Easiest Defense of Sola Scriptura

[redleghunter]

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

Not knowing where you are going with this.

Jesus vanished from the two on the road to Emmaus as he ate with them. They realized it was Him and went to tell the 11. Then Jesus appears to the 11 and others:

Luke 24: (NKJV)

30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.

32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.

36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.

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.”(NKJV)

Jesus Christ made the proclamation of the Scriptures (Moses-Law; The Prophets, Psalms--The Writings) to the 11 and others present.

 

[Berean777]

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

The Da Vinci code is no different in construct and continuity than that of the institutional doctrine that relies heavily on antithesis of the faith, that is diametrically opposed to the writings of the four gospel accounts. The odd one out is usually the odd one out and when dated and put alongside its context of situation and context of culture, it is determined to be a later manifestation, that has origins other than Christianity.

The Da Vinci Code is an idea shared by no other second or third primary source that would make it verifiable as one that existed at the time of the apostolic writings. It is therefore a later manifestation and antithesis to the four gospels. This gospel came in the form of the later numerous anti gospels and anti doctrine that had diametrically opposing information and instructions to the fellowship of the congregation. It was an effort by opposers to sabotage the faith and when Rome was under attack by sola scripture advocates, they released this antigospel through their external sources (Coptic origin) to throw a screw driver in the spoke so to speak. The idea of Rome or church institutions suppressing its release is a propaganda ploy by Rome and others to divert attention from their true motive of releasing it.

 

[Berean777]

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

Historical evidence paints it to be more wide spread and rampant than you would have me or others believe. The point I was making is that it was not one, two, three or four bishops that made it a practice, rather it was much much more. In fact if I asked you which bishop during those times never practiced it, you would have a diffuse time giving me one bishop. It is apparent that it was a wide spread practice over a long period of time. The infallible of an institution is a statement of faith that it is beyond corruption and this my friend is the point of our contention, because I believe it was a form of institutional corruption that suited the institution fine back then fir raising much needed funds to bolster its empire.

If an institution can be corrupted by its sons so to speak, then it cannot be infallible, because her sons are by no means infallible. Her sons reflect her, because on her own the relgious institution is not a life onto itself, that is it is not eternal like the Living God.

 

[samir]

Where do get this restriction from?!

Basic logic. It doesn't make sense to apply it to the church.

Do you really think God looked at what the leaders and people overall of Israel officially professed as being what they really believed?

It's not about what individual people believe but what the church teaches.

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.

Even if every single person in the church believed sodomy was acceptable it still wouldn't change the teaching of the church.

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?!

Those who want to follow Jesus do so through the Church he founded. They follow what the Church teaches and that teaching isn't effected by the actions of any individuals within that church. If individuals do bad things all it shows is there are sinners in the church, not that Jesus' Church is bad.

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.

Catholics do not worship Mary. If your knowledge of Catholicism is that deficient, there is nothing I can do to help you and I will not be able to discuss Catholicism with you until you first learn the basicsof what the Catholic Church teaches.

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

This shows you haven't read the writings of members of the NT church.

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.

You must not know very many people. There are plenty of people who believe in Jesus but are unwilling to repent. They won't be saved because faith alone isn't enough.

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.

This Protestant tradition of your can't be found anywhere in scripture.

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)

Interpretation error. Denying the faith doesn't mean he never believed. Peter denied his faith yet he still believed.

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?

The only reason I see for this objection is an unwillingness to follow Christ. Scripture clearly says Jesus promised to build His church upon Peter as the foundation. The behavior of individual members of His church is not an excuse to disobey God.



I might reply to your other posts later if I have time but I don't see the value in continuing discussion. I think you would learn more by reading some good books that can explain the basics of the Christian faith and other church teaching.

 

[pescador]

Aside from everything else you said "Those who want to follow Jesus do so through the Church he founded." Which church is that? It's certainly not the Catholic church. In fact I don't recall Jesus starting any particular church; the disciples did that.

And please don't quote "upon this rock I will build my church", as Jesus called Peter "Satan" immediately thereafter.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You said Jesus was speaking to the apostles, I assume you were speaking of the group, yet there were only two men on the road to Emmaus. So, if Jesus was speaking to 'the apostles', the two men didn't need to rush back to Jerusalem to proclaim what they heard from Him?

