Testimony

[Thinkingstuff]

You speak of EXCEPTIONS to the rule. This catachismic summary is the general rule of Catholicism and YOU KNOW IT!!!! The only exceptions Rome provides are for those who are in IGNORANCE but out of sincerity serve God according to their own light. In this exception they include sincere Moslems, Hindu's as much as Protestants.

Of course you have to further elucidate your comment for you were caught in your own misapplication. Exceptions to the rule is your own verbage not the teaching.

You are completely ignorant of the gospel of Jesus Christ and your fruits reveal where your heart is.

First of all you have no idea what my fruits are. What fruits should we be showing? Galatians spells it out perfecty.

22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

I see none of these in your posts at all. I certainly hope they show in your personal life. These fruits should also be exampled to Catholics which its seems by your discourse to Lori and others you cannot. What is true religion? Well James says it perfectly

Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

And how will Jesus view and judge our faith? Matthew is quite clear as even the words of the Lord are quite clear

34"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'

this is true fruit. You know nothing of mine. How is yours?

You are more concerned in defending the old harlot and her heresies than you are of encouraging ex-Catholics like Priscilla for coming out of Rome and repudiating her teachings. No! Your love is Rome and on this forum you spend most of your time attacking EX-CATHOLICS who are trying to witness to Catholics on this forum. As far as I am concerned your nothing but a covert Catholic committed to defending the old Whore.

Ah... and you speak to me of fruit? I've never called anyone a whore. Let me remind you of what the Lord Jesus himself said of this type of speach.

23"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

You have left the Catholic church but you have not left Catholic doctrine. The fruit of your mouth reveals your heart. You are more concerned in defending the old Harlots perverted gospel than you are defending Jesus Christ.

Again you don't know the first thing about me save you hate that I call on you for accuracy. Truth in debate and the ability to be objective. You have shown exactly who you are by your vile portrayal of others.

You're not even honest about how you attack. You claimed how immoral Catholics are but look at this published statistic of Protestant pastors.

Nearly half have an extramarital affair, and 50 percent will divorce.

Appearances to the contrary, the ministerial profession is considered one of the most dangerous and unhealthiest professions

looks like good fruit to me (sarcasm of course.)

 

[Dr. Walter]

Of course no human can answer your arguments reasonably or rationally because you are above all others. Anyone who disagrees with you is igornant and uneducated and speaks foolish. Where is your shrine that we may do homage???

At least one Catholic on this forum honestly admitted and spelled out the exceptions to the rule. I will give her credit for her honesty. But you? BTW I never said "exeptions to the rule" are the verbage of Rome. You want to quibble over precise terms whether they are the precise language of the church when in fact those terms express the truth of the position of the church on baptism. You are not interested in the truth. You are a Catholic in doctrine and every post you give demonstrates it more and more. Every post you make about the gospel demonstrates you embrace the 'accursed" gospel and in complete ignorance of the gospel of Jesus Christ. You are not a Baptist in any sense of the word except false profession.

According to you, not one ex-catholic on this forum, whether they were a practicing Catholic for 38 years or 300 years is knowledgable of the true Catholic faith. Knowledable Catholics don't leave the faith according to you as every charge against Catholicism is simply perversions and misunderstandings by the ignorant and the uninformed.

Obviously, you believe you are the final authority in defense of Rome. Your defense of "ex cathreda" from a Biblical point of view is nothing but perversion of the scriptures.

The truth is you are not interested in reasonable or rational discussion as you are completely devoted to defending the errors of Rome.

Of course you have to further elucidate your comment for you were caught in your own misapplication. Exceptions to the rule is your own verbage not the teaching.


First of all you have no idea what my fruits are. What fruits should we be showing? Galatians spells it out perfecty. I see none of these in your posts at all. I certainly hope they show in your personal life. These fruits should also be exampled to Catholics which its seems by your discourse to Lori and others you cannot. What is true religion? Well James says it perfectly And how will Jesus view and judge our faith? Matthew is quite clear as even the words of the Lord are quite clear this is true fruit. You know nothing of mine. How is yours?

Ah... and you speak to me of fruit? I've never called anyone a whore. Let me remind you of what the Lord Jesus himself said of this type of speach.
Again you don't know the first thing about me save you hate that I call on you for accuracy. Truth in debate and the ability to be objective. You have shown exactly who you are by your vile portrayal of others.

