible, you know the "proof-text" for Sola Scriptura, 2 Timothy 3:16? Well look at what it says earlier in the same chapter:

Now as Jannes and Mambres resisted Moses, so these also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.
- 2 Timothy 3:8 DR
Now where in the Old Testament, do we here of Jannes and Mambres resisting Moses? We don't, this also is a tradition, and St. Paul has now qualms about putting it in his Epistle.

My dear friend. You beating "Traditions" to death.

NO ONE is saying that traditions are evil or wrong or sin.

The problem is that when MAN MADE traditions replace the directions given in the Bible.

That is the issue and that is what "Sola Scripture" tries to eliminate.

Catholic Church teaches that all of its followers are to repeat the Rosary. That my dear friend IS NOT from the Bible but instead is from men and was handed down as a doctrine.
It is an ADDED teaching of man and is not from God.

The Catholic church teaches that Mary had no sin. That again IS NOT from the Bible but is solely from the minds of man. It is ADDED teaching from men and is not from God!

Now YOU can copy and paste all the information you care to from Catholic apologetic websites but none of them are Biblically correct when they support and lift up the doctrines of Traditions of men over the Word of God.

Deuteronomy 4:2.......
"Ye shall not ADD UNTO THE WORD which I command you neither shall ye take away from it.............".

May I also point out to you the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 4:1-3...........
"Now the Spirit speaks expressly that in the last days some shall depart fro the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and the doctrines of devils, speaking lies in hypocrisy having their conscience seared with a hot iron............FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats.........".

Now having read that, I hope that you know that the Catholic Church forbids its Bishops and priests to marry. Not only that but the RCC have been asked to abstain from eating meat on Fridays. In 1984 the rules were relaxed allowing Catholics to choose a different form of penance, such as offering up extra prayers or attending Mass.
As a result, the abstention of eating meat on Fridays, fell out of favour with many Catholics, who now generally only observe the rule on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday.

However following a decision made at the Bishops’ Spring Conference this week, the Archbishop of Westminster, Vincent Nichols, announced a return to the traditional method of penance every Friday. Catholics are therefore being asked to abstain from eating meat on all Fridays, while vegetarians are being advised to abstain from another sort of food that day.

Again..........this is ADDING to the Scriptures!!!!

Now as for Jannes and Jambres, may I say to you that they are the names of the two magicians who stood against Moses. Exodus 7:11 says to us................
"Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the socerers, now the magicians of Egypt...........".

Their names were actually preserved in a Targum which is an Aramaic paraphrase of a portion of the Hebrew old Test. and that is why Paul knew their names as recorded in 2 Timothy 3:8.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay, so PeaceByJesus, and JayW have resorted to boarderline ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is pretty much instant-lose in debates, the only people who are really debating right now are Major1 and redleghunter, although even redleghunter is trying lure me off topic a bit.

I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th, I'll be starting a Mother of God debate, which I highly encourage you to join. Here's my offer, we can either continue this debate as usual and I will continue to debunk Sola Scriptura, or I can give you what you all, which is a Catholic proof-text. If you're willing, I can give a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith, and we spend the last week debating that. The choice is yours' you have until this evening to decide.

I know you feel like that is the case, but IMO I do not see any personal attacks on you anymore than I do from you on them.

Remember Galatians 6:7....
"Do not be deceived: God is not mocked, for whatever one sows, that will he also reap."

Now my friend......you have not debunked Sola Scriptura, simply because that is an impossibility. You have given YOUR displeasure with it and YOUR displeasure with it but that is NOT a debunking. That is only YOUR opinion which of course you are entitled to.

Contrary to some popular misunderstandings, and obviously you as well, the Roman Catholic Church did not hold to tradition instead of Scripture. But today, the RCC upholds tradition as being held to be an additional authority alongside and coherent with Scripture. Furthermore, tradition was not seen to be static, but as something that can develop through the leading of the Holy Spirit through the history of the church. The recognition of genuine developments of doctrine in keeping with the tradition and Scripture is the responsibility of the magisterium, and ultimately, the Pope.

That then means that in the hands of the magisterium, the Catholic tradition was used to authorize doctrines such as purgatory, the Rosary, the Assumption of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary and the granting of indulgences, none of which are found in Scripture.

Now, in defending these doctrines, Catholic teaching will cite Scripture in support, but the passages cited do not in any way teach the doctrines they are said to uphold. For instance, the granting of indulgences is inferred as a particular exercise of the "power of the keys," the privilege of "binding and loosing" as mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 16:19. This power is understood by the Catholic church to have been conferred specifically on Peter and his successors (the popes), and includes the power to grant absolution (forgiveness of sin), as well as the power to require acts of penance for those who sin, or to grant indulgences (the remitting of temporal punishments for sin in purgatory).

