Is Sola Scriptura Self-refuting?

[Fervent]

Keep insulting me, I have been where you are and understand why you do it, but it does not help your case that you claim to know the truth.

Where have I insulted you?

You stand as judge and proclaim the Apostolic Church as irrelevant and schism justified. Do you base that judgement on facts or opinions? Do you know the difference ?

The RCC is not "the Apostolic Church," and I would ask you the same question regarding facts and opinions.

You make bold claims, such as we have established…. It is obvious from history….

I only state things are obvious when the overwhelming historical evidence weighs in their favor.

Have you heard of Ex Opere Operato? It is the principle that the grace of God flows through His Church independent on the righteousness of its members. The opposite would make God dependent on men rather than men dependent on God.

I'm aware of Augusrine's opinion of Ex Opere Operato which was adopted as a way to denounce the Donatists. What does the functioning of the sacraments have to do with the false claims of the RCC?

Just as today, you can find corruption in the Church. A few that come to mind at Catholic Campaign for human development, Catholic Charities, and the USCCB. They have become corrupted by the state and the spirit of the age.
We can also see that Liberation Theology that was preached by many Jesuits was actually started by KGB operatives infiltrating the Church.
So what? Does the presence of evil men discredit the Church? No, and neither does it justify schism. Evil is not overcome by more evil.

There's more of that humility shining through.

Read the Catechism before you make a judgement. Read all of Church history that includes the original writings of the Church fathers.
Read Humani Genesis by Pius XII, which is misquoted in support of evolution. You can find it on line, or in the Liturgy of the Hours.

I find no reason to read the catechism, since I do not subscribe to the authority of the Catholic magistrates. As for church history, I certainly haven't read all of it but I've read enough to see that many of the things Rome claims about its history is false. And many of the Church father's are selectively quoted to give the impression of support for certain opinions, when in fact the context of their writings gives quite a different understanding.

If you won’t then you are as the Church in Laodicea from Revelation. You claim to be rich and have all you need, but don’t realize your abject poverty. Or make snap judgements like the high priest in the play Jesus Christ Superstar.

Cool beans.

“There you have it gentlemen, what more evidence do we need? Judas thank you for the victim, stay awhile and you’ll see it bleed. Now we got him, now we got him. Now we got him, now we got him.”

Do you really want to maintain that path?

You've done nothing to show that my judgment is a "snap judgment," in fact all you seem to have to offer are conspiracy theories and unjustified insistence. My judgment comes from reading the councils and comparing them to the claims of Rome, from reading the church fathers and comparing them to the claims of Rome. In every case, it is quite clear that the Roman myth of papal authority is nothing more than a myth that developed over time and not something that traces back to the Apostles.

 

[fhansen]

Hearing, sure, but the hearing is as simple as the declaration of Christ's death and resurrection. it doesn't require deep theological knowledge, just the message declared in every Christian church.

The more we know God and His will the better. And it's not just about answering an altar call, for example. There are many divergences from the true gospel out there.

The Latter Day Saints do a bit more than claiming to restore the primitive church.

In many ways they're just one more group that claims to know what the early church was like, almost anything but Catholic of course.

I've immersed myself in the patristics, and I do find myself more aligned theologically with EO than a lot of protestants.

Good.

That doesn't divert the issue from what the reformer's saw as a church that had become divorced from its history and was instead tied up in the teachings of medieval school men.

The common man understood the gospel. He knew to love, even his enemy, to do unto others as he would have them to do unto him, to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and to refrain from lying, cheating, stealing, committing adultery, killing, to love and honor God first above all else. To return to and remain in Him for our spiritual nourishment, in order to live a life of grace. Again, the basics are even embodied in the sacraments for that matter.

It's not different in kind, you only say as much because you have sworn fealty to papal authority. But that position cuts against councillatory statements that affirmed the autonomy and equal stature of Constantinople and Antioch, at the very least. Rome certainly had honor among the early churches, but there's no indication it had the sort of authority it claimed for itself around the first millenium at any point prior to that. So following Rome is basically the same as Paul denounced in 1 Cor.

I haven't sworn fealty to it, I've come to agree with it. The real baseline is the superiority and completeness of its teachings.

The question isn't whether authority lies with the church, but how we identify the church. Which is why I say the true revolutionary issue of the reformation was the priesthood of all believers, in opposition to a deeply entrenched clericalism that saw "the church" as the domain of the bishops. So here we've come to the real point of disagreement.