You're not even honest about how you attack. You claimed how immoral Catholics are but look at this published statistic of Protestant pastors.looks like good fruit to me (sarcasm of course.)

 

[Dr. Walter]

So you can confess with your mouth Jesus Christ is lord and then murder people and you're saved? Or have tons of illigitament children and your saved? Get drunk and drive and kill a family and are saved? I think this type of salvation is an affront to Christianity.

You make fun of Romans 10:8-10 which is a clear indicator of your own personal spiritual status. Priscilla, never uttered a word about believing in Christ and going out and living like the devil - that is your insinuation altogether - as that is how you view the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. A clear indication of complete and utter ignorance of Pauls teaching on justification in Romans 3:9-5:2.

I have thoroughly debunked your "tradition" interpretation of the term "deeds of the law" in Romans 3:19-20. Don't take too much common sense to see that interpretation is utterly rediculous once you just substitute "traditions of the elders" in the place of "the law" and "deeds of the law" in Romans 3:19-31.

There is no point in discussing this matter with you as you have no ability to discuss it.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Of course no human can answer your arguments reasonably or rationally because you are above all others. Anyone who disagrees with you is igornant and uneducated and speaks foolish. Where is your shrine that we may do homage???

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? If you want to pay me homage you must climb Mt. Olympus and watch my lighting bolts.

At least one Catholic on this forum honestly admitted and spelled out the exceptions to the rule.

I noticed that person never said exceptions to the rule.

I will give her credit for her honesty

Glory is just stating what it is that is taught.

But you?

At least I'm honest.

BTW I never said "exeptions to the rule" are the verbage of Rome

Ah... Trying to cover up. It is your understanding of it.

You want to quibble over precise terms whether they are the precise language of the church when in fact those terms express the truth of the position of the church on baptism.

Because preciness is required.

You are not interested in the truth.

Oh but I am which Is why I'm always clearing the playing feild

You are a Catholic in doctrine and every post you give demonstrates it more and more.

Only becaue I find myself being unnerved by clearly irresponsible accusations which have no validity. Often You make a general accusation based on a biased propeganda submitted by the early reformers who had reason to do such.

Every post you make about the gospel demonstrates you embrace the 'accursed" gospel and in complete ignorance of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

You clearly have no idea what is accursed nor any undestanding of what Paul was talking about in Galatians.

You are not a Baptist in any sense of the word except false profession.

You can take that up with my pastor.

According to you, not one ex-catholic on this forum, whether they were a practicing Catholic for 38 years or 300 years is knowledgable of the true Catholic faith.

Becuase no one ex catholic on this forum has properly stated what the Catholic Church actually believes. They keep regurgitating the myth of the Catholic Church.

Knowledable Catholics don't leave the faith according to you as every charge against Catholicism is simply perversions and misunderstandings by the ignorant and the uninformed.

I've never said that either. See how dishonest you are. Some do, some don't. Its as simple as that. But I have not seen one cogent ex-catholic say something of knowledge in their catachesis.

Obviously, you believe you are the final authority in defense of Rome. Your defense of "ex cathreda" from a Biblical point of view is nothing but perversion of the scriptures.

As you believe you are the final authority in how you understand scriptures. You have in effect made your self the pot calling the kettle black.

The truth is you are not interested in reasonable or rational discussion as you are completely devoted to defending the errors of Rome

I am. You are the one throwing out terms like whore. Not me.

 

[quantumfaith]

DW:

"Of course no human can answer your arguments reasonably or rationally because you are above all others. Anyone who disagrees with you is igornant and uneducated and speaks foolish. Where is your shrine that we may do homage???"

Did YOU ACTUALLY say this about someone else?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I'm curious. Which Catholic apologists say that Rome claims people can go to heaven without baptism as a general rule?

I agree with you that these are stated as exceptions and not the general rule. - Gold Dragon


The ordinary answer is no. However, there are exceptions to the rule... - Briony-Gloriana

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? If you want to pay me homage you must climb Mt. Olympus and watch my lighting bolts.

