How The Reformation Changed The Church

In the book of Judges we read about another generation which arose, which knew neither the Lord nor what He had done (Judges 2:10). Today, it appears that a generation has arisen, which like Israel under the Judges, knows little of either the Lord nor of what He did during the time of the Protestant exodus and the struggles in the wilderness, which followed in the 16th and 17th century. Sometimes this is from a cowardly dislike of controversy and confrontation. But few people seem to understand either the evils from which the Reformation delivered us or the blessings which the Reformation won for us.

The Reformation delivered the Church from gross ignorance and spiritual darkness The church, before the Reformation, was a church without the Bible. And a church without a Bible is as useless as a lighthouse without light, a candlestick without a candle, or a motor vehicle without an engine. The priests and people knew scarcely anything about God’s Word or the way of salvation in Christ.

Bishop J.C. Ryle described the situation: “The immense majority of the clergy did little more than say masses and offer up pretended sacrifices, repeat Latin prayers and chant Latin hymns (which of course most of the people could not understand), hear confessions, grant absolutions, give extreme unction, and take money to get dead people out of purgatory.”

Bishop Latimer observed: “When the devil gets influence in a church, up go candles and down goes preaching.”

Quarterly sermons (that is, once every three months) were prescribed to the clergy, but not insisted upon. Latimer noted that while the mass was never left unsaid for a single Sunday, sermons might be omitted for 20 Sundays in succession. Indeed, to preach much was to incur the suspicion of being a heretic.

Bishop Hooper, who along with Bishop Latimer was burned alive at the stake under Queen Mary, did a survey in 1551 and found that out of 311 clergy in his Diocese, 168 were unable to repeat the Ten Commandments, 31 of those 168 could not even say in which part of the Scripture the Ten Commandments were to be found, 40 could not tell where the Lord’s Prayer was written, and 31 of the 40 did not even know who the author of the Lord’s Prayer was!

Bishop Ryle summarized the situation: “Before the Reformation was a religion without knowledge, without faith and without lively hope – a religion without justification, regeneration and sanctification – a religion without any clear views of Christ and the Holy Ghost. Except in rare instances, it was little better than an organized system of Mary worship, saint worship, image worship, relic worship, pilgrimages, alms giving, formalism, ceremonialism, processions, penances, absolutions, masses and blind obedience to the priests. It was a huge higgledy-piggledy of ignorance and idolatry, and serving an unknown God by deputy. The only practical result was that the priests took the people’s money and undertook to secure their salvation. And the people flattered themselves that the more they gave to the priests, the more sure they were to go to Heaven!”

The Reformation delivered the church from childish superstitions The Roman Catholic church, before the Reformation, taught its members to seek spiritual benefit from so-called relics of dead saints and to treat them with divine honor. Calvin’s “Inventory of Relics” and Hobart Seymour’s “Pilgrimage to Rome” catalog some of the ludicrous swindles which were perpetrated by the church of Rome. This included pieces of wood “of the true cross” enough to load a large ship, thorns professing to be part of the Saviour’s crown of thorns, enough to make a huge faggot, at least 14 nails said to have been used at the Crucifixion, four spearheads – each purporting to be the one which pierced our Lord’s side, at least three seamless coats of Christ, for which the soldiers cast lots, Saint James’s hand, bones of Mary Magdalene, toenails from Saint Edmund, some bread, purported to have been used by Christ at the Last Supper, a girdle of the Virgin Mary and milk from the Virgin Mary! The Royal Commissioners of Henry VIII examined a vial at the Abbey in Gloucestershire, which was said to contain the blood of Christ! The Commissioners found that it contained the blood of a duck.

There were literally thousands of profane and vile inventions, fabrications and deceptions, which Roman priests imposed on the people before the Reformation. They must have known that they were deceiving the people, yet they persisted in presenting these lies and requiring that the ignorant laity believe them. Sometimes the priests induced dying sinners to give vast tracts of lands to abbeys and monasteries, in order to atone for their bad lives. In one way or another, they were continually separating sinners from their money and accumulating property and wealth in the hands of the Roman church.

The power of the priests was practically despotic and was used for every purpose except the advancement of the Christian faith. It seemed that their primary object was power. To them confession had to be made. Without their absolution and extreme unction no professing Christian could be saved. Without their masses no soul could be redeemed from purgatory. In short, they were, to all intents and purposes, the mediators between Christ and man. To please and honor the Roman church was a devout Christian’s first duty. To injure them was the greatest of sins. One of the indulgences issued in 1498, with the authority of the Pope, claimed: “To absolve people from usury, theft, manslaughter, fornication and all crime whatsoever, except smiting the clergy and conspiring against the Pope!”

A starving man in a famine may be reduced to eating rats and rubbish, rather than die of hunger. Similarly, a conscience-stricken soul, deprived of God’s Word, should not be judged too harshly by us, if they struggled to find comfort in the most debasing superstition. However, we must never forget that it was from such superstitions which the Reformation delivered us.

The Reformation delivered the church from blatant immorality Before the Reformation, the lives of the clergy were simply scandalous. There were brothels in the Vatican. The Popes, Cardinals and Bishops openly consorted with prostitutes and engaged in the most debauched orgies. The local priests became notorious for gluttony, drunkenness and gambling. As Bishop Ryle pointed out: “To expect the huge roots of ignorance and superstition, which filled our land, to bear any but corrupt fruit, would be unreasonable and absurd.”

Contemporary art depicted friars as foxes preaching with the neck of a stolen goose peeping out of the hood behind; as wolves giving absolution, with the sheep partly concealed under their cloaks; or as apes sitting on a sick man’s bed with a crucifix in one hand and with the other hand in the suffering person’s pocket! Such public contempt in art reflects the scorn with which the clergy were held at the time.