Both are important. And yes, the clergy had become too highly revered, out of balance, even early in my own lifetime in my opinion. And while that caused abuses and problems and ultimately resentment among many of the masses, revolution did not bring the answer. And the official doctrines, themselves still remained correct.

While there are certainly ideas with merit in such things, Lutheran Christification isn't all that different from theosis. So the issues you're raising here aren't without protestant parallels, though there are certainly areas of disagreement. However, you seem to be playing a shell game again where you're acknowledging the teachings of the doctors of the church as Catholic teaching while I would bet if such teaching that has fallen out of favor was to be brought out you would disavow it as Catholic teaching. So while it's all well and good to discuss such things, there's nothing about protestantism that doesn't allow protestants from making use of the teachings of either Catholics or EO without adopting the systems that those teachers operated under.

I don’t see where I’m playing a shell game. Such teachings are deep, true, and important to a full understanding of the faith. The very basis of Protestantism gives reason and right to doubt so much that has been established-and much has been lost in the process. I applaud wherever Protestantism gets it right, but that only means there was no reason to leave the fold to begin with.

 

[The Liturgist]

I find no reason to read the catechism, since I do not subscribe to the authority of the Catholic magistrates.

The problem with that approach is that the Catechism is effectively the sole official detailed Statement of Faith of the Roman Catholic Church (beyond the Nicene, Apostolic and Athanasian creeds), analogous to the Lutheran Book of Concord or the Belgic, Helvetic and Westminster Confessions used by the various Calvinists, or the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Many people have misconceptions about Roman Catholic doctrine which result from older, unofficial catechisms and other unofficial or obsolete sources (such as the excellent, but very dated and entirely unofficial 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia), and assorted urban legends and misunderstandings.

 

[Fervent]

The problem with that approach is that the Catechism is effectively the sole official detailed Statement of Faith of the Roman Catholic Church (beyond the Nicene, Apostolic and Athanasian creeds), analogous to the Lutheran Book of Concord or the Belgic, Helvetic and Westminster Confessions used by the various Calvinists, or the Anglican Book of Common Prayer.

Many people have misconceptions about Roman Catholic doctrine which result from older, unofficial catechisms and other unofficial or obsolete sources (such as the excellent, but very dated and entirely unofficial 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia), and assorted urban legends and misunderstandings.

Fair enough, but my objections to the RCC aren't on fine points of doctrine and I'm not particularly interested in what their official positions are most of the time. It doesn't take reading the catechism to know that a lot of claims related to the papacy are based on revisionist histories, for instance.

 

[Fervent]

The more we know God and His will the better. And it's not just about answering an altar call, for example. There are many divergences from the true gospel out there.

The gospel is simple, it is the person of Jesus Christ. Beyond that, knowledge of God is a matter of experience not propositions and doctrine.

In many ways they're just one more group that claims to know what the early church was like, almost anything but Catholic of course.

But they do so based on personal revelations given to Joseph Smith and add the book of Mormon to their sacred texts. So to conflate them with general protestants is rather absurd, and possibly dishonest.

Good.

The common man understood the gospel. He knew to love, even his enemy, to do unto others as he would have them to do unto him, to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and to refrain from lying, cheating, stealing, committing adultery, killing, to love and honor God first above all else. To return to and remain in Him for our spiritual nourishment, in order to live a life of grace. Again, the basics are even embodied in the sacraments for that matter.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on, or what your point is supposed to be with it. Does that somehow alter the fact that the church at the time of the reformation was caught up in theological speculation? Or that much of what the church was teaching on morality and repentance was self-serving for the clergy, and not in line with historical teachings?

I haven't sworn fealty to it, I've come to agree with it. The real baseline is the superiority and completeness of its teachings.

Potato, tomato.

Both are important. And yes, the clergy had become too highly revered, out of balance, even early in my own lifetime in my opinion. And while that caused abuses and problems and ultimately resentment among many of the masses, revolution did not bring the answer. And the official doctrines, themselves still remained correct.

The solution wasn't perfect, but it forced a real change in the RCC and it brought about positive movements in the Reformation churches as well.

