DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are really bad at this.. the irreconocible problem between citing "a priori" as justification for the idea of sola scriptura is not the "reason" part; the problem is the ***deduced*** part. Anything deduced by definition is derivative and not included in the original premises. If you have to deduce it via reason then it is not in scripture. So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your reasoning. You seem to really hate it when the Catholic Church does that, but I guess you don't mind doing it. You've backed yourself into a corner and you are flailing.

---

"if you have to deduce it via reason, then it is not in Scripture" - this makes absolutely no sense.

"So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your own reasoning" - begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

I call ^^^this "flailing".

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are really bad at this.. the irreconocible problem between citing "a priori" as justification for the idea of sola scriptura is not the "reason" part; the problem is the ***deduced*** part. Anything deduced by definition is derivative and not included in the original premises. If you have to deduce it via reason then it is not in scripture. So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your reasoning. You seem to really hate it when the Catholic Church does that, but I guess you don't mind doing it. You've backed yourself into a corner and you are flailing.

---

"if you have to deduce it via reason, then it is not in Scripture" - this makes absolutely no sense.

"So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your own reasoning" - begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

I call ^^^this "flailing".

---

You are struggling with this really, really badly. So I'll try this one more time in the most simple fashion possible:

Please cite to the Bible, Book, chapter and verse, the doctrine of sola scriptura, as divinely revealed either from God (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) or through the apostles, without adding a single bit of commentary, deduction, logic or interpretation. All I am asking for is the Book, Chapter, Verse and quotation, in its plain reading without anything else. I'll accept it in English. If you can do that, I'll stop challenging you.

Quote:

---

begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

---

If you are really going to go down this road you are conceding that the process for many Catholic teachings is valid, you only disagree with the conclusions. This stands in contrast to your post below:

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

I cannot make rhyme or reason of your denomination, so I have to ask. You throw around sola scriptura but the substance of your argument is really more prima scriptura, which suggests Anglican or Methodist. So what is your denomination?

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are really bad at this.. the irreconocible problem between citing "a priori" as justification for the idea of sola scriptura is not the "reason" part; the problem is the ***deduced*** part. Anything deduced by definition is derivative and not included in the original premises. If you have to deduce it via reason then it is not in scripture. So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your reasoning. You seem to really hate it when the Catholic Church does that, but I guess you don't mind doing it. You've backed yourself into a corner and you are flailing.

---

"if you have to deduce it via reason, then it is not in Scripture" - this makes absolutely no sense.

"So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your own reasoning" - begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

I call ^^^this "flailing".

---

You are struggling with this really, really badly. So I'll try this one more time in the most simple fashion possible:

Please cite to the Bible, Book, chapter and verse, the doctrine of sola scriptura, as divinely revealed either from God (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) or through the apostles, without adding a single bit of commentary, deduction, logic or interpretation. All I am asking for is the Book, Chapter, Verse and quotation, in its plain reading without anything else. I'll accept it in English. If you can do that, I'll stop challenging you.

Quote:

---

begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

---

If you are really going to go down this road you are conceding that the process for many Catholic teachings is valid, you only disagree with the conclusions. This stands in contrast to your post below:

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

I cannot make rhyme or reason of your denomination, so I have to ask. You throw around sola scriptura but the substance of your argument is really more prima scriptura, which suggests Anglican or Methodist. So what is your denomination?

---

WOW, are you seriously this stupid?? My argument was that sola scriptura does NOT need to be in the Bible for it to be true. I argued that it is a priori logic given the truth of the premises. That means it's true not just because "I say so".

Good lord, sir, you completely missed or lost track of the argument, and you're constantly insulting others for their lack of intelligence?? Wow. Thanks for wasting everyone's time.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Sola scriptura does NOT mean you can't have any other tradition; it means that the only infallible rule of faith must come from Scripture, since Scripture is the only thing we possess that we know is God-breathed, and thus, infallible. Any tradition must be weighed against Scripture, and if it changes it, contradicts it, or usurps it in any way, it must be discarded. If it does not, then that "living" Church is opening itself to deep error and becoming a dead church.

So, have you been able to produce an example of any tradition, oral or written, that we know came from Jesus and/or his original apostles that is NOT in Scripture?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are making some huge leaps, especially since institutional tradition and oral tradition were part of the Jewish faith that Christianity came. On top of that Jesus used oral tradition and instructed us to do as he did. Based on the actual practice of the early Church and Judaism Sola Scriptura WOULD NOT be a logical truth. Far from it.

---

Did Jesus ever hold the Jews to anything that wasn't written in their Scripture (Law, Prophets, Writings)? Did Jesus ever verify "every jot and tittle" of anything that wasn't in their Scripture? Did Jesus ever say he fulfilled anything that was not written in their Scripture?

If you have an oral tradition that's not in Scripture, but you know it came directly from Jesus and his apostles, then show us and explain how you know it came from them. If you can't, then how can you be sure it's true, and not just made up?

---

Me? Do I know? You kidding? No, I have faith in Christ Church on earth that goes back to Peter. Following what he instructed. Putting it in writing was a man thing, not a Christ thing. Holy Spirit helped to make sure people like you didn't F it up.

Remember. You are the one that is telling us that you know better because Martin Luther said so? You are the one preaching the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

---

Just to clarify, no protestant believes every word or opinion that was expressed by Martin Luther.
Most of us agree with his 95 theses, but we don't hold them as equal to actual Scripture.
Please explain why you believe Sola Scriptura to be a heresy?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are making some huge leaps, especially since institutional tradition and oral tradition were part of the Jewish faith that Christianity came. On top of that Jesus used oral tradition and instructed us to do as he did. Based on the actual practice of the early Church and Judaism Sola Scriptura WOULD NOT be a logical truth. Far from it.

---

Did Jesus ever hold the Jews to anything that wasn't written in their Scripture (Law, Prophets, Writings)? Did Jesus ever verify "every jot and tittle" of anything that wasn't in their Scripture? Did Jesus ever say he fulfilled anything that was not written in their Scripture?

If you have an oral tradition that's not in Scripture, but you know it came directly from Jesus and his apostles, then show us and explain how you know it came from them. If you can't, then how can you be sure it's true, and not just made up?

---

Me? Do I know? You kidding? No, I have faith in Christ Church on earth that goes back to Peter. Following what he instructed. Putting it in writing was a man thing, not a Christ thing. Holy Spirit helped to make sure people like you didn't F it up.

Remember. You are the one that is telling us that you know better because Martin Luther said so? You are the one preaching the heresy of Sola Scriptura.

---

You can keep repeating the mantra that your Church teachings go back to Peter all you want, but the obvious fact to any reader in this thread is that you and others have not, and can not, trace the Roman Catholic teachings that we've been discussing back to Jesus or the original apostles. On top of that, your understanding of what Protestantism and sola scriptura actually are can only be described as cartoonish. What's worse is you just don't seem to have the willingness (or perhaps ability) to learn.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Your patience and good humor is commendable.

