Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[Albion]

That is absurd! Where do you get this nonsense?

Catholic literature. Some people just quote it without the quotation marks.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Once you read the written word and live by it, the word is verified in your life. It is like someone giving you the answer to the question of life and you self discover it yourself by reconstructing the solution. As the teacher who is the Holy Ghost says there is no right or wrong solution to reach the same answer, as everyone's sanctification path to the answer Jesus Christ is different as grace is apportioned differently by the Teacher/Holy Ghost.

So the solution to the answer/instruction found in the written word is not a universal solution, rather one that is catered to every learner of the faith of Christ, for it is written all truth shall be revealed, that is knock and the door shall be opened and ask and an answer will be given.

The idea of a universal solution to reach the answer as claimed by a religious institution is wrong, for no one will tell his neighbour to know the Lord for all who seek him through the written word instruction will know him from the smallest to the greatest.

A universal solution owing to a religious institution is so wrong, that it is completely in conflict with the original faith once given to the saints. The Christian faith is not based on an institutionalized transmission teaching where they take the place of the Holy Ghost as Teacher/Rabbi, rather the path to God through Christ is one based on multiple instructions by the Holy Ghost to each individual's different learning styles and therefore the faith is catered for the individual and not the individual for the faith as it was in the bygone pharisaical religious institution. As Jesus would say......

Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. (Matthew 12:14)

The Da Vinci Code is written word. If someone reads it and lives by it, is the word verified in their life?

 

[Root of Jesse]

When things are too good to be true they usually are.....that is......

Why have so many people within the religious enterprise being implicated over a very very very long time, some historians write that it was practiced over several hundred years. If as you say the pope or popes rejected it and that it was just a small operation headed by sinful men who were tempted by worldly things then these questions arise......

If the pope (s) knew about the practice why did they not put a stop to it immediately?

What, do you think, the pope is, all powerful? The Bishop is the head of the local Church, and it's the bishop's job to stop incorrect practices. But even the Bishop of one local Church doesn't have the wherewithall to police every priest in his perview. Just like in the recent scandal I've been referring to.

If this practice was so rife across several hundred of years, then what does it say about the cohesionness of the institution itself, that is, was it an internal rebellion resulting in anarchy within the institution?

Why, yes, there has been revolt in the Curia. At times, there have been two or three claims to the papal Chair of Peter, though only one was the Pope. There have also been many times when a pope decrees something, and a national bishops' conference openly dissents from the Pope. The Canadian bishops conference is notorious for this.

Was it that the institution hierarchy was powerless or incompetent to deal with the problem that was practiced across several hundred years?

The Church churns slowly, I will admit. Do you honestly believe that the President of the US has total control over his government?

Was it the case that the popes on face value rejected it but underneath secretively promoted it?

That's hard for anyone to know, unless you're judging hearts. But the truth is that the employed tighter and tighter restrictions until the Council of Trent decreed that it was anathema. Even today, though, people think they can buy indulgences...

I think the latter is the possibility because if we are to take the alleged claim of the infallibility of the religious institution then we must say that the gates of hell should not have prevailed against the alleged church and in this matter a practice that goes unchecked for such a long period of time by the hierarchy is one that is bordering on wilful and knowing acceptance by the hierarchy from the pope down.

The public relations reply in defense that the popes or hierarchy rejected it is an epic fail on their part, which is no different to how deceptively islamic leaders respond when citing rejection of terrorist acts within their own members, after sermon after sermon they slant hatred towards their enemies.

The reason why the religious hierarchy didn't do anything because they loved it, really loved the cash cow Ch ching ch ching ch ching......

Infallibility only involves faith and morals, my friend.

I see, you have the ability to judge others, even though Christ told us we shouldn't, unless we wanted to be judged ourselves...

 

[Root of Jesse]

They were considered divinely inspired because of what is recorded in Luke 24. I do not believe the apostles were confused on what was inspired Scriptures. Thus the TaNaKh mentioned by Christ in Luke 24.

The Tanakh (no patience for all the capitals) was not mentioned by Christ. Also, only two disciples were on the road Emmaus. I'm sure they all agreed what was the OT, though it is never written down anywhere. But other groups of Jews disagreed, and there was no official Canon.