I don’t see where I’m playing a shell game. Such teachings are deep, true, and important to a full understanding of the faith. The very basis of Protestantism gives reason and right to doubt so much that has been established-and much has been lost in the process. I applaud wherever Protestantism gets it right, but that only means there was no reason to leave the fold to begin with.

The shell game you seem to be playing is conflating teachings of individuals with official teachings, because the truth is that while the RCC has an extensive catechism it is a mastery of the art of saying nothing of real substance in a lot of words. The teachings you agree with, you take to be the official positions because they don't conflict with the catechism and exist within the wider tradition. But as I noted, those wider teachings are available without subscribing to the particulars of the RCC denomination, which essentially amounts to little more than papal supremacy. So while I don't think you're intentionally playing the shell game, it seems to me that it is typical for those within the RCC who glom their pet theologians as the authoritative voices in the church and ignore that there is quite a wide diversity even within the RCC on most issues.

 

[Valletta]

The shell game you seem to be playing is conflating teachings of individuals with official teachings, because the truth is that while the RCC has an extensive catechism it is a mastery of the art of saying nothing of real substance in a lot of words. .

The Catechism of the Catholic Church heavily relies on the Bible and has voluminous quotations and references to the Bible.

 

[fhansen]

The gospel is simple, it is the person of Jesus Christ. Beyond that, knowledge of God is a matter of experience not propositions and doctrine.

Alright so no rhyme or sane reason behind the production of the Augsburg Confession, Westminster Confession, Institutes, Bondage of the Will, Luther's catechism, etc, etc. etc. Just the person of Jesus. Even though there's plenty of disagreement on what He expects of us. Sure. Just need to keep our minds in the sky.

But they do so based on personal revelations given to Joseph Smith and add the book of Mormon to their sacred texts. So to conflate them with general protestants is rather absurd, and possibly dishonest.

Nah. The Saints are just another group following a familiar enough pattern, with or without visionaries, of "knowing" what the early church was like and what the modern church should look like based mainly on the fragmentary information we have from the new testament and the knowledge that the early church was small, persecuted, and powerless. Mormons are just more extreme at attesting that they, exclusively, are the restored church, some 1800 plus centuries after the fact.

I'm not sure what you're basing this on, or what your point is supposed to be with it. Does that somehow alter the fact that the church at the time of the reformation was caught up in theological speculation? Or that much of what the church was teaching on morality and repentance was self-serving for the clergy, and not in line with historical teachings?

It simply means what it says, that the truth continued to march on and be taught despite the behavior of some higher up idiot brats.

The solution wasn't perfect, but it forced a real change in the RCC and it brought about positive movements in the Reformation churches as well.

There's certainly truth there; controversy often sparks and gives rise to positive change and one of the best and clearest documents to come out of the Reformation era were the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, along with a new catechism. Renewal and reformation were always called for, and sometimes accomplished, down through the centuries but the time was ripe for major change.

The shell game you seem to be playing is conflating teachings of individuals with official teachings, because the truth is that while the RCC has an extensive catechism it is a mastery of the art of saying nothing of real substance in a lot of words.The teachings you agree with, you take to be the official positions because they don't conflict with the catechism and exist within the wider tradition. But as I noted, those wider teachings are available without subscribing to the particulars of the RCC denomination, which essentially amounts to little more than papal supremacy. So while I don't think you're intentionally playing the shell game, it seems to me that it is typical for those within the RCC who glom their pet theologians as the authoritative voices in the church and ignore that there is quite a wide diversity even within the RCC on most issues.

You know I've always been one to hear and study the "other side", their material, even if I had some strong biases against it. And I know the background of Catholic dogma pretty well, beginning way back in time. Individuals just report their opinions, based on the evidence they've observed or studied, as you or myself or anyone else might do. The church quotes them when it deems their opinions to be correct, valuable, and profitable. You possess the spirit of protesting well enough I'd say, but sometimes with a sort of shotgun approach more than a studied or well-reasoned one.

 

[Fervent]

Alright so no rhyme or sane reason behind the production of the Augsburg Confession, Westminster Confession, Institutes, Bondage of the Will, etc, etc. etc. Just the person of Jesus. Even though there's plenty of disagreement on what He expects of us. Sure. Just need to keep our minds in the sky.

The gospel is the common ground that unites all Nicene Christianity. All of those areas of division are simply contestable matters that have led to people declaring themselves as belonging to one faction or another.