I noticed that person never said exceptions to the rule. Glory is just stating what it is that is taught. At least I'm honest. Ah... Trying to cover up. It is your understanding of it. Because preciness is required. Oh but I am which Is why I'm always clearing the playing feild Only becaue I find myself being unnerved by clearly irresponsible accusations which have no validity. Often You make a general accusation based on a biased propeganda submitted by the early reformers who had reason to do such. You clearly have no idea what is accursed nor any undestanding of what Paul was talking about in Galatians. You can take that up with my pastor.
Becuase no one ex catholic on this forum has properly stated what the Catholic Church actually believes. They keep regurgitating the myth of the Catholic Church. I've never said that either. See how dishonest you are. Some do, some don't. Its as simple as that. But I have seen one cogent ex-catholic say something of knowledge in their catachesis.
As you believe you are the final authority in how you understand scriptures. You have in effect made your self the pot calling the kettle black.
I am. You are the one throwing out terms like whore. Not me.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I'm curious. Which Catholic apologists say that Rome claims people can go to heaven without baptism as a general rule?

I agree with you that these are stated as exceptions and not the general rule. - Gold Dragon


The ordinary answer is no. However, there are exceptions to the rule... - Briony-Gloriana

I don't know about gold Dragon and I didn't see that post by gloriana however it is not how its presented in the catachism. Still. Your point is still not made because for you based on your original quote cannot believe catholics hold anyother method of being saved. yet they leave God to save those who don't know any better. I think you like changing the subject when it doesn't suite you.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Wonderful, I have never seen lightening bolts in person. Next time I jet over Mount Olympus I will parachute out to be in your most holy presence.

Here is the problem with your responses from my point of view. You say you want Rome to be properly represented rather than their positions distorted. Therefore you present their responses to such objections including their intepreations of scripture to support their responses. The problem is that you have personally bought into their interpretations of the Scriptures as truth rather than perversions of the Scripture used to answer the objections of non-Catholics. In other words, you are still a Roman Catholic when it comes to interpretative views of the scriptures in regard to the very basic fundemental position of Rome.

Are you sure you're not talking about yourself? If you want to pay me homage you must climb Mt. Olympus and watch my lighting bolts.

I noticed that person never said exceptions to the rule. Glory is just stating what it is that is taught. At least I'm honest. Ah... Trying to cover up. It is your understanding of it. Because preciness is required. Oh but I am which Is why I'm always clearing the playing feild Only becaue I find myself being unnerved by clearly irresponsible accusations which have no validity. Often You make a general accusation based on a biased propeganda submitted by the early reformers who had reason to do such. You clearly have no idea what is accursed nor any undestanding of what Paul was talking about in Galatians. You can take that up with my pastor.
Becuase no one ex catholic on this forum has properly stated what the Catholic Church actually believes. They keep regurgitating the myth of the Catholic Church. I've never said that either. See how dishonest you are. Some do, some don't. Its as simple as that. But I have not seen one cogent ex-catholic say something of knowledge in their catachesis.
As you believe you are the final authority in how you understand scriptures. You have in effect made your self the pot calling the kettle black.
I am. You are the one throwing out terms like whore. Not me.

 

[Dr. Walter]

I don't know about gold Dragon and I didn't see that post by gloriana however it is not how its presented in the catachism. Still. Your point is still not made because for you based on your original quote cannot believe catholics hold anyother method of being saved. yet they leave God to save those who don't know any better. I think you like changing the subject when it doesn't suite you.

Find any statement where I claimed I was quoting Rome when using the terms "exceptions to the general rule" to express their position? I made no such claim. However, that does not mean that I am withdrawing the use of that phrase as that is exactly the truth about their position.

Why is it that both Gold Dragon and gloriana can see exactly what I am saying and both freely admit to it but you can't???? It does not take a lot of common sense to understand that I am correctly representing Rome's position on baptism as essential to salvation EXCEPT in carefully qualified exceptions as you even admit "yet they leave God to save those who don't known any better."

