re: Pope Francis infection is presenting a "complex, clinical picture" according to Vatican

Hey Girlymeister or whatever, as much as I deride the catholics and Calvinists, I kind of wish they would team up and do a Jesuit version of Servetus appreciation on you.....How about letting us Christians have our own theological dog and cat fight, and take your squirrel-sized, soy-built, virgin nuts somewhere else ya fig.

quote:

---

Romans chapter 4 and Galatians 3.

---

Which passage in the OT are those referencing?

quote:

---

Hey Girlymeister or whatever, as much as I deride the catholics and Calvinists, I kind of wish they would team up and do a Jesuit version of Servetus appreciation on you.....

---

Oh so you are one of those cucks.

quote:

---

How about letting us Christians have our own theological dog and cat fight, and take your squirrel-sized, soy-built, virgin nuts somewhere else ya fig.

---

Why don’t you come up with something of substance on topic, instead of being a little bitch? Or if you aren’t intelligent enough to have a lucid thought, just don’t reply.

quote:

---

Sure would be nice to get a more conservative pope in place soon

---

More than likely you'll get a tranny pope like in that recent Ralph Fiennes movie. Sorry if Spoilers but trust me it sucked anyway.

quote:

---

in particular Genesis 15:6, which says that Abraham "believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness"

---

So he was justified in Genesis 15 after performing 3 chapters full of good works? I thought you said he was justified by faith alone.

If he were justified by faith alone, you should have quoted Hebrews 11:8 where Paul gives us examples of saving faith, one of which was Abraham when he left his homeland and followed God by faith. Except this didn't happen in Genesis 15, it happened in Genesis 12. So to Paul, abraham already had justifying faith in Genesis 12, was justified (again) in Genesis 15 (like you said) after performing 3 chapters full of good works, and then a third time when he offered Isaac. THAT is whh Abraham was said to have been justified prior to circumcision, because he was, twice.

quote:

---

Unlikely. The conclave is pretty predictable. They usually have 1-2 conservative popes to follow any liberal/reformer, and this is a cycle that has gone on a long time

---

I wasn't serious. I was being facitious.

quote:

---

I understand the doctrine both in its original sense and the modern sense after the repeated moving of the goal posts to make it a smaller target.

---

Based on what you've said so far in this thread, forgive me if I'm skeptical that you actually do understand the doctrine. You've mischaracterized it quite a bit so far.

quote:

---

These all go hand in hand.

---

They are related but they are not the same thing. When you make an argument about how not all Protestants agree on everything as an argument against sola scriptura, you are betraying a misunderstanding of the doctrine. That's just a simple fact. If you know that sola scriptura doesn't speak to whether or not every Christian will believe everything the same or with equal clarity, then don't use that as an attack on it, because that's not what the doctrine teaches.

Again, sola scriptura is a doctrine about authority. Don't conflate the other issues if you understand this. Talk about each issue separately (or at least recognize that they are separate) if you want to convey a right understanding of it.

quote:

---

You argue that Jesus made the scriptures the only infallible authority for forming doctrine.

---

He did. He held the Jewish people accountable to the Scriptures and judged the teachings of the highest human authority at the time (the Sanhedrin) according to the Scriptures. There was no concept of any other infallible authority than God's word during Jesus' ministry.

quote:

---

I just point out that he never told anyone to write anything down

---

He didn't have to. Most of the OT Scriptures do not say that they were commanded to be written down by God, either. They were testimonies to God's revelation that were recorded for the Church (both OT and NT) to use as a standard of judge truth by. That's how Jesus and the Apostles used them.

Peter called Paul's writings "Scripture" and even the RCC accepts that what was written--even if not commanded by Jesus--is Scripture, so I don't exactly understand your point here by calling out that the writings were not commanded by Jesus. Jesus bore witness to His being the Son of God and Messiah that takes away the sin of the world, and the NT Scriptures are the codified testimony to Jesus' testimony.

John's gospel writing says he wrote it to bear witness to the truth of the things he saw and heard. Likewise Luke begins his gospel with an introduction that includes his purpose: to provide a testimony so that Theophilus (and therefore the Church) to have confidence in the truthfulness of what is written.

quote:

---

and explicitly chose to leave a church for spreading the gospel and settling disputes.

---

Yes, within the boundaries of the truth of God's holy and infallible word.

Again, this is about final and infallible authority. There Apostles were not infallible in everything they said (as evidenced by Paul's correction of Peter), so only that which is Scripture is considered "God-breathed" that remains for the Church today for the purpose of spreading the Gospel and settling disputes. The Church has no authority of her own, independent from God's word, to teach and settle disputes, but must rely on God's word.

quote:

---

The Scriptures were written by people who were members of that church, largely to settle disputes within that church, and were meant to supplement the oral proclamation, not suplant it in a time where 97% of the world couldn't read.