Nah. The Saints are just another group following a familiar enough pattern, with or without visionaries, of "knowing" what the early church was like and what the modern church should look like based mainly on the fragmentary information we have from the new testament and the knowledge that the early church was small, persecuted, and powerless. Mormons are just more extreme at attesting that they, exclusively, are the restored church, some 1800 plus centuries after the fact.

If you are seriously conflating the Reformers and other protestant groups with a group that relies heavily on the personal revelation of a man named Joseph Smith who taught that Jesus came to the Americas, then I can only conclude that your assessment is based on dishonest evaluation.

It simply means what it says, that the truth continued to march on and be taught despite the behavior of some higher up idiot brats.

Except those "higher up idiot brats" were the face of the church and what they taught was widely considered to be what the church taught.

There's certainly truth there; controversy often sparks and gives rise to positive change and one of the best and clearest documents to come out of the Reformation era were the canons and decrees of the Council of Trent, along with a new catechism. Renewal and reformation were always called for, and sometimes accomplished, down through the centuries but the time was ripe for major change.

Yes, though while Trent was a positive step forward it is essentially an admission that the Reformer's were justified in their criticism. and whether it went far enough in its reforms is a matter of debate, a debate that weighs in favor of "no" considering that the next several centuries saw further reform in the direction that the Reformer's attempted to take the church and a revisitation in Vatican II.

You know I've always been one to hear and study the "other side", their material, even if I had some strong biases against it. And I know the background of Catholic dogma pretty well, beginning way back in time. Individuals just report their opinions, based on the evidence they've observed or studied, as you or myself or anyone else might do. The church quotes them when it deems their opinions to be correct, valuable, and profitable. You posses the spirit of protesting well enough I'd say, but sometimes with a sort of shotgun approach more than a studied or well-reasoned one.

My primary position in our discussion is not about forwarding positive statements of belief, so I'm drawing on a wide basis of critical avenues rather than attempting to build a case. This is especially because I don't deny the RCC as an authentic expression of the Christian church, I simply deny its exclusivity as "the Church" since it seems to me that "the Church" must include all of the branches in schism since the gospel is preached in all of them and there are Christians who fellowship in all of them. So the only aspect of RCC teaching that must be held false is the overall authority of the Rome, which from the agreements made at the 7 ecumenical councils and statements from bishops such as Gregory the Great seems to be fairly historically demonstrable as being a false claim that developed over time coming to a head in the Photian controversy. So while it may appear that I take a shotgun approach, it is purely because my role in our discussion is as a skeptic and not forwarding cataphatic positions.

 

[Fervent]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church heavily relies on the Bible and has voluminous quotations and references to the Bible.

I'm aware of that, but most of it is vague statements that are open to a number of interpretations and understandings making it easy for individuals to read their pet theological positions as being what the catechism is saying on any given issue.

 

[Valletta]

I'm aware of that, but most of it is vague statements that are open to a number of interpretations and understandings making it easy for individuals to read their pet theological positions as being what the catechism is saying on any given issue.

You previously stated:

I find no reason to read the catechism, since I do not subscribe to the authority of the Catholic magistrates.

How can you claim to know what "most of it" says if you have not actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

 

[Fervent]

You previously stated:



How can you claim to know what "most of it" says if you have not actually read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I've read it in the past, enough to make a judgment on its contents. And have had it quoted at me on forums like this numerous times, enough to get a general feel for what it says. When I say I'm not concerned with it, I simply mean that I'm not interested in constantly referencing it or memorizing its contents.

 

[Valletta]

I've read it in the past, enough to make a judgment on its contents. And have had it quoted at me on forums like this numerous times, enough to get a general feel for what it says. When I say I'm not concerned with it, I simply mean that I'm not interested in constantly referencing it or memorizing its contents.

I don't recall anyone before every calling the contents "vague." There was a lot of effort by many people who strove for clarity. But I suppose with a billion or so Catholics and plenty of non-Catholics taking a look someone is bound to criticize.

 

[fhansen]

I don't recall anyone before every calling the contents "vague." There was a lot of effort by many people who strove for clarity. But I suppose with a billion or so Catholics and plenty of non-Catholics taking a look someone is bound to criticize.

Yes, I've heard more praise for it, in fact, from Protestant circles than otherwise. The catechism is quite exhaustive. Agree with it or not, it lays down most doctrines quite clearly while giving references to sources.