 

[redleghunter]

The Tanakh (no patience for all the capitals) was not mentioned by Christ. Also, only two disciples were on the road Emmaus. I'm sure they all agreed what was the OT, though it is never written down anywhere. But other groups of Jews disagreed, and there was no official Canon.

You are not suggesting there were no written copies of the Law, Prophets and Writings (TaNaKh)?

It was not just the men on the road to Emmaus.

Luke 24: NKJV

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

 

[Root of Jesse]

Regardless of how much you want to make 1Cor. 3 as providing "the clearest and strongest biblical teachings on Purgatory," among other disallowances, it simply remains that this cannot be Purgatory because this judgment and its suffering does not commence at death, as with Purgatory, and thus the vain offering of indulgences" in trying to escape it (which the text also does not support), but awaits the Lords return, as substantiated.

When do you think the judgement of those works takes place? Regarding indulgences, works such as giving alms and praying and fasting are the only ones that gain indulgences...I guess you don't know that.

And that in contrast, as also substantiated, wherever Scripture manifestly deals with the next life location for believers, it is to be with the Lord . (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Which leaves Caths attempting to extrapolate mythical Purgatory from a couple ambiguous texts or ones that manifestly do not refer to believers postmortem suffering.

What about those who turn away from God? Are you saying there's no hell?

Wrong: no works are not being purified, but burned (for he that defiles the temple of God "him shall God destroy" - (1Co. 3:17), so that the planter suffers "loss," (1Co. 3:15) - not a gain, as would be the case if it was purgatorial cleansing- while the works that remain are nowhere said to be purified, but that they "abide. "

Meanwhile, the works are not said to be personal character defects, but building materials/means used to build the church with, as in tares versus wheat, reflective of the means used in building they church, which all engage in, directly or indirectly. Bringing souls into the church by carnal means (even by supporting such) that defile the temple means their destruction and the believers loss of rewards, while those of true faith gain rewards. And thus, speaking of rewards given at that judgment seat, Paul says that says to the Thessalonians and Philippians that they are Paul's joy and crown. As shown.

I guess you don't know that it's alms, prayer and fasting that builds the Church...

The judgment seat of Christ is manifestly not about being purified in order to enter Heaven, but is about the given and loss of rewards, with those who suffer loss being saved despite this loss, not because of them.

Which has been said before, yet RCs insist on reading into Scripture what they can only wish was being said.

There simply are no personal imperfections that need to be “burned up,” but tares will be, but not at the actual judgment seat, and the text does not say that there are any imperfections actually at the judgment seat itself, but the judgment refers refers to the testing that takes place on that Day of the Lord:
Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. (1 Corinthians 3:13)

The CCC is a poor substitute for Scripture, which does not teach this.

The CCC contains nearly every line of Scripture, and explains it. In other words, it's not a substitute, it's a companion.

As a point of fact, all believers are said to be with the Lord at death, or will be at the Lord's coming, as shown, not purgatory and the holy city that Rev. 21:27 refers to is of Heaven, but Heaven is manifestly of greater sphere, for if you really want to press the issue of judgment not being possible in Heaven if there are imperfections there, then you must place the Great White Throne judgment someplace else.

However, the fact is that God abhors evil as the hyperbole (cf. Prv. 15:3; Jer. 16:17) of Hab 1:13 states, and nothing unclean will enter the Heavenly City, nor will evil dwell with God, (Ps. 5:4) but believers are already "accepted in the the Beloved," and "made to sit together with Him in Heaven" (Eph. 1:6; 2;6) and have direct access spiritually into the holy of holies, for if of true saving faith, they are always considered to be washed, sanctified and justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of God. (1Co. 6:11)

It is their positional righteousness by effectual faith that made them to sit together with Christ in Heaven, despite not being practically perfect, and on the same basis can be with God at death, while "he that is dead is freed from sin," while it is those who deny the Lord Christ that shall die in their sins. (Jn. 8:24)

"Even more explicit about Purgatory?! Where does this even say it refers to the afterlife, versus the example used, replete with judge and officer?

