(Warning: Do not read if you have delicate sensitivities and are prone to yell "ANTI-CATHOLIC" at any challenge to your faith. Victimhood is too costly a card to be played when salvation is at stake!)
Here, I will simply restate the question, without the term 'conceit' which you brought to bear, so that you do not wander off the topic:
--I want you to answer the question of Luke 1.
This is something you, and a few others here in FR Catholic Apologetic circles, have not answered and I have had to repeat the question often. Do you have an answer to it? I can accept a 'no' as an answer. Ignorance is not an excuse, but as long as I have studied the Scripture I can see that there is no possible way it can be truly known in its entirety as there is simply too much there. A 'no' simply gives you a 'he's going to work on it' pass. I DO want to know the Catholic answer if there is one.
--Let's see, the Catholic church is the number one pro-life voice on the planet.
--A person who procures, performs, or helps someone else to procure an abortion is automatically excommunicated according to Canon law.
(I am going to assume that this excommunication is figurative, not actual, or tons of East Coast Catholics are getting ritualized grace fraudulently. Any priest that gives confession, the Mass etc. to pro-abortion types would also face excommunication and then there is a domino effect that would flatten much of the RCC in the USA. That hasn't happened, so it must be figurative or the excommunication is ineffective, thus nullifying the authority of the RCC.)
And when is this going to go into effect? When is the authority of the Pope going to force Jawn Cary to renounce his stance on abortion or face excommunication? I heard with expectation that THIS Pope was going to do it, but as we wait thousands of unborn are slaughtered. If the Pope is waiting does this mean he consents to the abortions until he acts? Is he teaching his church ex cathedra by his inaction?
I agree with those of you that just said "Heaven Forbid!". Then why has he, why didn't Pope John Paul, why didn't any Pope since Roe V. Wade step in? Does he not have the Keys, and can bind and unbind? A cornerstone that allows such abomination is no cornerstone but a worm ridden log, eaten from within.
I can only guess that he must remain silent on this issue to continue the illusion of his faux authority, that once was a temporal power to be feared and is now just window dressing for a failing church.
---So the scripture does not describe all that is required for salvation?
If this is a discussion, do not ask a question to answer a question, especially when it has nothing to do with the original question.
--Why do you add the works of John Calvin to Scripture?
But I will still wander further off topic to answer your question. I do not say that John Calvin is infallible. I do not hold to many of his teachings, much like I enjoy the writings of Augustine but do not agree with all. I can claim just as much as to hold to Augustinianism than Calvinism. Calvinism is just a modern term putting too much weight on poor Johns back. Which is why I prefer the term Reformed. BUT the whole doctrine of Sola Scriptura -which I assume you are pointing to in your pointed question- teaches to follow the Word of God, not John Calvin in his writings, and THAT is getting back to Luke 1, which is getting us back to topic.
Luke is again, writing to Theophilus to give him the EXACT TRUTH. If anything is outside this closed set of his Gospel, it must not be EXACT TRUTH, no? Something that is not true is false, thus all teaching that does not harmonize with Luke's Gospel is FALSE. And any church that does not teach the truth of the Scriptures is then...? False.
Ottofire, the translation given by the NAS here is not good. (Usually the NAS is much better than the KJV or NIV, but not in this case.) The direct object of the clause in verse 4 is the Greek word "asphaleian", which is used three times in the NT. It means "assurance", "certainty", "firmness", or "security". It does not mean "exact truth". A better translation of verse 4 is: "so that you come to know the certainty concerning the words which you were taught [orally]." There is no Greek word there that should be translated "exact truth".
-A8
It doesn't matter whether you say he is infallible or not. Either the Bible is all you need, or it isn't. If the Bible is all you need, you don't need John Calvin.
I do not hold to many of his teachings, much like I enjoy the writings of Augustine but do not agree with all.
I can imagine that you wouldn't "agree with all," given that you're a Baptist and Augustine was a Catholic.
I can claim just as much as to hold to Augustinianism than Calvinism.
Okay. Why do you add the writings of Augustine to the Bible?