Bishop Ryle pointed out: “But the blackest spot on the character of our pre-Reformation clergy in England is one of which it is painful to speak … their horrible contempt of the 7th Commandment … the consequences of shutting up herds of men and women in the prime of life, in monasteries and nunneries, were such that I will not defile my paper by dwelling upon them … if ever there was a plausible theory weighed in the balance and found utterly wanting, it is the favorite theory that celibacy and monasticism promote holiness … monasteries and nunneries were frequently sinks of iniquity.”

The report of the Royal Commissioners, under Henry VIII, declared: “That manifest sin, vicious, carnal and abominable living, is daily used and committed in abbeys, priories, and other religious houses of monks, cannons and nuns, and that albeit many continual visitations have been had, by the space of 200 years or more, for an honest and charitable reformation of such unthrifty, carnal and abominable living, yet that nevertheless, little or none amendment was hitherto had, but that their vicious living shamefully increased and augmented.”

It was observed that: “There is no surer recipe for promoting immorality than fullness of bread and abundance of idleness.” (Ezekiel 16:49) It is from such superstition, corruption, immorality, ignorance and idolatry that the Reformation freed the church.

The Reformation gave the church back the Bible In 1519, six men and a woman were burned at Coventry for teaching their children the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the Apostle’s Creed in English. Nothing seems to have alarmed and enraged the Roman priesthood as much as the spread of Bibles in the local language. It was for the crime of translating the Bible into English that the Reformer, William Tyndale, was burned at the stake. Of all the aspects which combined to make up the Reformation, no other aspect received such bitter opposition as the translation and circulation of the Scriptures. The translation of the Bible struck a blow at the root of the whole Roman Catholic system. The Bible, as the only rule of faith and conduct, freely available in the local languages, was a threat to all the superstitions and abuses of the medieval Roman popery. With the Bible in every parish church, every thoughtful man soon saw that the religion of the priests had no basis in Holy Scripture.

The Reformation opened the road to the throne of Grace The way of salvation had become blocked up and made impassible by heaps of superstitious rubble. “He who desired to obtain forgiveness had to seek it through a jungle of priests, saints, Mary worship, masses, penances, confession, absolution and the like, so that there might as well have been no throne of Grace at all.” J.C. Ryle

The Reformers hacked their way through this huge jungle of papal obstruction and cleared the way for every heavy-laden sinner to go straight to the Lord Jesus Christ for remission of sins.

The Reformation restored Biblical simplicity to worship Before the Reformation, the laity were only present at church services as passive, ignorant spectators. The elaborate, theatrical presentations of the sacraments were a solemn farce because the ceremonies and prayers were in Latin. The laity could bring their bodies to the services, but their minds, understanding, reason and spirit could take no part at all. For this reason, the 24th Article of the Church of England declared: “It is a thing totally repugnant to the Word of God and the custom of the primitive church to have public prayer in the church or to minister the sacraments in a tongue not understood of the people.”

The Reformation gave a Biblical understanding of the office of a minister Before the Reformation, the concept of the Christian ministry was sacerdotal. That is – it was understood that every clergyman was a sacrificing priest. The clergy were understood to hold the keys of Heaven and to be practically the mediators between God and man.

The Reformers brought the office of the clergy down to its Scriptural level. They stripped it entirely of any sacerdotal character. They cast out the words “sacrifice” and “altar”. They taught that the clergy were pastors, ambassadors, messengers, witnesses, evangelists, teachers and ministers of the Word and sacraments. The Reformers taught that the chief business of every Christian minister is to preach the Word and to be diligent in prayer and the reading of the Scriptures. The Reformers taught the immense superiority of the pulpit to the confessional. For this reason, where the altar used to be, the Lord’s table was placed with an open Bible, or a pulpit, showing the centrality of God’s Word in the worship of Protestant churches.

The Reformation restored a Biblical understanding of holiness Before the Reformation, it was believed that a monastic life and vows of celibacy were the only ways to escape sin and to attain sanctification. Multitudes of men and women poured into the monasteries and convents under the vain idea that this would please God and ensure their eternal salvation.

The Reformers struck at the root of this fallacy by establishing the great Scriptural principle that true religion was not to be found in retiring into convents and monasteries and fleeing from the difficulties of daily life, but in manfully facing up to our difficulties and doing our duty diligently - in every position to which God calls us. It is not by running away from the world, that we fulfill God’s call, but by courageously resisting the devil, the flesh and the world and overcoming them in daily life. That is how true holiness is to be exhibited. For this reason, the Reformers dissolved the monasteries and convents in their areas and freed the inmates to be reintegrated into normal life.

The Reformers also ordered that the Ten Commandments be set up in every parish church and taught to every child, and that our duty towards God and our neighbor be set forth in the Catechism. They insisted that you cannot become saints by shirking your duties in society.

A Heritage of Faith and Freedom We must continually thank God for the Reformation. It lit the flames of knowledge and freedom which we must ensure are never allowed to be extinguished or to grow dim. We need to continually remember that the Reformation was won for us by the blood of many tens of thousands of martyrs. It was not only by their preaching and praying, and writing and legislation, but by their sacrifices that our religious liberty, freedom of conscience and Christian heritage was won.

The Reformation found church members steeped in ignorance and left them in possession of knowledge. It found them without Bibles and left them with the Bible in every parish. It found them in darkness and left them in light. It found them bound in fear and left them enjoying the liberty and peace which only Christ can give. It found them strangers to the blood of Christ’s atonement, to faith, grace and holiness and left them with the key of all those blessings in their hands. It found them blind and left them with spiritual eyes to see. It found them slaves to superstition and set them free to serve Christ.

As Bishop Ryle declared: “Are we to return to a church which boasts that she is infallible and never changes – to a church which has never repented her pre-Reformation superstitions and abominations – to a church which has never confessed and abjured her countless corruptions? Are we to go back to gross ignorance of true religion? Shame on us, I say, if we entertain the idea for a moment! Let the Israelite return to Egypt, if he will. Let the prodigal go back to his husks among the swine. Let the dog return to his vomit. But let no Englishman with brains in his head, ever listen to the idea of exchanging Protestantism for Popery, or returning to the bondage of the church of Rome. No, indeed! … God forbid! The man who counsels such base apostasy and suicidal folly, must be judicially blind. The iron collar has been broken; let us not put it on again. The prison has been thrown open; let us not resume the yoke and return to our chains … Let us not go back to ignorance, superstition, priestcraft and immorality.”