And if referring to spiritual realities, then again, why must this refer to the afterlife, versus temporal judgment such as inflicted in church discipline in this life as in 1Co. 5; 1Tim. 1:10, and which fits with this warning.

And if referring to the next life, then where or where is this taught in the life of the church (Acts onward, interpretive of the gospels), with its manifest teaching on the afterlife, yet wherever it manifestly speaks of the after life for believers, we only see it taught that believers go to be with the Lord at death or at His return.

Even if you restrict 1Ths. 4:17 to only the Thessalonians, do you suppose that all the Thessalonians were so perfect enough in character so that they would be fit to be henceforth be with the Lord when He returned, as they expected Him to? Let alone a few hours in the cross making one perfect in character, which takes more than just inescapable suffering.

Also, sins not being forgiven in the world to come refers to the millennial reign of Christ, which RCs deny, and otherwise this is another unclear passage that needs to be interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, which does not teach of believers being forgiven after death, but it does of souls in that millennial kingdom.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Root of Jesse]

You are not suggesting there were no written copies of the Law, Prophets and Writings (TaNaKh)?

Not suggesting that at all. But they weren't portable, I don't believe.

It was not just the men on the road to Emmaus.

He was speaking to two men on the road to Emmaus.

Luke 24: NKJV

44 Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” 45 And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures.

46 Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day, 47 and that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in His name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 And you are witnesses of these things. 49 Behold, I send the Promise of My Father upon you; but tarry in the city of Jerusalem until you are endued with power from on high.”

 

[redleghunter]

Not suggesting that at all. But they weren't portable, I don't believe.He was speaking to two men on the road to Emmaus.

In the verses I posted Jesus Christ was speaking to the apostles. It is evident a few verses earlier.

Starts at verse 36:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24&version=NKJV

 

[Root of Jesse]

Absurd, but which is said by RCs under the premise that history, Scripture and Tradition only mean what Rome does in any conflict, as no less than Manning basically asserted.

In contrast, among other things, the NT church manifestly did not teach perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in the life of the church, nor did it have a separate class of believers distinctively called "saints" or distinctively titled "priests," offering up "real" flesh and blood as a sacrifice for sin, which is to be literally consumed in order to obtain spiritual life.

The Church never infallibly defines anything unless there is a question about it. That's why there is no Canon of Scripture dogmatically defined until Trent, why the Natures of God and the Persons of God were defined in the early Church, and so on. Magisterial infallibility was believed until there was a question about it. Then it was dogmatically defined. Jesus made the Church the authority. John 6 describes Jesus saying we must eat his flesh and drink his blood, and Jesus, being the Lamb of God, must be consumed, as was the Passover meal, before entering the Promised Land. We are all called to be saints. None of these contradict Sacred Scripture.

Nor is it otherwise Scripturally manifest in the life of the church as being the sacrament around which all else revolves, and the "source and summit of the Christian faith," "in which our redemption is accomplished."

But it doesn't contradict Scripture.

Nor is the NT church manifest as looking to Peter as the first of a line of exalted infallible popes reigning over the church from Rome (which even Catholic scholarship provides testimony against), and praying to created beings in Heaven, and being formally justified by ones own sanctification/holiness, and thus enduring postmortem purifying torments in order to become good enough to enter Heaven, and saying rote prayers to obtain early release from it, and requiring clerical celibacy as the norm, among other things.

Is that why Peter wrote 1 Peter? In that letter, he's writing to five churches in Asia, some which were evangelized by Paul. If Peter wasn't the head of the Church, why would he carry the authority to teach those five Churches?

No wonder Catholics rely on amorphous "oral tradition," for under the premise of magisterial infallibility all sorts of fables can be chanelled into binding doctrine, even claiming to "remember" an extraScriptural event which lacks even early historical testimony. , and was opposed by RC scholars themselves the world over as being apostolic tradition.

I'm still waiting for something that contradicts Scripture. Oral tradition isn't the same thing as Sacred Tradition.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where did you obtain that absurdity from? "Catholic Answers?" For hundreds of years SS churches have had preachers with avid audiences who heard their preaching, versus rejecting it because it was not actually Scripture, but Scriptural preaching. Which preaching of the Word all the scattered early church went about doing. (Acts 8:4)

So you don't really believe in Sola Scriptura, you think that Scriptural preaching is valid. Good. That's what we believe.