Whether this is what Jesus really meant by "the keys of the kingdom," and whether absolution, penance, and indulgences are legitimate implications of what he meant are questions of interpretation. But in the Catholic system, these are not open questions, since the magisterium considers the Catholic church's interpretation to be authorized by the tradition.

In the Catholic system, though, it is actually not necessary to give scriptural validation, since doctrinal beliefs can rest on tradition apart from Scripture, or even on the pronouncement of the Pope alone (speaking ex cathedra). What this does in effect is to place the decisions of the magisterium beyond any question. The ultimate authority then is not Scripture, but the magisterium (headed by the Pope), since it is the magisterium that dictates the proper understanding of the Scriptures and the tradition. It is this state of affairs that the Reformers' affirmation of sola Scriptura addresses.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Okay, so PeaceByJesus, and JayW have resorted to boarderline ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is pretty much instant-lose in debates, the only people who are really debating right now are Major1 and redleghunter, although even redleghunter is trying lure me off topic a bit.

I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th, I'll be starting a Mother of God debate, which I highly encourage you to join. Here's my offer, we can either continue this debate as usual and I will continue to debunk Sola Scriptura, or I can give you what you all, which is a Catholic proof-text. If you're willing, I can give a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith, and we spend the last week debating that. The choice is yours' you have until this evening to decide.

You said............
"I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th".

I am ROFL!!!!!

You can exit anytime you choose to do so my friend......but this debate will not be over until Jesus comes again.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
Your delusion extends to your reading of this thread. By the grace of God I have provided you with reasoned and substantiated arguments, most of which were either ignored or you simply reiterated what was refuted, while refusing to answer questions.

And after your primary premise, which you presented as the alternative to SS, was clearly shown to be wrong, and in fact would nuke the NT church from the beginning, yet you imagine that you are the victor! You cannot continue to debunk Sola Scriptura because you have yet too, reasonably understood, except by strawmen, but your alternative, sola ecclssia, has been and can be continually to debunked.

Ad hominems therefore are warranted, as Christ showed they can be. No wonder you want to move on to a different thread.

As for providing a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith is not hard, I can do that since we ourselves contend for such common-held Truth as the Apostle Creed professes. But what you CANNOT do is provide any Scripture passage that proves any Catholic distinctives which are not manifest in the inspired record of the NT church.

Thus I challenge you to do that and look forward to exposing your fallacious provocative assertions.
"Catholic distinctives which are not manifest in the inspired record of the NT church." Wrong. That's called blind prejudice.
THE CHURCH

THE BIBLE

THE SACRAMENTS

HOLY MATRIMONY

THE VIRGIN MARY

THE SAINTS

JUSTIFICATION

SALVATION


ESCHATOLOGY

THE TRINITY

Still can't find Catholic distinctives in the inspired record of the NT church??? That's because your mind is made up. No evidence will suffice to counter blind prejudice. I stick it in your face but you refuse to see it.
I have a theory about angry anti-Catholics. Their anger at the Church goes much deeper.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
A mere parroted assertion, and which presupposes that the church which is the Lord's body, and to which He is married, is one particular organic church. However, that is impossible since only the spiritual body of Christ in which the Spirit baptizes them into (1Co. 12:13) only always consists 100% of true believers, while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

Since Catholicism has always maintained salvific Truths along with her various distinctives which are not seen in the inspired record of what the church believed, then souls of broken hearts and contrite spirits (Ps. 34:18) have and can find Christ, and thus the gates of Hell have not prevailed against His church, the mystical body of Christ, which is built upon Christ the Son of God, even though Rome has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes.

More RC arrogance, and you actually implicitly confess that we could believe God could preserve an infallible Church, but since since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God, (Rm. 10:17) which Scripture most assuredly is, and nowhere teaches ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office as per Rome, then we have no warrant to believe in this self-proclaimed bombast.

What good is that? Faith in a lie is still faith, and your is just as that of Mormonic faith. In both cases the church is an object of faith, and thus whatever it formally teaches is to be believed.