Not knowing where you are going with this.

Jesus vanished from the two on the road to Emmaus as he ate with them. They realized it was Him and went to tell the 11. Then Jesus appears to the 11 and others:

Luke 24: (NKJV)

30 Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.

32 And they said to one another, “Did not our heart burn within us while He talked with us on the road, and while He opened the Scriptures to us?” 33 So they rose up that very hour and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven and those who were with them gathered together, 34 saying, “The Lord is risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!” 35 And they told about the things that had happened on the road, and how He was known to them in the breaking of bread.

36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet. 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.

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.”(NKJV)

Jesus Christ made the proclamation of the Scriptures (Moses-Law; The Prophets, Psalms--The Writings) to the 11 and others present.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Da Vinci code is no different in construct and continuity than that of the institutional doctrine that relies heavily on antithesis of the faith, that is diametrically opposed to the writings of the four gospel accounts. The odd one out is usually the odd one out and when dated and put alongside its context of situation and context of culture, it is determined to be a later manifestation, that has origins other than Christianity.

The Da Vinci Code is an idea shared by no other second or third primary source that would make it verifiable as one that existed at the time of the apostolic writings. It is therefore a later manifestation and antithesis to the four gospels. This gospel came in the form of the later numerous anti gospels and anti doctrine that had diametrically opposing information and instructions to the fellowship of the congregation. It was an effort by opposers to sabotage the faith and when Rome was under attack by sola scripture advocates, they released this antigospel through their external sources (Coptic origin) to throw a screw driver in the spoke so to speak. The idea of Rome or church institutions suppressing its release is a propaganda ploy by Rome and others to divert attention from their true motive of releasing it.

You said "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." The Da Vinci Code is the written word as are the Scriptures. What sets one apart from the other? (I know-the Da Vinci Code is a novel, but you seem to love 'the written word'. I love God's Word, and the Church that gives us all of it in the banquet.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Historical evidence paints it to be more wide spread and rampant than you would have me or others believe. The point I was making is that it was not one, two, three or four bishops that made it a practice, rather it was much much more. In fact if I asked you which bishop during those times never practiced it, you would have a diffuse time giving me one bishop. It is apparent that it was a wide spread practice over a long period of time. The infallible of an institution is a statement of faith that it is beyond corruption and this my friend is the point of our contention, because I believe it was a form of institutional corruption that suited the institution fine back then fir raising much needed funds to bolster its empire.

If an institution can be corrupted by its sons so to speak, then it cannot be infallible, because her sons are by no means infallible. Her sons reflect her, because on her own the relgious institution is not a life onto itself, that is it is not eternal like the Living God.

So what? There are lots of wide-spread practices that are not part of Church Teaching, yet Catholics do them. Support for abortion, for one. That doesn't mean the Church believes it or teaches it. It means that the Church has a doctrine and some decide not to follow it.
The institution of The Church is infallible because Christ is infallible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Aside from everything else you said "Those who want to follow Jesus do so through the Church he founded." Which church is that? It's certainly not the Catholic church. In fact I don't recall Jesus starting any particular church; the disciples did that.

And please don't quote "upon this rock I will build my church", as Jesus called Peter "Satan" immediately thereafter.

Why, do you think, is it "not the Catholic church"? Jesus didn't call Peter Satan. He spoke to Satan who desired to 'have' Peter. Christ told us this, too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

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.

As if what I say is merely what I think....very ironic you should say that.

It's more than "Feed my sheep." The apostles immediately declared a successor to Judas, and Paul also appointed successors to himself-Timothy and Titus.

 

[pescador]

Why, do you think, is it "not the Catholic church"? Jesus didn't call Peter Satan. He spoke to Satan who desired to 'have' Peter. Christ told us this, too.

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

This was said directly to Peter the man. Catholics often cite Jesus saying to Peter "on this rock I will build my church" as the start of the Catholic church and proclaim Peter to be the first Pope. Five verses later(!) Jesus calls Peter "Satan", not "Pope".