If you have a Bible in your own language, and enjoy to read and study God’s Word, never forget that you owe that Bible to the Reformation. Brave men and women died that you could have the freedom to delight in God’s Word.

If you know the joy of sins forgiven and new life in Christ, if you are walking by faith and enjoying peace with God, never forget that you owe this priceless privilege to the Reformation.

If you enjoy Church services, Scripture choruses, Hymns, prayers and sermons in your own language, remember that for this you are also indebted to the Reformation.

If you appreciate the Biblical and practical sermons of your pastor, and his counsel, never forget that for this you are indebted to the Reformation. The Reformation is the source of many blessings. We need to ask if we are on the side of the Reformers, or of those who burned them and the Bible. “… Contend earnestly for the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.” Jude 3

15 Questions	To 1,991 To 1947 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
1. Is Sacred Tradition the oral preaching of the Lord and His apostles before they wrote it down?	No, that is not what I meant -- writing Scriptura was an act of inspiration, it was enacted through the aegis of Sacred Tradition, which while being infallible is not indefinite and is hardly substance-less being composed of the Spirit and teachings handed down. this holds forth in the way in which we interpret scripture, it being how we have always interpreted it. Hence we ask ourselves, the faux idea of self interpretation, which leads to even self interpretation of what IS self interpretation namely sola scriptura determing the meaning of sola scriptura. Hence the relevant question to ask regarding sola s is -- which one? Substance here refers to being material, tangible, something that can be read and examined, versus something amorphous. Again, as expressed by one of your own, “Sacred Scripture is the Holy Bible. You can point to it. You can hold it in your hand. It consists of words that you can read and write down. But Sacred Tradition is much harder to understand. You cannot point to it. You cannot hold it in your hand. It is unspoken and unwritten. Consequently, many persons have mistaken ideas about Sacred Tradition.” As for your angst against (your typically faux idea of) SS as compared with ST, in the latter you have something far open to interpretation as to what it is and what it teaches, and far more subject to being changed without knowing it, and thus the real authority is the IM, which interprets ST as validating it, and invokes this nebulous source in determining what Scripture says, but the objective must judge the subjective, unlike in Mormonism. As for your attack against the Berean method, it is again typically specious, as it attempts to invalidate the method due to what it allows, which would justify the rejection of Christ by the Jews. Did not the Lord call them to believe due to what He Scriptures said and by what He did, (Mt. 22:41-45; Jn. 5:39; 14:10,11) the very things which convinced others? (Jn. 1:45; 2:23; Acts 17:11; 18:28; Rm. 15:19) Evidence is always open to interpretation, and it can be abused, and Rome's solution is an infallible magisterium, but which again (if you want to negate something due to how it can be used), is the very method cults use. While SS does uphold the teaching office to judge matters, as does Rome, the difference is that it is not effectively autocratic, and while SS cannot assure its method itself will bring unity (as a Scriptural heart is also needed), and even Rome must allow for some interpretation of its statements (and some of what you list includes things which Roman Catholics can disagree on somewhat, and it has other things, especially with little being infallibly defined), the unity on truths among those who hold to SS is of far greater quality if not quantity than implicit trust in a IM. And the ecclesial unity in the Bible such as see in Acts 2-5 was not a comprehensive doctrinal agreement (including many things listed), which is a goal not realized (but most closely seen in cults), but was of heart based upon core truths, and the unity we have of the Spirit due to being born again by faith in such is greater than our differences. How was truth established in the New Testament? Not by raising up a magistrate of such civil power that would silence all it sees as deviant, as Rome would have, nor one who defines itself as being infallible according to its infallibly defined formula, which need not even make its arguments infallible, but by conformity to the Scriptures in holiness and teaching, and by supernatural Divine attestation, especially for those who added to the then established Scriptures with complimentary revelation. (2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12; Rm. 15:19) This is the basis for authority in proportion to its claims, not self-proclaiming it is infallible, and therefore it is, "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) Rome claims much, but shows a form of Godliness more than its power (which we all need more of), while the classic evangelical gospel results in transformed lives and a greater kind of unity to those who believe it than those which is by implicit trust in men. Meanwhile, in response to your polemic against SS, holding to Tradition or employing a type of IM (if the EO can be said to do so) does not assure agreement on all things among those that hold to such. As for Simons, any inference that historic Protestantism which held to sola fide (that it is faith alone as regards what instrumentally procures justification), preached a salvific faith that was alone as lived out, simply shows ignorance, while as for Simons regards to sola fide, may all believe this: http://www.presenttruthmag.com/archive/VI/6-4.htm And see http://www.mennosimons.net/justification.html
2. Is Sacred Tradition the writings of the early Church Fathers?	Sacred Tradition is what The EArly Church wrote. You cannot say it is only or exaclty all or limited in any way or even containing all the writings of the Church Father. More precisely, from one of your own: “The references in Church documents and in the writings of the Church fathers to oral tradition refers to the transmission of Sacred Tradition, but not to Tradition itself. The faithful transmit Sacred Tradition in part by using the spoken word, when teaching each generation about the Way of Christ. But this transmission is not Tradition itself, nor is it infallible. The infallible Sacred Magisterium is able to preserve the truths of Tradition from falsehoods, omissions, and imperfections..,” “Scripture is written Divine Revelation, and so Sacred Tradition must be unwritten Divine Revelation, but Sacred Tradition is not an oral tradition. Scripture is truth put into written words, but Tradition is not truth put into the spoken word, but rather unworded truth. Tradition is the truth expressed by the Deeds of God....' Thus again, the IM is the real authority, defining itself as flowing from sources, being rather ethereal, and infallible defining the sources and itself as infallible and requiring implicit trust for it. Unlike the sola types we do not put an ONLY word in this context. Sacred Tradition is the context of asking the question: who taught you and who taught your teacher and who taught your teacher's teacher, so holding back in line to the ultimate Teacher who is Christ, the LIVING Word. Your problem it twofold, 1. You seem to imagine that SS basically or historically meant that “nothing added” means that one must exclude any other source as being interpretively useful and simply look at the Scriptures, as if all that Bible was to be used for what a personal revelation, when, Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment. — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings” 2. While something like the “spirit of America” exists, with its hopes and dreams being conveyed in part by words, but such is immaterial and untestable and much open to subjective interpretation, and must be examined in the light of the objective medium, even if we can say that the latter is produced by the former. But as faith is real but is judged by its works, so in this. What Rome has done its make Tradition to be a type of Holy Spirit, rendering this nebulous thing to be infallible, and then deriving from that and Scripture an entity which is assuredly infallible when speaking in accordance with its infallible criteria, and teaching for doctrines the traditions of men, but not all of them. But while Rome makes Scripture the product of Tradition, it defines Scripture as the only transcendent material source which is affirmed therein to be wholly inspired of God, and examples traditions as being either substantiated or negated by it. By not doing so have doctrines built out of Tradition, with disagreement among those who go by it over some substantial issues.