But it was heard because it was overall Scriptural, and such preachers called on their flock to be as the noble Bereans who made even the preaching of the apostles subject to testing by Scripture.

But it is Catholicism which presumes to make its oral tradition teaching equal to Scripture, with church doctrine being the Supreme Law, but which is not wholly inspired or providing new revelation as was sometimes true of apostolic preaching/teaching.

All Church Dooctrine is wholly inspired. There is no new revelation, by the way, only deeper understanding of revelation.

What pope has even done so?

Has ever done what?

 

[Root of Jesse]

You need to learn that scripture exists without a church putting a stamp on it and saying this is canon. There may have been multiple canons of the OT during Jesus time. That did not concern Jesus. I wonder why it is so important to the Catholics that they think their church special for creating a table of contents 1700 years ago. Jesus managed somehow to find what was true in scripture and used that to teach his disciples. The NT apostles did the same. We know the important books of OT scriptures because of what? Because Jesus and the apostles quoted them and the message they spoke was congruent to it.

You need to learn that the Church determined what books were inspired and what books weren't. There were many, many more texts than just the 27 we canonized.

So now we still have multiple canons and various translations based on a variety of source materials. Despite all these differences, the message of salvation still comes through them. If Jesus were here today, I think he would not have a problem with it. If one argues that Jesus still heads the Church/all saints then he has so allowed it as sufficient for his gospel, just as he didn't have a concern with multiple canons in his day.


And with slight of hand you equate your Bible created 1700 years ago with scripture and only possible because of your church's traditions. Oh how many things are wrong with such a boast.

Inspired by the Holy Spirit = 'slight of hand'?

Scripture existed the moment it was spoken/written. Most of the NT are letters written by apostles. Others are recorded accounts. Regardless, they were all written down in the 1st century. They were not traditions passed down through word of mouth until the Catholic Church came to power and "Romanized" everything. If the RCC could figure out what was true scripture in the 4th century and the apostles could do the same in the 1st century, then everyone in between and after could do the same. Certainly it does provide some benefit when scriptures are mass produced for there to be an established canon. Before then, the apostles, were taught which texts were true scriptures.

Two of the gospels were written by people who never met Jesus. They learn about him how???Through Sacred Tradition. (again, I don't know what "Rome" has to do with anything, except that it was the center of society in Biblical times...)The apostles were not taught which texts were true Scriptures. The apostles taught by Sacred Tradition, regarding the life of Jesus. Matthew and John were apostles, who later wrote, at the behest of their communities, to write-Matthew because he was going abroad to spread The Word, John, because he was close to dying. Prior to that, it was all word of mouth, then Paul reproved his young communities by letter.

Further look to the OT and Daniel for an example of how scripture is immediately recognized as being the truth. Daniel, a prophet, recognized Jeremiah as a prophet that spoke the word of the Lord. Daniel testifies that Jeremiah's words were recorded and circulated such that he recognized it as scripture. The church of that time was in exile. It did not create a new canon and add Jeremiah's book to it such that Daniel could read it less than seventy years later. So if in the OT times a prophet could recognize true scripture immediately, than the NT apostles and later followers could also recognize true scripture without a canon from some authoritarian institution.

Daniel 9:2 in the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, understood from the Scriptures, according to the word of the Lord given to Jeremiah the prophet, that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.​

Most people in Daniel's day could recite Scripture. Didn't need to have them mass-produced. But a point to be made-what were SCRIPTURES, in Daniel's day? He only mentions Jeremiah in this text...

 

[Root of Jesse]

No disagreement in the NT. Disagreement in OT which was as it was in Jesus' day. Somehow Jesus did not think it important to set it straight. I guess the RCC knows better. And in all those books taken out by the reformers, is the path to salvation lost; anything necessary there, any critical doctrines there?

Yeah? Then why did the Sadducees only accept the Torah???

And how is this different than what I quoted from Wikipedia?

A biblical canon or canon of scripture[1] is a list of texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture.​

And so you now profess, the canon not a tradition, but something discerned.

