I’d get that short-term memory problem looked at before it gets any worse!

One is judged by their fruits.

I've heard that; somewhere...

Oh yeah; it was about False Prophets...

Matthew 7:15-20 King James Version (KJV)

¹⁵Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

¹⁶Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

¹⁷Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.

¹⁸A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

¹⁹Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

²⁰Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

One is judged by their fruits.

MormonISM seems quite interested in FRUITS as well...

Genesis 50:24–31

24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die, and go unto my fathers; and I go down to my grave with joy. The God of my father Jacob be with you, to deliver you out of affliction in the days of your bondage; for the Lord hath visited me, and I have obtained a promise of the Lord, that out of the fruit of my loins, the Lord God will raise up a righteous branch out of my loins; and unto thee, whom my father Jacob hath named Israel, a prophet; (not the Messiah who is called Shilo;) and this prophet shall deliver my people out of Egypt in the days of thy bondage.

25 And it shall come to pass that they shall be scattered again; and a branch shall be broken off, and shall be carried into a far country; nevertheless they shall be remembered in the covenants of the Lord, when the Messiah cometh; for he shall be made manifest unto them in the latter days, in the Spirit of power; and shall bring them out of darkness into light; out of hidden darkness, and out of captivity unto freedom.

26 A seer shall the Lord my God raise up, who shall be a choice seer unto the fruit of my loins.

27 Thus saith the Lord God of my fathers unto me, A choice seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and he shall be esteemed highly among the fruit of thy loins; and unto him will I give commandment that he shall do a work for the fruit of thy loins, his brethren.

28 And he shall bring them to the knowledge of the covenants which I have made with thy fathers; and he shall do whatsoever work I shall command him.

29 And I will make him great in mine eyes, for he shall do my work; and he shall be great like unto him whom I have said I would raise up unto you, to deliver my people, O house of Israel, out of the land of Egypt; for a seer will I raise up to deliver my people out of the land of Egypt; and he shall be called Moses. And by this name he shall know that he is of thy house; for he shall be nursed by the king’s daughter, and shall be called her son.

30 And again, a seer will I raise up out of the fruit of thy loins, and unto him will I give power to bring forth my word unto the seed of thy loins; and not to the bringing forth of my word only, saith the Lord, but to the convincing them of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them in the last days;

31 Wherefore the fruit of thy loins shall write, and the fruit of thy loins of Judah shall write; and that which shall be written by the fruit of thy loins, and also that which shall be written by the fruit of the loins of Judah, shall grow together unto the confounding of false doctrines, and laying down of contentions, and establishing peace among the fruit of thy loins, and bringing them to a knowledge of their fathers in the latter days; and also to the knowledge of my covenants, saith the Lord.

Apparently, they, along with the early Church Fathers were all mistaken in their understandings of the word of God.

Perhaps a PRAYER to St. Augustine would clear up YOUR confusion...

• Augustine, sermon:

"Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

• Augustine, sermon:

For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, 'On this rock will I build my Church,' because Peter had said, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf107.iii.cxxv.html)

• Augustine, sermon:

And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16)...And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289

• Augustine, sermon:

Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18)...Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

• Augustine, sermon:

...because on this rock, he said, I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not overcome it (Mt. 16:18). Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4). Was it Paul that was crucified for you? Hold on to these texts, love these texts, repeat them in a fraternal and peaceful manner. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10, Sermon 358.5, p. 193

• Augustine, Psalm LXI:

Let us call to mind the Gospel: 'Upon this Rock I will build My Church.' Therefore She crieth from the ends of the earth, whom He hath willed to build upon a Rock. But in order that the Church might be builded upon the Rock, who was made the Rock? Hear Paul saying: 'But the Rock was Christ.' On Him therefore builded we have been. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249. (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf108.ii.LXI.html)

• Augustine, in “Retractions,”

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

Hey there Auggie!!

Do you understand what you're reading or does Philip need to climb up into your chariot?

Maybe Elise, metmom etc all need to spend some serious study time before embarrassing themselves with the commentary they offer.

I don't mind the embarrassment.

It keeps me humble...

What we have here is the typical shallow Protestant response

The following will not be, by God's grace.

