Crickets? Where have you been? Here's just a few from my own posting history...
Explaining the Authority of the Pope
Explaining the Authority of the Church
More on the Authority of the Church
Even more on the Authority of the Church
Explaining the Fatherhood of the Priesthood
Explaining the Problems with Sola Scriptura
Seriously... hardly a day or even a thread can go by without this very same challenge. It gets answered. You don't listen. It's your choice not to listen... but "crickets"?!
Seriously...read those posts by you? And, they are so thin as to be laughable...if it were not so pathetic that you believe them. Give us authority from the Bible...again, crickets.
.... the authority of Jesus Christ.
Where does the authority of God come in? It should be the only thing listed.
Actually in my vast collection of my saved replies as a regular in the RF (by God's grace), I only find one thread you ever responded to me in, and after refuting your attempt to support praying to created beings in Heaven, which is utterly absent in Scripture, you resorted to the extrapolative premise that Matt 16:18 and John 16:13 means Rome is the one true church, but you never responded to my simple question that challenges it. As we are not to carry debate from thread to thread, you can just answer the longer version regarding your premise and its presuppositions in post 48 on this thread .
All i see you doing is usually expressing the same old assertions or type of argumentation that have been often challenged and refuted here. We are not to continue past debates with a poster interactively from threads to threads, but i think if you care to affirm here the argumentation which you referred to here, most of which i usually see other RCs making, then i think we could deal with them again as a group. These include,
That Aramaic is determinative what Mt. 16:18 means and which is that Peter is the Rock, t despite what other researchers and the rest of Scripture says
That the fallible interpretation of Is. 22:15-23 speaks of Peter, not Christ if anyone in the secondary sense.
And the strawman that Protestant faith means that have have no appeal to ecclesiastical magisterium, despite what Westminster says, and that the invisible (in Scripture) RC magisterium is essential (even that the imprimatur means matters of faith and morals are in accordance with Catholic teaching),
That Peter was The spokesman for the apostles in Acts 15, but had no Scripture for him to cite (yet James did), and which somehow refutes SS, as if Scriptural substantiation was not the basis for this judgment, as if an explicit text is needed. And Peters counsel (proposal) is extrapolated into claiming Rome is filling in the "gaps" whenever teaching what is not taught in Scripture, even making the Assumption as binding doctrine when this fable is lacking even early historical testimony.
That the sole replacement of an apostle, Judas, translates into continued apostolic succession, and which translates into Catholic apostolic succession, versus leadership being thru presbuteros which were charged with being overseers. And that NT pastors are RC "priests," though nonexistent in Scripture, based upon the premise that there primary distinctive function was that of offering up the Eucharist a sacrifice for sin, though they are never even shown to do so in the life of the church, and preaching the word is said to be their primary distinctive function, by which souls are "nourished," nor is the Cath literalistic interpretation of the Lord's supper supported by the rest of Scripture, including in the life of the church, while only the metaphorical position easily conflates with it.
That Rome did not stifle the translation of the Bible into the languages of the people but was just keeping it safe, with the laity relying upon what was read and explained in Mass so as to preserve (cultic) unity.
That Rome has actual unity of faith, while "Protestant" is broadly defined, yet relegating liberal RCs as being excoms, based upon the interpretation of RC teaching by conservative RCs, despite how Rome shows what it believes by treating them as members in life and in death.
That the fallible RC interpretation of 1 Tim 3:15 means Rome is the church which is the one to settle discipline on church members (though it rarely does on her own).
That "he who receives anyone I send, receives Me" (John 13:20) uniquely means whom the Cath. church sends, and she uniquely has Binding and Loosing power, though this also was given to righteous believers besides presbuteros (not NT priests).
That Paul being consecrated for his mission by Ananias (Acts 9:17) supports the above, though Ananias was not conspicuously not even said to be an apostle or even a pastor, but simply as "a certain disciple" "a devout man."
That texts such as Matt 28:19-20 and Eph. 4:11 and the valid episkopate office, and such as Paul calling himself a spiritual father supports requiring RC priests to formally be called "fathers," which presupposes there was a distinctive class of believers titled "priests", and who were spiritual fathers since baptism effects regeneration.
That the Sola Scriptura viewpoint means that the Holy Spirit has not taught all things (as if the Holy Spirit has taught all things thru Rome) but has only been saying "read the Book," while SS does not hold that all that can be revealed from God is in Scripture. And that doctrines such as the "Rapture" contradict SS, as if eschatological interpretations are excluded under SS (this one misplacing the resurrection as a rapture), while other RCs say the "Rapture" is a product of SS, as if Rome herself is settled or necessarily correct in denying the literal 1,000 reign of Christ.
That the fact that a certain basis for determining the veracity of Truth claims results in disunity means it cannot produce unity, and is not Scriptural, and imagining that the RC alternative, that of sola ecclesia, based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, has produced unity, as per John 17:21, though that is what is basically truly seen among mature evangelicals, not RCs overall, while in fact it Roman unity is quite limited in scope and largely on paper, and is not the basis upon which the NT church began.
That 2 Peter 1:20 refers to interpreting Scripture, disallowing private revelation, but which itself is an invalid interpretation, as it refers to how Scripture was written, that being under Divine inspiration, and would require is interpretation to be under Divine inspiration if that is what it applies to, which cannot be said of Rome's teaching.
That 2 Thess 2:15 supports the basically bottomless pit of Cath amorphous oral tradition, as if Rome could prove on thing that Paul was referring to was taught in Cath tradition, and was not subsequently written down, as was the norm for anything called the word of God/the Lord. And that SS pastors cannot require obedience to their oral preaching of Scripture Truths.
And that Paul did appealed to Scripture, despite Scripture saying that was his manner, and giving examples among the Jews, (Acts 13; 17:2; 20:23) in preaching "the gospel of God, Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:1-2)
That the private instruction Christ gave to the Apostles is the Cath Deposit of Faith, and that John 20:30 and John 21:25 indirectly supports this, yet cults use the same tactic, while the fact is that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes first being spoken, and that 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. As is abundantly evidenced
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, 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 they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
That since the Bible Itself tells us it is not all-inclusive then there is no such thing as Sola Scriptura, but which imagines the sufficient aspect must wholly refer to formal sufficiency, excluding material sufficiency, and that SS claims the Scriptures contain all that can be revealed (versus what is necessary), and that this must be the case if a source is to be the only supreme standard for faith. Which thus presumes Rome has supplied all that can be revealed.
Posting links to threads based on pure falsehood is no argument at all.
.