However you are dealing with individuals who have been taught to hate on Catholics. At this point nothing is going to change that.

Just smile, wish them well and move on.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Sola scriptura does NOT mean you can't have any other tradition; it means that the only infallible rule of faith must come from Scripture, since Scripture is the only thing we possess that we know is God-breathed, and thus, infallible. Any tradition must be weighed against Scripture, and if it changes it, contradicts it, or usurps it in any way, it must be discarded. If it does not, then that "living" Church is opening itself to deep error and becoming a dead church.

So, have you been able to produce an example of any tradition, oral or written, that we know came from Jesus and/or his original apostles that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Your BOLD is the issue. ONLY. That is not logical when the first Bible was not written for four hundred years after the Christ died. The Judeo/Christian religion HAS ALWAYs been based on oral and institutional tradition. The Bible doesn't say anywhere that it is the ONLY infallible source. Man said it was the only infallible source and without the benefit of scripture supporting it like the Petrine Primacy which IS backed in scripture.

It is a good thing we are having this conversation, your views are totally messed up with man-made rules with no scriptual basis.

You know, the number of times I have seen it. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Sola scriptura does NOT mean you can't have any other tradition; it means that the only infallible rule of faith must come from Scripture, since Scripture is the only thing we possess that we know is God-breathed, and thus, infallible. Any tradition must be weighed against Scripture, and if it changes it, contradicts it, or usurps it in any way, it must be discarded. If it does not, then that "living" Church is opening itself to deep error and becoming a dead church.

So, have you been able to produce an example of any tradition, oral or written, that we know came from Jesus and/or his original apostles that is NOT in Scripture?

---

Your BOLD is the issue. ONLY. That is not logical when the first Bible was not written for four hundred years after the Christ died. The Judeo/Christian religion HAS ALWAYs been based on oral and institutional tradition. The Bible doesn't say anywhere that it is the ONLY infallible source. Man said it was the only infallible source and without the benefit of scripture supporting it like the Petrine Primacy which IS backed in scripture.

It is a good thing we are having this conversation, your views are totally messed up with man-made rules with no scriptual basis.

You know, the number of times I have seen it. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

---

I'm sorry, your knowledge of the bible is cartoonish. Bible written four hundred years after Christ?? Christianity has ALWAYS been based oral and institutional tradition? Do you get to make up your own facts? You understood nothing of the concept of infallibility and sola scriptura, and why oral tradition that can't be sourced back to the original apostles can't be trusted to be infallible. You don't even seem to know what "logical" means. This is why it is impossible to have any kind of reasoned, intelligent discussion with you.

You are even projecting in the purest possible way: "your views are messed up with man-made rules with no scriptural basis" - says the Roman Catholic who believes in man-made rules that have no scriptural basis, who has been SHOWN this, and has been challenged to prove otherwise, but has failed.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Your patience and good humor is commendable.

However you are dealing with individuals who have been taught to hate on Catholics. At this point nothing is going to change that.

Just smile, wish them well and move on.

---

We've been taught what the Bible actually says, and what history actually shows. The hate is not on Catholics, but their teaching. If we really did hate Catholics, we'd just shut up and let you fall.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are really bad at this.. the irreconocible problem between citing "a priori" as justification for the idea of sola scriptura is not the "reason" part; the problem is the ***deduced*** part. Anything deduced by definition is derivative and not included in the original premises. If you have to deduce it via reason then it is not in scripture. So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your reasoning. You seem to really hate it when the Catholic Church does that, but I guess you don't mind doing it. You've backed yourself into a corner and you are flailing.

---

"if you have to deduce it via reason, then it is not in Scripture" - this makes absolutely no sense.

"So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your own reasoning" - begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

I call ^^^this "flailing".

---

You are struggling with this really, really badly. So I'll try this one more time in the most simple fashion possible:

Please cite to the Bible, Book, chapter and verse, the doctrine of sola scriptura, as divinely revealed either from God (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) or through the apostles, without adding a single bit of commentary, deduction, logic or interpretation. All I am asking for is the Book, Chapter, Verse and quotation, in its plain reading without anything else. I'll accept it in English. If you can do that, I'll stop challenging you.

Quote:

---

begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

---

If you are really going to go down this road you are conceding that the process for many Catholic teachings is valid, you only disagree with the conclusions. This stands in contrast to your post below:

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

I cannot make rhyme or reason of your denomination, so I have to ask. You throw around sola scriptura but the substance of your argument is really more prima scriptura, which suggests Anglican or Methodist. So what is your denomination?

---

I see you have punched the tar baby

No Christians were walking around sola scripturaing for hundreds of years as there wasnt a scriptura to sola as most every believer was learning and living a Christ like life through the oral traditions of His ministry.

It was an interesting discourse in logic a few months back. Appreciate your thoughts on your posts

historian said:

---

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

---

Keep in mind. We have said ALL along that the scripture is God's word and is inspired. That and the Church are what we are to follow. YOU are the one saying that is in the ONLY aspect to be followed. The Bible has just as many verses supporting Church Tradition.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. - 1 Corinthians 11:2

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [a]epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

God's eternal word equals the word preached to you.- 1 Peter 1:25

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. - John 21:25

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

There are just as many supporting Scripture AND Tradition. I used the King James version as a courtesy.

As I said, the Catholics on here have not said the Bible wasn't God's Word. Only that Sola Scriptura is in error, Church Tradition is as important. Nobody here said to disregard the Bible. You guys are the only ones coming to a Catholic thread on Pope Leo and saying we have to believe what you say. Actually, it is only 1 person that keeps doing that.

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It doesn't take any kind of an "expert" to know that these beliefs are REQUIRED in Roman Catholicism upon pain of anathema (removal from body of Christ, thus doomed to Hell).

---

Perhaps it does not take an expert, but it certainly takes someone better educated than you. Excommunication is an ecclesiastical penalty and separation from participation in the sacraments (particularly the Eucharist). Excommunicated individuals can and do still attend Mass. Excommunication is a call for repentance and reconciliation with the Church. It is NOT a condemnation to hell. The Catholic Church even teaches that sincerely repented souls who did not reconcile to the Church still go to heaven. Even an anathema (the most severe form of excommunication) is not a damnation of the soul.

---

Once again, church history isn't kind to what you're saying.

In the Council of Nicaea II in 787 AD, the patriarch of Constantinople, Tarasios, said "An anathema is a terrible thing: it drives [its victims] far from God and expels them from the kingdom of heaven, carrying them off into the outer darkness" (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 89)

Later, Tarasios says, "... lest I be subjected to an anathema and found condemned on the day of the Lord." (p. 90)

After this Council, all the bishops wrote a letter to the emperor Constantine, where they said, "An anathema is nothing other than separation from God." (Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787), 585)

---

Nice job moving the goal posts! You are poorly misinformed. You are either obtuse or a troll. Are you some Aggie sowing dissension on our message board.