Rain down a few scriptural quotes from here and there and ignore the broad breadth and depth of the history of the early Church Fathers and their coherent doctrine

Meaning you seem to ignore the different non-unanimous view of so-called "fathers," versus the often stated “unanimous consent” of the fathers and those which are contrary to Rome, while effectively elevating them "above that which is written" as needed, contrary to Scripture.

The non-inspired writings of these so-called church fathers, the relative little we have available from them, with most of which on the web being due to Anglican churchmen, stands in contrast to the inspired writings of Scripture in quality (thus the former remains in basic obscurity), and often in teaching. And no less than Jerome engaged in manifest wresting of Scripture to support his erroneous views on marriage (as unclean, and that it is bad to touch a women) versus virginity, which others ECFs also guilty of.

Meanwhile, your premise that the opinion of the lettered is to be primarily determinative of where the wisdom lays in contrary to how the church began.

Then came the officers to the chief priests and Pharisees; and they said unto them, Why have ye not brought him? The officers answered, Never man spake like this man. Then answered them the Pharisees, Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed. (John 7:45-49)

Perhaps you should engage yourself in serious scholarship reading. The early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, “[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church,

Yes, let us read Kelly, whose Early Christian Doctrines is on my lap, and in the quote you enlist he is describing the view of Irenaeus, and adds that Irenaeus held that “what the apostles at first proclaimed by word of mouth, they afterward by God's will conveyed to us in Scriptures,” and that "provided the Bible was taken as a whole, its teaching was self-evident," and which was the "foundation and pillar of our faith." (pp. 38,39)

However, it is rather obvious that by yoking tradition as equal with Scripture and determinative of its meaning - which likely was a result of their difficulty in combating aberrations who employed Scripture, as the devil did, but whom the Lord defeated by Scripture, not tradition - Scripture ceased to become the supreme standard, but the church did. And rendered Scripture to be its servant to support doctrines she channels out of her amorphous "oral tradition."

The veracity of which does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, by which the church began, but upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

Thus Rome can even decree as binding the belief in a specific event not recorded or promised in Scripture, and contrary to its order, and even though it lacks early testimony of tradition, and the sanction of church historians and theologians, but which Rome "remembers" and guarantees to be true over 1800 years after it allegedly occurred, under the self-proclaimed premise that she cannot err. Which is cultic, not Christian.

But as the teaching of Scripture is so self-evident, then it is manifest that a whole list of accumulated Caths teachings are not of Scripture .

You wistfully ignore the writings of St. Irenaeus AD 189

"You wistfully" is personal mind reading, but let us see what is unknown or ignored by RCs (as "coherent doctrine") in the writings of St. Irenaeus, among others from Kelley, and which is related to the Assumption. For Kelly finds that Ireneaus, Tertullian, and Origen all felt Mary had sinned:

In contrast to the later belief in her moral and spiritual perfection. None of these theologians had the least scruple about attributing faults to her. Irenaeus and Tertullian recalled occasions on which, as they read the gospel stories, she had earned her son's rebuke, and Origen and insisted that, like all human beings, she needed redemption from her sins; in particular he interpreted Simon's prophecy in Luke 2:35 that a sword would pierce her soul as confirming that she had been invaded with doubts when she saw her son crucified. Page 493 (J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian doctrines)

Also,

You also have the findings on Cyprian:

"Cyprian made plain, that each bishop is entitled to hold his own views and to administer his own diocese accordingly...[In Cyprian's view] There is no suggestion that he [Peter] possessed any superiority to, much less jurisdiction over, the other apostles. - (Early Christian Doctrines [San Francisco, California: HarperCollins Publishers, 1978], pp. 205-206)

And consistent with Roman deformation of the NT church, even by the 4th century you have the election of Pope Damasus 1, who is officially a Roman Catholic Church "saint," engaging in unholy means to secure his throne from his rival Ursinus (such unity):

....the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians...the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. -Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. p. 32

you have no clue of the earlier writing of St. Ignatius of Antioch in AD 110, himself a contemporary of the Evangelist John who wrote in 21: 25 that there were many things Christ did that cannot fill all the books in the world.

