Search results

Yes, it is settled. The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth and answers for me who is to be ex-communicated. Not your fantasy that it is you. Very unconventional to fulfill what is written in Matthew 18:17? Well then, call me unconventional for following what Scripture teaches. I will...

And who do you "weigh heavily on"?

You have got to be kidding me right now. o_Oo_Oo_Oo_Oo_O Look back at my posts and all the Christian history I spoke of and passages from Scripture I quoted. Your statement is ludicrous. Compare what I have written to what you have written. Who posts more quotes from Scripture to back up what...

Hmmmm.....Ronald, for someone who is self described as being well studied you don't (or are pretending) even know who the Apostolic Fathers are? I find it fascinating that you say that anyone AFTER the Apostles they are not "charged with establishing teh[sic] church and its doctrines." But then...

You Protestants can answer in your own words since your answer to the same question can change week to week, year to year, century to century. It is all a matter of if you feel like the Holy Spirit is guiding you into the truth...but then a year later you feel like the Holy Spirit guided you...

Hmmmm.......I don't recall saying I would answer. If I did please cut and paste it here for me or give me the post# Here is what I said in post #319: .....you asked for answers and I provided you the venue for those answers sooooooooooo I don't know what else to say. So it appears YOU asked...

I always enjoy hearing from you Taken. I know you are not interested in the link. But you asked for answers and I provided you the venue for those answers sooooooooooo I don't know what else to say.

Yup Ronald. The early Church had some major disagreements. The purpose of some of the letters in the Bible was to settle those differences! The Apostles had the authority to settle those differences. Each individual Christian was not authorized to read (hear Scripture in NT times) Scripture and...

Thanks Ronald. You love that word presumptious[sic], don't you......:) According to your self testimony you seem to be well read. There is no more need for you to explain how YOU come up with YOUR truth. But let's be honest here. No where at no point at any time in any manner does Scripture say...

Hey Backlit, Can you name a false doctrine of The Church that is taught using tradition only? Thanks....Mary

The answers are in the link I provided. You deflected AND your answers are missing: How about your church? Can I find the answers to my questions that easily? Pot calling the kettle black? I think so....;)

Nope, they are not: Catholic Answers The Church has "answers" that are easy to find. How about your church? Can I find the answers to my questions that easily? Curious Mary

Lol....You have always kept me in stitches Taken. I believe I have addressed every point @Ronald Nolette has made. If not, point one out or stop trolling.

There you go again with your poke at The Church by using what you Protestants consider a derogatory name. How sad for you! I don't recall you giving me "a couple that were taught" by The Church...but i may have missed it. :cool: Well, according to your own words and practice all of those...

Finally, we agree on something :rolleyes:

The Truth is what I have been saying all along. But let me give you the Readers Digest version of what I am saying: Your lone wolf approach to reading Scripture and interpreting it into YOUR truth while you sit in your basement sipping your morning cup of coffee is OPPOSITE of what Scripture...

Oh goodness....There you go again with your anti-Catholic pokes. Romanism is a way for you Protestants to poke at The Church. That's fine....I'm used to it and I know what you mean when you use that word in a derogatory manner. I thought you were well studied? It appears not. Constantine...

The Truth....so that you will be set free.

A false doctrine is OPPOSITE of what Jesus and the Apostles taught and is taught by a FALSE TEACHER so YES, I would, will and do want to "argue specifics" of a doctrine if those "specifics" make it false. I will always stand up against what is false.