Bible Only is dumb

Eponymous Flower ^ | September 9, 2023 | Stop Voris

[ebb tide]

Bible Only is dumb

ANSWERS TO 25 QUESTIONS ON THE

HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

WHICH COMPLETELY REFUTE THE "BIBLE ONLY" THEORY

ONE

Did Our Lord write any part of the New Testament or command His Apostles to do so? Our Lord Himself never wrote a line, nor is there any record that He ordered his Apostles to write; He did command them to teach and to preach. Also He to Whom all power was given in Heaven and on earth (Matt. 28-18) promised to give them the Holy Spirit (John 14-26) and to be with them Himself till the end of the world (Mat. 28-20).

.

COMMENT: If reading the Bible were a necessary means of salvation, Our Lord would have made that statement and also provided the necessary means for his followers.

.

TWO

How many of the Apostles or others actually wrote what is now in the New Testament? A Few of the Apostles wrote part of Our Lord's teachings, as they themselves expressly stated; i.e., Peter, Paul, James, John, Jude, Matthew, also Sts. Mark and Luke. None of the others wrote anything, so far as is recorded.

.

COMMENT: If the Bible privately interpreted was to be a Divine rule of Faith, the apostles would have been derelict in their duty when instead, some of them adopted preaching only.

.

THREE

Was it a teaching or a Bible-reading Church that Christ founded? The Protestant Bible expressly states that Christ founded a teaching Church, which existed before any of the New Testament books were written.

.

Rom. 10-17: So then faith cometh by HEARING, and hearing by the word of God.

Matt. 28-19: Go ye therefore and TEACH all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

Mark. 16-20: And they went forth, and PREACHED everywhere the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen.

Mark 16-15: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world and PREACH the gospel to every creature.

COMMENT: Thus falls the entire basis of the "Bible-only" theory.

.

FOUR

Was there any drastic difference between what Our Lord commanded the Apostles to teach and what the New Testament contains? Our Lord commanded his Apostles to teach all things whatsoever He had commanded; (Matt. 28-20); His Church must necessarily teach everything; (John 14-26); however, the Protestant Bible itself teaches that the Bible does not contain all of Our Lord's doctrines:

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

COMMENT: How would it have been possible for second century Christians to practice Our Lord's religion, if private interpretation of an unavailable and only partial account of Christ's teaching were indispensable?

.

FIVE

Does the New Testament expressly refer to Christ's "unwritten word"? The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

.

John 20-30: And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, etc.

John 21-25: And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written everyone, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written Amen.

COMMENT: Since the Bible is incomplete, it needs something else to supplement it; i.e., the spoken or historically recorded word which we call Tradition.

.

SIX

What became of the unwritten truths which Our Lord and the Apostles taught? The Church has carefully conserved this "word of mouth" teaching by historical records called Tradition. Even the Protestant Bible teaches that many Christian truths were to be handed down by word of mouth.

.

2 Thes. 2-15: Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

2 Tim. 2-2: And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.

COMMENT: Hence not only Scripture but other sources of information must be consulted to get the whole of Christ's teaching. Religions founded on "the Bible only" are therefore necessarily incomplete.

.

SEVEN

Between what years were the first and last books of the New Testament written? This first book, St. Matthew's Gospel, was not written until about ten years after Our Lord's Ascension. St. John's fourth gospel and Apocalypse or Book of Revelations were not written until about 100 A. D.

.

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.

.

EIGHT

When was the New Testament placed under one cover? In 397 A. D. by the Council of Carthage, from which it follows that non-Catholics have derived their New Testament from the Catholic Church; no other source was available.

.

COMMENT: Up to 397 A. D., some of the Christians had access to part of the New Testament; into this situation, how would the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory have fitted?

.

NINE

Why so much delay in compiling the New Testament? Prior to 397 A. D., the various books of the New Testament were not under one cover, but were in the custody of different groups or congregations. The persecutions against the Church, which had gained new intensity, prevented these New Testament books from being properly authenticated and placed under one cover. However, this important work was begun after Constantine gave peace to Christianity in 313 A.D., allowing it to be practiced in the Roman Empire.

.

COMMENT: This again shows how utterly impossible was the "Bible-only" theory, at least up to 400 A. D.

.

TEN

What other problem confronted those who wished to determine the contents of the New Testament? Before the inspired books were recognized as such, many other books had been written and by many were thought to be inspired; hence the Catholic Church made a thorough examination of the whole question; biblical scholars spent years in the Holy Land studying the original languages of New Testament writings.

.

