Replies

“In my first paragraph, I expressly said, “But, if you could have found proof in your version of the Bible (that you apparently credit your predecessors for preserving), to justify a ‘no’ answer to one or more of the first four questions, I believe that you would have.””

Your premise there is simply wrong. You demonstrated that yourself in the answers you posted to my questions.

“(This time I hope you didn’t miss the “FIRST FOUR questions” part)”

There was no missing either then or now. I choose what I will and will not answer.

“Then, you go on the predictable rant against sola scriptura, but in a strange reversal (but one I was hoping for), go right ahead and answer the two penalty questions:”

There was no rant. It was a simple demonstration that fully shows how sola scriptura fails. And you helped by showing how sola scriptura is a failure and is always destined to be a failure.

“See how easy that was? You didn’t go into an anti sola scriptura dodge in either one of those cases.”

They were questions not cases.

“If you had been taught contrary to those scriptures, I’m convinced that you would not have answered them in the correct fashion that you did.”

I have never been taught anything that is contrary to scripture – I am not a Protestant.

“I never said I wouldn’t answer yours. I said I wanted you to answer the first four questions.”

And I answered questions. And you?

“All of my questions came from the same scriptures that you claim your predecessors decided were inspired.”

Not exactly.

“Is that a problem?”

Technically it’s an inaccurate statement you made. Do you know why?

“You have no problem holding tight to scriptures that pertain to the Lord’s Supper, using those to teach remission of sins.”

False.

“And then, somehow the closing statement found in John 6:63 “..it is the spirit that quickeneth..”, is not so important.”

False. Show me where I said it was “not so important”. Can you do that or will you continue to post things that are complete fabrications like that?

“But from the scriptures that you say your predecessors preserved we find more about that spiritual experience: When speaking of the coming Comforter, the Spirit of truth, that would dwell in them, the Lord told his disciples, “At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” John 14:20”

And? Are you trying to make an actual point?

“But, now that you have properly answered my two penalty questions, you have admitted to remission of sins in baptism, and that it doesn’t wear off.”

Wait. Since it is obvious that many Protestant attackers of Christ’s Church have reading comprehension problems I think you should look at EXACTLY what you originally posted. You posted: “Does the remission of sins wear off?” And that was in regard to baptism. And I answered, “No.” Let’s just make sure that is here in this post again before we get to your next point:

“But, when looking at Peter using the keys found in Acts 2:38, his presence at Samaria for the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, and the same at Cornelius’ house, we don’t find him teaching remission of sins through the Lord’s Supper.”

One second your talking about “you have admitted to remission of sins in baptism, and that it doesn’t wear off” and the next second you’re talking about Peter, the keys, Acts 2:38, Samaria, the holy Ghost, Cornelius’ house, and “we don’t find him teaching remission of sins through the Lord’s Supper” as if there is some sort of logical consistency to your rambling. There isn’t. What EXACTLY are you trying to say? Is that last comment some sort of rejoinder to my “No” about “remission of sins” wearing off in baptism?

“The rock?”

So now you’re talking about Matthew 16? Is there some sort of logical order to your comments here? What is it? Pass me the decoder ring you’re using because otherwise these are just non sequitur comments from you. Are you responding to my questions? What?

“He was right there when the Lord made the ‘rock’ declaration. He should know better than anyone else what the Lord was saying.”

In regard to what? As opposed to what? How about some actual order to your comments?

“Providing lists of ‘scribes and pharisees’ that have
decided what is doctrine, and what is not doctrine, does not rescue you from your predicament.”

I’m not in one to start with. And what “scribes and Pharisees” are you now babbling about? Is there any order at all to your comments? Are you stoned or something?

“You have chosen to follow men that have taught contrary to the very scriptures that they are credited with preserving.”

No, I’m not a Protestant. I’m Catholic. Jesus is the God-man I follow.

“(Never mind that Egypt preserved Abram; the Philistines, Isaac; ravens, Elijah; and Egypt, the Christ child.)”