So much for your previous answer to my question for a tradition necessary for salvation that is not in scripture.

I guess we are back to square one. Do you have another answer to my question?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Which means that rather than the one basic duty of RCs been that of following their pastors as docile sheep:

It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.

...to scrutinize the actions of a bishop, to criticize them, does not belong to individual Catholics, but concerns only those who, in the sacred hierarchy, have a superior power; above all, it concerns the Supreme Pontiff, for it is to him that Christ confided the care of feeding not only all the lambs, but even the sheep [cf. John 21:17]. - Est Sane Molestum (1888) Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.novusordowatch.org/est-sane-molestum-leo-xiii.htm

To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor....- Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII;

"....when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority;...

The Bishops form the most sacred part of the Church, that which instructs and governs men by divine right; and so he who resists them and stubbornly refuses to obey their word places himself outside the Church [cf. Matt. 18:18]. But obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces...

Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.

On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en

For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty.

Quite to the contrary, ...a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-x...ents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii.html

Such papal teaching as this is rejected by RCs who hold that they must ascertain the validity of teachings by popes and prelates by examination of the documented warrant for them, while criticizing Prots for essentially doing the same.

Such required judgment leads to disagreements, that of whether these teachings themselves require assent, or what magisterial level each teaching falls under, and thus what manner of assent is required, as well as what that entails, and (to varying degrees) what these teachings mean. As in,

"The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ˜Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. - http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/...counter_is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445

Jesus did tell Peter "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep", "Feed my sheep". The Pope, being the successors of Peter, carry the same heavy responsibility in matters of faith...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Regardless when complete codification is held as taking place (and the council at Jamnia is unlikely), the fact that many writings had been discerned and established and quoted or referenced as Scripture or the word of God testifies to souls doing so, and thus supports the establishment of a canon.

True, but when quoted as as Scripture or the word of God, was the Lord did in refuting the devil, and religious leaders, and establishing His prophetic fulfillment to His disciples, (Mt. 4; 22; Lk. 24:44,45) then it does support canonicity.

Including the reference to the Scriptures as a tripartite body in the latter case, to which the Lord opened the the minds of the disciples (not only apostles) to. Glory to God. And upon which foundation the word of God was preached as wholly inspired of God, including new revelation, both in contrast to Catholic teaching, and recorded as wholly inspired Scripture.

So then the question becomes, "Who do you trust?"

 

[Root of Jesse]

Propaganda continued. In reality, scholarly disagreements over the canonicity (proper) of certain books continued down through the centuries and right into Trent, until it provided the first "infallible," indisputable canon — after the death of Luther.

Thus Luther was no maverick but had substantial RC support for his non-binding canon, and who separately included most of the apocryphal books in his Bible, as per an ancient tradition.

Propaganda, continued...

 

[Albion]

Jesus did tell Peter "Feed my lambs", "Tend my sheep", "Feed my sheep". The Pope, being the successors of Peter, carry the same heavy responsibility in matters of faith...

It's more than apparent in that passage that Christ is speaking to and about Peter, not 200 other people over the course of the next 2000 years claiming to have the idea that they've been given the same commission.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Where do get this restriction from?! Do you really think God looked at what the leaders and people overall of Israel officially professed as being what they really believed? You certainly do not as regards Protestantism, but continue to bend over backwards to defend Catholicism.

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. (Matthew 15:8)

Faulty analogy, as you are avoiding the key aspect that the congregation continually affirms as members those engaged in sodomy and does not engage in any real discipline. If this was the case then most certainly it would warrant the conclusion that the congregation (or leadership) overall believed sodomy was acceptable, or at least they did not see it as warranting Biblical discipline.

What kind of nonsense is this? You seem bound to defend Rome as much as some of its members do. You mean that if a team fails to overall discipline players for continued disregards of rules and treats such as members in good standing, regardless of what official policy states, then it says absolutely nothing about them?!

Dude, the text you seemingly object to a word study, and what i described as Mary worship does not come from " anti-catholics," and is easily documented from RC ones. And i write as one who was a faithful weekly Mass-going RC, and altar boy, lector and CCd teacher before i prayerfully left the church of Rome for evangelicalism, with no personal hurt feelings against Rome, or other aberrant groups i contend against, by God's grace, due to their own unScriptural major errors.