Paraphrase:

BTD: Wouldn't you as a Catholic want to correct your fellow Catholic "who is separated from the body of Christ, thus doomed to hell."

Me: Actually, the Church teaches excommunication is not a condemnation to hell, it has to do self-exclusion from the sacraments as ministered by the Church. [As an aside, the last anathema was issued over 100 years ago, and the penalty was officially removed from Canon law over 40 years ago.]

BTD: But that is not what the Catholic Church was doing over a thousand years ago. Check mate, Catholics!

*************

For someone who is concerned about honesty and good faith dialogue, you sure are an unserious person.

My initial point stands: You are in no position to opine on what should or should not warrant a reaction on matters of dogma or faith between one Catholic and another.

---

Moving the goal posts?? How is showing what a supposedly infallible Church Council says about anathemas moving the goal posts when we're talking about what anathemas are? Where's the "dishonesty"?

And do you realize you just argued for either the infallible Council or current Catholic teaching being in error? You both can't be right!

And by the way, ^^that would be checkmate, actually. Not that I'm keeping score. Thanks for helping me make one of my intended points.

---

You are moving the goalposts because when your bad-hypothetical is shown to be worthless or insincere you move on to some esoteric tangent that is subject to different circumstances but pretend it is what you meant all along.

You are also moving the goalposts by refusing to acknowledge that your understanding of Catholic doctrines is informed incorrectly by applying a Protestant construct to a Catholic concepts.

I understand why a Protestant would make the mistake of thinking that excommunication or even the former anathema = removal from the body of Christ = doomed to hell. That is a very Protestant theological point of understanding. But like GM selling the "Chevy Nova" in South America to comical failure, something is being lost in translation here.

But spending just a little time to understand Catholicism would correct your misapprehension: excommunication and even the seldom used anathema, in the Catholic sense, means self-exclusion from participating in the sacraments and a call to repentance. Furthermore, it is a very not-Catholic thing to think of others in terms of them dooming themselves to hell. This is because Catholics generally view that judgment as solely belonging to the Lord and we just don't go there. I get it, I spent four years in a Waco, Protestants do see the world through such a lens. But for Catholics, talking like that, well, it would be the equivalent of you considering infant baptism. It just doesn't register.

Finally, there are plenty of contextual and historical references that will help you understand the formulation of the councils "let them be an anathema" and its traces to the NT, in particular St. Paul. It is beyond this medium to discuss it, other than to say, in short, you are mixing up a dogmatic formulation with the practical application of the ecclesiastical penalty of excommunication. The resources are out there for you to understand and reconcile the issue. But I'm going to take a wild guess and predict that you won't search out those resources.

---

Again - how is it a "tangent" to quote what a supposed infallible Council and early bishops said about what an anathema was... in a discussion about anathemas?? How exactly is that a "worthless" hypothetical?? How exactly did I misconstruct a Catholic concept? I'm literally quoting your own "infallible" Council and the bishops from your church history!

You got trapped, and now you're trying to flail your way out. My God, man, just be honest, that's all I'm asking. You either have to admit that the Council was wrong, or that current Catholic teaching is wrong. Forget about who's a Protestant here and who's Catholic, and just talk to me like a fellow human being - your position puts you in a bind, doesn't it?

---

It is a tangent because you keep moving between the ecclesiastical penalty ceremony of an "anathema" and the dogmatic proclamation use of "anathema". The same word has different meanings and import within context and 2000 years of time. The dogmatic proclamation usage of anathema (consistent with St. Paul) means separated from the body of Christ (excommunicated). Over time, there was a formal anathema ceremony used for particularly egregious excommunications. The ceremony was rarely used and the ceremony of an anathema was removed from Canon law while the concept (separation from the Body of Christ) still remains in Canon law via the term "excommunication". If you can't understand this then there is nothing more to do here.

---

What a ridiculous attempt at sophistry. No one was talking about any "ceremonies". Now who's moving the goalposts??!!

As you yourself admit, the Church's dogmatic proclamation is that an anathema is a separation from the body of Christ, which necessarily means going to Hell. And another dogmatic proclamation is that belief in the Marian dogmas are required, or you are anathema (separated from the body of Christ, thus going to Hell). I can't even begin to know how you would think that "ceremonies" affects these inescapable facts, or how it's even relevant. You're flailing to get out of a hole, and you're mistaken if you think people reading this forum aren't intelligent enough to see that. Why not just be honest and face up to it, instead of making things worse for yourself?

---

No sir. The bolded is where you lose the plot by applying your protestant construct. The Church explicitly states that a separation from the body of Christ (excommunication) is not a condemnation, and does not necessarily mean one is going to hell. Excommunication (separation from the Body of Christ) is a call to reconciliation with the Church. That is literally what the Church teaches. The Church welcomes excommunicated individuals to the Mass and desires for them to be reconciled to the Church. Your whole construct is unpersuasive because you refuse to engage in what the Catholic Church is saying but instead you would rather tell the Catholic Church what it is that the Catholic Church teaches. Again, the Church is extremely careful when it comes to declaring who is bound for heaven, hell or purgatory, particularly when it comes to individuals. The Church is careful about this because (a) that authority belongs only to the Lord and (b) Jesus warned us about judging others.

I will not speculate as to why it is that you are so intent in claiming that authority for yourself.

---

I haven't given you any "protestant constructs", I've literally quoted you Roman Catholic teaching. If the Catholic Church today is not teaching that an anathema is a separation from God (and therefore makes one Hell-bound), then it is not teaching what it taught in its supposed infallible Councils. That's the bottom line. And nothing you're saying is escaping this. You're still stuck in the dilemma of having to decide who is wrong - the Roman Catholic Church then, or the Roman Catholic Church now.

Regardless, you're STILL saying here that an anathema makes a person Hell-bound: if excommunication is separation from the Roman Catholic Church, and salvation can only be obtained through the Church, then without reconciliation with the Church one is Hell bound. I'm sorry, but that IS Catholic teaching. If you're saying it isn't, and that's true, then Roman Catholicism is full of double talk and internal inconsistency, and therefore has no credibility, and none of her so called infallible proclamations should be believed or trusted.

---

Oddly enough, there are Catholic teachings directly on point with the issue you are exploring, but you continue to ignore them and instead insist that you know what Catholicism really teaches. I don't know how to deal with someone who tells me and my religious leaders that they understand better than we do what we believe. This is truly wild. I have to ask: is your faith is defined by opposition to something you disagree with, not an affirmative belief in something else?