---

Do you think literacy was higher for the Jews during Jesus' ministry? Yet Jesus held them accountable to the Scriptures above even the oral teachings of the Jewish leaders who claimed the chair of Moses.

The Scriptures being authoritative does not mean everyone needs to be able to access them or read them. It just means that all Christians are subject to them as the highest and only infallible authority.

quote:

---

The canon issue is the achilles heel of SS, because you have no normative authority to tell you what scripture is and isn't. Zero. Nilch. Nada. So scripture is your ultimate authority, which means the books that are to be considered scripture is of the utmost importance, and yet, scripture doesn't tell us which writings are scripture. If the authority by which we know the canon is fallible, then the canon it discerns must also be fallible. It's a circular argument.

---

I suggest you stop repeating bad Catholics arguments like this one.

The canon is not an issue for Protestants for multiple reasons:

First, sola scriptura is not the same thing as solo scriptura. Protestants believe in church authority, just not that the church authority is final or infallible.

Secondly, the canon is the canon regardless of if there was a formal recognition of it by the Church. There wasn't a formal recognition of the canon for a few hundred years after the Apostles were no longer ministering, and yet the Church still had the word of God, even if not each church had every book fully. That which is Scripture was still Scripture even if not officially received and identified as such, since the nature of that which is Scripture comes from God, not from the Church.

Thirdly, while Protestants believe the Church was founded by Christ and one of her functions is to give testimony to the truth and seek to preserve and proclaim it, we do not believe that she is infallible because of her necessary function as a witness. John the Baptist bore necessary witness to Christ as the Messiah, yet John wasn't infallible. Sola scriptura states that the Scriptures alone are the only infallible rule for faith and practice. The Church has the purpose of recognizing the truth and teaching it faithfully, but that doesn't mean she is infallible in doing so. The witness to the truth doesn't take on all of the characteristics of the truth out of necessity, and that's a major flaw in Catholicism in having that assumption.

Lastly (for this response, at least), the Church did not make an "infallible" decree about the Scriptures until the Council of Trent, and prior to that decree, there was much disagreement on the exact canon and the nature of that canon. There were many godly men who disagreed that all of the books included in the Catholic canon were of equal authority. There was certainly a distinction throughout history between canonical books and didactic books, which was a distinction between authoritative books for doctrine and helpful books for guidance for the Church. Not everyone in the Church agreed on which books belonged in each category. So, this argument doesn't hit as hard against Protestants as you think it does.

quote:

---

Pope Francis infection is presenting a "complex, clinical picture"

---

To my knowledge, the woke mind virus is terminal and irreversible.

quote:

---

Based on what you've said so far in this thread, forgive me if I'm skeptical that you actually do understand the doctrine. You've mischaracterized it quite a bit so far.

---

Again, this assumption is based on your interpretation of the doctrine.

quote:

---

you know that sola scriptura doesn't speak to whether or not every Christian will believe everything the same or with equal clarity, then don't use that as an attack on it,

---

I wasn't. I acknowledge that the clarity of scripture isn't the same as the sufficiency of scripture, neither of which are taught in scripture. The WCF 1.7 says those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

And yet, we know that isn't true, because there are serious disagreements about what is required in order to be saved by those who sincerely apply the doctrine of scripture alone. For example, Lutherans agree with the historic Church that salvation comes through baptism based on what scripture says. Presbyterians disagree based in what scripture says...the doctrine of "Sola Mea Interpretatio" at work.

quote:

---

He held the Jewish people accountable to the Scriptures and judged the teachings of the highest human authority at the time (the Sanhedrin) according to the Scriptures.

---

Doesn't support sola scriptura. The Jews never heard of such a doctrine. He also held the people accountable to doctrines taught by those who sat on the seat of Moses, which isn't a concept taught in scripture.

quote:

---

There was no concept of any other infallible authority than God's word during Jesus' ministry.

---

You're assuming that "word of God" is synonymous with "scripture". It isn't. In fact, that phrase doesn't refer to the writings themselves a single time in scripture, and overwhelmingly refer either to Jesus himself or Apostolic preaching.

quote:

---

John's gospel

---

How do you know this is scripture living in the year 110AD?

quote:

---

Peter called Paul's writings "Scripture"

---

How do you know this is scripture living in the year 110AD? Also, which writings? I'm sure he wrote down a grocery list at some point. How do we know that isn't inspired as well?

Re: the canon

quote:

---

Not everyone in the Church agreed on which books belonged in each category. So, this argument doesn't hit as hard against Protestants as you think it does.

---

My argument isn't that you as a Protestant can't know the entirety of the canon. My argument is that you can't know a single book of the canon as a Protestant.