ECT THE PROTESTANT SECTS & THE QUESTION OF DOCTRINAL AUTHORITY

[Cruciform]

Scripture is the Final Authority on all things.

..according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions that you have been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

Sola scriptura is both doctrinally corrupt and is itself entirely unbiblical.

 

[Bright Raven]

..according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions that you have been fed by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

Sola scriptura is both doctrinally corrupt and is itself entirely unbiblical.

Hogwash, coming from a brainwashed Catholic.

 

[Cruciform]

Hogwash, coming from a brainwashed Catholic.

Again, then, feel free to actually disprove my statements.


(Note also that Catholics are no more "brainwashed" than are Protestants like yourself, who merely know how to parrot the assumptions and opinions of their chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects. Nice try, though.)

 

[Bright Raven]

Your statements are not yours but those of the Catholic Church. Try using scripture and scripture alone to prove anything and I may pay attention. Otherwise it is but the ranting of a madman.

 

[Cruciform]

Your statements are not yours but those of the Catholic Church.

Your statements are not yours, but those that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Try using scripture and scripture alone to prove anything and I may pay attention.

Why should I do that when you certainly don't? Again: your statements---including your interpretations of Scripture---are not yours, but those that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[CabinetMaker]

Addressed here.



Your ignorance is showing (again). The selling of indulgences was a regional medieval abuse of the Christian doctrine of indulgences, one which was corrected at the time. Your statement here directly misrepresents the actual teaching of the Catholic Church. Your latest Straw Man Fallacy, however, is noted.



More ignorance on your part. You can't deal with Catholicism as it is, and so are forced to resort to Straw Man rhetoric in order to at least seem to your fellow equally-uninformed Protestants like you have some sort of valid argument. Truly pathetic.



You must be thinking of your own Protestant traditions of men, such as sola scriptura, anti-sacramentalism, sola fide, "believers-only" baptism, etc. Try again.


Post your proof. (Wait for it...)


(Note also that---as is his custom---CM was utterly incapable of in any way disproving or even offering any substantive response to the actual content of the OP.)



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Interestingly, your response proves what I said. I gave you a list of things that the RCC believes that were not taught by Jesus. Instead of listing scriptures from Jesus, you post RCC writings and say I don't understand Catholic teachings. Tell us, why didn't you post Christ's teachings that would instantly and definitively proved me wrong?

 

[Bright Raven]

Your statements are not yours, but those that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.


Why should I do that when you certainly don't? Again: your statements---including your interpretations of Scripture---are not yours, but those that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Correction. The Final Authority is the Word of God plus nothing.

 

[Cruciform]

Correction. The Final Authority is the Word of God plus nothing.

"...the Word of God as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect," you mean.

 

[CabinetMaker]

How exactly does this opinion from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect in any way engage with the actual content of the OP?

Falls under the category of, "things Jesus never said."

 

[Cruciform]

Interestingly, your response proves what I said. I gave you a list of things that the RCC believes that were not taught by Jesus. Instead of listing scriptures from Jesus, you post RCC writings and say I don't understand Catholic teachings. Tell us, why didn't you post Christ's teachings that would instantly and definitively proved me wrong?

Already decisively answered (Post #9).

 

[Bright Raven]

"...the Word of God as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect," you mean.

You mean the Protestant movement of Reformation. These assumptions and opinions came about because of the need for reform in Catholic Sect. If it had not been corrupt there would have been no need for reform.

 

[Cruciform]

Falls under the category of, "things Jesus never said."

Ah, phrases such as this one, then:

"Everything that a Christian believes and does must be spelled out explicitly---by name---in the Bible."​

 

[Cruciform]

You mean the Protestant movement of Reformation.

No, I was referring to the specific recently-invented, man-made, non-Catholic sect---out of tens-of-thousands of such sects---to which you happen to associate yourself.

These assumptions and opinions came about because of the need for reform in Catholic Sect. If it had not been corrupt there would have been no need for reform.

It's clear that you actually know exactly nothing about the so-called "Reformation" and its history. Don't bother.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Bright Raven]

No, I was referring to the specific recently-invented, man-made, non-Catholic sect---out of tens-of-thousands of such sects---to which you happen to associate yourself.


It's clear that you actually know exactly nothing about the so-called "Reformation" and its history. Don't bother.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

Enlighten me about Luther and the 95 thesis. What was it all about?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Ah, phrases such as this one, then:

"Everything that a Christian believes and does must be spelled out explicitly---by name---in the Bible."​

Not spelled out by name, but certainly in principle. Whether by name or principle, lent, Mary, indulgences, purgatory and more still fall squarely under things Jesus never said.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Already decisively answered (Post #9).

Um, no. A decisive answer would show where Jesus taught these things. Your response had nothing from Jesus included so it is not decisive. So why don't you just quote the scripture where Jesus taught these doctrines?

 

[Cruciform]

Not spelled out by name, but certainly in principle.

Cite the biblical text which states that "Everything that a Christian believes and does must be spelled out explicitly in the Bible."

Whether by name or principle, lent, Mary, indulgences, purgatory and more still fall squarely under things Jesus never said.

Where in the Bible does it state that everything we believe must have been explicitly taught by Jesus in the New Testament? Still waiting for chapter-and-verse from you.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

Um, no. A decisive answer would show where Jesus taught these things. Your response had nothing from Jesus included so it is not decisive. So why don't you just quote the scripture where Jesus taught these doctrines?

Post #37

 

[Cruciform]

Enlighten me about Luther and the 95 thesis. What was it all about?

All done with the Ash Wednesday complaint, now? On to other subjects (red herrings)?

 

[Bright Raven]

All done with the Ash Wednesday complaint, now? On to other subjects (red herrings)?

Yeah, it is not biblical.