There is no biblical basis for Catholics to claim that they are the one true church, started by Jesus. None.

 

[Berean777]

So what? There are lots of wide-spread practices that are not part of Church Teaching, yet Catholics do them. Support for abortion, for one. That doesn't mean the Church believes it or teaches it. It means that the Church has a doctrine and some decide not to follow it.
The institution of The Church is infallible because Christ is infallible.

Here you go off again proclaiming a religious institution as a life onto itself, as if it has eternal life and is perpetually existing without being made accountable by the actions of her many sons, throughout history. In doing this you present a sinless institution that can do no wrong, as if it is God. This is a form of idolatry friend, it really is idolatry. The idol that is being raised in a similar way the golden calf was raised by the ancient Israelites as their salvation, is no different to making a non living entity as if it has indestructible life in its self and it is venerated as an idol of righteousness as if it is God.

A religious institution that sets itself up in this way has unwittingly been made an idol of much veneration and worship. Believe it or not this form of temple centred worship is modelled after the bygone Pharisical religious institution that Jesus had abandoned as her spiritual husband and who made that house desolate.

If we draw your line of thinking, then we can say Hitler's Nazi party or Sadam's Baathist or Moa's Communist party are infallible and unaccountable to the actions of its hierarchy who did evil acts in the name of that institution/party.

Simply how can a religious institution be any different in principle?

Unless that religious institution is thought of as if it is God himself, that is sinless.

Let me ask you this question....is the RCC sinless?

Yes/No.

 

[Berean777]

Matthew 16:23, "But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

This was said directly to Peter the man. Catholics often cite Jesus saying to Peter "on this rock I will build my church" as the start of the Catholic church and proclaim Peter to be the first Pope. Five verses later(!) Jesus calls Peter "Satan", not "Pope".

There is no biblical basis for Catholics to claim that they are the one true church, started by Jesus. None.

I agree. They have no biblical basis in making the claim, similar to many other cults who rip versus out of scripture to raise their own religious idols. For example Bahuallah who is revered by the Bahia faith and Muhammad by the Muslims.

When a religious institution is made into a sinless eternal god, then we have a diametrically opposing faith movement, as compared to the 1st century apostolic Ekklesia.

 

[Albion]

It's more than "Feed my sheep." The apostles immediately declared a successor to Judas, and Paul also appointed successors to himself-Timothy and Titus.

We were talking about Papal Supremacy. The point you are making here is not about the Papacy or Papal Supremacy.

 

[Berean777]

You said "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." The Da Vinci Code is the written word as are the Scriptures. What sets one apart from the other? (I know-the Da Vinci Code is a novel, but you seem to love 'the written word'. I love God's Word, and the Church that gives us all of it in the banquet.

Aside from the Da Vinci code that you brought up, let us disect and to scrutinise your claim....

I love God's Word, and the Church that gives us all of it in the banquet

Many if not all Christians inclusive of Catholics make the claim that they love God's Word.

So there is no distinction between the written Word contained in the Holy Bible and God's Word. This means that your comment about me below is no different to your claim of loving God's Word...

you seem to love 'the written word'

When we disect and to scrutinise your comment above, we can take it from a pure heart to mean that I too like your claim love God's Word. Offcourse there is another meaning that results from an impure heart and that is that the written Word of the Holy Bible is not God's Word and so I who follow the written word found in the four gospel accounts does not equal God's Word.

Isn't this the issue of contention that the thread topic is trying to adress?

Easiest defense of Sola Scripture.

If for example sake, say that the inpure heart claims that me loving the written word is not the same of loving God's word, then let the scrutiny begin........

To me the Holy Ghost and Christ Jesus as my Kingly Chief Priest, are the ones to direct and to counsel me as my wonderful counsellors to the truth of God's Word.

So I lookup to and solely depend on Jesus as my God, who as the faithful shepherd, will come true with his promise that if I ask it will be given to me; if I seek (self discover) and I will find; if I knock and the door will be opened to me. (Matthew 7:7)

So Jesus does instruct the faithful to individually self discover and to own their faith as independent born again Christians. That is why our wonderful teacher and counselor Jesus instructs us to individually to ask, to seek and to knock on his door as the Chief High Priest who intercedes on our behalves in the Holy of Holies.