 

[Fervent]

I don't recall anyone before every calling the contents "vague." There was a lot of effort by many people who strove for clarity. But I suppose with a billion or so Catholics and plenty of non-Catholics taking a look someone is bound to criticize.

When you have more than a handful of people working on a statement, it's bound to be diplomatically worded and have a wide latitude of interpretation. So the fact that many hands were in the mix doesn't run counter to my criticism, but actually bolsters it.

 

[Valletta]

When you have more than a handful of people working on a statement, it's bound to be diplomatically worded and have a wide latitude of interpretation. So the fact that many hands were in the mix doesn't run counter to my criticism, but actually bolsters it.

Brother.

 

[J_B_]

I recently watched a debate on Sola Scriptura, which admittedly wasn't very good. That said, the argument Jimmy Akin gave is succinct and incisive:

P1. Sola Scriptura says that all doctrines must be derivable from Scripture.​

P2. Sola Scriptura is a doctrine.​

C1. Therefore, Sola Scriptura must be derivable from Scripture.​

P3. But Sola Scriptura is not derivable from Scripture.​

C2. Therefore, Sola Scriptura is self-refuting, and hence false.​

What do you think?

For those who defend Sola Scriptura, which of the three premises of the argument would you attack and why?

I would really like for this to be a thread about this particular argument, so I will redirect or ignore responses that do not address it. That said, inevitably users will post other arguments for or against Sola Scriptura and derail the thread until the cows come home. Oh well!

I would definitely reject P3, and probably P1 assuming you're referencing the extreme American Evangelical version of sola Scriptura.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Where have I insulted you?

The RCC is not "the Apostolic Church," and I would ask you the same question regarding facts and opinions.

I only state things are obvious when the overwhelming historical evidence weighs in their favor.

I'm aware of Augusrine's opinion of Ex Opere Operato which was adopted as a way to denounce the Donatists. What does the functioning of the sacraments have to do with the false claims of the RCC?

There's more of that humility shining through.

I find no reason to read the catechism, since I do not subscribe to the authority of the Catholic magistrates. As for church history, I certainly haven't read all of it but I've read enough to see that many of the things Rome claims about its history is false. And many of the Church father's are selectively quoted to give the impression of support for certain opinions, when in fact the context of their writings gives quite a different understanding.

Cool beans.

You've done nothing to show that my judgment is a "snap judgment," in fact all you seem to have to offer are conspiracy theories and unjustified insistence. My judgment comes from reading the councils and comparing them to the claims of Rome, from reading the church fathers and comparing them to the claims of Rome. In every case, it is quite clear that the Roman myth of papal authority is nothing more than a myth that developed over time and not something that traces back to the Apostles.

I’m sorry, I did not realize that asking me weather I took my medication is part of your love language, and not insulting me as mentally ill, when that diagnosis is untrue

Conspiracy theories is a label to get you to disregard search for truth. There is a book that is thoroughly documented called The Devil and Karl Marx by Paul Kengor. Not conspiracy theory but historical fact. Worth the read if your attention span can handle it. Also a good video series is called Foundations Restored which does a good job of explaining the history of philosophy, theology, education and science over the last 500 years.

I have offered you the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the source material, but you would rather read polemics against the Church, which is sad really. Another great line from Jesus Christ Superstar, a theologically terrible play, but had great lines was when Jesus was lamenting Jerusalem

If you knew all that I knew, my poor Jerusalem, you’d see the truth, but you’d close your eyes, but you’d close your eyes

It’s your own admission and your own words that say you need no more evidence. You have everything that you need. I’ll stand before you and offer you the truth. You may call me arrogant or at least imply that I am, but I offer myself to you for your insults and prejudicial judgement because as a child of God, you are to be given every opportunity to find the truth

Call me arrogant and a manic in need of meds, it carries no weight, because you know that God calls you to humility and a humble man would read or listen to what is offered him before he makes a judgement. Will you?

 

[Fervent]

I’m sorry, I did not realize that asking me weather I took my medication is part of your love language, and not insulting me as mentally ill, when that diagnosis is untrue

If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it.