We don't worship Mary. That's not a doctrine, either.

Ratherr Catholics have less in common critically with the ancient NT church Christian faith, as do Prot denoms that are most close to her.

We have the same relationship with the Ancient One Church Christ instituted as an oak does to an acorn.

A false dichotomy. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin, as one cannot have truly believed on the Lord Jesus without turning/changing from some other belief, and what you do manifest what you truly believe, at least at the moment.

But therefore a person who truly believes with Biblical saving faith, which James helps describe, will not refuse to repent, as that would be inconsistent with believing. Thus,

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

Indeed works as a fruit of faith (given opportunity) and not faith that is alone is necessary to be a true believer, though desire can be counted for the act.
superficial consideration and

And just how does that refute my charges against what Catholicism "does and effectually teaches?" Do you really want to argue Catholicism can do nothing, or that its teaching is merely what is officially professed?

That is exactly true. The Church can only propose how to live. The Church cannot impose anything. We do what the Church teaches because we want to, not because we're forced to-that's Islam...

Nor you, for the point is that while your one-sided charges are based on your apparently very limited Prot acquaintances, both current surveys and history testify against you.

What?! If you dared examine the context of passages being commented on as on Galatians 5:21 you could see that it is far from "completely ambiguous!" Do i need to posts even larger responses?
"...they that do such works of the flesh as before enumerated; that is, that live in the commission of these things, whose whole lives are employed in such work, living and dying in such a state, without repentance towards God and faith in Christ, shall never enjoy eternal life..." (Gill on Galatians 5:21)

I dare say you would not have charged this if it was a so-called "church father" doing the commenting, due to your antagonism against Protestantism.


Which is simply not what those sources are teaching, but which you must read into it.

What?! Your charges have been based on your experience with Protestants and have yet to quote one Protestant church teaching. And yet the very term "Protestant" is essentially meaningless without a substantial reference point, as for Catholics it can be so broad that a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Mormon 747 could fly thru thru it. You even call yourself a Protestant when all you have done is attack it and bent over backwards to defend Catholicism!

I was a Protestant, various flavors, most of my life, and cannot determine one "Protestant" teaching.

That is absurd! The Lord Himself said "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them," (Matthew 7:20) and it is easily substantiated that Rome treats even proabortion, prosodomite public figures as members in life and in death.
Ted Kennedy even wrote a hypocritical impenitent letter to the pope shortly before he died, and received a gracious reply, thanking this notorious impenitent evildoer for his prayers, with no manifest reproof. And gave him a church funeral with a nice eulogy, which sends a message to the rest of such.

Which is begging the question, and even if the problematic historical linkage Rome propagates was true, this does not make the church of Rome (or the EOs) that which the Lord founded, and what we seen in the NT, which stands in clear substantial contrast to that church!

To this day, there is only one Church Christ instituted. All baptized Christians are part of it. That Satan tries to divide the sheep is noted.

Once again this is a false analogy, for what we are dealing with is not simply some people who attend that church believing something immoral in opposition to the Church's official teaching, but that of a near majority of such who testify that they do, and that Rome counts and treats such as members in life and in death, with no Biblical discipline, and too often commendation from her pastors.

And upon such basis which many RCs reject modern popes, or teachings, yet according to another papal encyclical the "one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," (VEHEMENTER NOS) and who provide the interpretation of what is written.

See? The pope has no power to force people to believe him, and yet history proves that the Popes are always on the cutting edge, seeing the future quite clearly...

And in so doing it is clearly manifest that she considers multitudes as members, even a majority, of those who recede from points of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Which itself is subject to interpretation by RCs.

For one, only 44% of Catholic affirmed that the pope and bishops have taken the place of Peter and the apostles. (2008 poll of 1,007 self-identified adult Catholics by the Catholic "Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate" (CARA) at Georgetown University; http://cara.georgetown.edu/beliefattitude.pdf)

Oh, you want statistics? Do you know that only 7% of Catholics do the work of the Church? The rest, to one degree or another, some go to Mass every week, some go Christmas, Easter only, some believe the teachings of the Church, some don't. Am I to understand that your criticism of the Catholic Church is that Catholics don't act Catholic enough? If so, I agree.