3. It is something you can hold in your hand, or examine, or tell us all the contents of, so we can see if it has changed?	Paragraps would help if you need 465 words to answer the question, which is that ST itself it is not something you can hold in your hand, or examine, or tell us all the contents of, so we can see if it has changed, but is more like a type of ecclesiastical ectoplasm which the IM channels to define itself as the supreme material entity.
4. If not, then how can we ascertain that the IM is assuredly infallible, and worthy of assent of faith, when speaking according to its criteria?	The Second Vatican Council states, "For this reason Jesus perfected revelation by fulfilling it through his whole work of making Himself present and manifesting Himself: through His words and deeds, His signs and wonders, but especially through His death and glorious resurrection from the dead and final sending of the Spirit of truth." (Dei Verbum, 4). Which Vatican=speak does does not answer the question, but speaks of what it is claimed to do, based upon what is claimed to be, effectively based upon itself per below.
5. Where does the infallible magisterium (IM) primarily proceed from?	Do note that our belief in the Holy Spirit guiding and preventing The Church from erring has held true for millenia -- this is because we believe int the power of the Holy Spirit and in Jesus Christ's own words that His Church would not fail That is simply what she claims — not having erred being according to her infallible interpretation, the authority for this being that she was infallible when she define herself as such. It is not subject to debate by which it may be established as true, especially from the Scriptures, though some attempt is made to that “lower” authority, but when she declares that she then she is, even if her arguments are not.
6. Is it true that that the universal affirmation by Orthodox to Sacred Tradition results in them also supporting universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, Indulgences, and the Immaculate Conception?	We have One True Church, and both are in agreement on Primus inter paras. The other issues outlined by you are on administrative issues, not dostrinal and the site itself (being a Protestant one) is incorrect We agree with Rome on things also, if much less, and so the issue is what is disagreed upon between two who hold to Tradition and arguably a virtual IM. Marginalizing Papal Infallibility as a “administrative issue” will not do, and its differences are real, if not only resulting in schism and not heresy, while you focus on purgatory, that is a historical dispute, with perhaps the tendency to define things as much as the Latin church, (consistent with its apophaticism) but you should have noticed that i qualified as the Roman version, (with it s"treasury" of merits” and expiatory aspect). As for referenced sites, your real argument here is with ones such as the Greek one which distances itself from purgatory, among other things. Protestant In need not say much on this issue, but the WP article, regarding it as a “direful condition” refers to the Confession Of Dositheus of the (local) Synod of Jerusalem (A.D. 1672), its degree of authority being somewhat unclear, but which also forbids the laity from reading the Bible in the vulgar tongue of the people, restricting it to the learned, “Indeed, it is permitted to every Orthodox to hear the Scriptures, that he may believe with the heart unto righteousness, and confess with the mouth unto salvation {Romans 10:10}. But to read some parts of the Scriptures, and especially of the Old [Testament], is forbidden for these and other similar reasons. For it is the same thing to prohibit undisciplined persons from reading all the Sacred Scriptures, as to require infants to abstain from strong meats.” Yet this which is no longer observed. Quite correctly the refrain from excessive rulings and prefer to retain things as Holy Mystery -- a concept I agree with and believe is the strength that EO's and OO will bring to the council and will be useful in enriching the reunited Church. Some Roman Catholics might be surprised that i agree in part with the refraining from excessive having to understand all mysteries, and part of the problem among us is a tendency to engage in things which God has not made as clear as some would like them, which is a negative side of commitment to doctrine. I do not feel i need to reconcile all of Calvinism with Arminianism, as souls do not need to do so. The unresolved Congregatio de Auxiliis testifies in part an underlying difficult in this area. What souls most essential need is to come to an infinitely holy God as damnable sinners and destitute of works or merit or moral fitness that would gain them acceptance with God, but humbly trust in the mercy of God in the Biblical Christ, to justify them by faith in His blood, and so live it out. The rest are details.
Is it true 7 That the extent (the canon) of Scripture was infallibly defined before the Reformation?	Your response once again does not answer the question, which my answer provided, which is that that the extent (the canon) of Scripture was not infallibly defined before the Reformation, and if it was from Hippo and Carthage then you had two non-identical canons. The fact is that other RCAs point to other councils prior to Trent as infallible lists, which also wrong, as is another example of their disagreements.
8. And that in affirming the apocrypha, Rome was following Jewish tradition, or one that that enjoyed universal consent among Rome’s scholars for centuries, and was identical to early lists?	I do not know why or how you are turning all the text into a hyperlinks, which hinders copying them, but your 1^st argument is the same as the one refuted before, which is if we think Rome was right on the N.T. Canon then we should think it was right on the apocrypha, rather than heeding the Jews. However, since the Jews were right in many thing then this logic would require submission to it. Pursuing the Roman Catholic logic, your oft-cited source also wonders why Luther did not sanction the Kaddish,* a practice developed in Babylonia, and linked to a fable! The reality is that they reason writings came to be accepted is because they have the unique qualities and Divine attestation that make them heavenly “classics,” and while the Pharisee's etc. acceptance of Jewish ones, and church councils affirmation helped, that did not make them Scripture, nor is such responsible for the enduring acceptance among those who read and believed them, who tested and see that Lord is holy, just and yet gracious. Again, it is Divine power that established truth, not mere proclamations. Your source also wrongly assumes, as is typical of the Catholic.com type apologetics, that Luther's rejection of James and other books was simply due to his theology, rather than scholarly reasons which Roman Catholic scholars also had for doing so. More : http://tquid.sharpens.org/Luther_%20canon.htm#a2 http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/06/luthers-epistle-of-straw-comment.html *One can argue that it is a “Jewish Prayer for the Dead,” but is held that “that designation more accurately belongs to the prayer called 'El Maleh Rahamim,' which the Ashkenazi Jewish community, which descended from the medieval Jewish communities in Germany, and which at their peak in 1931 constituted only 3 percent of the world's Jewish population, prays for the deceased soul.
