In defense of Cruciform; Traditions of Men

[genuineoriginal]

But only one of the two can be correct, right?

Not at all.
Both can be wrong.

 

[genuineoriginal]

For that matter, where have I ever claimed Calvin or any man as founder?

It is right there in your signature.
Calvin is the second from the left.

 

[TulipBee]

Good thing I am not a Protestant and believe according to the beliefs of Christians from before the Roman Catholic church was formed under Constantine.
:chuckle:

400 years to come up with a story to present to constantine. Lots of time to make up theology and build a new denomination. Yes! Rcc is a denomination

 

[chrysostom]

Good thing I am not a Protestant and believe according to the beliefs of Christians from before the Roman Catholic church was formed under Constantine.
:chuckle:

you would know
that
europe was protected from islam thanks to constantine
if
you really understood history

 

[CabinetMaker]

the people who claim to be saved
are
some of the meanest people on tol

how do you explain that?

I don't. That is between them and God. I will point them towards scripture to get them to think about what they are doing and saying but it is up to each of us to work out our salvation. The churches that we attend can help us with that, but that is all. No church grants or judges salvation.

 

[chrysostom]

the people who claim to be saved
are
some of the meanest people on tol

how do you explain that?

I don't. That is between them and God.

do you think it is possible to be saved and mean at the same time?

 

[Eeset]

no.

 

[chrysostom]

do you think it is possible to be saved and mean at the same time?

no.

thanks

 

[Cruciform]

God judges. Only God judges.

Yes---and communicates those judgments by means of the God-ordained ministry of his one historic Church's Magisterium.

That is why your opinions of Protestant or Catholic doctrine amounts to exactly nothing.

Neither of our opinions means anything unless they happen to comport with the authoritative teachings of that one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. Are the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, then, in agreement with Christ's one historic Church? Go ahead and post your proof.


Back to Post #67 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[OCTOBER23]

Catholics and protestants are all barking up the Wrong Tree.

They should do the OPPOSITE of what they are doing and follow the Bible.

 

[Lon]

... your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect

Yes... the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect

Spoiler

... according to ... your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

No, I was referring to.... recently-invented, man-made, non-Catholic ...

"...the Word of God as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect," you mean.

... that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

"...the Word of God as interpreted according to the assumptions and opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect," you mean.

... that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

...that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
... that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

... non-authoritative opinions ...by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

The entirely non-authoritative opinions that you have been fed by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.... :yawn:

...opinion from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect ...

The entirely non-authoritative opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

... entirely non-authoritative and wholly fallible opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect. :nono:
... unlike the thousands of recently-invented man-made Protestant sects

.. they don't fit into your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect

... by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

Yes, the opinions that you have been fed by your entirely non-authoritative, recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:

Yes, the opinions that you have been taught by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

... you follow "Scripture" as interpreted by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.

...the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect ...

...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinions of your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

The entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions that you've been fed by your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted. :yawn:

...your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect ...

...recently-invented man-made non-Catholic sects---including yours-
"...from His Word" according to the opinions of your favored entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway.

... the opinions you've been fed by your entirely non-authoritative recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect.
... opinions that you have derived from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, a fact that you demonstrate every single time you state your opinion on this forum.

... their preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects. That includes you.

...according to the entirely non-authoritative opinion of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect, anyway. :yawn:

The entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions fed to you by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

Your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect? :think:

"Bible sources" as infallibly and authoritatively interpreted by whom? You? Your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect? Or by Christ's one historic Church?

The opinions that you have derived from your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.

...your own "brainwashing" received at the hands of your chosen recently-invented, man-made anti-Catholic sect.

...something that your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect could never claim, let alone demonstrate.

"Bible quotes" as interpreted according to whose preferred doctrinal tradition?... or those of one of the myriad recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sects

:sigh:

 

[Cruciform]

Rcc is a denomination

Your profound ignorance of ecclesiastical history is noted.

 

[Cruciform]

:sigh:

Question?

 

[Daniel1769]

How anyone can remain a member a group whose heirarchy has committed sex crimes against children and covered it up boggles the mind. And not only this, they claim that the people who committed these acts and those who covered them up speak for Christ. The Roman Catholic Church should have been shut down centuries ago for their crimes against humanity. The fact they they claim to be "Christian" is the only reason the RCC leadership have not been known as terrorists and criminals for centuries.

 

[Lon]

Question?

Answer: ???

Yes... the opinions of your chosen recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect

 

[Cruciform]

Answer: ???

It's a perfectly rational and cogent answer, and one that not a single Protestant on this forum has yet to either disprove or meaningfully answer. Do you even understand its import?

 

[TulipBee]

Your profound ignorance of ecclesiastical history is noted.