What nonsense is this? He did just that by defining faith as belief which effects obedience towards its Object. And for which Scripture is the standard for obedience, and which more preaching goes into (do you really think it does not or need i post even more material?). You may as well argue that Scripture provides no objective rule in that definition

So referring to works of faith and obedience and doing what i best for the welfare of others based on Scripture is not providing an objective rule? You might as well as charge the Lord Jesus with failing to do so in teaching "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them," referring to good fruit and bad fruit.

In both cases additional reading provides details, but you are only looking for a way to deny the obvious.

Which is more absurdity in the light of what i posted, for Luther manifestly makes that distinction.
if you continue in pride and lewdness, in greed and anger, and yet talk much of faith, St. Paul will come and say, 1 Cor. 4:20, look here my dear Sir, "the kingdom of God is not in word but in power." It requires life and action, and is not brought about by mere talk.” [Sermons of Martin Luther 2.2:341-342]

if obedience and God’s commandments do not dominate you, then the work is not right, but damnable, surely the devil’s own doings, although it were even so great a work as to raise the dead. [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:244]

How? By the very evidence of what it effects! If you value the use of your PC then you will not click on some suspicious attachment, unless you believe that what it contains is worth the risk. And as far a what one's god is, a person who believes money will buy him happiness will order his life accordingly. A false god is that which is your ultimate source of security, the highest object of your spiritual affection, and of obedience, all of which will be shown by your choices.

That is insanity! We are speaking here of Biblical, saving faith, and which is obviously Luther's standard. Yet you assert "Saying faith is not present when works don't follow is an unwarranted assumption without any evidence"?! Ever hear of "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." (James 2:17)

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. (Titus 1:16)

Of course, if Luther wrote the latter you would say he was being too ambiguous.

That's different because the RCC would admit they are believers and not claim "well they believe but they aren't true believers."
Wrong again, as neither Luther not me is saying "well they believe but they aren't true believers," but that based upon the objective standard of Scripture those whose faith does not effect characteristic obedience toward the Lord Jesus are not effectually believing, they do not have Biblical saving faith.

NO, they are not identical except in your silly mind because in the case of Luther he is manifestly referring an objective standard for saving faith, and thus a true believer, and which (following your analogy) identifies a true Scotman as one who does not put sugar on his porridge, and in reality defines what good works which faith effects are!

Your absurd irrational contortionist attempts to make your case against Protestantism while excusing Catholicism marginalizes you as one unfit for attempts at meaningful and civil debate!

And which is thus dead faith, meaning no saving faith. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

Scripture does teach faith always characteristically results in love and good works. (Heb. 6:9,10; 1Ths. 1:4-10)

And just how could the authors be confident that these were believers in the lighr of their characteristic love and good works unless faith always characteristically results in love and good works? Talk about basic logic!

No, as being rewarded for works testifies to effectual faith, which is rewarded. Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward. (Hebrews 10:35)

Where and how? Because Hebrews 10:35 states that God rewards faith in recognition of its works, and as shown, works testify to effectual faith.


Wrong in the latter, for as said, one acts according what one truly believes, at least as the moment, and saving faith, which is the issue, is one that works the "obedience of faith."

The fact that the demons tremble because they believe God is real (Ja. 2:19) and will thus judge and punish them (Mt. 8:29) evidences that what one believes has effects, while one who has no faith in God at all will reflect that, but saving faith is that which effects characteristic obedience toward the Lord, including repentance when convicted of not doing so.

We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; (2 Corinthians 4:13)

But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. (Acts 8:12)

Again, the issue has been and is saving faith, which presumes rationality, while the one who does not repent in your case is acting consistent with his faith, in a lie.

Wrong again, it was because they did not have the effectual faith which is counted for righteousness. No one was ever converted and obtained acceptance in the Beloved and were made to sit with Him in Heaven, etc. because they had enough works mixed with their faith, but he that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. (Romans 4:5)

As said, they works justify one as being a believers, not a faith that is alone, which is not saving faith, but it dead.