So the comment that I made in a previous post that you quoted is valid to how we are to grow and to come into the fullness of the Lord, that is if we are to take the faithful Lord at his word. The pure and repented heart will take the Lord on his word and to consider him as the only way, the only truth and the only life, for Jesus lives in us as he promised you in me and I in you, as he stands at the door of our hearts and knocks for us to open, so that he comes in and SUPS/commune with us.

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."

What I have presented above is from a faithful born again and pure in heart Christian.

Now let us scrutinise your position.....

You said......

the Church that gives us all of it in the banquet

Firstly, by claiming that a religious institution gives you all of God's Word in order to complete your faith, you are implying that the 1st century apostles who as part of the great commission, had preached the word and established the faith, had somehow not given the complete faith. So that further doctrine some several hundred years later by a religious institution needed to make further additions to the faith in order to complete it.

If we are to draw your line of reasoning in regards to your claim, then those who were called to Christ, including the disciples and apostles had incomplete faith resulting from incomplete word of God and in this regard their salvation were incomplete. You said.......

the Church that gives us all of it in the banquet

So the banquet as you phrased it was incomplete as you claim, before a religious institution organised itself to then some several hundred years later to come up with a complete banquet.

Even if you don't consider a single word that I said above, your claim places a religious institution in place of the Holy Ghost and Jesus, by making it the wonderful counsellor and teacher who is the way the truth and the life. By so doing you make the institution the sinless and eternal God who came on Pentecost.

Your claim disturbs me so much that I would say that I would no more give credibility to your claim as I would to cult religious groups who advocate similar faith statements that places their institution as deity providing all the banquet.

Your claim and your religious institution's position is so diametrically opposed to the promises and instructions that Jesus had given the faithful within the 1st century, that a religious institution would place itself in place of God and to claim that it is God by the very promises that it alleges to be able to give, that are not her promises to give in the first place.

The abomination of desolation placed as if it is the Holy God is a plagerising of the 1st century apostolic faith and making it theirs when it is not theirs.

Anyone or any religious institution can claim anything and when things don't add up, there is usually plagerising of the original faith and theft is the result. Many cults and gnostics had stolen ideas from 1st century apostolic faith. These include Islam, Bahai movement and many others.

As Jesus would say you shall know them by their works. Hitler wanted to make the Nazi party sinless in the face of Germans, the Germans would never question the institution even when what it stood for was manifesting in murder. Any religious institution that has blood on its hands can not use an excuse of institution infallibility by taking versus out of context from the bible and making ridiculous claims that makes their institution unaccountable to the actions of those who represent it.

Fortunately as I said the world took out the Nazi party, Baath party and the rest of these so called infallible murderous institution.

As the Lord said you shall know them by their works.

 

[redleghunter]

You said Jesus was speaking to the apostles, I assume you were speaking of the group, yet there were only two men on the road to Emmaus. So, if Jesus was speaking to 'the apostles', the two men didn't need to rush back to Jerusalem to proclaim what they heard from Him?

Please look at the entire text.

 

[Berean777]

Please look at the entire text.

Truth comes by many witnesses of Christ. As the famous line goes......

Some cannot handle the truth.

Jesus said....

The truth shall set you free.

Let me add that the truth shall set you free from a religious institution that places itself in place of God as if it is the sinless, infallible, righteous and eternal God.

Listen and accept the testimony from numerous witnesses of Jesus. If people don't accept these testimonies that open up scriptures to those blinded by their religious institutions then there is no excuse based ignorance, that they can plead or relly on when the Lord calls them to give an answer.

 

[samir]

Aside from everything else you said "Those who want to follow Jesus do so through the Church he founded." Which church is that? It's certainly not the Catholic church. In fact I don't recall Jesus starting any particular church; the disciples did that.

Jesus promised to build His church in Matthew 16. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be the Catholic church. It's certainly not one of the Protestant sects.

And please don't quote "upon this rock I will build my church", as Jesus called Peter "Satan" immediately thereafter.