The Church does not teach that excommunication leads to damnation because separation from the Body of Christ pertains to the sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and to a lesser extent Holy Orders, Reconciliation and Last Rites*. Heck, a person formally separated from the Body of Christ is still formally expect to attend weekly Mass and on other Holy Days of Obligation (this should clue you in that when the Church says someone is separated from the Body of Christ it means something very different than what you are supposing it means).

Finally, the Church teaches that formal reconciliation by the excommunicated to the Church is not necessary for the excommunicated individual's salvation, only sincere repentance and the rest is between the believer and Jesus. I suspect this bothers you because of your insatiable desire to know (or proclaim) with certainty who is and is not going to hell, but that is just the way it works in the Catholic Church.

*Practically speaking, a person who is excommunicated is likely not keen on a vocation involving Holy Orders. Practically speaking, a person who is excommunicated lifts the excommunication through a sincere Reconciliation. Practically speaking, a person who is excommunicated without formal reconciliation on their deathbed is either going to Reconcile or die without receiving Last Rites. This is really about the Eucharist and being in communion with the Body of Christ.

---

The Catholic church even addressed this explocitly in the 1983 Code of Canon Law

Fre3dombear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are really bad at this.. the irreconocible problem between citing "a priori" as justification for the idea of sola scriptura is not the "reason" part; the problem is the ***deduced*** part. Anything deduced by definition is derivative and not included in the original premises. If you have to deduce it via reason then it is not in scripture. So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your reasoning. You seem to really hate it when the Catholic Church does that, but I guess you don't mind doing it. You've backed yourself into a corner and you are flailing.

---

"if you have to deduce it via reason, then it is not in Scripture" - this makes absolutely no sense.

"So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your own reasoning" - begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

I call ^^^this "flailing".

---

You are struggling with this really, really badly. So I'll try this one more time in the most simple fashion possible:

Please cite to the Bible, Book, chapter and verse, the doctrine of sola scriptura, as divinely revealed either from God (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) or through the apostles, without adding a single bit of commentary, deduction, logic or interpretation. All I am asking for is the Book, Chapter, Verse and quotation, in its plain reading without anything else. I'll accept it in English. If you can do that, I'll stop challenging you.

Quote:

---

begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

---

If you are really going to go down this road you are conceding that the process for many Catholic teachings is valid, you only disagree with the conclusions. This stands in contrast to your post below:

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

I cannot make rhyme or reason of your denomination, so I have to ask. You throw around sola scriptura but the substance of your argument is really more prima scriptura, which suggests Anglican or Methodist. So what is your denomination?

---

I see you have punched the tar baby

No Christians were walking around sola scripturaing for hundreds of years as there wasnt a scriptura to sola as most every believer was learning and living a Christ like life through the oral traditions of His ministry.

It was an interesting discourse in logic a few months back. Appreciate your thoughts on your posts

---

This has actually been a very good thread. It made me dig into some reasons I worship like I do and re-supported my faith.

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Your patience and good humor is commendable.

However you are dealing with individuals who have been taught to hate on Catholics. At this point nothing is going to change that.

Just smile, wish them well and move on.

---

I think this is the credited response. Very hard to argue with someone who (a) either does not understand the concepts he is parroting or (b) is arguing in bad faith. it is natural to want to engage people of good will, and I even think a fair bit of good natured ribbing is fine, but there is a lot of hate and personal animus in that individual's posting. There is something dark in his representations of whatever he actually believes. I am done with it.

Something I've been thinking about for the past few years is that you have to reconcile the Church in the time of Jesus and how we understand the Church after centuries of developed theology. Far too often I think certain Christians apply the paradigm of the Church as we understand it today to the early Church of Jesus and his apostles. The challenge of course is that if the Church was set super early in its history well then you struggle with developed canons/doctrines that were developed long after the time of Jesus and his apostles. Set it too late and the early Church was clearly different from the Church at the time is was "set".

For example, when Jesus tells the disciples not to worry about him, but, rather, be happy for Jesus because he would soon return to his father. We clearly understand that as allusion to heaven and the triune God. Yet for the Jewish ears of the time there was a real unsettled controversy over the afterlife, and the idea of the Triune God would barely be scratched or understood or developed for around a century. That must have been wild to the apostles in trying to understand what was meant. Many Christians today struggle with the idea of holy relics, but that was obviously a very Jewish belief at the time of Jesus (consider the bleeding woman is healed when she touches Jesus's robes and her faith in the power that it would have).

I heard a scholar one time say that Jesus would have sounded crazy at times to the people of his time. Spreading seeds on barren soil/rocks would have been incomprehensible to them, but we, today, after centuries, have a clean understanding of what Jesus meant with that parable. Just something interesting to meditate on.....

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

[**** Sola scriptura is the doctrine that since Scripture is all that the church has in its possession that is God-breathed (his actual and direct words), then Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith for the church. ****

The common Roman Catholic retort that sola scriptura "isn't in the Bible" never makes sense no matter how often it gets repeated. Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth. If it is true that the only direct words of God we possess are in Scripture, and it is true that God's word is infallible, then it absolutely and necessarily follows that the only infallible words of God that we possess are in Scripture. Therefore, it also follows that the only thing that can serve as an infallible rule of faith, is Scripture.

---

Interesting, Muslims say the same thing about the Quran. Why are they not right? Your argument is circular and does not hold up.

The Bible NEVER makes the claim that it is infallible rule of faith, much less the ONLY infallible rule of faith.

Catholics whole-heartedly agree that it is infallible; however, WHO determines what the passages mean?

What do we do when people disagree?

---

Moslems have a whole Chapter honoring Mary .. only Tarps Protestants don't honor Mary.

---

Who said I don't honor Mary? I don't idolize her like Roman Catholics do, sure.

---

You have, it is the only logical answer to your weeks long attack on Mary. What do you have against her, it is scriptural to honor Mary. Should fit with your Sola Scriptural fallacy.

---

Interesting they chose the Month of Mary to vilify and marginalize her

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Your patience and good humor is commendable.

However you are dealing with individuals who have been taught to hate on Catholics. At this point nothing is going to change that.

Just smile, wish them well and move on.

---

As Bishop Sheen famously said in 1938: ""There are not one hundred people in the United States who hate The Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they wrongly perceive the Catholic Church to be"

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are really bad at this.. the irreconocible problem between citing "a priori" as justification for the idea of sola scriptura is not the "reason" part; the problem is the ***deduced*** part. Anything deduced by definition is derivative and not included in the original premises. If you have to deduce it via reason then it is not in scripture. So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your reasoning. You seem to really hate it when the Catholic Church does that, but I guess you don't mind doing it. You've backed yourself into a corner and you are flailing.

---

"if you have to deduce it via reason, then it is not in Scripture" - this makes absolutely no sense.

"So sola scriptura is not coming from the Bible but from your own reasoning" - begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

I call ^^^this "flailing".