COMMENT: According to the present-day "Bible-only" theory, in the above circumstances, it would also have been necessary for early Christians to read all the doubtful books and, by interior illumination, judge which were and which were not divinely inspired.

.

ELEVEN

Who finally did decide which books were inspired and therefore belonged to the New Testament? Shortly before 400 A. D. a General Council of the Catholic Church, using the infallible authority which Christ had given to His own divine institution, finally decided which books really belonged to the New Testament and which did not.

.

Either the Church at this General Council was infallible, or it was not.

If the Church was infallible then, why is it not infallible now? If the Church was not infallible then, in that case the New Testament is not worth the paper it is written on, because internal evidences of authenticity and inspiration are inconclusive and because the work of this Council cannot now be rechecked; this is obvious from reply to next question.

.

COMMENT: In view of these historical facts, it is difficult to see how non-Catholics can deny that it was from the (Roman) Catholic Church that they received the New Testament.

.

TWELVE

Why is it impossible for modern non-Catholics to check over the work done by the Church previous to 400. A. D.? The original writings were on frail material called papyrus, which had but temporary enduring qualities. While the books judged to be inspired by the Catholic Church were carefully copied by her monks, those rejected at that time were allowed to disintegrate, for lack of further interest in them.

.

COMMENT. What then is left for non-Catholics, except to trust the Catholic Church to have acted under divine inspiration; if at that time, why not now?

.

THIRTEEN

Would the theory of private interpretation of the New Testament have been possible for the year 400 A. D.? No, because, as already stated, no New Testament as such was in existence.

.

COMMENT: If our non-Catholic brethren today had no Bibles, how could they even imagine following the "Bible-only privately interpreted" theory; but before 400 A. D., New Testaments were altogether unavailable.

.

FOURTEEN

Would the private interpretation theory have been possible between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D., when printing was invented? No, the cost of individual Bibles written by hand was prohibitive; moreover, due to the scarcity of books, and other reasons, the ability to read was limited to a small minority. The Church used art, drama and other means to convey Biblical messages.

.

COMMENT: To have proposed the "Bible-only" theory during the above period would obviously have been impracticable and irrational.

.

FIFTEEN

Who copied and conserved the Bible during the interval between 400 A. D. and 1440 A. D.? The Catholic monks; in many cases these spent their entire lives to give the world personally-penned copies of the Scriptures, before printing was invented.

.

COMMENT: In spite of this, the Catholic Church is accused of having tried to destroy the Bible; had she desired to do this, she had 1500 years within which to do so.

.

SIXTEEN

Who gave the Reformers the authority to change over from the one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd program, to that of the "Bible-only theory"? St. Paul seems to answer the above when he said: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Galations 1-8 - Protestant version ).

.

COMMENT: If in 300 years, one-third of Christianity was split into at least 300 sects, how many sects would three-thirds of Christianity have produced in 1900 years? (Answer is 5700).

.

SEVENTEEN

Since Luther, what consequences have followed from the use of the "Bible-only" theory and its personal interpretation? Just what St. Paul foretold when he said: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears." 2 Timothy 4-3 (Protestant edition). According to the World Christian Encyclopedia and other sources, there are 73 different organizations of Methodists, 55 kinds of Baptists, 10 branches of Presbyterians, 17 organizations of Mennonites, 128 of Lutherans and thousands of other denominations.

.

COMMENT: The "Bible-only" theory may indeed cater to the self-exaltation of the individual, but it certainly does not conduce to the acquisition of Divine truth.

.

EIGHTEEN

In Christ's system, what important part has the Bible? The Bible is one precious source of religious truth; other sources are historical records (Tradition) and the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit.

.

COMMENT: Elimination of any one of the three elements in the equation of Christ's true Church would be fatal to its claims to be such.

.

NINETEEN

Now that the New Testament is complete and available, what insolvable problem remains? The impossibility of the Bible to explain itself and the consequent multiplicity of errors which individuals make by their theory of private interpretation. Hence it is indisputable that the Bible must have an authorized interpreter.

.

2 Peter 1-20: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

2 Peter 3-16: As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Acts 8-30: And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Isaias, and said, understandest thou what thou readest? 31. And he said, How can I except some men should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

COMMENT: Only by going on the supposition that falsehood is as acceptable to God as is truth, can the "Bible-only" theory be defended.

.

TWENTY

Who is the official expounder of the Scriptures? The Holy Spirit, acting through and within the Church which Christ founded nineteen centuries ago; the Bible teaches through whom in the Church come the official interpretations of; God's law and God's word.