Conspiracy theories is a label to get you to disregard search for truth. There is a book that is thoroughly documented called The Devil and Karl Marx by Paul Kengor. Not conspiracy theory but historical fact. Worth the read if your attention span can handle it. Also a good video series is called Foundations Restored which does a good job of explaining the history of philosophy, theology, education and science over the last 500 years.

Conspiracy theories is an accurate description of theories that involve intricate plots that strain credulity.

I have offered you the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is the source material, but you would rather read polemics against the Church, which is sad really. Another great line from Jesus Christ Superstar, a theologically terrible play, but had great lines was when Jesus was lamenting Jerusalem

I prefer primary sources for my history.

If you knew all that I knew, my poor Jerusalem, you’d see the truth, but you’d close your eyes, but you’d close your eyes

It’s your own admission and your own words that say you need no more evidence. You have everything that you need. I’ll stand before you and offer you the truth. You may call me arrogant or at least imply that I am, but I offer myself to you for your insults and prejudicial judgement because as a child of God, you are to be given every opportunity to find the truth

You protest about insults, while putting forward statements like this? Yeesh.

Call me arrogant and a manic in need of meds, it carries no weight, because you know that God calls you to humility and a humble man would read or listen to what is offered him before he makes a judgement. Will you?

I've read plenty, and you've offered nothing more than what essentially amounts to a plea of "trust me, bro."

 

[boughtwithaprice]

If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it.

Conspiracy theories is an accurate description of theories that involve intricate plots that strain credulity.

I prefer primary sources for my history.

You protest about insults, while putting forward statements like this? Yeesh.

I've read plenty, and you've offered nothing more than what essentially amounts to a plea of "trust me, bro."

I am not asking you to trust me, but to examine your own words to get you to think.

You say you don’t insult me, yet admit it by saying don’t dish it if you can’t take it. I view insult as a false charge to smear another’s reputation, such as calling me mentally ill. It is a way to label me so you can ignore me. I am but dust and you would have plenty of opportunity to justifiably smear me, as was a man of sin and have no right to speak of the things of God, save by His grace, but it does not help your argument or position. The fact that I am contemptible does not take anything away from the glory of an incorruptible God.

The Laodiceans say I am rich, well fed and am in need of nothing. You say I have read enough, I don’t need anything more. I offer you more and you decline. You have offered me no resources to investigate your position, yet I have given you a path to investigate primary sources. Yours is a position not blessed by God. We are never to say that we have enough and are in need of nothing.
The word of God calls that lukewarm, and He will vomit you out of His mouth. That does not sound good and you should rethink your position.
Me, I know that I have to learn more, and will search for God with all of my heart and never be satisfied until He tells me I have had enough, and that won’t be until my death and all learning stops.

We are Christians and the ultimate conspiracy theorists. We know Satan’s greatest deception is to convince the world he does not exist. We know he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. You can take up the armor of God and fight the battle against scoffers and show the world their error, or just sit back and complain of bygone ages and wish to return but you can’t because time marches on.

A good book to see Satan’s tactics is called Hostage to the Devil, by Malachi Martin, S.J. one of the premier exorcists of the twentieth century, although you probably have never heard of him. He has wrote several non-fiction books and fiction novels that expose the corruption in the modern Catholic Church, well worth the read

If you don’t have time to read, then the recent movie Nefarious gives a superficial but pretty accurate description of Satan’s plot against humanity.

If you don’t like that then Chad Ripperger is a modern day exorcist and his talks are on YouTube
His talk on the generational spirits beginning in the late 19th to early 20th century to modern times is very good. He is a very dynamic speaker

What is your position? The Catholic Church is corrupt? Ok. Does God ever say He will abandon His Church? If not, how do you justify your decision?

Had God ever abandoned His people and started over? Did He not view the corruption and idolatry of Israel and offer Moses to wipe them all out and start over with Moses alone? Did Moses take the offer? No, he said Lord if you do that then the gentiles will mock you and say the Lord is not mighty it save and He abandons His people, why follow Him? (Paraphrase)
If He said that about Israel, where has God ever said that Schism is justified? If schism is justified, where does it end but in the destruction of the Body of Christ into thousands of warring factions of lost sheep.
In the 1970s there was a movie about a man who split his life into multiple families and relationships. He became so fractured that he lost his way, and a man asked him a question that was the title of the movie, Which Way is Up?
When Satan has the Church split into thousands of pieces, he has the sheep asking which way is home? The fractured church has thousands of answers and even Paul pointed out that error in the early Church. I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Christ. Who cares what you think, as Paul asks, IS CHRIST DIVIDED? God Forbid !!
The Bible does not teach denominations

 

[Fervent]

I am not asking you to trust me, but to examine your own words to get you to think.