---

You are struggling with this really, really badly. So I'll try this one more time in the most simple fashion possible:

Please cite to the Bible, Book, chapter and verse, the doctrine of sola scriptura, as divinely revealed either from God (Father, Son or Holy Spirit) or through the apostles, without adding a single bit of commentary, deduction, logic or interpretation. All I am asking for is the Book, Chapter, Verse and quotation, in its plain reading without anything else. I'll accept it in English. If you can do that, I'll stop challenging you.

Quote:

---

begging the question, circular argument. You're already assuming the truth that sola scriptura must come from the Bible in order to be valid.

---

If you are really going to go down this road you are conceding that the process for many Catholic teachings is valid, you only disagree with the conclusions. This stands in contrast to your post below:

Quote:

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

I cannot make rhyme or reason of your denomination, so I have to ask. You throw around sola scriptura but the substance of your argument is really more prima scriptura, which suggests Anglican or Methodist. So what is your denomination?

---

I see you have punched the tar baby

No Christians were walking around sola scripturaing for hundreds of years as there wasnt a scriptura to sola as most every believer was learning and living a Christ like life through the oral traditions of His ministry.

It was an interesting discourse in logic a few months back. Appreciate your thoughts on your posts

---

This has actually been a very good thread. It made me dig into some reasons I worship like I do and re-supported my faith.

---

100%. Oddly enough the emoting weve waded through has helped sharpen the saw as is said.

Irony its in a Pope Leo thread as you say which i found amusing.

I had hoped for a more reasoned debate as largely minds never change anyway but helps to know what other Beliefs exist and brings me more confirmation of the reasoning behind the Catholic faith

Quote:

---

I think this is the credited response. Very hard to argue with someone who (a) either does not understand the concepts he is parroting or (b) is arguing in bad faith.

---

WOW, are you Roman Catholics this deceived, that you can even deceive yourselves?

YOU were the one who completely failed to understand the concepts and the argument itself. It's all on written record above, and you're still able to lie about it?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Your patience and good humor is commendable.

However you are dealing with individuals who have been taught to hate on Catholics. At this point nothing is going to change that.

Just smile, wish them well and move on.

---

We've been taught what the Bible actually says, and what history actually shows. The hate is not on Catholics, but their teaching. If we really did hate Catholics, we'd just shut up and let you fall.

---

Largest Christian denomination for two thousand years is a strange way to fail.

But enjoy yourself.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think this is the credited response. Very hard to argue with someone who (a) either does not understand the concepts he is parroting or (b) is arguing in bad faith.

---

WOW, are you Roman Catholics this deceived, that you can even deceive yourselves?

YOU were the one who completely failed to understand the concepts and the argument itself. It's all on written record above, and you're still able to lie about it?

---

Actually, there is nothing you have shown that discredits the Catholic position of Scripture AND Church Tradition. The Bible actually allows for it quite nicely.

If anything, the Biblical references on tradition, hearing the spoken word and John's Gospel that you could not fit all that Jesus did in a book makes your position of Sola Scriptura as requiring quite a few gymnastics to get there.

If you want to say that there have been bad people in the Church, guilty. Over the 2000 years of the Church there have been bad people that did bad things. Are there people that misused their position, guilty. I am sure there were. Are there Holy Men that fell to Satan's traps? I would guess yes, just like any other large organization over a long period of time.

In my opinion, one of the miracles of the Holy Spirit is that even with all that the Church is still going. People still dedicate their lives to God and try to make the world better. The Church still funds Hospitals, Universities and goes to the worst places to help those in need. Still takes unpopular positions and still is trying to get Jesus's message out. If after 2000 years if that isn't the Holy Spirit at work, I don't know what is.

You can spend your time arguing whether veneration is worship (it is not) and cherry picking academic historians works. Have fun. But, in my opinion, you are missing the bigger picture. I know any good works are as good as dirty rags and every bad act trumpets our evilness. Get it. Do you Protestants ever laugh or smile and enjoy the great place God gave us? Or is it all misery...

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think this is the credited response. Very hard to argue with someone who (a) either does not understand the concepts he is parroting or (b) is arguing in bad faith.

---

WOW, are you Roman Catholics this deceived, that you can even deceive yourselves?

YOU were the one who completely failed to understand the concepts and the argument itself. It's all on written record above, and you're still able to lie about it?

---

Actually, there is nothing you have shown that discredits the Catholic position of Scripture AND Church Tradition. The Bible actually allows for it quite nicely.

If anything, the Biblical references on tradition, hearing the spoken word and John's Gospel that you could not fit all that Jesus did in a book makes your position of Sola Scriptura as requiring quite a few gymnastics to get there.

If you want to say that there have been bad people in the Church, guilty. Over the 2000 years of the Church there have been bad people that did bad things. Are there people that misused their position, guilty. I am sure there were. Are there Holy Men that fell to Satan's traps? I would guess yes, just like any other large organization over a long period of time.

In my opinion, one of the miracles of the Holy Spirit is that even with all that the Church is still going. People still dedicate their lives to God and try to make the world better. The Church still funds Hospitals, Universities and goes to the worst places to help those in need. Still takes unpopular positions and still is trying to get Jesus's message out. If after 2000 years if that isn't the Holy Spirit at work, I don't know what is.

You can spend your time arguing whether veneration is worship (it is not) and cherry picking academic historians works. Have fun. But, in my opinion, you are missing the bigger picture. I know any good works are as good as dirty rags and every bad act trumpets our evilness. Get it. Do you Protestants ever laugh or smile and enjoy the great place God gave us? Or is it all misery...

---

Your post reminded me of the quote attributed to Cardinal Consalvi to Napoleon's threats to destroy the Catholic church:

"Your Majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the Church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you."

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think this is the credited response. Very hard to argue with someone who (a) either does not understand the concepts he is parroting or (b) is arguing in bad faith.

---

WOW, are you Roman Catholics this deceived, that you can even deceive yourselves?

YOU were the one who completely failed to understand the concepts and the argument itself. It's all on written record above, and you're still able to lie about it?

---

Actually, there is nothing you have shown that discredits the Catholic position of Scripture AND Church Tradition. The Bible actually allows for it quite nicely.

If anything, the Biblical references on tradition, hearing the spoken word and John's Gospel that you could not fit all that Jesus did in a book makes your position of Sola Scriptura as requiring quite a few gymnastics to get there.

If you want to say that there have been bad people in the Church, guilty. Over the 2000 years of the Church there have been bad people that did bad things. Are there people that misused their position, guilty. I am sure there were. Are there Holy Men that fell to Satan's traps? I would guess yes, just like any other large organization over a long period of time.

In my opinion, one of the miracles of the Holy Spirit is that even with all that the Church is still going. People still dedicate their lives to God and try to make the world better. The Church still funds Hospitals, Universities and goes to the worst places to help those in need. Still takes unpopular positions and still is trying to get Jesus's message out. If after 2000 years if that isn't the Holy Spirit at work, I don't know what is.