How is Jesus calling Peter "Satan" relevant? Do you think Jesus lied or changed his mind after Peter denied him?

 

[Rick Otto]

Catholics do not worship Mary. If your knowledge of Catholicism is that deficient, there is nothing I can do to help you and I will not be able to discuss Catholicism with you until you first learn the basicsof what the Catholic Church teaches.

"hyper-dulia"

 

[samir]

Continued - Part 2

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)

The Protestants I informed of this passage on these forums all rejected it. Some dismissed the passage by interpreting it to not apply to believers so that it means only unbelievers who do such works won't be saved. Others interpreted it the opposite and acknowledged it was written to believers but dismissed it by saying not inheriting the kingdom means they only lose an inheritance in the kingdom but not the kingdom itself giving believers a license to sin because all they lose is a reward. For the few Protestants who don't reject this part of God's word they of course don't think it describes them. They admitting doing works of the flesh but say "Hey, we're all sinners who sin everyday because no one is perfect. It's okay that I ... (fill in the blank - adultery, fornicate, steal, etc) because I don't do it habitually or constantly but only once or twice a week. As long as they only cheat on their spouse on Friday's and Saturday's and are faithful the other 5 days of the week they aren't living constantly in sin so they're still saved is their reasoning.

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!

Many Protestants sects are Baptist or non-denominational where pastors are free to interpret the bible however they please. I could provide hundreds of quotes but based on past experience with Protestants I doubt you'd listen to any of them so I won't waste my time again.

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.

The good fruit on the Catholic and Orthodox churches draws me to them. If someone claiming to be a member of one of those churches is pro-sodomy that is a bad fruit of that individual and not relevant to the good fruit of the church.

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!

Not begging the question at all. Just basic logic.

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.

If Jesus' church condemns sodomy it doesn't matter if every single individual who sits at that church is pro-sodomy. It still won't change the fact that Jesus' church condemns it for all to see and follow.

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.

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)

Irrelevant. None of that changes the church's teaching.

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.

Since faith is belief it can't effect obedience toward anyone or anything. A person who believes must choose whether to act differently based on his belief. If you want to define faith as only including people who act a certain way that's fine as the bible does too but then it's no longer faith alone anymore and no different than what the catholic church teaches.

Protestants often get confused because faith has two different definitions in scripture. One definition is a firm intellectual assent to the truth. It means firmly believing what Jesus taught. Some who believe choose to repent (turn from sin) and live for God. Others who don't won't be saved because faith alone is not enough. The second definition is similar to faithfulness and refers to those who faithfully follow Jesus after firmly assenting to what he taught. Using that definition, you could technically say a person is saved by faith alone but it would be very misleading and confusing because it's no different than being justified by works along with faith using the first definition.

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

You sure like to judge but all of your accusations are false so it's all unrighteous judgment. I consider that a bad fruit. I see it often in Protestants.

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]

Another way of saying that is a person is justified by works and not by faith alone which is what scripture and the catholic church teaches.

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]

Sounds like a rejection of faith alone.

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.

Not necessarily since some people are very curious or have a compulsion that makes it hard to resist the temptation.

And as far a what one's god is, a person who believes money will buy him happiness will order his life accordingly.

Not always. If he's lazy, he may not work to get money despite believing it will buy him happiness.

That is insanity! We are speaking here of Biblical, saving faith, and which is obviously Luther's standard.

Yet the only thing that distinguishes "saving faith" from non-saving faith is whether a person chooses to work.

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)

I agree with James 2:17. It you have faith but choose not to work then your God-given faith won't save you and you are spiritually dead because justification is not by faith alone. Yet the person who is spiritually dead still has faith.

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)

All that shows is a person with faith can choose to deny the faith.

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

Wrong again. Another unrighteous judgment.

NO, they are not identical except in your silly mind

I proved they are identical. Looks like you were unable to see it.

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!

It's still identical. The true believer, like the true Scotsman, is defined based on whether someone agrees with his actions.

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!

Another unrighteous judgment. Your frequent false judgments, lack of knowledge of Catholicism, and poor logical reasoning skills tell me it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion with you. Let me know when you are willing to humble yourself and learn and I may be able to help.