There are indeed as revealed by Scripture, but your use of this fact in order to extrapolate support for whatever Rome decrees is simply an exercise in sophistry. Mormons also invoke Jn. 21:25, but the fact that there is more information than what is written neither means God made such available and necessary to be known now, much less validate the claims of Rome regarding such, based upon her self-proclaimed ensured infallibility and veracity.

And what RCs ignore is that rather than inferring that a whole body of oral tradition is to be channeled by Rome into doctrine, what John states is,

And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. (John 20:30-31)

There is also much that was not written in OT times, but which does not validate the Talmud with its superstitions, nor the fables of Rome passed off as doctrine.-.

The oral preaching Paul enjoined churches to obey, which a SS preacher can also do, would be that of Scriptural Truths, as that was what he claimed the gospel was of. Nor is there any evidence that what Rome teaches were things Paul referred to, and that these were not subsequently penned. And Paul was also an wholly inspired writer of Scripture, which Rome cannot claim for her doctrines.

And 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, 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.)

Your eclectic views of scriptures are utterly risible because it would mean that for eleven centuries the constellation of theologians, saints, and martyrs all got it wrong.

It is Caths whose use of scriptures is eclectic, and often that of ECFs, while rejection of the errors of ancients as well as Rome, which are not necessarily the same, does not equate to the constellation of theologians, saints, and martyrs getting it all wrong. These were pious men as are many Jews, yet one can be off in many ways and yet still be a child of God, as The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit. (Psalms 34:18)

But Rome's progressive accretions of traditions and errors is manifest in the light of Scripture, as said, from infant regeneration and justification thru sprinkling or water, to ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, to the Lord's Supper being that of offering the "real" but not bloody body of flesh and blood of Christ as a sin offering, and literally consuming this as in order to obtain spiritual life, to a separate class sacerdotal believers distinctively titled "priests" since they uniquely engage in the former practice, to praying to created beings in Heaven, to becoming good enough to enter Heaven thru purgatorial torments, etc.

This is why the works of Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict to say nothing of the scores of Protestant theologians who converted to Catholicism flies well over your heads.

The use of which serves to illustrate the deformation of Rome as well as ignorance of RCs or their interpretation of them and of church teaching. Consider the variant views on EENS with some invoking historical papal and conciliar teachings which stand in contrast with modern ones. Some disallow even baptized Prots from being separated brethren, let alone non-Christians from being part of the body of Christ. Which Dulles interprets Augustine and Aquinas as supporting.

“According to Vatican II, the communion of the church of Christ extends far beyond the visible borders of the Roman Catholic Church. The Council's teaching on this point was not a new departure, but an assertion of a very traditional position, held by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. All who have the gifts of faith, hope, and charity, even though they be not Catholics or even Christians, are in some sense members of Christ's body, and therefore of the church.” (p. 59) — Cardinal Avery Dulles, A Church to Believe; In http://www.crowhill.net/journeyman/Vol1No3/dulles.html

So when Luke’s angel Gabriel describes Mary as “full of grace,” Luke is explicitly using language that applies to the Holy of Holies of the Temple, and saying that Mary is the Ark of the New Covenant.

Actually, that language applies to all believers. The word for “full” is not even in Lk. 1:28, as kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") in Lk. 1:28, is never used for "full" elsewhere, but Lk. 1:28 simply says she was graced, favored, enriched with grace, as in Eph.1:6. In contrast, the only one (though in some manuscripts Stephen in Acts 6:8) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT. If Mary was uniquely perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was, as Christ was, (plērēs charis) and RCs would not have to engage in such egregious extrapolations in seeking to left this invention.

Your own official RC Bible for America does not say “full of grace,” and Lk, 1:28 was wrongly rendered "full of grace" in the DRB, rather than "highly favored" or similar, as in Rome's current official New American Bible, “Hail, favored one!" (http://usccb.org/bible/luke/1) Yet the DRB correctly translates Eph. 1:6 as "in which he hath graced us."

