Protestantism was falsified here on TOL

8940a780c0a3b28576e79b6b93ddaf07.jpg
 

marke

Well-known member
The church has become so corrupted by our time that Jesus is standing on the outside seeking anyone inside to allow Him to come in.

Revelation 3

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:

18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Is there some Protestant doctrine that isn't probable opinion? I mean there's no Protestant authority on doctrine, or on anything that the Bible may mean. Every Protestant doctrine has to be 'probable opinion,' because you can't validly appeal to any other authority, because there is no valid universal authority to appeal to, in Protestantism. "Scripture Alone."

But what does the Scripture mean?

Well I think it means this. And I think it means that. Well I just believe what it says. I do too. We all believe what it says, but what do we believe that it means? How do we sustain our claim? Is there just one right answer? How do you know? Without either begging the question, or appealing to authority? Well I use logic. So do I, so if we disagree on what Scripture means, then which one of us is using logic better?
You're arguing against yourself!

There isn't one syllable of that gibberish that a protestant couldn't have said against you! Swap out the word "Protestant" with "Catholic" and how would you respond to it?

Any response you would make would be equally valid in the mouth of a Protestant.

Why?

Because you are arguing here against logic itself! Whether you intended to do so or not isn't clear but, one way or another, that's what you've done.

Logic (i.e. sound reason) is THE "valid universal authority". It is the ONLY - I repeat - it is the ONLY means your mind has to know ANYTHING. Nothing can be proven nor can anything be falsified apart from sound reason - period. Any argument you make presupposes both the veracity and necessity of logic. You cannot utter a single intelligible syllable without the use, and therefore the tacit endorsement of and submission to the authority of logic.

If two people claim to have used logic to arrive at contradictory conclusions then one or both have made an error in their use of logic and it is by the very same logic that it can be objectively determined who has made an error and what that error was. This is true even in matters of opinion because it requires reason to declare a thing to be a matter of opinion and thus one's error may well be treating a matter of opinion as though it were a matter of fact. In any case, no argument could be made on either side without the use of reason, which you're entire theological worldview (Catholicism) intentionally undermines.

John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​


Resting in Him,
Clete
 

Right Divider

Body part
" For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

That means Mass. Just like 'breaking bread' means Mass. Confer Hebrews 10:25 " the assembling of ourselves together"
That is completely INCORRECT, but I expect that from Cathaholics like yourself.

The "two or three gathering together" is about JUDGEMENT. Look the the fuller passage without your RCC blinders on.
Matt 18:15-20 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:15) ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (18:16) But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (18:17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (18:18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (18:19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (18:20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
That refers to the Law:
Deut 17:2-7 (AKJV/PCE)
(17:2) ¶ If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, (17:3) And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; (17:4) And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and inquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel: (17:5) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (17:6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (17:7) The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Logic (i.e. sound reason) is THE "valid universal authority". It is the ONLY - I repeat - it is the ONLY means your mind has to know ANYTHING. Nothing can be proven nor can anything be falsified apart from sound reason - period. Any argument you make presupposes both the veracity and necessity of logic. You cannot utter a single intelligible syllable without the use, and therefore the tacit endorsement of and submission to the authority of logic.
That paragraph should be made into a "sticky" and everyone that logs in here should be made to read it and agree to it before they can post here. 👏
 

Idolater

Ultra MAGA
John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.​
Literally no qualified credentialed biblical translators ever chose "logic" to render the underlying koine Greek word there. Why not? If it were at least not unreasonable then at least someone would have selected "logic" like you have here, but nope. Meaning it's unreasonable to suppose that this is what the Apostle John meant here.

Your imagination is clearly vivid, that's good, but this is a bridge too far. It means 'word', it means 'speech', but not 'logic' or 'reasoning'. It doesn't mean "In the beginning was 'valid inference' and 'valid inference' was with God and 'valid inference' was God." It doesn't mean that.
 
Top