The principle of taking disputes from a local level to the highest (which flows from the OT) is followed in many Protestant churches, as it should be, but the differences btwn the Jerusalem Council and Rome include:

1. Paul and Barnaba went up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders, but Rome's so-called apostolic successors even fail of the qualifications and credentials of manifest Biblical apostles. (Acts 1:21,22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12; 2Cor. 6:1-0; 12:12)

2. There was not a Catholic priest among them (except perhaps among the Judaizers) since none were called “hiereus” (Greek) which is the word distinctively used for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy, and which Rome thus uses for her pastors based upon imposed functional equivalence, while NT pastors were never called "hiereus" but are called "presbuteros/episkopos" (senior/overseer), which denotes the same in the office, (Titus 1:5-7; cf. Acts 20:17,28) and do not have any unique sacerdotal function.

Instead the primary work of NT pastors is that of prayer and preaching. (Act 6:3,4; 2 Tim.4:2) by which they “feed the flock” (Acts 20:28; 1Pt. 5:2) ) for the word is called spiritual "milk," (1Co. 3:22; 1Pt. 1:22) and "meat," (Heb. 5:12-14) what is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 15:7-9; cf. Psalms 19:7)

All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; Phil. 2:17; 4:18; Heb. 13:15,16; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (1Pt. 2:5,9; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).

3. The testimony Peter gave was that of him preaching the evangelical gospel that "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43) That "the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe," (Acts 15:7) with God "purifying their hearts by faith." (Acts 15:9) Which preceded baptism, which immediately followed as it normally should, (Acts 10:47) with the faith that is expressed thereby being what purifies the heart and justifies the believer before God. (Rm. 4:5)

4. It was not Peter but James who declared the conclusive Scripturally-support judgment ("Wherefore my sentence is") which settled the matter, confirmatory of what Peter exhorted and Paul and Barnabas preached.
This is a rant. Cut it down to one or two topics, not rattle off 5+ topics in one post that would take 5 pages to answer.
 
Upvote 0

kepha31

Regular Member
Jun 15, 2007
1,819
595
72
✟44,439.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
In Relationship
2. There was not a Catholic priest among them (except perhaps among the Judaizers) since none were called “hiereus” (Greek) which is the word distinctively used for a separate sacerdotal class of clergy, and which Rome thus uses for her pastors based upon imposed functional equivalence, while NT pastors were never called "hiereus" but are called "presbuteros/episkopos" (senior/overseer), which denotes the same in the office, (Titus 1:5-7; cf. Acts 20:17,28) and do not have any unique sacerdotal function.
Presbyteros is simply Greek for priest, as any dictionary will affirm. "hiereus" is for the OT priests that fell into disuse, which is why you don't see "hiereus" in the NT. The reason you are so angry over this matter is that your spiritual forefathers abolished the NT priesthood. Now you want to blame the CC.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
He built it through the agency of men and believers in God. Likewise, the written New Testament is the will of Christ. He wrote it through those commissioned by Him. It contains His laws as seen in 1 Cor. 14:37 and produces the faith which brings life in His name as recorded by John 20:30-31.
Indeed. And I quote:

“The phrase “the word of God” occurs over forty times in the New Testament. It is equated with the Old Testament (Mark 7:13). It was what Jesus preached (Luke 5:1). It was the message the apostles taught (Acts 4:31; 6:2). It was the word the Samaritans received (Acts 8:14) as given by the apostles (Acts 8:25). It was the message the Gentiles received as preached by Peter (Acts 11:1). It was the word Paul preached on his first missionary journey (Acts 13:5, 7, 44, 48-49; 15:35-36), his second missionary journey (Acts 16:32; 17:13; 18:11), and his third missionary journey (Acts 19:10). It was the focus of Luke in the books of Acts, who recounted its wide and rapid spread (Acts 6:7; 12:24; 19:20). Paul was also careful to tell the Corinthians that he spoke the word as it was given from God, that it had not been adulterated , and that it was a manifestation of the truth (2 Corinthians 2:17; 4:2). And Paul acknowledged it as the source of his preaching (Colossians 1:25; 1 Thessalonians 2:13).” (Biblical Doctrine a Systematic Summary of Bible Truth; John MacArthur and Richard Mayhue; chapter 2)
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Okay, so PeaceByJesus, and JayW have resorted to boarderline ad hominem attacks, and ad hominem is pretty much instant-lose in debates, the only people who are really debating right now are Major1 and redleghunter, although even redleghunter is trying lure me off topic a bit.

I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th, I'll be starting a Mother of God debate, which I highly encourage you to join. Here's my offer, we can either continue this debate as usual and I will continue to debunk Sola Scriptura, or I can give you what you all, which is a Catholic proof-text. If you're willing, I can give a Scripture passage that proves one of the most important Dogmas in the Catholic Faith, and we spend the last week debating that. The choice is yours' you have until this evening to decide.
Can you point out the 'ad hominem' attacks by @PeaceByJesus and @JayW ? Responding to assertions and claims with a counter argument is not 'ad hominem.'