For as CARM finds,In Greek: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ. κεχαριτωμένη, is the pf. pass. ptcp. of χαριτόω (charitoō). It is the single Greek word kexaritomena and means highly favored, make accepted, make graceful, etc. Repeated: It is a passive participle derived from charitoō. It does not mean "full of grace" or ‘completely filled with grace’ which is "plaras karitos" (plaras = full and karitos = Grace) in the Greek. More technical data from source here

Mary is said to be “full” of grace, or uniquely so, nor from what i find does kecharitomene being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, as per RC argumentation, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

See more on this issue here as White gets into detail with the Greek. (And notes that the fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

Even Roman Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin said of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene:

"This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense" like Mary's grandmother). He went on to say, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." Meaning the text does not teach the IM, nor is that necessary, but tradition becomes binding doctrine under the ultimate presumed authority of Rome.

Moreover, while Mary is highly blessed among women, and is to be honored according to what is written, this does not translate in the type of supererogation of praise seen in Catholicism, in which humble Mary is made into an almost almighty demigoddess!

Catholic Mariology uses Biblical typology over and over again,

So does the book of Mormon, as the devil knows the Bible, and is the author of Marian doctrine such as makes her an almost almighty demigoddess and dispenser of all graces, who is a more immediate sure recourse for help than Christ.

The very existence of the Marian dogmas tells us something about God’s generosity,

Rather, God allows heretical teachers in order to test the people, like as He allows Israel's enemies to exist, and the very existence of the Marian dogmas examples such, by which many are deceived, succumbing to the psychological appeal of a heavenly mother, like as the pagan Queen of Heaven, (Jer. 44).

In contrast, while out of over 200 prayers in Scripture to Heaven not one is to any created being , except by pagans, while the Holy Spirit sets forth Christ as the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, (1Tim. 2:5) and the uniquely qualified immediate recourse to pray, by whose blood believers have direct access into the Holy of Holies in Heaven to commune with God, not Mary or saintly secretaries! To the glory of God and the damnation of Catholicism.

She gets perpetual virginity. She gets to be glorified before anyone else. She gets protected from original sin. She gets appointed Mother of the Church and Queen of Heaven. Why? Just because He loves her, and that is reason enough.

Why? Because mostly lost souls persist in thinking of mortals above that which is written, and essentially deifying them, including ascribing the ability to hear and respond to incessant mental prayers to Heaven, which only God is shown able to do.

Why? Just because He loves her, and that is reason enough.

No no no! That since God has motive and can do something never warrants teaching than that He did! Under that hermeneutic one can sanction multitudes of other unScriptural teachings, like as Catholicism has, as well as cults!

And as they also basically operate out of the Roman model of sola ecclesia, in which the leaders are the supreme authority which possess ensured veracity, then the real issue is the RC basis for assurance of Truth. That of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, or the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, under which the church began. Which is not taught in Scripture and relies upon the

SPIRITUAL TRUTHS ARE SPIRITUALLY DISCERNED

1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”

1 Corinthians 2:1-16 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,

“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—

these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.

Aw, now you’ve done it, pulled tc’s twister covers off to expose the magic thinking typical of those steeped in Catholicism (and that is not Christianity, it is the ism of the papal dictum).

Steelfish bot prints in this thread:

>>>It was the Catholic Church, based on Petrine authority, that affirmed the canonical texts in AD 382.<<<

>>>The same Church that through Petrine authority confirmed the true Word of God in its assembly of the canonical texts after researching for over 200 years, hundreds of texts, cross-checked against the received oral tradition.<<<

>>>Oh, if you doubt Petrine authority, you must also doubt the accuracy of the books assembled as the canonical texts established in the Synod of Rome in AD 382.<<<

>>>Well if you don't believe in Petrine authority then you must question the accuracy of the canonical books assembled in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority that proclaimed the Written Word of God.<<<

>>>The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I.<<<

>>>You must then doubt the canonical texts as well since these were established by men: the early Church Fathers (theologians) under Petrine authority?<<<

>>>Well if you don’t believe in Petrine authority then you must question the accuracy of the canonical books assembled in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority that proclaimed the Written Word of God.<<<

>>>Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the Canon.<<<

=====

New Steelfish bot print:

>>>You get to crack open the pages of the Bible assembled under infallible Petrine authority under Pope Damasus at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382<<<

Steelfish, for the first time in this thread I see that the words canon or canonical are not included in your bot printout. Is this progress?