9. That being the instruments and stewards of Scripture confers assured infallibility in interpreting it	sola scriptura -- which one?...................................................... Cronos, your manner of debate is argument against Roman Catholicism. In addition to your constant use of straw men and defend-Rome-at-any-cost-of-objectivity, you seem to think that avoiding actually answering the question, and or simply reposting refuted arguments and assertions is a response. You just posted this in response 1, and which premise was refuted before that, and does not answer the question, which is no, but for Rome's apologists think it is yes despite your ambiguous no. . As for core doctrines, there certainly is unity, and thus they are most universally united in the truths such as articulated in the Apostles Creed, along with the supremacy of Scripture and salvation by faith through grace, etc., and are the foremost opponents of those who deny them, which includes some things which you attribute to SS, but which and more, are due to a type of IM like unto Rome. And thus their unity is seen in opposing Rome as well as Rome's inventions, which is testified to by Rome both affirming their characteristics of faith as a group, as well as warning of them. And thus you must vainly attempt to negate the evidence that shows greater unity than among Roman Catholics, while supposing that repeatedly posting a church or members differencing views, and addressing your opponent as if he represented a “one true visible church,” makes you case. Meanwhile, the aspects in which Roman Catholics can disagree and do so, and they do, even clergy, corresponds to things which evangelicals can without being marked as heretics. If you want to only include traditional Roman Catholics, then you need to purge the church of the rest.
10. That without Rome’s assured infallibly magisterium, writings could not be established as Scripture, and salvific truth could not be preserved.	your question is a false one as you have limited this to just one bishop, whereas the decision of canon was in council -- the council being the Infallibly magisterium of ALL orthodox bishops -- East and West. Where do so see have limited this to just one bishop, or is that how you come up with straw men? In fact as i referred to the Jewish magisterium and linked to a defining site i affirmed a plurality.
11. That the infallible magisterium and it’s interpretation of many Scripture texts, and the list of all its infallible teachings settles the problem of a variation of interpretations of the Bible, and works Biblical unity?	Yes, the list is quite clear and that is why we hold to the sacraments... Then where is this complete list and why do other RCAs have different list of infallible teachings? You go to talk about baptism, but which avoid the problem of a lack of unanimity and sparsity of infallibly defined texts.
12. That no interpretations of Scripture can be contrary to the “unanimous consent of the Fathers,” and none of Rome’s interpretations can be said to be so, and that Catholics can interpret the Bible as long as they do not contradict Rome?	as I reiterated and as you point out " dissent is allowed in non-infallible teachings, though which are which is also open to interpretation, as are what Scripture and the church fathers meant." -- hence the question you ask is incorrect. No one can read the bible and say that Jesus was just a creature or a man who became God (as oneness Pentecostals or Jehovah's witnesses claim) -- those people must either accept the Church's position or leave. Many ex-catholics fall into the category of such who do not agree with the Church on fundamental issues. I pointed it out , and the question is not incorrect, as it was a question for you, not me, which avoided by relegating it to things the fathers did not teach on, and now restrict it to core truths,. But Vatican 1 states that “since it is her right to judge of the true meaning and interpretation of holy scripture. In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.” But the two do not go together. So non-unanimous is defined to mean “unanimous, thus both what Rome means and what the Fathers meant is open to interpretation, and Roman Catholic have great liberty in interpreting Bible within certain parameters, as long as they support Rome by their use of private interpretation. She may publish guidelines for interpretation, but even they are somewhat ambiguous, and RC liberal scholarship testifies to how far they can go. You can say they are wrong, but the extremes they are allowed while honor is given to many, is itself a form or teaching.
13. That Scripture and the historical record establishes an unbroken succession of popes reigning over the church after the manner of Rome from the first century.	For this there is a detailed aritcle on Apostolic succession here at catholic.com Their polemic is countered in my response in 1848 with more here by church fathers including the use of Cyprian, and more on development and on Mt. 16. More from Roman scholars on on side: Before his death, Raymond Brown was one of the foremost Roman Catholic scholars in the world, states, “The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.) Catholic historian Klaus Schatz, in his work on papal primacy, affirms that Catholic and non-Catholic Scholars agree that: The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter's lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter's death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably "no.".. If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter's death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church's rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.... If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no. — Papal Primacy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996) Robert Eno, a Roman Catholic historian states, “The Chair of Peter…belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome.” -Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), p.58. Michael Winter, another Roman Catholic historian states: “Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought…Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority…Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.” -Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Westport: Greenwood, 1960), pp. 47-48.
14. That formal historical decent is a necessary means of authentication for the one true church.	And yet that is not quite correct – while God could do that – He still made His promise and He, the Holy Spirit still looks over the Church. That God can raise up children from stones as well as the above is not in dispute, but the issue is that of Rome's claim to be that church, much based upon her problematic historical yardage, while authenticity is based upon Scriptural faith . The question of lineage does hold water, because, as I said one has the assuredness that this is what has been handed down from one to another, from Christ to John to Polycarp to Ignatius, and so on for all one or the other. This holds forth in the same fashion as which the rabbinical teachers identified the true keepers of their Holy Tradition and scripture in juxtaposition to those who distorted it -- Are we being serious? Do you know what kind of nonsense the rabbinical teachers “passed on” in the Babylonian Talmud, besides crucifying Christ? Jesus reproof of them by Scriptures for teaching for doctrines the commandments of men is one example of what we are to examine the veracity of truth claims by the Scriptures, and not give implicit assent to an office of men which defines itself as incapable of error according to Rome's format. And do you realize(?) that your response was mostly just repasting over half of your long continuous blurb in #3? .
15. What is the only [transcendent] objective source which the Scriptures affirm is wholly inspired of God?	It is quite needed for a detailed descriptive answer to a question that is not worded for a simple explanation – as I will admit most theological questions cannot be framed completely as such – and that is also the reason why we hold that the simplistic solas or ONLYs are biblically unsound Answering “What is the only [transcendent] objective source which the Scriptures affirm is wholly inspired of God? Take almost 3,000 words? And you protest against simplicity? "But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ." (2 Corinthians 11:3) In reality, it is a very simply question with a very simply answer, (2Tim. 3:16) but in order to justify the complex bureaucratic governmental system Rome has institutionally development, that answer with its implications cannot be allowed, as it is that system which exalts itself over Scripture that is substantially Biblically unsound. I think this is fairly well exhausted and time could be spent better elsewhere.