.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mal. 2-7: For the priest's lips should keep knowledge, and they should seek the law at his mouth: for he is the messenger of the Lord of hosts.

COMMENT: Formerly at least, it was commonly held that when individuals read their Bibles carefully and prayerfully, the Holy Spirit would guide each individual to a knowledge of the truth. This is much more than the Catholic Church claims for even the Pope himself. Only after extended consultation and study, with much fervent prayer, does he rarely and solemnly make such a decision.

.

TWENTY-ONE

What are the effects of the Catholic use of the Bible? Regardless of what persons may think about the Catholic Church, they must admit that her system gets results in the way of unity of rule and unity of faith; otherwise stated, one Faith, one Fold and one Shepherd.

.

COMMENT: If many millions of non-Catholics in all nations, by reading their Bible carefully and prayerfully, had exactly the same faith, reached the same conclusions, then this theory might deserve the serious consideration of intelligent, well-disposed persons-but not otherwise.

.

TWENTY-TWO

Why are there so many non-Catholic Churches? Because there is so much different interpretation of the Bible; there is so much different interpretation of the Bible because there is so much wrong interpretation; there is so much wrong interpretation because the system of interpreting is radically wrong. You cannot have one Fold and one Shepherd, one Faith and one Baptism, by allowing every man and every woman to distort and pervert the Scriptures to suit his or her own pet theories.

.

COMMENT: To say that Bible reading is an intensely Christian practice, is to enunciate a beautiful truth; to say that Bible reading is the sole source of religious faith, is to make a sadly erroneous statement.

.

TWENTY-THREE

Without Divine aid, could the Catholic Church have maintained her one Faith, one Fold, and one Shepherd? Not any more than the non-Catholic sects have done; they are a proof of what happens when, without Divine aid, groups strive to do the humanly impossible.

.

COMMENT: Catholics love, venerate, use the Bible; but they also know that the Bible alone is not Christ's system but only a precious book, a means, an aid by which the Church carries on her mission to "preach the Gospel to every living creature" and to keep on preaching it "to the end of time."

.

TWENTY-FOUR

Were there any printed Bibles before Luther? When printing was invented about 1440, one of the first, if not the earliest printed book, was an edition of the Catholic Bible printed by John Gutenberg. It is reliably maintained that 626 editions of the Catholic Bible, or portions thereof, had come from the press through the agency of the Church, in countries where her influence prevailed, before Luther's German version appeared in 1534. Of these, many were in various European languages. Hence Luther's "discovery" of the supposedly unknown Bible at Erfurt in 1503 is one of those strange, wild calumnies with which anti-Catholic literature abounds.

.

COMMENT: Today parts of the Bible are read in the vernacular from every Catholic altar every Sunday. The Church grants a spiritual premium or indulgence to those who read the Bible; every Catholic family has, or is supposed to have, a Bible in the home. Millions of Catholic Bibles are sold annually.

.

TWENTY-FIVE

During the Middle Ages, did the Catholic Church manifest hostility to the Bible as her adversaries claim? Under stress of special circumstances, various regulations were made by the Church to protect the people from being spiritually poisoned by the corrupted and distorted translations of the Bible; hence opposition to the Waldensians, Albigensians, Wycliff and Tyndale.

.

COMMENT: Individual churchmen may at times have gone too far in their zeal, not to belittle the Bible, but to protect it. There is no human agency in which authority is always exercised blamelessly.

.

ORIGIN OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the true Church began with Christ over 1900 years ago, not with men or women 15 to 19 centuries later. It was founded when Our Lord spoke the following and other similar words:

.

Matt. 28, 18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye, therefore. and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

COMMENT: History proves that the First Protestant Church was the Lutheran, founded in 1517 by the ex-priest Martin Luther; all other of the some 33,800 sects have been created since then.

.

AUTHORITY OF CHRIST'S CHURCH

.

The Bible teaches that the rulers of Christ's Church have authority which must be obeyed in matters of religion.

.

Heb. 13, 17: Obey them that have the rule over you and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

Matt 18-17: And if he shall neglect to hear them tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Luke 10-16: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Matt. 16-19: And I will give unto thee (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou (Peter) shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

COMMENT: The apostles repeatedly claimed this authority: Gal. 1-8; John 1-10; Acts 15, 23 and 28. Hence the laws or precepts of the true Church are founded upon the same authority as the commandments of God. For the Church of Christ has authority to act in his Name.

[Trump_Triumphant]

Constantine did not “found” the Catholic Church; it had been in existence since 33 AD and miraculously became the dominant Faith in all of the Empire. Many souls were saved because the name of Jesus was now known by a large portion of the world.