Do you know better? Do I know better? Does DHK know better? Does priscilla know better? The answer is yes for all four questions. Hence, what is Rome's view concerning us? We are not ignorant of their teaching about baptism. We (three of us at least) consciously reject it as absolute heresy.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Even the history preserved by Roman Catholicism does not support the idea that the Bishop of Rome was established as the Pope or there was any recognition by other Bishops the supremacy of the Roman Bishop for the first 600 years. The false decretals were responsible for this recognition of primacy rather than tradition or traditional understanding of Matthew 16:19 or the scriptures presented by Thinkingstuff in order to explain papal infallibility. Such scriptures were not traditionally understood to explain papal infalibility as the following historical evidence destroys that supposition. Instead, after the use of the false decretals established the non-bibical doctrine of a pope, apostolic succession, these scriptures were used to give it some superficial scriptural credibility. The truth is that no pope, no papal infallibility existed between the first and sixth centuries.


1. That the name papa was common to all bishops, and signified no pre-eminence in those who bore it.

2. That the Apostolic Sees were all equally accounted matricies of unity, and the roots of other Catholic churches.

3. That, down to the Counsel of nicea,, the whole system of the Church was framed on this principle, and that these were the "ancient customs" which that council ordained to be perpetual.

4. That "because it was the old capital of the empire," and for no other reason (the Petrine idea never once mentioned), the primacy of honour was conceded to Old Rome, and equal honour to New Rome, becaue it was the new capital. It was to be named second on the list of patriarchates, but to be in no wise inferior to Old Rome; while the ancient and all-commanding patriarchate of Alexandria yeilded this credit to the partenu of Byzantium only on the principle of the Gospel "in honour preferring one another" and only because the imperial capital must be the centre of Catholic concourse. - Introductory Notice to the Decretals, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, p. 602


1. From (A.D. 325) Sylvester to Gregory the Great, and his successor, who lived but one year, the Bishops of Rome were canoinical primates.

2. Boniface III, accepted the court title of "Universal Pope" (A.D. 606) from the Emperor Phocas, but it was not accepted by the Church.

3. From this time to Adrian I. many Bishops of Rome vied with those of Constantinople to augment their honour and power. The establishment of the Western Empire (A.D. 800) made their ambitious claims acceptable to the Latins; and they became primates of all Christendom in Western estimation, with extra-canonical and indefinite cliams as "successors of St. Peter."

4. Nicholas I (A.D. 863), by means of the False Decretals, gave shape to these extra-canonical claims, abroogated the Nicene Constitutions in the West by making these Decretals canon-law, and asserted a supremacy over the old patriarchutes, which they never allowed: hence the schism of the West from the Apotolic Sees of the East, and from the primitive discipline which established the Papacy, as now understood. - Ibid., p. 642

In order to discuss each of these issues you first need to understand what each is talking about. Once you've determine what is actually being said then you can speak against it in a reasonable fashion. Let me take the first one off the list.
Papal infalliblity. What is it really? Simple. First I will tell you what it is not. It doesn't mean 1) the pope is a good person or perfect 2) doesn't mean he doesn't make mistatakes. 3) Doesn't meant he won't say off the wall things. 4) Doesn't even mean he understands things perfectly. Now that is out of the way what is it saying? That when the pope teaches something or makes a statement of something regarding faith and morals that have been consistently taught over the centuries and he does so ex cathedra or from the chair that it is done so infallibly. What are the requirements? I've bolded them for you. Anyone of these failing the teaching does not meet the requirement of infallibility. In otherword the Pope is prohibited by what he can teach. He cannot teach anything apart from the deposit. What are the scripture verses Catholics use for this?

Now that was just the first doctrine imagine the rest. Transubstantiation is too easy. The rest can also be addressed.

Also I would say the majority of Catholics don't even know their own faith. In Fact my father was lamenting about this to me. He has been a life long catholic and has studied at Jesuit universities. Most Catholics are secular unfortunately and aren't even properly Catachized. So what is practiced and believed by most catholics are what I call the Myth of the Church rather than what the church actually teaches. This is why you have a gazillion catholics looking for Mary in oil slicks. The church teaches against this. This is why the majority of Catholic practice birth Control against the teachings of the church. This is why the majority of Catholics see no problem in supporting abortion and become incensed when a bishop prohibits them from recieving communion like Palosi, or Biden. The plain truth is the Majority of Catholics don't believe the Catholic Church and believe and do what they want carrying the vestiges of belief. But they are no more Christian than an atheist. If you want me to go in detail about each of these matters I will show you what the catholic church believes. Not what people think it means. Big difference.