1. for sola scriptura to be true, we must know exactly which books are scripture and which are not. does the NT contain a list of all books which are to be considered scripture?

False assumption. God had revelation written down and progressively more, and as such it became the authority on truth claims. (Ex. 17:14: 24:7; 34:1; 34:27; Dt. 10:2; 17:18,19; 27:8; 29:21; 30:10; 31:11,19,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,34,35; 23:6; 24:26; 1Ki. 2:3; 12:22; 2Ki. 14:6; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9;2Ch. 34:14,15,21; 35:12; Ezr 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 30:2; 36:2,28; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 2:5; 4:4,6,7,10; 11:10; 21:13,42; 22:29; 26:24,31,54,56; Mk. 1:2; 9:12,13; 14:21,47; 12:24; 14:49; Lk. 2:3; 3:4; 10:26; 19:46; 20:17; 22:37; 24:27,32,45,46; Jn. 5:39; 6:45; 12:14l 15:25; Acts 1:20; 7:42; 15:15; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 23:5; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:17; 8:36; 9:3,33; 10:15; 11:8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 4:13; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 10:7; 1Pet. 1:16; 2Pet. 3:16 Mk. 7:3; Lk. 4:4; Jn. 10:35)

While SS deals with an established canon, in principal it makes Scripture the supreme objective authority at any stage in development, by which truth claims are tested by, as is seen in Scripture.

The New Testament affirms the Palestinian Jewish canon, (Lk. 24:44) as well as Paul's writings, (2Pt. 3:16) and early lists of the current 27 books existed before Rome's perpetuated Petrine papacy did, though not without some dissension, including the book of Revelation. Perhaps the 3 popes that supposedly reigned before John is thought to have died did not get to it.

2. if you answered “no” to question 1, does there exist any authority on earth since the Apostle John died that can infallibly state which books are scripture or are we left to guess?

False assumption. Most of the books of the Bible were established as being Scripture without an infallible magisterium, who were reproved by Scripture for teaching unScriptural doctrines, (Mk. 7:6-13) such as the claim that Rome is infallible is. Scripture was established as being such the same way that men of God were, which was not by infallibly declaring that they were infallible when speaking in accordance with their infallibly defined (ecclesiastical source, content and scope-based) criteria, but by God supernaturally revealing Himself and likewise confirming the faith of those who believed Him, and which was subsequently written, with men of God and further revelation becoming established due to conformity and complementarity to it and them*, and with supernatural Divine attestation, which in turn confirmed the word.

The authenticity of the Lord and His apostles was established by conformity to the Scriptures in holiness and teaching, and by supernatural Divine attestation, (Jn. 5:39; 14:101 1; 2Cor. 4:2; 6:1-10; 12:12; Rm. 15:19) and in turn, which, and who, confirmed what was written. This is the basis for authority in proportion to its claims, especially for those who added to the then established Scriptures with complimentary revelation, not self-proclaiming it is infallible, and therefore it is, "For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." (1 Corinthians 4:20) And the historic preaching of the evangelical gospel has greatly manifested transformed lives and more, versus institutionalized religion.

3. since you reject Sacred Tradition to determine doctrine, please tell me how you determined for yourself which books are scripture and which are not.

False assumption. SS is not “sola Scriptura, an extreme version most RCAs argue against, and which virtually no one practices, and SS types do not reject what can be called tradition, as even Ratzinger can be seen to acknowledge (ever been to an evangelical wedding?), but SS essentially requires all such to subject to examination and substantiation by the Scriptures, and as dealing with a finalized canon, nothing be added which is not explicitly in it or can be derived by sound deduction, requiring the assistance of the Spirit of God.

“Although it is often suggested that the reformers had no place for tradition in their theological deliberations, this judgment is clearly incorrect. While the notion of tradition as an extra-scriptural source of revelation is excluded, the classic concept of tradition as a particular way of reading and interpreting scripture is retained. Scripture, tradition and the kerygma are regarded as essentially coinherent, and as being transmitted, propagated and safeguarded by the community of faith. There is thus a strongly communal dimension to the magisterial reformers' understanding of the interpretation of scripture, which is to be interpreted and proclaimed within an ecclesiological matrix. It must be stressed that the suggestion that the Reformation represented the triumph of individualism and the total rejection of tradition is a deliberate fiction propagated by the image-makers of the Enlightenment.” — James R. Payton, “Getting the Reformation Wrong: Correcting Some Misunderstandings”

Now, since you accept sacred Tradition as equal to the Scriptures, and the infallible magisterium as effectively the supreme doctrinal authority (as it defines both and their meaning) , please provide a complete list of all Tradition and infallible teachings, which one must know to submit to them all.

