Posted on 01/24/2015 8:33:46 AM PST by RnMomof7
Elsie, it becomes clear you’ve lost an argument when you start posting pictures or cartoons. It’s your way.
“Well; you’ve assumed wrong.”
I didn’t assume anything. And even if I did assume, I would still be right.
“Perhaps your confusion has arisen from the fact that my wanting to know is so that any LURKERS would understand the ‘correct’ view of Catholicism and not be confused by the incorrect one of Protestantism.”
Perhaps your confusion has arisen from the fact that your wanting to know is so that you can trick LURKERS into misunderstanding what is ‘incorrect’ about a faith you attack every day and yet have shown little knowledge about.
“Would you be so kind as to fill in THEIR lack of knowledge?”
Not through your anti-Catholic filter, no. I also don’t assume they have a lack of knowledge. You’ve assumed wrong.
Denying Christ as the Messiah is not going to turn out well for you.
At least you have succinctly indicated that you have no idea what Sola Scriptura means.
I see.
I guess I was wrong in assuming you knew why your chosen religion had the OTHER needed things that Protestantism was lacking.
I was indeed wrong.
Actually, if sola Scriptura is erroneous, then Catholicism has nothing on which to base its authority
AND
they did a pretty poor job of *writing the Bible that Catholics claim they wrote and gave to us.
So if they couldn’t get that right the first time around, why on earth would they expect people to believe that they got it right the 3rd, 4th, ad infinitum time around?
Becazuse they say so!
“At least you have succinctly indicated that you have no idea what Sola Scriptura means.”
I do know what it means. I even know what it means to several different groups of Protestants. And you still can’t show a single verse that says Matthew wrote an inspired book. Not one.
Nor would that be what is required by Sola Scriptura. See, you can claim you know but your words indicate otherwise.
“Nor would that be what is required by Sola Scriptura.”
You might say that, but that is not what others would say - and many Protestants - like all unthinking Protestants - have never thought about it.
“See, you can claim you know but your words indicate otherwise.”
See, you can claim I don’t know something but your failures indicate otherwise.
Please show where anyone has said that's included in Sola Scriptura. Post # and thread would suffice.
“Please show where anyone has said that’s included in Sola Scriptura. Post # and thread would suffice.”
No. Look around at your fellow posters. Haven’t you been paying attention? Remember, we’re talking about unthinking people.
“I see.”
No evidence for that will be posted.
“I guess I was wrong in assuming you knew why your chosen religion had the OTHER needed things that Protestantism was lacking.”
You were wrong but not for the reason you say. You’ll probably never know why.
“I was indeed wrong.”
About what you do, yes.
You made the statement "You might say that, but that is not what others would say". I have not seen anyone make that claim. Are you now saying you "made that up out of thin air"?
I'll use your words: "YOU made the allegation". I have never seen anyone claim that to prove Matthew wrote an inspired book was part of Sola Scriptura. Now, you wouldn't want people to think you "made that up out of thin air" would you? Thread and post # would suffice.
“You made the statement “You might say that, but that is not what others would say”. I have not seen anyone make that claim.”
It doesn’t matter if you have.
“Are you now saying you “made that up out of thin air”?”
No. Again, have you not paid attention?
“I’ll use your words: “YOU made the allegation”.”
No. I said that someone made an allegation THAT I HAD SAID SOMETHING I NEVER SAID. I am not ALLEGING YOU SAID SOMETHING YOU DID NOT SAY. See the difference? You probably don’t.
“I have never seen anyone claim that to prove Matthew wrote an inspired book was part of Sola Scriptura.”
My gosh, can you go even a single post without literally making up things no one ever said or claimed? I NEVER SAID “anyone claim[ed] to prove Matthew wrote an inspired book was part of Sola Scriptura”. Perhaps you really, really wish I said it, but I didn’t.
Remember, you wrote: “Nor would that be what is required by Sola Scriptura.”
REQUIRED. See that word? Do YOU SEE THE WORD “required”?
I then wrote in response:
“You might say that, but that is not what others would say - and many Protestants - like all unthinking Protestants - have never thought about it.”
In other words, there are Protestants out there who have so successfully deluded themselves that they actually believe everything they believe is explicitly in scripture. Then you ask them a simple question about Matthew and they have NOTHING. If they’re honest, they will suddenly realize they believe in something ‘extra-biblical’. If they’re like the anti-Catholics here, they’ll just start stonewalling, back-tracking or running rabbit trails on definitions about sola scriptura.
“Now, you wouldn’t want people to think you “made that up out of thin air” would you? Thread and post # would suffice.”
It would really help if the anti-Catholics could actually read. I made nothing up. Everything I said is true. I never said what you claimed I said.
Go ahead and make up something else I never said. No, really, it’s what so many anti-Catholics seem to do.
Newman was right:
“If you would have some direct downright proof that Catholicism is what Protestants make it to be, something which will come up to the mark, you must lie... To Protestantism False Witness is the principle of propagation.” (John Henry Newman, Lecture 4. True Testimony Insufficient for the Protestant View)
“Actually, if sola Scriptura is erroneous, then Catholicism has nothing on which to base its authority”
Christ. He walked, died, and rose before the New Testament was written. He gave authority to the Church - before the New Testament was written.
Christ.
Newman was right about this for sure.
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison, are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.[Cardinal Newman - Development of Christian Doctrine, pg 373]
Catholicism surely incorporates paganism it it's worship of God. Something God condemned by the way.
“Catholicism surely incorporates paganism it it’s worship of God. Something God condemned by the way.”
Oh, so now we’re back to your pagan wedding.
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.