 

[Dr. Walter]

You can take that up with my pastor.

I love the opportunity to discuss this issue with your pastor.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Even the history preserved by Roman Catholicism does not support the idea that the Bishop of Rome was established as the Pope or there was any recognition by other Bishops the supremacy of the Roman Bishop for the first 600 years. The false decretals were responsible for this recognition of primacy rather than tradition or traditional understanding of Matthew 16:19 or the scriptures presented by Thinkingstuff in order to explain papal infallibility.


1. That the name papa was common to all bishops, and signified no pre-eminence in those who bore it.

2. That the Apostolic Sees were all equally accounted matricies of unity, and the roots of other Catholic churches.

3. That, down to the Counsel of nicea,, the whole system of the Church was framed on this principle, and that these were the "ancient customs" which that council ordained to be perpetual.

4. That "because it was the old capital of the empire," and for no other reason (the Petrine idea never once mentioned), the primacy of honour was conceded to Old Rome, and equal honour to New Rome, becaue it was the new capital. It was to be named second on the list of patriarchates, but to be in no wise inferior to Old Rome; while the ancient and all-commanding patriarchate of Alexandria yeilded this credit to the partenu of Byzantium only on the principle of the Gospel "in honour preferring one another" and only because the imperial capital must be the centre of Catholic concourse. - Introductory Notice to the Decretals, The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, p. 602


1. From (A.D. 325) Sylvester to Gregory the Great, and his successor, who lived but one year, the Bishops of Rome were canoinical primates.

2. Boniface III, accepted the court title of "Universal Pope" (A.D. 606) from the Emperor Phocas, but it was not accepted by the Church.

3. From this time to Adrian I. many Bishops of Rome vied with those of Constantinople to augment their honour and power. The establishment of the Western Empire (A.D. 800) made their ambitious claims acceptable to the Latins; and they became primates of all Christendom in Western estimation, with extra-canonical and indefinite cliams as "successors of St. Peter."

4. Nicholas I (A.D. 863), by means of the False Decretals, gave shape to these extra-canonical claims, abroogated the Nicene Constitutions in the West by making these Decretals canon-law, and asserted a supremacy over the old patriarchutes, which they never allowed: hence the schism of the West from the Apotolic Sees of the East, and from the primitive discipline which established the Papacy, as now understood. - Ibid., p. 642

Like I said. You like to change subjects. But here I'm actually impressed your going to start quoting actual history? Wow. And of course your right the bishops had always been on an equal positional footing save for certain circumstances such as disputes between them. And they were all known as Papa (father). Pope is a derivative of that term usage. certainly the Papacy became more prominant as the years past. Look at these quote Ireneaus

Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree — that is the faithful everywhere — in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere

Cyprian

the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter

Tertullian

the supreme pontiff, the bishop of bishops

etc...

 

[Thinkingstuff]

I love the opportunity to discuss this issue with your pastor.

You might not find him so ready to condemn or burn me at the stake as you might like. I can arrange the meeting. You up for it?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You clearly have no idea what is accursed nor any undestanding of what Paul was talking about in Galatians.

Oh yes I do. You have already told me in about the clearest terms possible that the "law" in Romans 3:19-31 and especially the terms "the deeds of the law" as used also in Galations to describe the same problem (Gal. 3:10-12) refers in your opinion to "the traditions of the elders" or "Jewish oral traditions" and interpretations of scripture.

Try replacing "by the law" and "the deeds of the law" with "oral traditional interpretations" and try to make sense of how that change affects the rest of the text!!!!!!! It makes perfect nonsense! By that interpretation you have "the oral traditions" revealing the knowledge of sin. By that intepretation you have "the oral traditions" producing the "curse" that Jesus had to become for our sins (Gal. 3:10,13).

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Wonderful, I have never seen lightening bolts in person. Next time I jet over Mount Olympus I will parachute out to be in your most holy presence.

Here is the problem with your responses from my point of view. You say you want Rome to be properly represented rather than their positions distorted. Therefore you present their responses to such objections including their intepreations of scripture to support their responses. The problem is that you have personally bought into their interpretations of the Scriptures as truth rather than perversions of the Scripture used to answer the objections of non-Catholics. In other words, you are still a Roman Catholic when it comes to interpretative views of the scriptures in regard to the very basic fundemental position of Rome.