4. did the Apostles practice sola scriptura?

Yes, by evidencing they held Scripture alone to be the formal supreme rule of faith, revelation normally becoming written, or given directly as such, and which provides for how truth is established. Once written, at any stage of its writing, Scripture was always the transcendent objective authority on truth claims (recognizing the Word made flesh but who ascended to heaven), and forbidding true contradiction to what is explicitly in it or can be derived by deduction, by the Spirit of God, And manifesting the criteria by which new teachings could be added to an open canon, while SS disallows anything to be added to a finalized canon, which formally are able to make one wise unto salvation and “throughly furnished unto all good works,” materially providing for the teaching office, which SS affirms, but not an autocratic entity as Rome's.

This requires the veracity of all truth claims to be subject to examination and substantiation by the Scriptures, they being the only transcendent objective source which the apostles affirmed is wholly inspired of God.

The apostles did certainly did hold to this supremacy, by substantiating their preaching by the Scriptures and its manner of Divine attestation, (Acts 17:2,11; 28:23; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Rm. 15:19) and adding to an incomplete canon with conformity to the manner of Divine attestation which accompanied Moses who also added new teachings, and whose law truth claims where judged by. (Is. 8:20) The apostles affirmed the Scriptures which went before them, and their complementarity teachings were in conformity to it.

Now show us where the word of God that was preached by the apostles was necessarily always in a formal sense verses preaching its truths, (Acts 8:4) and in the former sense that they were not written down, or that stories about Paul's “manner or life” etc. are different than stories Protestants have complemented their sermons with, without violating the supremacy of Scripture. And that Rome, who effectively added to the canon by making Tradition equal with Scripture has the abundant manner of supernatural Divine attestation which accompanied the apostles, whose power they claim.

5. please provide a verse in the NT where believers were told to ignore or disregard any teaching they received from an Apostle unless it was written down.

Providing one verse would not be necessarily establishing a truth according to SS, as such “is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” while Rome truly can go without any. But what the question asks can be soundly deduced from Scripture, by their many many references to the authority of Scripture (see bottom), following the Lord who established His own Scriptural validity. (Mt. 22: 42-46; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39)

Now show us where the apostles infallible defined that they were infallible whenever they spoke in accordance with their infallibly defined formula.

6. please provide a verse in the NT where believers are told not to follow the traditions received from the Apostles.

False assumption. It presumes traditions were an oral tradition which could not be written, and which were passed down, which is not tradition, nor could it be Tradition itself if it were written. “Many persons mistakenly think that Sacred Tradition is an oral tradition, handed down from Christ, to the Apostles, to their successors. They say that Sacred Tradition is the truths of God expressed in an oral tradition or in spoken form. This idea is entirely incorrect. Sacred Tradition itself cannot be the spoken word of God because the spoken word can be written down.” Catholic Planet.

Now show us one verse that proves the oral tradition they were to keep could not have been subsequently written down.

7. who wrote the book of Hebrews?

Irrelevant. SS does not claim all information is in the Scriptures, nor everything than could be revelation from God is, (Ps. 19) but that all truth claims is subject to examination by it, with nothing added once that canon is closed.

8. if answered “i do not know” to question 7, why do you consider it scripture if you don’t know who wrote it?

A question showing ignorance of Scripture. By the same means of establishment of truth by which Scriptural books were established, and truth preserved, by the 1^st century, without an infallible interpreter. See #2.

9. Lutherans practice infant baptism, Baptists do not. Both claim sola scriptura as the reason, who is correct?

False assumption and argument, while the former party illustrates the influence of tradition. SS does not claim to solve the problem of some disagreement, but provides means for Biblical unity, by “manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) even if not all those who hold to it do not, as it requires a Berean type heart to be effectual in the positive person sense alone, and enabling the harder but much higher in quality if not quantity, Biblical unity , than they which the cultic method of Rome relies upon, which is that of requiring implicit trust in a self-proclaimed infallible magisterium. But which, on the popular level, creates devotees to a church but more disunity on many core truths and moral values that her SS counterparts.

On the most basic level, holding to SS works the most essential unity of the Spirit (Eph. 4:3) by salvation by grace thru faith in the word of truth, which basic lively unity evangelicals manifest across lines and in many ways, which is greater than their divisions — which are mostly due to carnality in not obeying Scripture, or necessary division because of truth, (1Cor. 11:19) — in contrast to unity in error seen in the graveyard of institutionalized religion, Catholic or Protestant.

Now answer, the many groups hold to Tradition like the Roman Catholicism, but also suffer a lack of full unity with her. Should you not solve that problem before you attack those who hold to SS, which cannot be separated from what it requires for unity? See also response #9 here.

10. Reformed believe in Calvinism, Methodists do not. Both claim sola scriptura as the reason, who is correct?

As above. Now answer, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics both hold to Tradition as equal (or being one) with Scripture, but disagree on Papal infallibility, authority and other things. Which is right and why? Write back when you get it settled.

11. Pentecostals believe in speaking in tongues today, Presbyterians do not. Both claim sola scriptura as the reason, who is correct?

Stretching one question into three, which its false premise answered above. Now answer, You are arguing against both groups here, which is because of a common unity based on essential salvific truths; is the division between a sedevacantists greater? Also, your polemic infers the IM largely solves the problem of disagreement. How many times has Rome spoken infallibly, and do they need interpretation, and how many verses has it infallibly defined, and are the arguments behind the ruling necessarily infallible, and how many things can and do Catholics disagree on? How come Catholics rarely show little commitment to doctrinal impurity among themselves. Why did the sedevacantists split? Why do institutionalized Protestant churches rarely suffer division?

12. when did the command of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 end?

