Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I get it.Neither. We're looking at Protestants bearing false witness and slandering the church.
How much is a new irony meter?"chilehed, post:This sounds like you're a solipsist. Solipsism is ultimately self contradicting, but if it were true the point of the OP would be moot and you've likely been spending an awful lot of time in a corner somewhere talking to yourself. *grin*
.That's not quite what I said. But in fact, a lot of random schmos wrote documents that claimed to be works of the Apostles. That was one of the problems that the councils intended address
Slow down. Who you callin' "we", paleface?And if the decision was erroneous, if some of the books included in the canon shouldn't be there, then we can't be sure that any specific part of the bible is actually the inerrant work of God.
Either way, examining the process is the only way to investigate the answer. This just amounts to "go along and be right" or "protest and be wrong".Irrelevant. In the end the councils made a decision, and every one that dealt with the question, from Hippo to Trent, agreed on the same set of books. What matters is the decision, not the messy process that preceded the decision. The only question that matters is "was the decision right, or was it wrong?".
But unless you die immediately, you will need to perform works in order to be saved.The RCC believes this too. Trent clearly states that converts are justified at conversion by grace thru faith apart from works.
1. They're dead.How is asking a Christian in Heaven to pray for you any different than asking a Christian on Earth to pray for you?
When you cite document in order to prove the Catholic position correct but insist upon citing what some alleged Protestant minister or laymen does in order to prove what you want us to think the Protestant teaching is, you're not being straightforward and the argument is not valid.The problem with that is faith is often alone in people I've met and their pastor's all convinced them they are saved.
What church body teaches that?The problem is the premise that faith always results in godliness is completely false especially when faith is watered down to just believing one verse of scripture (Rom 10:9).
As I said, that's off topic when discoursing with Orthodox Christians, because we never had a Pope telling us what to do. The idea of Papal Supremacy was never part of the Eastern churches.
The use of the term "Protestantism" by Catholics is basically meaningless, being typically so broad you could fit a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian 747 in it."The problem of Sola Scriptura being an inconsistently held doctrine that allows for all of the divisions that Protestantism has, that's on topic.
As your premise is false then so is your conclusion. SS does not and need not contain all there is to know in the realm of faith, nor can you say Oral T. provides it."You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.""
I get it.
Define church wrong, get most everything about it wrong.
Let's just peacefully agree to disagree, shall we?
But unless you die immediately, you will need to perform works in order to be saved
1. They're dead.
2. There is no scriptural directive to pray to them, as there is with your neighbor.
3. You have no way of knowing if the dead are in heaven, can hear your prayer, can do anything about it...or not.
When you cite document in order to prove the Catholic position correct but insist upon citing what some alleged Protestant minister or laymen does in order to prove what you want us to think the Protestant teaching is, you're not being straightforward and the argument is not valid.
What church body teaches that?
The oral tradition in most cultures is extremely reliable, until you have a written tradition that exists within a literate community. The irony is the better we get at reading and writing the less reliably we handle the oral traditions. Writing does however freeze them in time. We have probably only really had a literate population in the west for about 300 or so years. If you have done any family history you realise that not to far back spelling was an optional extra!How can an oral tradition be more trustworthy than script?
Yeah, they sold indulgences. Amazing how some try to spin out of it. http://courses.wcupa.edu/jones/his101/web/37luther.htm
I thought they were funding the building program!That link is merely someone's opinion. Although giving someone an indulgence for donating $10 to the church sounds similar to selling an indulgence for $10 it is not the same so claiming they sold indulgences without explaining what actually happened is bearing false witness. Amazing how some who claim to follow scripture have no problem bearing false witness despite scripture saying God hates a lying tongue.
And yours is just an opinion. But it seems as though you acknowledge the practice of selling indulgence by the church.That link is merely someone's opinion. Although giving someone an indulgence for donating $10 to the church sounds similar to selling an indulgence for $10 it is not the same so claiming they sold indulgences without explaining what actually happened is bearing false witness. Amazing how some who claim to follow scripture have no problem bearing false witness despite scripture saying God hates a lying tongue.
It's true that the RCC granted--and still does grant--indulgences for good deeds. But an indulgence has meaning ONLY as it relates to Purgatory, which is NOT a tradition but was invented during the Late Middle Ages, shortly before it became an issue in the German states and with Dr. Luther.The facts are clear. The RCC granted indulgences for good deeds. The myth of selling indulgences is related to one of those good deeds being donating money to the church. It was a practice, not a tradition, that the RCC ended because of the potential for abuse and confusion among Protestants.
You're mistaken.The RC teaching is those who are justified are infused with charity/love of God at conversion. As long as they continue to love God they will remain justified. No works need to be performed in order to become saved or stay saved.
Not only does my church teach when you cease to breathe, your brain waves go flat, and your heart stops beating, it's called being "dead," but so does every other one.That's sad if your church teaches that.
There is no "the Protestant Church, " either, so you're trying to make the RCC look united by comparing it--a single denomination--with thousands of other churches at once. I can make almost any denomination look to be the One True Church if I pull that trick.The Catholic Church has one position/teaching. Protestantism is divided into thousands of denominations so there is no such thing as "the Protestant teaching."
God didn't just help pen the Bible and then shut up for all eternity until the second coming. God is speaking. God has not spoken and stopped. He is always speaking all the time. I think scripture, as SS seems to suggest, is meant to help test to see if that voice is of God or another.This is not going to be some long winded word game. It is easy.
1) God's Word is True, incontrovertibly true.
2) Scripture is God's Word.
3) Scripture is incontrovertibly true.
4) Prove another source of incontrovertible truth.
5) No other physical source of incontrovertible truth on earth has been proven.
By default, there is only Sola Scriptura.
Yes, there have been multiple threads on SS. The problem is that all the attacks on SS put the burden to prove there are no other source of incontrovertible truth on the holders to SS. How ridiculous is that? The burden is on those that believe in another source of incontrovertible truth. Despite being asked multiple times in other threads, no proof has been given for incontrovertible truth in any other earthly source.
So if you think anything but SS, I challenge you to prove to me another source of incontrovertible truth.
Can you list a single tradition/doctrine necessary for salvation that is not in scripture? If you can't do that than, complete it is.You claim the Scripture is complete, but it can't even contain the finite amount of things Christ said while on earth, much less all of the Truth. And if it were complete, it would have come prepackaged with the Canon.
Is he speaking new information that corrects or supplements what he revealed in Scripture, which itself tells us that what is revealed there is sufficient?God didn't just help pen the Bible and then shut up for all eternity until the second coming. God is speaking.
There's quite a difference between new revelation given to all mankind...and speaking, as needed, to individuals without altering the testimony of Scripture.He is always speaking all the time.
Yes, God continues to speak to us through the Holy Spirit. That in no way counters SS. You profess that what one teaches should be tested against scripture, that means it is not a new revelation. The opposing view is that some churches have divine inspiration that is outside of scripture and must be accepted true because they say it is true.God didn't just help pen the Bible and then shut up for all eternity until the second coming. God is speaking. God has not spoken and stopped. He is always speaking all the time. I think scripture, as SS seems to suggest, is meant to help test to see if that voice is of God or another.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?