You can spend your time arguing whether veneration is worship (it is not) and cherry picking academic historians works. Have fun. But, in my opinion, you are missing the bigger picture. I know any good works are as good as dirty rags and every bad act trumpets our evilness. Get it. Do you Protestants ever laugh or smile and enjoy the great place God gave us? Or is it all misery...

---

Of course I've shown that Catholic tradition contradicts Scripture. There is no biblical evidence for the papacy, papal supremacy, or papal infallibility ANYWHERE. There is nothing that supports the Marian dogmas, AT ALL. Scripture contradicts them. History does too. If you don't like my historical sources, then what's yours to counter them? You've provided zero. If you disagree with my biblical arguments, then what's wrong about them? Show me, don't tell me.

You've provided NO Roman Catholic oral tradition that we know came from Jesus or his original apostles that is not in Scripture. No one has answered to the fact that church history clearly and undoubtedly shows that papal supremacy and papal infallibility was NOT the "ancient and constant" faith that was "always believed" by the church as Roman Catholicism claims in Vatican I. You've provided NO proof that the Marian dogmas were believed by the early church. In fact, your "proof" was completely laughable ("Mary was honored"). You really can't be serious with this comment of yours. You and others are just in denial. Your anger at me is a way of coping.

You can continue to repeat your mantras, that I've shown nothing, but the written record is all there for people to see.

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think this is the credited response. Very hard to argue with someone who (a) either does not understand the concepts he is parroting or (b) is arguing in bad faith.

---

WOW, are you Roman Catholics this deceived, that you can even deceive yourselves?

YOU were the one who completely failed to understand the concepts and the argument itself. It's all on written record above, and you're still able to lie about it?

---

Actually, there is nothing you have shown that discredits the Catholic position of Scripture AND Church Tradition. The Bible actually allows for it quite nicely.

If anything, the Biblical references on tradition, hearing the spoken word and John's Gospel that you could not fit all that Jesus did in a book makes your position of Sola Scriptura as requiring quite a few gymnastics to get there.

If you want to say that there have been bad people in the Church, guilty. Over the 2000 years of the Church there have been bad people that did bad things. Are there people that misused their position, guilty. I am sure there were. Are there Holy Men that fell to Satan's traps? I would guess yes, just like any other large organization over a long period of time.

In my opinion, one of the miracles of the Holy Spirit is that even with all that the Church is still going. People still dedicate their lives to God and try to make the world better. The Church still funds Hospitals, Universities and goes to the worst places to help those in need. Still takes unpopular positions and still is trying to get Jesus's message out. If after 2000 years if that isn't the Holy Spirit at work, I don't know what is.

You can spend your time arguing whether veneration is worship (it is not) and cherry picking academic historians works. Have fun. But, in my opinion, you are missing the bigger picture. I know any good works are as good as dirty rags and every bad act trumpets our evilness. Get it. Do you Protestants ever laugh or smile and enjoy the great place God gave us? Or is it all misery...

---

Your post reminded me of the quote attributed to Cardinal Consalvi to Napoleon's threats to destroy the Catholic church:

"Your Majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the Church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you."

---

Touche... We are only men, leave it to us it will be a mess! Look at this thread, Christ came and told us what to do. What do we do? We turn it into a pissing match and we agree on 90%! We are in sync with about 55% of Judaism and about 60% of Islam (I give them an extra 5% for honoring Mary). Yeah, we will F it up...

FLBear5630 said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think this is the credited response. Very hard to argue with someone who (a) either does not understand the concepts he is parroting or (b) is arguing in bad faith.

---

WOW, are you Roman Catholics this deceived, that you can even deceive yourselves?

YOU were the one who completely failed to understand the concepts and the argument itself. It's all on written record above, and you're still able to lie about it?

---

Actually, there is nothing you have shown that discredits the Catholic position of Scripture AND Church Tradition. The Bible actually allows for it quite nicely.

If anything, the Biblical references on tradition, hearing the spoken word and John's Gospel that you could not fit all that Jesus did in a book makes your position of Sola Scriptura as requiring quite a few gymnastics to get there.

If you want to say that there have been bad people in the Church, guilty. Over the 2000 years of the Church there have been bad people that did bad things. Are there people that misused their position, guilty. I am sure there were. Are there Holy Men that fell to Satan's traps? I would guess yes, just like any other large organization over a long period of time.

In my opinion, one of the miracles of the Holy Spirit is that even with all that the Church is still going. People still dedicate their lives to God and try to make the world better. The Church still funds Hospitals, Universities and goes to the worst places to help those in need. Still takes unpopular positions and still is trying to get Jesus's message out. If after 2000 years if that isn't the Holy Spirit at work, I don't know what is.

You can spend your time arguing whether veneration is worship (it is not) and cherry picking academic historians works. Have fun. But, in my opinion, you are missing the bigger picture. I know any good works are as good as dirty rags and every bad act trumpets our evilness. Get it. Do you Protestants ever laugh or smile and enjoy the great place God gave us? Or is it all misery...

---

Your post reminded me of the quote attributed to Cardinal Consalvi to Napoleon's threats to destroy the Catholic church:

"Your Majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the Church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you."

---

Touche... We are only men, leave it to us it will be a mess! Look at this thread, Christ came and told us what to do. What do we do? We turn it into a pissing match and we agree on 90%! We are in sync with about 55% of Judaism and about 60% of Islam (I give them an extra 5% for honoring Mary). Yeah, we will F it up...

---

Yep. We all fall short of the glory of God

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Your patience and good humor is commendable.

However you are dealing with individuals who have been taught to hate on Catholics. At this point nothing is going to change that.

Just smile, wish them well and move on.

---

We've been taught what the Bible actually says, and what history actually shows. The hate is not on Catholics, but their teaching. If we really did hate Catholics, we'd just shut up and let you fall.

---

Largest Christian denomination for two thousand years is a strange way to fail.

But enjoy yourself.

---

It feels like every other page of the Old Testament is God bringing down fire and brimstone on the Jewish people for failing to worship him as directed/or in a holy manner. But some of our friends (and not friends) in this thread must believe the Catholic Church has been screwing it up for 2000 years and God is just letting it play out….

DallasBear9902 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

KaiBear said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

DallasBear9902 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Please FOCUS. I didn't ask what YOU think the primary reading shows, I asked whether you agree that the belief that Peter was the "rock" was NOT a constant belief of the early church, given the historical evidence I just provided?

---

I believe 100% in the word of Jesus that Peter IS the rock that Christ established His Church, in light of your "evidence."