By the way, Constantine ruled from Byzantium and partook of Eastern Christian tradition and theology. So maybe he actually founded the Eastern Orthodox Church. ;)

[Trump_Triumphant]

Actually, the Canon was known by WORD OF MOUTH until Trent had to codify because there so many malcontents at the time who thought they could decide what books were in the Bible by their own authority.

[Trump_Triumphant]

I’m sure boatbums is a good person, but I’ve been reading about these issues since I was in Grade school and I’m at least as informed as he is.

[Elsie]

the Catholic Church; it had been in existence since 33 AD and miraculously became the dominant Faith in all of the Empire.

Yup.

The EXAMPLE of the CORRECT way to worship and practice is found in the first 3 chapters of the last book of the bible that Rome assembled long ago:

the Seven churches in Asia.

We would do well to emulate them, since they are the product of what is known today of Roman Catholicism.

[Elsie]

Today they would be deplorables;

who were eviently outnumbered in the last presidential election by non-malcontents.

[Elsie]

“It's easier to fool people
than to convince them
that they have been fooled.”

[kinsman redeemer]

"This week's playground?"

eBB - Combining this thread with THIS (really, the same thread) gets you to almost 700 replies in your week-long "playground".

I think you can do better than that.

For example, the Cult of Mary thread earned over 2,300 replies.

Your addiction and your need for attention may require you to open your "catholic caucuses" so that you can get a better fix - but you might overdose...so use caution.

THANK YOU! It is fun to watch you get taken to task and to see your religious beliefs decimated by true believers who know Scripture, Scriptural Truth, and how to apply Scripture accurately.

[daniel1212]

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.

What Roman Catholicism cannot, or will not do, is point to any wholly God-inspired promulgation of oral teachings they claim the Jesus and the Apostles handed down. The pope may claim to be "infallibly" handing down an apostolic "oral tradition" of the presumed Assumption of Mary (which, in the absence of written testimony for centuries, Ratzinger posits that Rome "remembered it)", but he cannot claim that his promulgation is God-inspired like Scripture is.

Of course, the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) is (at best) also of oral tradition, upon which premise Rome claims EPMV.

And then there is debate over the meaning of support for oral tradition. So-called "Scripture Catholic" lists Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Symyrnaens 8 (c. A.D. 110) as one in saying,

"Follow the bishop, all of you, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the presbyterium as the Apostles. As for the deacons, respect them as the Law of God. Let no one do anything with reference to the Church without the bishop..."

Which TradCaths would greatly restrict to just a few alive today, if any.

And in contrast to the degrading of Scripture by the OP, against it being sure supreme standard, and the foundation and pillar of our faith, then such as thus is cited. .

The apostles at that time first preached the Gospel but later by the will of God, they delivered it to us in the Scriptures, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,5,1 (inter A.D. 180/199).

Yet what is also testified to by the poster, was the recourse to oral tradition (as chosen by the church as being faithful) when faced with heretics, who argued against them on that basis, rather than overcoming them by Scripture, as the Lord did to the Pharisees, and Paul with the like, and we have, by Scriptural substantiation.

And when we challenge them in turn what that tradition, which is from the Apostles, which is guarded by the succession of elders in the churches, they oppose themselves to Tradition, saying that they are wiser, not only than those elders, but even than the Apostles. The Tradition of the Apostles, manifested ‘on the contrary’ in the whole world, is open in every Church to all who see the truth…And, since it is a long matter in a work like this to enumerate these successions, we will confute them by pointing to the Tradition of that greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and constituted at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, a tradition which she has had and a faith which she proclaims to all men from those Apostles.’ Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3,1-3 (inter A.D. 180/199).

(Thus RCs resort to the absurd argument that Paul in writing the epistle to the church at Rome (who indicates he had not yet visited them), did not mention Peter among the 27 persons he greets in chapter 16 (among 31 he names, and 34 overall in that chapter) because he wanted to protect him from persecution - while apparently having no scruples about naming the rest) As a result of recourse to inferior oral tradition, which, by its very nature is far more susceptible to undetectable corruption than writing is, with its surpassing number of manuscripts, then an accretion of claimed chosen traditions of men followed, under the premise of EPMV which is part of claimed tradition.

All told, there simply is no argument against the primary of Scripture as God's chosen means of preservation, for as is abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

And aside from the "Bible only" strawman (as meaning the Bible alone is to be used, and one must be able to read it) the only debate left is as regards its sufficiency. Which relates to is formal and material senses.