You started with a polemic style and received the same in return. Argumentative language is not 'ad hominem.'
 
  • Like
Reactions: PeaceByJesus
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I'm hoping to get this debate finished by Saturday, as on October 16th
If you truly wanted a debate you should have entered a debate challenge in the Formal Debate forum. Recommend you do so, as both parties negotiate a format and narrow down the scope of the debate. Then a staff moderator takes up and opens a thread where only the challenger and opponent can post. You are currently in a discussion thread where the greater 'viewership' will see everyone's arguments and judge them on their own.

There are no 'winners or losers' on these threads because they can go on for months or years to no end.

If you want more info on a formal debate I recommend contacting a CF ambassador or staff member.
 
Upvote 0

JesusLovesOurLady

Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord
Feb 15, 2017
2,227
1,657
32
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nelson
✟6,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Can you point out the 'ad hominem' attacks by @PeaceByJesus and @JayW ?
Just to be clear, you post here defending the alleged infallibility and exclusivity of the RCC as the vehicle through whom God speaks, but then refer to their scripture as blasphemous? How does that work?

I recall a few months ago you starting at least one long thread on the OBOB subforum about what you perceived as wrong teachings in your Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults (RCIA) class at your local Catholic church?

My letter to my modernist RCIA class

And then four months later you're still struggling to forgive them for whatever you think they've done?

I need help forgiving my RCIA class

I post this only for the purposes of introspection. It seems your issue isn't that there are Christians out there who do not follow the RCC's beliefs, but rather that everyone else, including the RCC, doesn't follow yours. At some point, my friend, you need to take stock of all the strife you have with fellow Chirstians and acknowledge the common denominator.

Well this is rich, another RC defending a church in which the majority or near majority of the members are liberal, morally or theologically, and would have us leave conservative evangelical fellowship and convert to this unholy amalgam which counts and treats everyone from blind cultic devotees to an imaginary (pre V2) pure church to Ted Kennedy-type RCs as brethren in life and in death.

But being more Catholic than their own leadership overall, the solution by such RCs as this "Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord" is to simply reject as being so those whom Rome considers to be members. Which means that such has better judgment of what Catholic teaching means than what his church effectually teaches by its actions (or inactions) - that such are member - and Scripturally what one does and effects constitutes the evidence of what one truly believers.(James 2:18; Mt. 7:20)

But then such superior Catholics, who attack Catholics in good standing for "preaching modernism, cafeteria catholicism, and anti-TradCat bigotry" based upon their judgment of what church teaching is, and search for other Catholic churchees and even other Rites, persecute us for claiming we have better judgment of what valid church teaching is (based on Scripture), and leave Rome for better pasture.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JesusLovesOurLady

Slave of the Handmaid of the Lord
Feb 15, 2017
2,227
1,657
32
Roman Catholic Diocese of Nelson
✟6,780.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Why is it that you just cannot get it, and instead repeated the same old mantra that has been so plainly refuted time and again? Again, if an infallible magisterium is essential for common people to assuredly ascertain what is of God, then the NT church could not have begun! For the NT church began with common souls having ascertained what/who is of God, both writings (as seen by the abundant invocations of them by Christ and His disciples to the Jews), and men, holding past prophets to be of God and John the Baptist "to be a prophet indeed," as well as the Lord and His disciples being of God, yet whom the magisterial stewards of Scripture rejected.

As much as you insist that it is untenable that common souls can correctly ascertain what/who is of God, and understand preaching and writings of them without an infallible interpreter, the very NT church (which Catholics imagine themselves to be) refutes you!

In addition, a second infallible interpreter simply moves the problem to a second level, for it is very manifest that both which magisterial level each RC teachings falls under, as well as their meaning, are to varying degrees subject to interpretation by Catholics, including popes and each magisterial generation.

Nor can you ever show the ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome in Scripture.


I have explained RC theology on magisterial infallibility, and once again you are contrary to how the NT church began, and essentially have invalidated it.

In addition, you have also ignored the fact that very very few Bible verses, if any, have been infallibly interpreted by Rome, and RCs have a great deal of interpretive liberty of the Bible within the parameters of Rome.
Oh! Okay! Now I understand! This was all just yet another attempt to draw attention away from failing Sola Scriptura, and attack Catholicism.

Now I get it!
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.