That says it all. Invent a counter-scriptural heresy of justification by faith alone, flatly contradicted by the Apostle: "Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?" (James 2:24) and when caught, write a tome. When ridiculed, act terribly offended. And bingo: millions of Protestant charlatans are put at work lying about the Holy Scripture.
Hi AA. It puzzles me that you regard extensive writing as a defense mechanism for getting “caught” promoting an anti-Apostolic doctrine. A book is a tome, is it not? And you are writing one, are you not? In which you will no doubt attempt to explain many things which are not obvious to a “naïve” reader of the Biblical text (our exchange over “priest” versus elder” comes to mind). Are you writing your book because you feel you’ve been “caught” promoting anti-Apostolic doctrine?
For my part, I enjoy reading Daniel’s “Tomes,” and I am glad he has the time, energy, and resources to put them together. I have benefited from them immensely. If you would take the time to read them and interact with the substantial arguments he presents, you might find it useful to moving the discussion forward, as opposed to engaging in trivial, ankle-biting rhetoric that does not serve any useful purpose that I can see.
Indeed, for by the same cultic measure,
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, (Romans 4:3-6)
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; (Titus 3:5)
And more. Once again a RC, which must engage in all sorts of egregious extrapolation in order to justify such nonexistent things in Scripture as prayer to departed saints in Heaven, when faced with what refutes them, resorts to the standard arrogant, haughty elitist vindictive indignation, and bombastic argument by out-rage, and to acting like one of the cultic simpletons who insist texts such as Jn. 17:3 refutes the Trinity, and despise careful analysis.
None of which is not surprising since you assert your views are 100% scriptural because you are a Catholic. If she and you do say so yourself, as she is her own law, while your superficiality implicitly reproves historical scholarship of your own church which has wrestled with these texts. But then again you evidence you are more SSPX anyway, holding virtually all baptized Prots as not even being Christians, and lost unless they convert to Rome, and seem to long for the days when Rome could use the sword of men, as in the Inquisitions, but this time via the RC monarchy you advocate. For indeed, killing men who theologically dissented from Rome was doing what was best for them, yet the knowledge of human virtue originated exclusively in the Church, and all rich people must essentially end their days in a monastery to be saved.
You flack here and blithe bull-headed dismissal of fuller examination is a testimony to what happens when objective examination that is rejected in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching.
Moreover, I have already engage you in extensive debates, and given you plenty of opportunity to engage in reason-able civil exchange, but you have amply disqualified yourself as one who will, and evidenced you are one who is in bondage to defend Rome no matter what.
The reality is that RCs as among the most manifestly lost souls in Christendom, from her few cultic devotees to the typical liberals that make up her majority , and which is my main concern, while often- insolent RC elitist arrogance and wresting of Scripture RCs must engage in is an arguments against Rome. To which you have added.
You have thus now basically made it to the unworthy to engage list, though you were given lots of time. Bye.