[kinsman redeemer]

...it had been in existence since 33 AD

If you're series, that's insane.
If you're joking, that's funny.

[ebb tide]

If you're series, that's insane.

If one doesn't the difference between "series" and "serious", that's insane.

[kinsman redeemer]

Sorry!

I thought you had been on FR long enough to know the meme. But it’s only been since 2012.

It seems like you’ve been irritating people longer than that.

[Trump_Triumphant]

I’m quite serious.

[Trump_Triumphant]

ebb tide only annoys Protestants who don’t like to hear any other opinions than theirs. Who needs an infallible Pope when we have you guys here to make definitive statements and tell people they’re going to hell? A lot of “thank God I’m not like other men” style stuff from you guys.

[boatbums]

The New Testament itself teaches that it does not contain all that Our Lord did or, consequently, all that He taught.

It doesn't say "all that Jesus taught", just that He DID so many things that even the world itself could not contain all the books that should be written so vast is the miraculous incarnation of Jesus Christ and His ways past finding out. It's a cop-out used by cults and religions that either add new doctrines to Scripture or those which may contradict it. I submit that what we have in the Old and New Testaments DOES contain "the whole counsel of God" as Paul stated in his letter to the Ephesians as recorded in Acts 20:27. There is NO new/additional revelation from God meant for believers after Revelation was written.

Paul also wrote to the Corinthians:

Therefore, since God in His mercy has given us this ministry, we do not lose heart. Instead, we have renounced secret and shameful ways. We do not practice deceit, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by open proclamation of the truth, we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. (II Cor. 4:1-3)

[Elsie]

...ebb tide only annoys Protestants...

Thank God that elsie is not a Johnny One Note!

He manages to annoy all types of folks who proclaim their way is the ONLY way.

[kinsman redeemer]

Good For You.
re. your effort to save your buddy...with this:
...you guys here to make definitive statements and tell people they’re going to hell? A lot of “thank God I’m not like other men” style stuff from you guys.

Who wrote these gems ?:
"You better worry about your own eternal future instead of mine."

"Please, Don’t Call Protestants Christians" ?

"I don’t want to go where you seem to be going."

.

Now, since you're pretty new here, there are several memes that are repeated regularly here at FR. One of them comes from a typo someone made long ago. Instead of saying "serious", he wrote "series" and it became a regular joke. There are other such memes and maybe you will see them eventually.

I've been here long enough to remember the days when the website was so immature that if a poster left tags open, then the next post would inherit those tags and an admin would have to step in and clear up the mess. Funny! I haven' thought of that for a long time.

I've seen your posts and, in my view you are stuck in a religion that leads people to hell. I am not saying at all Catholics are going to hell. I know some who understand grace and are only engaged in the kind of work that James describes. BUT these people are not following all the baggage that the RCC throws on its adherents.

Here's why: Catholicism is a religion based on works. "Oh!" you scream "NO!" But I have first-hand experience with your "church". It adds works to your faith in Christ and thus renders your faith to be useless. I compare it to what Paul said about Jews who were continuing in their own efforts to follow the Law of Moses (e.g. circumcision). Your church is FULL of work requirements that are added to your Creed. Deny it if you's like. I don't care. The list of added salvation requirements is long, starting with all your "sacraments", death without any unconfessed mortal sins, and includes a host of other required ritualistic observations.

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? (Galatians 3:1-3)
and
For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” Galatians 3:10-11

I want to be clear:
If a person holds to the official Roman Catholic understanding of salvation, he or she is not saved. Despite their vigorous affirmations, Roman Catholicism does not truly hold to salvation by grace through faith¹.

I won't reply to whatever you write. I already know what you think. You've said enough.

¹ Taken from HERE.

[Ken Regis]

“… Paul notes that baptism has replaced circumcision”

I must need a new Bible, mine says “…circumcision without hands” and I understand what he is comparing.

You don’t.

That is just ONE of your errors.

So, “Bye!”

[Trump_Triumphant]

I know you said that you wouldn’t answer, but do you believe works of the (Mosaic) Law are the same thing as “good works”?

[metmom]

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.

And that's worse than actively practicing homosexual priests who molest minors, eh?

So if that disqualifies or invalidates anything Hus had to say, then what about the corrupt, immoral popes and priests Catholicism is rife with and has been for the last 1,000 years or so??

He considered this part of the “Freedom of the Gospel”.

Sources? Can you back up that accusation?

[metmom]

I’m sure boatbums is a good person, but I’ve been reading about these issues since I was in Grade school and I’m at least as informed as he is.

Is that so?

IIRC, she went to seminary.