Wow. You ate the worm didn’t you?

“No, there is no such thing as an inspired (and I’ve never quoted or used as doctrine) table of contents.”

And? Doesn’t that mean sola scriptura will naturally be haphazard to say the least? After all how do you KNOW what belongs in the Bible?

“And whether or not Matthew wrote the gospel named after him doesn’t seem to stop you from using scriptures found in it.”

Since I am not a sola scripturist the problem isn’t mine.

“Does the book of Judith add or subtract from the doctrine of our Lord Jesus Christ? No. Same with the Maccabees (sp).”

No what? What you just said is like saying something like this: “Is the house big or small? No.” No what? And since you’ve probably never read Judith or Maccabees how would you know whether it adds or subtracts to anything?

“Intellectually dishonest?”

Your methods sure seem to be. Again, since you’ve probably never read Judith or Maccabees how would you know whether it adds or subtracts to anything?

“Picking and choosing scriptures, from the totality that you claim your predecessors preserved, and disregarding others, would seem intellectually dishonest.”

And you don’t “pick and choose”? No, you pick and choose but push the idea that you actually look at the totality of scripture. . . which you don’t actually do as you deny the deuterocanonicals, for instance.

“The first four questions are still there for you to answer.”

Seriously, what’s the point if you twist so many things as you do? I can’t even tell if it would matter if I answer your questions since they’re based on a false premise and you can’t seem to respond with any logical order.

Here are some examples:

“In the scriptures, you will not find Jesus Christ, or his apostles ever use the phrase, “God the Son”. Is that truth?”
And? Is Jesus not God’s Son? God the Father says so. You know where, right? And is Jesus NOT divine?

“In the scriptures, you will not find Jesus Christ, or his apostles ever use the phrase, “God the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)”. Is that truth?”

Are you suggesting the Holy Spirit is not divine?

“In the book of Acts, where detailed stories of water baptisms are found, the name of Jesus is mentioned, but not the triune formula. Is that truth?”

Does it have to be mentioned in Acts since it is already mentioned in the Gospel of Matthew? And what is the name of Jesus other than Jesus? Do you know?

“In the four gospels and the book of Acts, we find actual occurrences of mortal people praying to no one other than God. Is that truth?”

And? You know when the gospels took place, right? How about Acts?

“In Ephesians 2:20, Paul tells the saints (1:1), that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Is that truth?”

And? Does that change anything else that is discussed in scripture?

“In 1Peter 2:5-8, Peter declares Jesus Christ to be the chief cornerstone. Is that truth?”

Again, and? Does that change anything else that is discussed in scripture?

“Lastly, If the mass is consumed for eternal life, is once enough? If so, then why continue to consume it repeatedly? If once is not enough, then why is that? Does it not have eternal power?”

And that I already answered those five questions – and you refused to comment on my answer. Here’s what I wrote:

You asked: “Lastly, If the mass is consumed for eternal life, is once enough?

I answered: It can be - for those who only need it once. God, in His wisdom, however, foresaw that people would sin so He gave us the sacraments to aid us. The sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist can be received more than once and should be.

And then you refused to comment on that.

You asked: “If so, then why continue to consume it repeatedly?”

I answered: “Why read the Bible more than once? Why pray more than once? Why tell your wife you love her more than once? Jesus said to do this (meaning the Eucharist) in remembrance of Him. He never said, “Do it only once.””

And then you refused to comment on that.

You asked: “If once is not enough, then why is that?”

I answered: “Again, for some, once may be enough, for most it is not because of our own sinful choices. Again, is reading the Bible ONCE enough for YOU? Is praying ONCE enough for YOU?”

And then you refused to comment on that.

You asked: “Does it not have eternal power?”

I answered: “Yes, it does. But we don’t. God gave us free will. We choose to sin. God’s Word has eternal power - but I bet you read the Bible more than once, right?”

And then you refused to comment on that.

If you’re not even going to respond to may answers why should I bother answering? You must not even care about your own questions.