ss again


Protestants [do not] agree (for the vast majority) with the Catholic Bible (The true Bible) in the first place. So there is [some] agreement from the Protestants [with] the Catholic Church on what is the Word of God. The Catholic Church has nothing to agree with 1500’s and after ideologies that have the audacity to declare what is and isn’t the Word of God. We know, it is our Liturgical Book before it was even put together.

Funny, I just placed one of my Bibles on the table and I stared at it for about 30 minutes. It didn’t say anything to me. :wink:

However, when I read it or someone reads it to me – it does.

St. Peter agrees with the Catholics
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, since you wait for these, be zealous to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. 15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this[c] as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. 18 But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

So does St. Paul:
1 Timothy 3:14 I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, 15 if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

The writer of Hebrews agrees as well:

(Are you excluding Eastern Catholics when you use “Roman”?)
(BTW - Catholic is the proper and correct way)

Perhaps you can then explain the myriad of interpretations further dividing the Body of Christ? And how that is the way it should be.

My teenagers insist in their own interpretation of living… at my expense nonetheless… that doesn’t make it true or practical.

That is a very dangerous statement, ben.

If every man is a liar and we don’t have a record of divine revelation that lists which books are to be considered the Word of God; then, any list that is given by any man is a lie, because every man is a liar.

Which Protestant sect proclaims God’s truth then?

Good! so where is this church that you and I, or whoever disagrees about the efficacy of baptism, or pick any division, can take our differences to (Mt 18:17) and have this resolved once and for all throughout “Christianity”? There are many differences that need resolving within Christianity basing their authority on scripture.


No that is the debate today. We agree 99.5 % on God’s Word, even His written Word today. Just how much of a constitution it is to be is unfortunately the debate today.

No the debate is (in your american constitution analogy) who the judicial branch is today.

You would say there is none, just a paper, make of it what you will.
I say there is one. The church.

Can you imagine a constitution where each individual or each town was the authority on its interpretation ??

You may as well not have a constitution then!

Everyday the Constitution is challenged and laws are deemed constitutional or not. Who is your judicial branch?

Your pastor?
Some book about the Bible?
Your parents ?
The reformers?

Mine is the church founded by Christ, given authority to bind and loose, given authority to declare heresy, to settle disputes, to say what the Bible is, etc etc.

Why do you choose to ignore the judicial branch?

There are also many differences based on which church also. So now what ? It is not that one bases authority on the bible or on a church, but whether it is judiciously done. A thing is either right or wrong. I tell you that even with our differences there still is plenty of wisdom crying from the rooftops, from the church/tradition/bible… You had divisions when oral tradition was the only thing (the first generation church) and you did after the beginning of Written, as you continued after councils . So tradition/oral/written/ councilar paradigms still leave divisions. They used to say which tradition, which apostle but I am of Peter or I am of Paul. Then which scripture, Luke or Barnabus or Thomas or Acts of Pilate or gospel of Nicodemus ? Then which councils, the ones of the east or the ones of the west, one towards Rome or towards Constantinople, and which popes or anti popes. …Truth always divides, no matter what she is conveyed by.

The reason we agree on what belongs in the new testament is because it is what the church decided in the fourth century belonged in it, so since we can trust the Catholic Churches new testament canon why can’t we trust her on anything else? (Such as the interpretation of that canon.) While we’re on the subject, why do you believe in the Trinity? That isn’t in the bible.

No it is like the judiciail branch is saying, hey, the constitution is nice but it is us who alone can interpret it and we have equal authority. Really ? Maybe, but it may not be correct or the original intent. And is that not the problem partly in Amercia today, to stray from original intent of founders cause after all they did leave us with that possibility to stray, and yet have it be constitutional, after all the justices can stray a lot and there is little we can do about it, especially when we, us, like it.


No the paper says there are three branches and all derive their guidelines even authority and life from that paper.


Can you imagine a constitution where the judiciary is above the legislative and its constituents, the voters, lay people and can not override a president or judiciary ?


Amen. Paper rules. We still say it is or isn’t constitutional. We don’t say it is of the judiciary or it is not.

Who is your judicial branch?

Scripture rules thru the church, thru her leaders and lay people and her councils. The entire church is the judicial, the ecclesia ,the called out, just as we may have three branches in our govt. it is still all “us”

Who is your judicial branch?


Who is your judicial branch?Your pastor?


Who is your judicial branch? Some book about the Bible?


Who is your judicial branch? Your parents ?


Who is your judicial branch?The reformers?



Yes. mine too.

Why do you choose to ignore the judicial branch?

Why do you define the judiciary that excludes ? Exclude heretics yes, but without balance and checks that even that gets muddled

Have you been in business, where the motto is, " What have you done for me lately?" That Kodak was great with film did not make her right and great about digital technology. Yes I believe the same church that received the inspired Word and kept it and gave us many other things also gave us many reformers, both Catholic and not.

Who defines heretics???

In your analogy it is fine for people to practice laws or hold ideas or interpretations. But when it is taken to the judiciary or confronted whatever the judiciary says is the reality and all must submit or go to jail.

In the church it is similar. Opinions, judgements and practices are fine based on your interpretation until someone says your wrong and asks the church to clarify.

Once they do, you submit to their ruling or you don’t and are a heretic. Exactly as Matt 18 describes.

The added bonus for the church is Jesus promised us the Holy Spirit that would guide the church in all truth.

God protects his church and his revelation…but I guess you hold he can’t or won’t

So what you are saying is that God’s church did alright for a while, but it is now obsolete? The kingdom of God is not a camera; it is the bride of Christ and he is no faithless husband.

Romans3:4 “Let God be true, but every man a liar’’ The context:” for what if some do not believe (in circumcision or oracles of God) shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect ?" vs 3…I like it because to me it says that God’s methodology is not judged solely by its outcome that there are always negatives competing with the positives. And you can’t let the negatives say ," See the methodology is wrong". So because there is much division amongst those proporting an assemblance of SS does not negate the methodology itself. Actually the CC church has such rationale to itself also when facing it’s own negatives.

[If] you would have quoted it in context, it would have made more sense.

[But] what you actually said was:

The rationale of the Church is that of the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Much different than that of private interpretation, which for life application I have no problem with. But for doctrine, I do.

I see private interpretation is any wrong interpretation,whether by an individual or a magisterium or a council. I think private is not used in the sense of individual over corporate, but that of individual apart from god’s inspiration, apart from God’s intent,even interpretation. Maybe it is not up to our interpretation nor anyone’s for it is what it is , God’s word.

Kodak is still in business,serving some of our needs though just not as much as she used to. The only thing that is obsolete in his Kingdom is falsehood

He isn’t a bigamist either.

If this is true , then Gods truth cannot be known.

Actually we all can judge heretics. The judiciary is us. I do not agree in private interpretation of any kind. Citizens should be acting constitutionally for its own sake. Same in the church. We should all be living in Truth and Spirit and with out private interpretation…Matt 18 is about trespasses against one another, not doctrine…even so Matt says the individual has authority to confront, as do two of the ecclesia and finally the whole body. All are guided by the holy spirit, and protected, according to His graces and good pleasure.

Well I guess there are a lot of churches of ONE then.

You cant possibly believe this none sense!

It is sad to see people trade reason, logic, common sense and even scripture itself in favor of a man made doctrine.

I say we take sola Scriptura to the entire ecclesia.

1 billion Catholics and 300 million Orthodox voting against 600 million Protestants.

I guess in your scenario you’d be deemed a heretic…