This does not refer to Roman Catholic Tradition, as described by your own, and in the sense of passing on truth by “preaching the word” it never has (see #3) but must be subject to the Scriptures, and the apostles use and words on Scripture establishes this.

Now answer where in Scripture we can substantiate the tradition that Rome has power to physically punish her people, and to require implicit assent to an assuredly infallible magisterium whose authority is effectively based upon its own declaration to be infallible, based upon its infallibly defined (ecclesiastical source, content and scope-based) criteria, which renders her declaration that she infallible, to be infallible, but not necessarily her reasons why she is, while not manifesting the supernatural apostolic power as abundantly seen in the New Testament?

And allows you to interpret the church fathers as having “unanimous consent even when they actually disagree with Rome, etc.

13. how do we know revelation has ceased and the canon of Scripture is closed?

See #2. Old Testament Scripture was established without an IM, with Jesus affirming the tripartite division, (Lk. 24:44) and Paul preaching from the law and the prophets, (Acts 28:23) due to its unique and enduring qualities and Divine attestation, so God mightily confirmed new revelation under the new covenant, the writings of which becoming established early on due their qualities. The lack of this and the completed nature of its books, from creation to Consummation, signified an end to Scripture, and all preaching being subject to it. The Christian faith and its revelation is supernatural, and dependent it, and those who believe the gospel of Scripture realize transformative effects in heart and life which correspond to the promises made therein and are dependent upon faith in it. In contrast is conformity to and security in structure and the outward ceremony and forms of Godliness.

Now answer why it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book of the Bible was written to provide a final, infallible canon, that was not identical to Hippo or Carthage, and worked against Scriptural literacy among her laity until recent times.

14. If the Church is the “pillar of truth”, doesn’t it need to be visible?

Like faith without works, one begets the other. The visible church is the church of the living God, not a dead one, and like as the individual body is not one member but many, so the visible body is manifested is many different churches bound by unity of the Spirit as a result of having been truly born again (not by paedobaptism through proxy faith), resulting in being baptized by the Spirit into the universal body, (1Cor. 12:13) and is manifested organically in a visible manner.

15. If the Church is visible, do we need to fellowship with that Church or are we free to start our own Church?

The latter, if God wills, as your question presumes the visible church is one particular organic entity under one supreme head, which was not the case in the 1^st century, nor can it be restricted to that, even if the manner of the Orthodox is held as an ideal. SS by itself may result in necessary or unnecessary division, and while it overall has resulted in growth of the universal church, it does not necessarily sanction it. But the NT does not witness to a successor to either James (Acts 12:2) Peter, and does so more for Paul if anyone, (2Tim. 1:6) while Peter's words would be remembered by writing, and the normal means by which the faith is kept in remembrance. (2Tim. 2:2) The only successor for an apostle was for the unbeliever Judas, Acts 1:17 and Rev. 21:14 indicating that was in order to maintain the original number of foundational (Eph. 2:20) apostles, while Rome's problematic perpetuated Petrine papacy includes men who would not qualify even as church members in the New Testament church, universal or visible, let alone leaders.

And as seen in the case of the Ethiopian Eunuch, (Acts 8:26-39) God can raise up children to Abraham from stones (Mt. 3:9) and formal historical decent did not make the Jews in Jn. 8:39-44 to be true Jews, and the authenticity of such or a church is not based upon formal decent, but manifest faith in the gospel, by which the church has its members. In established His authority, the Lord Jesus referred to the baptism of John the Baptist, (Mk. 11:18-30) which did not come from those who sat in Moses seat but directly from God, as well as His own works and Scriptural basis. (Jn. 5:39; 14:11)

A true church, in contrast to Rome, is most essentially marked by believing and preaching the gospel of grace with its core truths, which renders a soul before an infinitely holy God as a damnable sinner and destitute of works or merit or moral fitness (of his own or church) that would gain him escape from eternal punishment in Hell fire and acceptance with God, (Rm. 3:9-23) ) and thus with a broken heart and contrite spirit (Ps. 34:18) must humbly trust in the mercy of God in the Biblical Christ, to justify him by faith in His blood, (Rm. 3:25-5:1) and so live it out in holiness and love, as per the obedience of faith. (Rm. 16:26; cf. Heb. 5:9) The rest be details.

*Partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it: Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; Josh. 1:8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:14,15,18,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;

Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14; 8:4,17; 11:10; 12:3,5,17; 13:35; 19:47,8; 21:4,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31; 24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,34; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; Lk. 2:3,22,23; 3:4; 4:4,8,10,16,17,20; 5:14; 7:27; 10:26; 16:29,31; 18:31; 19:46; 20:17,28,37,42; 22:37, 24:22.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:17,45; 2:17; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,32,45; 7:19,22,23,42,52; 8:5,17; 12:14; 10; 34; 12:14,16; 15:25; 20:31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22; 7:42; 8:28,30,32; 7:42; 3:33; 13:29,33,39; 15:5,15,21; 17:2,11; 18:24,28; 21:24; 23:5; 24:14; 26:22; Rom 1:2,17; 2:24; 3:4,10; 4:3,17,23; 8:36; 9:3,13,15,17,,33; 10:5,11,15,19; 11:2,8,26; 12:19; 14:11; 15:3,4,9,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19; 4:6; 9:9,10; 10:7,11; 14:21; 15:3,4,45,54; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; Gal. 3:10,13; 4:22,27; Eph. 3:3,4; Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 2Tim. 3:15; Heb. 7:28; 8:5; 10:7,28; 13:22; 1Pet. 1:16; 5:12; 2Pet. 3:15,16; 1Jn. 2:21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, i know of no place where the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” refers to unwritten revelation that was not subsequently written down.)

If you are going to promote a one true church, then you need to solve your problems mentioned here, and deal with the faith of those you debate on the basis of their authority, objectively interpreted, not wresting Scriptures to support Rome as required, even though your goal is to bring them to reject that authority as supreme, and submit to an infallible magisterium, like cults require.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.