YAWN
Here, have a pagan idol on a Catholic altar in front of Pope John Paul II as my official reply:
Posted on 02/12/2014 9:14:01 PM PST by ATOMIC_PUNK
Scripture. “Search the scriptures daily”! Paul’s writings became scripture per Peter.
FWIW, as a Baptist I would never want to be identified as a "Crusader". We have always advanced the Word of God with words, not swords. Those who think they made Jesus proud by using weapons in His name will find out at the White Throne Judgement that they were never one of us.
“LOL, keep saying it to yourself if it makes you feel any better.”
Well, you have yet to offer any evidence that he believed in a Protestant doctrine that wouldn’t exist for more than 1000 years after he died.
“Wow, you’re still on that? Didn’t I already respond to this?”
No, not really. It shows your argument makes no sense according to your own logic. You say Cyril believed in sola scriptura as you do or as Protestants do. Yet he believed in doctrines sola scripturists (all of whom are modern Protestants) refuse to believe in. Quite frankly that means your argument makes little or no sense.
I'm not a Protestant, but as a Baptist I would not want to be associated with the name. We share The Gospel. We don't believe conversion can be accomplished at the end of a sword.
” Paul’s writings became scripture per Peter.”
No, Paul’s writings were scripture because of where they came from (God) not because of Peter. Peter recognized they were scripture. The Jewish Bereans would not - until converted - believe Paul’s writings were scripture. And Paul had written very little at that point any way.
You can see this for yourself. Look at the left column here for Acts 17. Look at the middle column for “Galatians”: http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/paul/timeline.cfm I know timelines can differ because it’s largely guess work, but the idea is simple to understand. Paul wrote little or nothing before he dealt with the Bereans. He was explaining the Old Testament prophecies to them and they were checking the books (and their traditions about them as well since there were many) to see if he was right.
See post # 74, and read BOTH quotations. And it's not a Protestant doctrine. It's a Christian doctrine.
No, not really. It shows your argument makes no sense according to your own logic.
See post #85 and actually respond to it instead of trolling me.
Of course! Now you’re getting it. Just like we have scripture today because God gave them to us and not the Catholics. God can use anyone, even people who are in error or outright evil like Herrod or Judas. God did use Balaam’s donkey also didn’t He.
>> (and their traditions about them as well since there were many)<<
Nice try at “adding to scripture” but it doesn’t work. It does NOT say “searched the scriptures (and their traditions about them) daily”. See how Catholics always have to add things to make their beliefs work?
They just can't stand on God's word alone can they? It's a shame really.
Pity you didn't use that valuable time studying the scriptures instead...
Oh, I did. That’s why it is so easy to see your errors.
No, sola scriptura is entirely a Protestant doctrine. The early Church fathers didn’t believe in it although modern Protestant apologists have produced several fanciful books claiming such.
“See post #85 and actually respond to it instead of trolling me.”
No trolling involved, but I’m not beholden to you. I’ll do exactly as I please.
Pity it couldn't share what chapter & verse in which it found that little gem
I understand you believe that premise by faith; I don't know what you use for historical evidence. The seven books from the Catholic Bible commonly called the Apochrypha aside, there is some historical evidence of debate as to which books from the NT era should be included. Disputed Books of the New Testament
We do know this, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
“Just like we have scripture today because God gave them to us and not the Catholics.”
No. God sent the scriptures and the Catholic Church. They always go together. The point still stands - Paul was not using the New Testament because the Bereans didn’t have it, wouldn’t recognize it, and it had not been written yet.
“Nice try at “adding to scripture” but it doesn’t work. It does NOT say “searched the scriptures (and their traditions about them) daily”. See how Catholics always have to add things to make their beliefs work?”
I’m not adding anything. The Jews had traditions which they used to understand scripture and they had traditional understandings of scripture. Hence, Jesus could talk about Moses’ seat even though that appears no where in scripture but where Jesus mentions it in the gospels. Most likely Paul was talking to the Berean Jews about Jesus’ Passion and Resurrection since that is a huge theme in Paul’s encounters with Jews in Acts and served as a stumbling block for Jews. He would have used Isaiah’s verses about the Suffering Servant to explain how Jesus’ Passion prove He is the Messiah rather than disprove Him as the Messiah.
You’re asking anti-Catholics for evidence of their bizarre views of Church History? You’ll be very disappointed!!!
Ha! You are right on the money, sir!
Exactly...
Yes they did. Just like Catholics. And the Jews denied Christ didn’t they. And the Catholics pervert scripture. Those “traditions” worked our reeeeeaaaaallll well for the Jews didn’t they!
>> Most likely<<
LOL Most likely? No wonder Catholics don’t like Sola Scripture. They have to rely on man’s wisdom of “most likely”.
You and you’re “most likely” and “it doesn’t say it didn’t happen” exegesis just doesn’t cut it with those seeking truth.
YAWN
Here, have a pagan idol on a Catholic altar in front of Pope John Paul II as my official reply:
I had to pull this one out of your link because this is one of the most ridiculous...
"He who does not believe will be condemned." This demonstrates that one can be baptized and still not be a believer.
Yes it does...You can baptize all the muzlims and anyone else you want...But that person will be damned even if you hit him with a fire hose...
So your religion somehow twists and perverts this verse to mean babies then can be baptized because belief isn't required for baptism...
Belief + baptism = heaven...
Unbelief + baptism = hell...
What a whacko interpretation your religion has...
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.