It was noted when your denomination split from the universal catholic church

 

[Cruciform]

It was noted when your denomination split from the universal catholic church

Thus merely proving my point made in Post #92 above. :yawn:

 

[Lon]

It's a perfectly rational and cogent answer, and one that not a single Protestant on this forum has yet to either disprove or meaningfully answer. Do you even understand its import?

I think I understand your preoccupation with it. I don't think you understand why it is not 1) a form of effective debate or communication, 2) not relevant but as it applies to both of us.

Yes... the opinions...

Your opinion, my opinion...
You use it 'as if' your's isn't an opinion. It is nowhere as substantiated as a fact as all that. You 'think' it is, but that is "your opinion." So, broken down, it is not of much use in our discussions and fairly impotent other than as a meaningless platitude or a purposeful vitriolic response. Those are the only two ways a Protestant can or will take it.

of your chosen

Or your chosen. "Why" we chose is more important but you aren't getting there. Rather you are stuck on the shallow platitude (platitude: cliché often concerning a moral content, that has been used too often to be interesting or thoughtful).

recently-invented

It is an offensive accusation that hasn't foundation. You assume it because you assume the Catholic church is the only church that has existed, despite the fact that the EO and Coptic churches have existed apart from Rome from the beginning. You assume it because you think that anyone disagreeing is 'an invention.' It amounts to little more than a purposeful offense and statement of marginalization. In effect, it is little but name-calling and snobbery as if you were of noble birth for being Catholic.
It is nothing more than a haughty assumption among us peasants Luke 18:9-14

man-made

Irony may be lost on you, but the Protestant is skipping your history and trying to go back to the beginning of it all for a pure religion. Oddly, that makes both assume the other is more man-made. In fact, tradition and authority require a closer connect to 'man-made' than a Protestant. Most of us aren't just Sola Scriptura but you make a faulty assumption and connection: We band together specifically by affiliation of 'what we have studied ourselves.' Think about that a bit more: We aren't as disjointed as you assume, there are only about 7 or so main lines of denomination of significant difference. We aren't divided so much by doctrine as we are divided by 'where' we meet. You likely will not appreciate that, it is nearly backwards of the way the RC works.

Beside, "man-made" is a repeat of 'recently invented,' unless you were thinking that God 'could more recently invent.'

non-Catholic

I think it simple goes without saying. Of course such is the case or there would be no debate or contention. To me, the difference is what is meaningful between us. If there is no meeting of ways, in debate, there is no reason or point of debate. The goal of debate is to get another to see our point of view, to get another to either change or at most, understand our difference, or perchance even, to get another to come to our way of thinking.

sect

Here, with the underline, one tends to read you as meaning more and against what the official RC position is: That is, that you mean 1) "typically heretical" 2) "separated excommunicated nonconforming" 3) "extremely dangerous." It is almost as if you are usurping the Traditions AND Authority of the RC and setting up yourself for your own popery against them and us! :noway:

I'd not even suggest it isn't appropriate for much of the accusatory on TOL BUT you generally toss this bomb like a grenade even at those who don't deserve it. I've told you once before you are like an old man on a porch shooting at everybody, salesmen, government, mail, or neighbor. You show a decided lack of discernment when you bomb everybody that ever comes to your porch (our Protestant porch you are renting from, actually).

Ever see Second Hand Lions?

Porch shooting

 

[Cruciform]

I don't think you understand why it is not 1) a form of effective debate or communication...

Post your proof.

2) not relevant but as it applies to both of us.

Granted, yet it is a fact that goes on to arrive here.

You use it 'as if' your's isn't an opinion.

See just above.

It is an offensive accusation...

...and yet a demonstrable fact of history.

You assume it because you assume the Catholic Church is the only church that has existed, despite the fact that the EO and Coptic churches have existed apart from Rome from the beginning.

No, not "from the beginning," but specifically from 1054 for the Orthodox churches, for example.

You assume it because you think that anyone disagreeing is 'an invention.'

Let's put this in practical terms, shall we? Please name the Protestant (non-Catholic) denomination with which you affiliate---what church do you attend and identify with as a Christian?

Irony may be lost on you, but the Protestant is skipping your history and trying to go back to the beginning of it all for a pure religion.

Go ahead, then, and trace your Protestant denomination back through ecclesiastical history to the Apostolic Era. Proof, please.

Here, with the underline, one tends to read you as meaning more and against what the official RC position is: That is, that you mean 1) "typically heretical" 2) "separated excommunicated nonconforming" 3) "extremely dangerous."

Nope, wrong again. It simply indicates that your preferred "church" was invented by mere men during the past few centuries, rather than being founded by Jesus Christ himself in 33 A.D. If you dispute this, than go ahead and trace your Protestant denomination back through ecclesiastical history to the Apostolic Era. Proof, please.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+