No, most of us start out life and only begin to attend school after we've learned to walk, talk, etc. Later, some of us actually do take college courses that teach us critical thinking, which includes avoiding argumentation based on things like non-sequiturs and ad hominem. Do all anti-Protestants start every debate by insulting the other person, by first challenging their grasp of logic and then answering it with a lot irrelevancies and, frankly, gibberish?
Here's a logical lesson for you, my friend. Declaring a premise to be false is not, in fact, a refutation of the premise.
Here's another one for you to chew on, and then I'm done. I've better things to do than keep knocking chips off your shoulder.
Are you a priest? Because if not, then you have no authority to debate me on the subject of sola scriptura using Thessalonians or any other scripture. Why? Because based on what I've observed in these threads, the reasoning (and I use the term loosely) of the anti-sola scriptura crowd is that to do so would be to utilize your own understanding of scripture, which is what you folks seem to find so offensive in Protestantism.
But hey, enjoy your feeling of superiority.
“Later, some of us actually do take college courses that teach us critical thinking, which includes avoiding argumentation based on things like non-sequiturs and ad hominem.”
When you locate some of those people send them my way. So far they have not shown up.
“Do all anti-Protestants start every debate by insulting the other person,”
No, but I often do - but I would not call myself anti-Protestant. If you feel insulted, I suggest you leave now.
“by first challenging their grasp of logic”
That has to happen because the lack thereof is so glaring.
“and then answering it with a lot irrelevancies and, frankly, gibberish?”
So pointing out tat your comment made no sense is “a lot irrelevancies and, frankly, gibberish”? Then we’re back to “challenging their grasp of logic”
“Here’s a logical lesson for you, my friend. Declaring a premise to be false is not, in fact, a refutation of the premise.”
And here’s another lesson: Declaring a premise to be false when it is obviously false renders a refutation of the premise unnecessary. If you feel otherwise, get used to it. Your premise was obviously false. Remember, I summarized your premise before you stated it and you did not deny that summary. I have seen that sort of nonsense too many times already. You didn’t even offer proof for your false premise (of course). I’m defending the truth while you’re posting false claims. I need not spend time posting refutations of things which are obviously false.
“Here’s another one for you to chew on, and then I’m done. I’ve better things to do than keep knocking chips off your shoulder.”
S-u-r-e. Here’s another lesson for you: when you debate someone and accuse them of doing or believing in something at least get that THING right. I completely and absolutely pinned you down on what your premise was - you didn’t even dispute it really. Notice that?
“Are you a priest?”
Doesn’t matter if I am. Doesn’t matter if I am not.
“Because if not, then you have no authority to debate me on the subject of sola scriptura using Thessalonians or any other scripture. Why? Because based on what I’ve observed in these threads, the reasoning (and I use the term loosely) of the anti-sola scriptura crowd is that to do so would be to utilize your own understanding of scripture, which is what you folks seem to find so offensive in Protestantism.”
Wow, another failure in logic. Here, let me set you straight: I, as a layperson, have every right to defend the truth. I have just as much right to do so as anyone who is ordained. Thus, since sola scriptura is heretical, and not orthodox, I have every right to defend the truth. In doing so I have violated not a single orthodox principle - including the interpretation of scripture.
“But hey, enjoy your feeling of superiority.”
I think only a person with a feeling of superiority would post that comment.
Touche`
Game. Set. Match.
Bravo and well said!!
Hoss
**Because if not, then you have no authority to debate me on the subject of sola scriptura using Thessalonians or any other scripture. Why? Because based on what I’ve observed in these threads, the reasoning (and I use the term loosely) of the anti-sola scriptura crowd is that to do so would be to utilize your own understanding of scripture, which is what you folks seem to find so offensive in Protestantism.**
Source of this information, please.
That all depends upon which time and place a member of the unchanging RCC lives in.
We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication. — Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium”, Lib. V, c. ii:Catholic Encyclopedia, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Religious_Discussions
Commenting on this, the 1914 Catholic Encyclopedia states, “This law, like all penal laws, must be very narrowly construed. The terms Catholic Faith and dispute have a technical signification. The former term refers to questions purely theological; the latter to disputations more or less formal, and engrossing the attention of the public....But when there is a question of dogmatic or moral theology, every intelligent layman will concede the propriety of leaving the exposition and defense of it to the clergy. - www.newadvent.org/cathen/05034a.htm
But the clergy are not free to engage in public disputes on religion without due authorization. In the Collectanea S. Cong. de Prop. Fide" (p. 102, n. 294) we find the following decree, issued 8 March, 1625: "The Sacred Congregation has ordered that public discussions shall not be held with heretics, because for the most part, either owing to their loquacity or audacity or to the applause of the audience, error prevails and the truth is crushed. But should it happen that such a discussion is unavoidable, notice must first be given to the S. Congregation, which, after weighing the circumstances of time and persons, will prescribe in detail what is to be done. The Sacred Congregation enforced this decree with such vigour, that the custom of holding public disputes with heretics wellnigh fell into desuetude.
That this legislation is still in force appears from the letter addressed to the bishops of Italy by Cardinal Rampolla in the name of the Cong. for Ecclesiastical Affairs (27 Jan., 1902) in which it is declared that discussions with Socialists are subject to the decrees of the Holy See regarding public disputes with heretics; and, in accordance with the decree of Propaganda, 7 Feb., 1645, such public disputations are not to be permitted unless there is hope of producing greater good and unless the conditions prescribed by theologians are fulfilled. The Holy See, it is added, considering that these discussions often produce no result at all or even result in harm, has frequently forbidden them and ordered ecclesiastical superiors to prevent them; where this cannot be done, care must be taken that the discussions are not held without the authorization of the Apostolic See; and that only those who are well qualified to secure the triumph of Christian truth shall take part therein. It is evident, then, that no Catholic priest is ever permitted to become the aggressor or to issue a challenge to such a debate.
font color="#4c1900">“...the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.” St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Article 9, “Whether it is lawful to communicate with unbelievers?”; http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3010.htm
Is it permitted for Christians to be present at, or to take part in, conventions, gatherings, meetings, or societies of non-Catholics which aim to associate together under a single agreement everyone who, in any way, lays claim to the name of Christian? In the negative! - (Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos)
How does a Catholic sin against faith? A Catholic sins against Faith by Apostasy, heresy, indifferentism and by taking part in non-Catholic worship." (Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the Baltimore Catechism)
"If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" - III Council of Constantinople.
Quinisext Ecumenical Council, Canon 64: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, and to open his ears to those who have received the grace to teach, and be taught by them divine things; for in one Church God has made "different members," according to the word of the Apostle... But if any one be found weakening [disobeying] the present canon, he is to be cut off for forty days. — http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
But that was the past...
Because based on what I've observed in these threads, the reasoning (and I use the term loosely) of the anti-sola scriptura crowd is that to do so would be to utilize your own understanding of scripture, which is what you folks seem to find so offensive in Protestantism.
This is true, as while they censure "private interpretation" - based upon a misappropriation of 1Pt. 1:20 - RCs have a great deal of liberty to adopt interpretations of Scripture as long as they do not contradict Rome, and as we have often seen, supporting her requires a great deal of creative writing and egregious extrapolation.
Meanwhile, the incontrovertible fact, established many times here, is that is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus Scripture provides for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
And that there is no other objective body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God in all its words, which Rome does not even claim for its words of Tradition, nor for infallible papal pronouncements.
In contrast, the weight of Scripture is not the basis for truthfulness of Rc doctrine, and the RCs assurance of truth, but which is based upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
For the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
And some RCs even are honest enough to affirm this ignorant premise!