Not at all. I would love to argue with you from a perspective of an atheist as well but you would only say I'm not saved or even a believer in Christ. Which both are untrue.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Like I said. You like to change subjects. But here I'm actually impressed your going to start quoting actual history? Wow. And of course your right the bishops had always been on an equal positional footing save for certain circumstances such as disputes between them. And they were all known as Papa (father). Pope is a derivative of that term usage. certainly the Papacy became more prominant as the years past. Look at these quote Ireneaus
Cyprian
Tertullian etc...

There is no change in subject here. You attacked priscilla on this very point. Even according to the selective history preserved by Rome no such position existed for the first six hundred years. Hence, there was no recognized UNIVERSAL papa and thus no ex-cathreda doctrine possible. Hence, the use of scripture by post-600 year Catholics to support such a doctrine is an admission that either Roman Catholic churches did not obey those scriptures for 600 years OR the Bible teaches no such doctrine and they are taking these texts out of context to support another fabricated doctrine. The latter is the truth.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Not at all. I would love to argue with you from a perspective of an atheist as well but you would only say I'm not saved or even a believer in Christ. Which both are untrue.

What do you mean "not at all"? You clarify what Rome means by such positions and then take the extra step to actually adopt their own interpretations of scriptures and their own arguments to DEFEND them! So, you go beyond merely presenting what they properly believe - you take the additional step and embrace their interpretations of scriptures and defend them vigoriously as your own interpretative view of those scriptures. So, what do you mean "not at all"??? If you were not defending their interpretative use of the scriptures you would clarify it and say, "I don't take this view of this text, but this is their interpretation if you want to understand their position." No, you NEVER qualify it like that, but take it up and defend vigoriously as your own position. So what do you mean by "not at all"?

 

[Dr. Walter]

You might not find him so ready to condemn or burn me at the stake as you might like. I can arrange the meeting. You up for it?

I would love it. Can you arrange an e-mail discussion? I don't have the money to fly around the U.S. or the time.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

What do you mean "not at all"? You clarify what Rome means by such positions and then take the extra step to actually adopt their own interpretations of scriptures and their own arguments to DEFEND them! So, you go beyond merely presenting what they properly believe - you take the additional step and embrace their interpretations of scriptures and defend them vigoriously as your own interpretative view of those scriptures. So, what do you mean "not at all"??? If you were not defending their interpretative use of the scriptures you would clarify it and say, "I don't take this view of this text, but this is their interpretation if you want to understand their position." No, you NEVER qualify it like that, but take it up and defend vigoriously as your own position. So what do you mean by "not at all"?

Darn tooting I do. Just Like If I argued from an atheistic point of view I would use their definitions and their interpretation to defend them. its the only fair way. Otherwize you have a stacked debate which you guys just love. You don't get how a debate is supposed to work. You stack things in your favor slap each other on the back and consider it fair. It doesn't work that way. Which is why so many people feel christians are disingenous. I love this particular thing that happens so often here. Well the bible is the word of God see the bible says this about it self? Now the person isn't even given the oportunity to say 1) no it isn't and 2) no it doesn't. In fact the bible 1) doesn't list what is scripture just certain books and not the entire library of books in the bible. and alludes to other books not canon. 2) the bible asserts scripture is "god breathed" but not define which scriptures are such. And how much man of his own volition added to the scripture. So when you guys argue you stacked the deck already providing your own definition before its determined if that definition is satisfactory.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

There is no change in subject here. You attacked priscilla on this very point. Even according to the selective history preserved by Rome no such position existed for the first six hundred years. Hence, there was no recognized UNIVERSAL papa and thus no ex-cathreda doctrine possible. Hence, the use of scripture by post-600 year Catholics to support such a doctrine is an admission that either Roman Catholic churches did not obey those scriptures for 600 years OR the Bible teaches no such doctrine and they are taking these texts out of context to support another fabricated doctrine. The latter is the truth.

Actaully, I don't. I asked pricilla and you (still haven't gotten back a reply) on how you know your interpretation is correct. Totally, different topic.