>>>But don’t tell this to Protestants. [...] "I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged.”<<<

Thank goodness that I am not a Protestant then, eh?

Since you skipped out of the last thread before I got to present my last post to you, I will repeat it here for you. (Your welcome.)

=====

Quote from Steelfish >>>Dr. David Anders, a former Protestant theological scholar sums up thus: “I also realized that Protestantism was a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic. Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue, it bred contention, and could not even remain unchanged. The more I studied, the more I realized that my evangelical heritage had moved far not only from ancient Christianity, but even from the teaching of her own Protestant founders.”<<<

I fully agree with this statement. No doubt, as a Protestant Anders thought that the epistle of James was inspired by God, and now as a Roman Catholic he actually thinks he understands Scripture better, while still erroneously believing that the epistle of James was inspired by God.

Ja.1.25a But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom

Ja.2.11-13 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom

James thought that the OC Law brought freedom. Paul disagreed:

Ro.8.1-2 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Ga.3.23 Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed.

Ga.4.9 But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again?

Ga.5.1 It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery.

And Peter agrees with Paul:

Ac.15.5-7a,10 Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, "The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to obey the law of Moses." 6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: 10 "Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?"

=====

So Steelfish, which does the RC church agree with? Paul and Peter, or James. Is the Law "slavery" or "freedom"?

“Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue”, at the risk of having a pat answer tossed at me, saying ‘there is so much diversion, it is impossible to know ‘a’ protestant doctrine’, would you like to explain to me what IS Protestant doctrine that this ‘doctor of divinity’ finds so wrong?

Placemarker

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Yep, no unregenerate man is capable of understanding spiritual issues. It truly was gibberish to me, when I was in a cult, but now, I understand things perfectly, even if cultists don't agree. That's on them. They can think what ever they like. 😱🙀

Thank you. I learn so much. It is a shame that the Catholcs do not.

Thank you. I learn so much. It is a shame that the Catholics do not.

“Not only was Protestant doctrine untrue”, at the risk of having a pat answer tossed at me, saying ‘there is so much diversion, it is impossible to know ‘a’ protestant doctrine

Actually our shared doctrine was well expressed by our reformation forefathers ...

Once again we are treated to an outstanding example of shallow Bible Christianity...This superficial thinking that comes from an absence of serious theological study is evident...Are we here in kindergarten logic? This is the kind of foolish reasoning that would get one kicked out of class in elementary introduction to either logic or theology...Over and over again, what we keep getting here is sophomoric interpretations on a cascade of scriptural citations let loose by followers of a heresy without any of the coherence of the great theologians...Challenging Bible Christians to the soaring heights of theological discourse is perhaps not fair. But surely it must come as a surprise when they cannot even assimilate the scholarly work of their own leading Protestant scholars...Maybe Elise, metmom etc all need to spend some serious study time before embarrassing themselves with the commentary they offer.

For a post which accuses others of lacking substance, the above is a whole lot of nothing. Simply insulting people is not "the deep end of the pool." You claim the logic isn't up to the level of an introductory course. Ironic (or hypocritical, if you prefer) given your post is a textbook example of ad hominem arguments, in particular, guilt by association.

You get to crack open the pages of the Bible assembled under infallible Petrine authority under Pope Damasus at the Synod of Rome in A.D. 382

Are you planning to provide a substantive response to the earlier challenge on this assertion about the Synod of Rome? I saw an earlier response in which you were correctly accused of dodging the question. Did I happen to miss another response?

Well Catholics can’t have their cake and eat it to, she was burned before Luther so since they are the “one true church” by existing first then they own everything until the Protestant reformation... However the puritans did do a lot of that too. Every religion has committed sins as a group. Our only hope is in Christ redeeming us but no man is between me and my Savior, than you God.

>>>Are you planning to provide a substantive response to the earlier challenge on this assertion about the Synod of Rome? I saw an earlier response in which you were correctly accused of dodging the question. Did I happen to miss another response?<<<

No, you didn’t miss it. Steelfish is still researching his response. [wink]

Forum etiquette calls for pinging someone if you use their name in your posting. Just a heads up.

OK. I didn’t know that. Thanks for informing me.