1) Jesus literally said it. The prima facie reading proves that. I go with Jesus here.
2) I've provided 1st & 2nd century evidence from Clement, Ignatius, and Irenaeus that the Church in Rome had primacy and a list of the original bishops of Rome from Peter forward.
3) I will also listen to the magisterium which has proclaimed this for nearly 2000 years. It has been practiced and believed for this entire period.

Finally, I do reject what a 20th/21st century scholar has claimed, especially when I have not read the greater context his statement was made.

I'll trust Jesus. He said so.

---

If you won't answer the question, don't you see you're only proving that I'm right?

Is there ONE Roman Catholic out there who will discuss this with me honestly? Please, just ONE??

---

That is a clear answer to your supposed question. If someone else doesn't think so, please let me know.

Question for you, when did you stop betting your wife?

---

No, it isn't an answer to my question. Good grief.

---

The lovely Marisa Tomei demonstrates it very well,



If ANY one (protestant or Catholic) feels that I did sufficiently answer the "question" with my beliefs, please let me know. I sincerely mean that.


Your question was phrased in the same vein as "when did you stop betting your wife?"

---

I don't know what question you have in mind, but the real question was this: given that the historical evidence shows that a majority of patristic writers did NOT view Peter as the "rock" of Matthew 16, then isn't it true that the view that Peter was the "rock" was NOT what the Catholic church "constantly" and "always" believed as the Roman Catholic Church claims?

If anyone feels that your answer, which was telling me that YOU personally believe Peter was the "rock", is an actual answer to that question, then they can please let me know, too. And then I can add them to the clueless list.

---

Is that list attached to your Keys?

By the way, you are so full of **** it is pathetic. You seem to get off on trying to undermine people's believes by throwing out cherrypicked infromation. Buy a Catechism it will explain every aspect of the Catholic faith. Here is a website in the Vatican. This is the Catholic Position which is correct, regardless of yoursadn Tammy Faye's thoughts


The Primacy of the Successor of Peter in the Mystery of the Church

I guarentee YOU have not found anything new.

---

The Roman Catholic position is correct, because official Roman Catholic sources say so?

Unbelievable.

---

If that is unbelievable to you wait until you hear this one:

Sola Scriptura is correct because people say it is.

---

Too bad no one ever said that.

---

That is what YOU said. You said Sola Scriptura is reasoning based on theoretical deduction. A theoretical assumption based on deduction. Not based on empirical evidence or observation.

In other words, that it is true because you say it is.

You really aren't good at understanding words, ideas and concepts. A proper Catholic education would have helped you in this regard.

---

The empirical, observed evidence that sola scriptura is based on is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. That put a stamp on his authority as being from God. He in turn, put his stamp of authority on his disciples: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you." *Therefore*, the word of the original apostles is the direct, infallible word of God. *And since* all the church has in its possession that is the word of the original apostles is in Scripture, then the only thing that can serve as the infallible rule of faith is Scripture.

This is not a "theoretical deduction". It's quite revealing that you would call Jesus' resurrection a "theory". If this is what results from a "proper Catholic education", then thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll pass.

---

You struggle with words and ideas. Here is what you said on 5/23/25 at 2:57 central. You can find your own words and your own post (with my emphasis added).:

Quote:

---

Sola scriptura is an a priori, logical truth.

---

a priori: adj. relating to or denoting reasoning or knowledge which proceeds from theoretical deduction rather than from observation or experience; adv; in a way based on theoretical deduction rather than empirical observation.

Even if you prefer a more church centric definition of apriori, here you go:

From what is before, that is, from cause to effect. Reasoning from principles to conclusions, or from prior knowledge to consequences; therefore deduction. A basic premise of Catholic morality in reducing general norms to specific practice.

So, in three posts about Sola Scriptura you go from (paraphrased for simplicity):

1. it is a [logical deduction].

2. Nobody ever said [it is a logical deduction].

3. It is is not a [logical deduction], but BTD is going to use (faulty) deductive logic to establish that it is true.

(Hint: when you use words like "therefore" & "and since" as in your post on 5/24/25 at 1:20 am central, you are using a crude form of deductive logic. You are using certain premises that are not explicitly revealed in the Bible to arrive to a conclusion. Your postings make it clear that you hate it when the Catholic Church does this, but here you find yourself. I have italicized and added asterisks to your usage for ease of reference in the quote above.)

---

Here is your misunderstanding: it is an a priori truth because it is based purely on this logic, simply stated:

• If quality A is in B;
• and B is the only thing we know for sure in existence that has quality A;
• then all things need to be measured against B for us to know if it has quality A

Let A = infallible, "God-breathed", direct word of God
Let B = Scripture

This is the logic I was referring to. It is pure logic, and does not proceed from observation or experience. It is true in of itself. However, you responded by saying that the "reasoning behind sola scriptura is BASED on theoretical deduction". That's saying something different, in my mind. The BASIS of the reasoning is in the truth of the first two premises. But because BOTH Protestants and Catholics already agree on it's truth (I documented this and starred it in another comment as the starting point for all my logic in ths discussion about sola scriptura) the premises are accepted as true, and the logical conclusion (sola scriptura) proceeding from it is a priori truth. However, the BASIS of the truth of sola scriptura comes from premises actually being true to begin with - which is not a priori truth but proceeds from actual, historical, observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus.

To put it simply, the reasoning behind sola scriptura, between us Protestants and Catholics, is a priori logic because we accept the truth of the premises. However, the BASIS of the reasoning behind sola scriptura is in the actual truth of the premises, which is based on historical truth (observed experience, i.e. the resurrection of Jesus).

Pedantic enough for ya? If that's where you wanna go, then I can accomodate. I knew it might be an issue to make logical statements when you Catholics forget that the agreed upon starting point is in the infallibility of Scripture, which is why I made the effort to document it.

---

You are flailing both in form and substance. It would be easier to admit that you should not have used the phrase a priori, but I don't think you are capable of that....Instead you choose to dig a deeper hole.

Form: By definition, an a priori, a logical deduction, is derivative of the premises and exists apart from the premises, otherwise it does not have to be deduced. Hence, sola scriptura, which you correctly maintain is an a priori, is already violating its very principle of sola scriptura.

---

A priori means it can be deduced from pure reason alone. The syllogism I presented does exactly that. Sorry, you're the one flailing here. You evidently understood nothing of what I wrote. Your understanding of a priori is suspect as well. Your last sentence makes absolutely no sense.

---

You are wrong. It can't be determined from pure reason alone. The reason being that it is based on a millennia (including the old testament) of oral and church tradition. The Church is correct that it is A standard of truth (no arguement there), but not THE standard of truth since it can't incorporate church tradition or church rulings since the Bible was complete. It is not a living document. The priori argument is that Sola Scriptura CAN'T be accurate as Christianity continues to move forward and conditions change but the Bible stays static. It can't be the stand alone only truth.

