I follow Jesus Christ and the Book that He left His instructions in! You follow a man that thinks he can change the very words in the Lord’s Prayer just because he thought it needed changing!

I do not need to have a Church Doctrine......it is not necessary! We each have the Holy Spirit to help us interpret!
Is church helpful, of course! Learning and Worshiping together is a blessing! Fellowshiping with other Christians is fun!

I realize that your loyalty is to your Pope and his Church! You can’t have a relationship with Jesus without your Pope and your Church AND that is not Biblical! You care more about teaching others about your history and your extra dogma, than the gospel of Jesus Christ that Jesus Taught to Paul that was called The Mystery that was revealed to him on the road to Damascus.

Christ established His Church on His rock, the very rock that it was established that He was the Son of the Living God when he asked Peter “who am I” And Peter verified who He was! Jesus then told him that he would build His Church on that very rock! It is the only Church that will prevail n the end! The Catholic Church has always been in a scandal of some kind and it completely falls! At least that is what the last letter of Fatima said, the Pope will be murdered along with many others!!! That in NO way can be considered as ‘prevailing’ !

The Church of Christ will be Raptured before the Tribulation and will PREVAIL!

==============
You did not follow Jesus. Fact was Protestants have been defiant to Jesus' orders to have only ONE [1] UNIFIED interpretation of his Gospel.

On the contrary you defied all what Christ ordered, but rather made your own 47,000 interpretations of His Gospel. Each pastor does his own. The bigger mouthed pastors even make it more attractive luring more people using psychology to entice more people to join them. Every time I hear these Protestant pastors have so many deceptive messages about the Scriptures behaving as if they are god. These are the works of the heretics.

Bottom line is they are not part of the Gospel of Christ. They made their own, defying the order of God. That is why they are called heretics.

What is the one and only gospel of Jesus Christ? You have been asked this question before! Now is the chance to teach us what that gospel is! Word for word..... what is this one and only gospel? If you can’t repeat this gospel, then how in the world do you know if we have been defiant to it!

I thought you said that you didn’t waste your time listening to Protestant Preachers! Which preachers have you listened to? I think you have our preachers confused with your Pope! Only the Pope claims to speak for God or to have the power to change the very words of the Catholic Bible........ the very words of GOD!

Matthew 16:16-19 King James Version (KJV)

16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

This has been explained until everyone is blue in the face that Peter is not the rock on which Christ built his church but Christ is the rock on which he built his church. Peter is a small skipping rock like one would skip across a pond of water whereas Christ is a complete side of a mountain that one can not pick up and even move let alone skip. I know that your priests have all explained it to you Radiance3 and your priests are all learned men but even they can get it wrong based on what they have been told. Go get a good concordance and look it up yourself without any one telling you what to believe and that includes me. Look up the words yourself for a change instead of relying on a priests description for you in other words stand up and be a woman with big girl pants on.

 

CONTINUATION.....


Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not Violated

Kreeft’s argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon,13 that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft’s argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.

Sola Scriptura: Rejection of Tradition Does Not Necessitate Scandal

Kreeft’s claim that the rejection of the Roman Catholic view on infallible tradition leads to the scandal of denominationalism does not follow for many reasons. First, this wrongly implies that all denominationalism is scandalous. Not necessarily so, as long as the denominations do not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity. Nor can one argue successfully that unbelievers are unable to see spiritual unity. For Jesus declared: “This is how all [men] will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Second, as orthodox Catholics know well, the scandal of liberalism is as great inside the Catholic church as it is outside of it. When Catholic apologists claim there is significantly more doctrinal agreement among Catholics than Protestants, they must mean between orthodox Catholics and all Protestants (orthodox and unorthodox) — which, of course, is not a fair comparison. Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants. When, however, we compare the differences with orthodox Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Catholicism. This fact negates the value of the alleged infallible teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. In point of fact, Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines with only an infallible Bible and no infallible interpreters of it! Third, orthodox Protestant “denominations,” though there be many, have not historically differed much more significantly than have the various “orders” of the Roman Catholic church. Orthodox Protestants’ differences are largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines. So this Catholic argument against Protestantism is self-condemning. Fourth, as J. I. Packer noted, “the real deep divisions have been caused not by those who maintained sola Scriptura, but by those, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, who reject it.” Further, “when adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism….”14 Certainly this is often the case. A bad hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) is more crucial to deviation from orthodoxy than is the rejection of an infallible tradition in the Roman Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura: First Century Christians Had Scripture and Living Apostles

Kreeft’s argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. Third, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.

There are those even on this forum that cut and paste many Catholic false doctrine and when confronted with their knowing lies, their reply never defies the proof against their lies. They can only call out cursing anyone that bares factual proof, they repeatedly will post and then block to prevent further revealing of their lies. One only need examine the Empirical evidence to see they are a fake and a fraud, a tool for Satan.