You say you don’t insult me, yet admit it by saying don’t dish it if you can’t take it. I view insult as a false charge to smear another’s reputation, such as calling me mentally ill. It is a way to label me so you can ignore me. I am but dust and you would have plenty of opportunity to justifiably smear me, as was a man of sin and have no right to speak of the things of God, save by His grace, but it does not help your argument or position. The fact that I am contemptible does not take anything away from the glory of an incorruptible God.

There's a difference between mockery and insult. If you can't handle being gently mocked, then you shouldn't be throwing out disparaging comments.

The Laodiceans say I am rich, well fed and am in need of nothing. You say I have read enough, I don’t need anything more. I offer you more and you decline. You have offered me no resources to investigate your position, yet I have given you a path to investigate primary sources. Yours is a position not blessed by God. We are never to say that we have enough and are in need of nothing.
The word of God calls that lukewarm, and He will vomit you out of His mouth. That does not sound good and you should rethink your position.
Me, I know that I have to learn more, and will search for God with all of my heart and never be satisfied until He tells me I have had enough, and that won’t be until my death and all learning stops.

You've offered nothing except trying to get me to read RCC documents, which are not the primary historical sources. I've read the councils and many of the church fathers, and RCC claims don't line up with them when read in context. So there's no reason for me to read a secondary source like the catechism, because I've made my opinion on the basis of primary sources.

We are Christians and the ultimate conspiracy theorists. We know Satan’s greatest deception is to convince the world he does not exist. We know he is a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour. You can take up the armor of God and fight the battle against scoffers and show the world their error, or just sit back and complain of bygone ages and wish to return but you can’t because time marches on.

Hardly. Conspiracy theories are the product of people with wild imaginations and almost assuredly fail any evidentiary test. Satan's plans and the way his kingdom works doesn't involve intricate plans, but simple working on the ambitions of men for power and control.

A good book to see Satan’s tactics is called Hostage to the Devil, by Malachi Martin, S.J. one of the premier exorcists of the twentieth century, although you probably have never heard of him. He has wrote several non-fiction books and fiction novels that expose the corruption in the modern Catholic Church, well worth the read

I've heard of him, though I prefer reading older works rather than recently written ones.

If you don’t have time to read, then the recent movie Nefarious gives a superficial but pretty accurate description of Satan’s plot against humanity.

If you don’t like that then Chad Ripperger is a modern day exorcist and his talks are on YouTube
His talk on the generational spirits beginning in the late 19th to early 20th century to modern times is very good. He is a very dynamic speaker

All of this is rather irrelevant, other than seeming to be attempts to get me to put on a tin foil hat.

What is your position? The Catholic Church is corrupt? Ok. Does God ever say He will abandon His Church? If not, how do you justify your decision?

The Roman Catholic Church is just as any other human institution, a mixed bag of well meaning people and corrupt individuals. It is not God's church, which crosses denominational lines since the entire body of Christ is a member of God's church. So the RCC is just another Christian denomination, alongside all the others.

Had God ever abandoned His people and started over? Did He not view the corruption and idolatry of Israel and offer Moses to wipe them all out and start over with Moses alone? Did Moses take the offer? No, he said Lord if you do that then the gentiles will mock you and say the Lord is not mighty it save and He abandons His people, why follow Him? (Paraphrase)
If He said that about Israel, where has God ever said that Schism is justified? If schism is justified, where does it end but in the destruction of the Body of Christ into thousands of warring factions of lost sheep.
In the 1970s there was a movie about a man who split his life into multiple families and relationships. He became so fractured that he lost his way, and a man asked him a question that was the title of the movie, Which Way is Up?
When Satan has the Church split into thousands of pieces, he has the sheep asking which way is home? The fractured church has thousands of answers and even Paul pointed out that error in the early Church. I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Christ. Who cares what you think, as Paul asks, IS CHRIST DIVIDED? God Forbid !!
The Bible does not teach denominations

What do you think constitutes the division between new and old? Is Israel still the exclusive people of God. or has He abandoned national israel and re-fashioned the lump?