Posted on 09/11/2023 9:23:22 AM PDT by ebb tide
The same for what I said about baptism being dunking in v. 16, even though you're the one who highlighted baptism in that verse.
You think you can win a debate by throwing out many arguments hoping something sticks (playing offense). I'm challenging you to show that your beliefs have mettle by defending them.
If you mean the Roman Catholic Church, that's incorrect. The Roman Catholic Church places itself at a level equal to scripture, and develops their own doctrines not found in scripture.
Wow. Once again you are posting incorrect and false doctrine.
And all in response to myself and other Christians who have patiently tried to clearly point out the simple Gospel message to you.
But as I said upthread - do not pay attention to what any pope, priest or pastor says. Only go by the word of God. Or Christ if you will.
And by doing that you will put away the false teachings of Catholicism.
Conjecture on your part.
We know the writers of the NT were moved by the Spirit to do so.
And there are numerous admonitions by Paul to have his letters read in the various churches.
God established the written word in the OT so the Israelis would have a record.
What Roman Catholicism cannot, or will not do, is point to a conclusive and definitive list of those oral teachings they claim the Jesus and the Apostles handed down. I mean a clear unbroken line from the end of the Apostles to now.
Rome cannot provide that because it simply does not exist.
Again, more speculation on your part. No where does it say there were kids there. You're reading into the text what you want it to say.
>> . COMMENT: Imagine how the present-day privately interpreted "Bible-only" theory would have appeared at a time when the books of the New Testament were not only unavailable, but most of them had not yet been written.<<
No one is saying about having a “own copy of Scripture” but against your implication that one can “read your way to salvation”
Yet that has been an argument advanced by Roman Catholics in these forums and elsewhere. They also advance that not everyone could read.
Call no man father.
{speculation occurs...}
Humph!
and our Living Prophet®; of course...
Do you REALLY have to try to sell the same old, truncated crap in EVERY thread???
John 20:30-31
30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book.
31 But these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in His name.
There's one church (and probably many of the splinter sects that came out of it) that teaches the devil is Jesus' brother.
Lick your fingers; Doubting Thomas. The blood is GOOD for you!!
So; has the Great White Throne judgment already occurred as well?
Again, you are wrong as explained. The question was "Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so?" not simply in the gospels, and indeed the Lord did, both directly (Revelation 1:19) and as obeying His Spirit (Rm. 8:14) -to whom He provided more revelation (John 16:13, 14) for obeying Matthew 28:19, 20). .
Again, you are wrong as explained. The question was "Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so?" not simply in the gospels, and indeed the Lord did, both directly (Revelation 1:19) and as obeying His Spirit (Rm. 8:14) to whom He provided more revelation (John 16:13, 14) for obeying Matthew 28:19, 20).
Do not presume to tell me what I was responding to in my intent, which here was not the absurd and false argument that "Bible only"=SS teaches that reading the Bible is a necessary means of salvation (though as said, it can be), and that since He did not say that it was, and that only "a few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings' then SS is wrong, but I was responding to the marginalization of Scripture itself, as if only a few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings' meant Scripture was not necessary in general, which my references counter.
Sorry, but you were wrong again and trying to change and interpretation of what you already interpreted is a perfect example of the indictment of personal interpretation. No one is saying about having a “own copy of Scripture” but against your implication that one can “read your way to salvation”
You were wrong again since the OP argued against reading (and hearing also applies) the Bible being "a necessary means of salvation," when indeed it can be, and John writes for that purpose, and thus you can “read your way to salvation" by believing the gospel that is written. But the manifest purpose of the OP is to argue that since the apostles taught the word of God orally, then whatever Rome says is the word of God is indeed just that, fails for while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, yet even Rome does not presume its popes and ecumenical councils do so either in declaring what they "infallibly" assert is the word of God."
Thus Catholicism must rely on its "premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity, but which is nowhere exampled, taught or promised [in Scripture]. And in fact, God's means of preservation of faith required the raising of men (prophets and apostles) which reproved valid magisterial power."
Nonsense. It is estimated that we have only a small portion of what the ancient churchmen wrote, while the whole argument that 1st century oral transmission and the absence of a complete Bible validates Catholic oral tradition is simply invalid as shown.
"classic Prot" -- what are those? Luther who believed in the True Presence in the Eucharist? Or Servetus of the Brethrens? You're just using incorrect words as the norm
You are simply using semantical protest in ignoring the point, which is against the assertion that SS means "reading is a necessary means of salvation."
The fact that Thaddeus and Bart and Thomas didn't write down texts (or they would have been handed down in the churches they founded) is a strike against your contention that one must have a written down scripture to be able to retain adherence to the core tenets of Christianity
To the contrary, rather than supporting oral teaching as the main means of reliable transmission (which, by its very nature, it is not) and which needs not to be examined as the noble Bereans exampled, the absence of Thaddeus and Bart and Thomas have no written record (but stop presuming this means they didn't write down texts) would be an argument against oral tradition, along with the variant teaching among so-called ""Church Fathers."
In reality, it is Rome which chooses which and when faithfulness is being conveyed by them (she judged them more than they judge her), consistent with her being presuming to be the only sure supreme sufficient standard.
It is sophistry to try and prove Sola scriptura by just looking at the 16th century godmen
Indeed, which is why I go to Scripture itself.
Next, you dismiss the fact that Acts 17:2 is Paul, an erudite Pharisee arguing with erudite Pharisees and Sadducees
Are you too tired to read (if so, i understand), or do you just ignore what refuted this fallacious assertion?
You have to have an alternative to SS, -- no you don't -- you have "Not SOLA" scriptura i.e. not scripture ALONE --> just like the pre-tribulation rapture or the inventios of the mormons, Sola scriptura is an invention that says "you need to have an alternative to my new invention" That is a fallacious statement
Rather, That is a fallacious statement x 2. A RC arguing against SS cannot argue a vacuum, a "no sola" as sure supreme sufficient standard, and which she indeed effectively presumes to be. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals.
Thus the word of God only consists of and means what she says it does. As shown before, this premise is well exampled by the statements of no less than Cardinal Manning who asserted:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves.... The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — "Most Rev." Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228)"Jesus founded a Church" "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established " -- again, that's false -- the Pentateuch were accepted completely, but there was no sense of "Jewish canon" until after the destruction of Herod's temple in 70 AD The writings of the Prophets were not all accepted by all the sects of 2nd temple Jews Rabbi Jacob Neusner holds that the Jewish canon was closed only in the 2nd century AD
Again, are you too tired to read (if so, i understand), or do you just ignore what refuted this fallacious assertion? There is schorship on both sides,while the Lord Himself refers to "all the Scriptures," from a tripartite body in substantiating His mission, and reproves leadership for not knowing them, and Paul and Apollos etc. preach from them to the Jews, and who never dispute what the refers to, yet do deny that "an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established" by the time of Christ. Your fingers are stiff with arthritis as you write long posts
Actually arthritis is genetic, leading to my devout RC dad retiring as a welder due to it.
that are against what Christ Himself has taught
Rather, it is that RC polemics as well as her distinctive teachings that remain to be not what Christ Himself has taught.
I know the story of Hus, and some of the hagiography surrounding it. I suppose you also know that the Hussite movement descended into a cult where freedom meant nudity all of the time, and that Hus was screwing around with women not his wife while he was preaching at Bethlehem Chapel. He considered this part of the “Freedom of the Gospel”.
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.