Your valid distinctions ignore the broad nature of this teaching which evidences it is meant to be inclusive of "those not living within the Catholic Church" "that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."

And this broad exclusion is seen in similar historical RC teaching such "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church;" "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors, and like elitist heresy.

Wrong: that is inline with manifest 1st century belief.
In contradiction to this Vatican 2 teaching (despite its often ambiguity and competing influences) affirmed (properly) baptized Prots as being members of the body of Christ and (separated) brethren of Catholics:

Which multitudes of RCs disagree with, or interpret differently, while the pope high-fives and rejoices with evangelicals. Follow the leader they tell us.

This is false as scripture do not say Jesus created one church that only consists of those visibly in one organic church, while showing that some who were part of the visible community were lost, (Jn. 6:70) or needed to be put out of it, (1Co. 5) and that visible churches ranged from those that were only commendable to those with fornicators, or fit to be spit out, (Rv. 2,3) but that the body of Christ is one and only consists of believers. (1 Corinthians 12:12-14

The Lord also affirmed such believers as are outside the apostolic company but who manifestly do ministry in His name, (Lk. 9:49.50) and baptizes souls who have no visible church to go to or pastor to lead them. (Acts 8:36-39)

Even Rome considers many of those without her church as belonging to the body of Christ. Meanwhile, nowhere is the church told or exhorted to look to, submit to, or pray for Peter as its one supreme head in Rome.

Does this go with your assertion that Luther's exhortation to Scriptural obedience lacks an objective standard? And characteristic means as a overall practice, and which for believers includes repentance.

Why is characteristic obedience in Scripture so ambiguous. First we do not lack an objective non-ambiguous standard. When John writes, "By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments" (1 John 5:2) he was not referring to an ambiguous standard, but to characteristic obedience to the righteousness of that body of Truth, and its further revelation which is said to be perfect, convert the soul, make wise the simple, rejoice the heart, enlighten the eyes, endure for ever, and more to be desired than much fine gold, being true and righteous altogether, (Psalms 19:7-10) and providing what is needed to make one complete, being preached by the church. (2Tim. 3:15-17)

When the Lord stated that "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matthew 4:4) He was quoting from an established body of Truth, to which more would be added, and which enables one to obey the will of God.

Thus we see 9 out the 10 commandments reiterated under the New Covenant (with covenantal distinctions made), and expansion of the righteousness of the law, which believers by the Spirit are enabled to work to fulfil: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. (Romans 8:4)

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

Which is not inclusive, while Gal. 5:19-23 adds to this and lists fruits of the Spirit.

And that body of Truth describes righteous men of faith as those whose lives were marked by characteristic obedience to God, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, Job, Daniel, etc., and in the further revelation of the NT we see others such as the apostles. And whose failures are therefore characteristic, being set in contrast to their general life.

Rome effectually infers that even Ted Kennedy type Catholics will finally attain Heaven due to their baptism and the merits of Rome (and their own), then you have such Protestants being more Catholic than Rome effectually is.

I highly suggest you cease from resorting to such vain attempts to deny what Catholic sources themselves provide. Do you want me to provide more?

The Church only holds out that God is merciful for the benefit of those loved ones of the deceased. It is a problem, though. We often canonize people when they die, though they may not deserve it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It's more than apparent in that passage that Christ is speaking to and about Peter, not 200 other people over the course of the next 2000 years claiming to have the idea that they've been given the same commission.

Maybe to you...but when you see the rest of Scripture, you find apostolic succession. See when Matthias was chosen to replace Judas...and when Paul appointed Timothy and Titus.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In the verses I posted Jesus Christ was speaking to the apostles. It is evident a few verses earlier.

Starts at verse 36:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+24&version=NKJV

Then the two men didn't have to rush back to Jerusalem and tell the others what they had experienced???

 

[Albion]

Maybe to you.

Well, it's hardly just something I alone think.

And, really, it's quite a stretch to jump immediately from "Feed my sheep Peter" to "the Popes carry it (what?) on as was intended by Christ when he said that."

BTW, Apostolic Succession wasn't the issue there but, rather, Papal Supremacy.