---

Given the truth of the premises in the syllogism I presented, yes it can be determined from pure reason alone. If you disagree, then falsifly the logic in the syllogism.

All church tradition or rulings after Scripture was completed must be weighed against Scripture, because Scripture is the only thing in our possession that we know is "God-breathed" and thus infallible. You don't know that those traditions are infallible, you're only assuming it. And when you do that, you're opening yourself up accepting lies and heresy as being equal in authority as Scripture. And that is EXACTLY what happened with the Roman Catholic Church.

God's word is not a "living document" in that it can be added to or manipulated by man. Conditions change as time goes on, but God's truth never changes. Man must conform to God's truth, not God's truth to man's. What you are saying here is explicitly NOT Christian. It inevitably leads to the corruption of God's word and thus leaving man lost. It's complete heresy.

---

But the Church is living, which is why it is logical that it is a combination of Scripture and church tradition

---

Your patience and good humor is commendable.

However you are dealing with individuals who have been taught to hate on Catholics. At this point nothing is going to change that.

Just smile, wish them well and move on.

---

We've been taught what the Bible actually says, and what history actually shows. The hate is not on Catholics, but their teaching. If we really did hate Catholics, we'd just shut up and let you fall.

---

Largest Christian denomination for two thousand years is a strange way to fail.

But enjoy yourself.

---

It feels like every other page of the Old Testament is God bringing down fire and brimstone on the Jewish people for failing to worship him as directed/or in a holy manner. But some of our friends (and not friends) in this thread must believe the Catholic Church has been screwing it up for 2000 years and God is just letting it play out….

---

Must be a New Testament thing... Or maybe God sees a good faith effort...

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

---

Keep in mind. We have said ALL along that the scripture is God's word and is inspired. That and the Church are what we are to follow. YOU are the one saying that is in the ONLY aspect to be followed. The Bible has just as many verses supporting Church Tradition.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. - 1 Corinthians 11:2

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [a]epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

God's eternal word equals the word preached to you.- 1 Peter 1:25

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. - John 21:25

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

There are just as many supporting Scripture AND Tradition. I used the King James version as a courtesy.

As I said, the Catholics on here have not said the Bible wasn't God's Word. Only that Sola Scriptura is in error, Church Tradition is as important. Nobody here said to disregard the Bible. You guys are the only ones coming to a Catholic thread on Pope Leo and saying we have to believe what you say. Actually, it is only 1 person that keeps doing that.

---

Tell us what you think sola scriptura means. Don't look it up, just write in your own words and understanding what it means. I don't think you even know, yet you spent three plus pages arguing against it.

Quote:

---

Largest Christian denomination for two thousand years is a strange way to fail.

But enjoy yourself.

---

The Roman Catholic Church today would not even be recognized by the Church in 150 AD as being the same Church, let alone even being Christian. The early Christians would think that Roman Catholicism turned into an idolatrous cult straight from Satan.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It feels like every other page of the Old Testament is God bringing down fire and brimstone on the Jewish people for failing to worship him as directed/or in a holy manner. But some of our friends (and not friends) in this thread must believe the Catholic Church has been screwing it up for 2000 years and God is just letting it play out….

---

---

Riiight.... Roman Cathoilcism can't ever screw up, therefore the distortion of the Gospel and the idolatrous deification and worship of Mary HAS to be what God really wanted.....

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Quote:

---

Largest Christian denomination for two thousand years is a strange way to fail.

But enjoy yourself.

---

The Roman Catholic Church today would not even be recognized by the Church in 150 AD as being the same Church, let alone even being Christian. The early Christians would think that Roman Catholicism turned into an idolatrous cult straight from Satan.

---

LOL

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

---

Keep in mind. We have said ALL along that the scripture is God's word and is inspired. That and the Church are what we are to follow. YOU are the one saying that is in the ONLY aspect to be followed. The Bible has just as many verses supporting Church Tradition.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. - 1 Corinthians 11:2

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [a]epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

God's eternal word equals the word preached to you.- 1 Peter 1:25

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. - John 21:25

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

There are just as many supporting Scripture AND Tradition. I used the King James version as a courtesy.

As I said, the Catholics on here have not said the Bible wasn't God's Word. Only that Sola Scriptura is in error, Church Tradition is as important. Nobody here said to disregard the Bible. You guys are the only ones coming to a Catholic thread on Pope Leo and saying we have to believe what you say. Actually, it is only 1 person that keeps doing that.

---

Tell us what you think sola scriptura means. Don't look it up, just write in your own words and understanding what it means. I don't think you even know, yet you spent three plus pages arguing against it.

---

Don't look it up? So you can nit pick whatever phrase doesn't fit what you learned in you "Why we are Protestant Class?" After the lectures and citations you use. No, that is a tactic of yours, ask an informal question, we answer informally and you respond in PhD dissertation defense mode. No thank you.

As for the definition. It would be more appropriate to ask you, what is your definition? We can discuss from there.i am comfortable with the Catholic believes in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. You are saying that is wrong.

Present your definition as you understand it?

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

historian said:

---

"All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for correction and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
II Timothy 3:16-17

"Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him." Proverbs 30:5

"But he answered, 'It is written, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes from the mouth of God."'" Matthew 4:4

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." Isaiah 40:8

"The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever." Psalm 119:60

---

Keep in mind. We have said ALL along that the scripture is God's word and is inspired. That and the Church are what we are to follow. YOU are the one saying that is in the ONLY aspect to be followed. The Bible has just as many verses supporting Church Tradition.

2 Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you. - 1 Corinthians 11:2

15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our [a]epistle. - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

God's eternal word equals the word preached to you.- 1 Peter 1:25

25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. - John 21:25

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. - John 16:12

There are just as many supporting Scripture AND Tradition. I used the King James version as a courtesy.

As I said, the Catholics on here have not said the Bible wasn't God's Word. Only that Sola Scriptura is in error, Church Tradition is as important. Nobody here said to disregard the Bible. You guys are the only ones coming to a Catholic thread on Pope Leo and saying we have to believe what you say. Actually, it is only 1 person that keeps doing that.

---

Tell us what you think sola scriptura means. Don't look it up, just write in your own words and understanding what it means. I don't think you even know, yet you spent three plus pages arguing against it.

---

Don't look it up? So you can nit pick whatever phrase doesn't fit what you learned in you "Why we are Protestant Class?" After the lectures and citations you use. No, that is a tactic of yours, ask an informal question, we answer informally and you respond in PhD dissertation defense mode. No thank you.

As for the definition. It would be more appropriate to ask you, what is your definition? We can discuss from there.i am comfortable with the Catholic believes in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. You are saying that is wrong.

Present your definition as you understand it?

---

His writing style changes post to post. He's either using ChatGPT or emailing stuff to his youth pastor back home to type out responses for him. It is also why he confuses concepts and doesn't really understand the words he is using.