Pray! : I don’t object to you trying to use the Bible against me.

Friday, July 26, 2013

I don’t object to you trying to use the Bible against me.

Lutero said:

I don’t object to you trying to use the Bible against me.

Yes you do. That’s what you’re doing now.

What I object to is your attempt to try and be Roman Catholic and at the same time argue based on Scripture as a Protestant would.

1. I don’t argue like a Protestant. Protestants argue on the basis of personal interpretation using the Bible ALONE. My arguments are always completely in line with Catholic Doctrine.

2. You wouldn’t give one whit about me using the Bible or any other source, if you could overcome my arguments. But you can’t. I have debunked and shredded all your arguments, this is why you are objecting.

Even then it wouldn’t be so much of an issue if you actually gave an argument instead of just layers and layers of proof texting.

1. That is so funny. And I doubt that you see the incongruence of what you have just said.

2. If I argue like a Protestant and use layers and layers of proof texting, that means that you are aware that Protestants commonly use layers and layers of proof texting in their arguments.

3. The difference between a Catholic arguing based upon Scripture and a Protestant proof texting is that Catholic arguments are in line with the doctrines of the Church. Whereas, Protestants twist the meaning of Scripture to support their personal man made doctrines.

So, all you are saying is that Protestants don’t mind proof texting, when they are doing it. But when they are shown that they are misusing the Bible text and that the Bible actually supports Catholic doctrine, rather than admit their error, they get upset.

I don’t think its all about me.

Yeah, you do. That’s why you want me to respond in a certain manner.

Do you not realize that Protestants have always held the idea of natural theology as somewhat suspect?

1. That is besides the point.

2. You didn’t use that terminology initially.

3. You didn’t define what you meant by the terminology you used. You simply used a term which has a commonly understood meaning in a ridiculous sounding statement. And when you were called on the issue, you changed the terminology to another ridiculous sounding statement.