Difference between revisions of "User talk:Dataclarifier"

Revision as of 14:28, August 25, 2020

This page intentionally left blank.

Debate: Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical

You are not debating. You are just spamming. Please stop. Please remove your spam. If you wish to cite scripture and provide external links, it must be relevant to the Debate topic, Is the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace biblical? in a narrative context. This is not an unreasonable request and is a simple courtesy to other debaters and readers of the page. Spamming is disruptive of the Debate format. If you have any questions, please contact me here, on my User page, or on the Debate talk page. Thank you. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I provided the links demanded at the top of the Debate page to already existing citations of scripture. They are directly relevant to the claim that Catholic doctrine is biblical. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:25, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Meaningless. If you wish to cite a scripture, and provide an external link to a scripture, it must be in the context of debate. Carpet bombing the page with external links not relevant to a specific point under debate is unacceptable conduct. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Your position in the debate is that the Catholic doctrine is not biblical. They are directly relevant. Visible evidence that Catholic doctrine is overwhelmingly biblical, a claim you stoutly reject in the face of such overwhelming evidence. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Then address that specific Antagonist point in debate. Carpet bombing the page with spam is not an acceptable or meaningful response. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:36, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

In the forum of the debate this is introductory as presenting the affirmative position. "Here you are ladies and gentlemen. This is the evidence from the Bible for the position that Catholic doctrine is biblical. The debate will offer opinions for and against this scriptural material."--Dataclarifier (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

You've provided nothing from the Catechism, which overrides scripture.

It's spam. You have a simple choice, remove the spam and debate in a civil manner, or let me remove the spam and enjoy a short term block. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I provided direct links to the Catechism with the headings of the table of contents and quote boxes on the page. Links are provided for those who wish to check the material. No one is required to read it. "Eyeballing" the sheer weight of the evidence is effective enough for those who never knew so much of the Bible is used and claimed as support for Catholic doctrine.
It looks to me like you consider your position too weak to stand against such a weight of material so visible that you feel you have to get rid of the evidence. --Dataclarifier (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Good! Then make your case in text writing and provide your evidence to back up that specific point without spamming. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 20:52, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I already did. Every one reading the Debate page can see that in the material posted there. Of course, you can always remove all the evidence and gag me with a block. And no one else will be allowed to see it and judge for themselves which position is the stronger and more truthful and more biblical according to the word of God.. --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Regrading the potential removal of evidence, I wouldn't worry about RobSmith doing that. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 21:15, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Thanks for the support. But watch that page!
Peace be with you. Semper Fidelis! --Dataclarifier (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The problem is that the debate page has become too long, and will be hard to watch. If the concern is over potential erasing of revisions, then watch out for Conservative, as he deleted this talk page for no specified reason (as far as I'm concerned). And God Bless, I hope you, your mother, and IndependentSkeptic are all well! —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 21:30, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Don't be too hard on Conservative. I had intended to permanently withdraw from Conservapedia and had posted a note to that effect on all my working pages.
But when I read the beginning of the Debate page on whether the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is biblical, and there was no immediate response, the operative grace of the Holy Spirit in my Christian confirmation charge under the apostolic authority of Bishop Maurice Dingman of the Des Moines Diocese to be a witness to truth compelled me to answer. So to all appearances I lied when I said I wouldn't be back. So Conservative revised the note. Simple. I had said two years ago when I announced that I would soon be withdrawing that I would still be around in some way, but not with any intention of getting involved in major projects.

The particular Dabate page being discussed here has become bloated by the incessant objections of RobSmith demanding responses in detail, as Luther said each one must be answered not in general but in detail and one by one. It's a famous classic debating and filibustering strategy designed solely to make the opposition concede defeat not with the power of their opposing arguments (Fallacy of invincible ignorance and Confirmation bias) but by the sheer force of bludgeoning fatigue, leaving the issue unresolved in the forum of the debate stage so they can have the last word as a specious proof that they have won the field of battle, when if fact nothing of the kind has actually happened.

I wanted to quit. But this issue of the Debate page on the Catholic doctrine of grace not being biblical was too important to ignore, especially with the straw man distortions and misrepresentations of RobSmith and others against the truth of what Catholic doctrine really is. So I marshalled all my expertise to respond in truth. But it was exhausting, and hard on my eyes. The last major posting I made today with links to all the biblical references as demanded took more than 38 hours of painstaking work and checking and rechecking to make sure it was right before posting it. And now here he is still threatening a cover up of the evidence by removal, and blocks to gag and frustrate immediate responses in answer to his straw man fallacy arguments as his way of "correcting unacceptable behavior and trolling with worthless and irrelevant garbage spam".

My vision has not improved. It's like editing through a dirty smeared screen or an ipad with chocolate milk spilled over it before its wiped off that desperately needs some Windex applied, or a major restart to clear the foggy image and sharpen the picture. That made this last major edit very difficult. But I felt it was necessary and important enough to do what I could while I still can. I did have some help, but I did the major bulk of the work myself. Again, please, watch the Debate pages discussing issues of contention with Catholic doctrine ! .

I cannot do much more. I'll have to quit. I'll continue to look in from time to time, but "no more can do" through all the shifting and swirling fogbanks in my eyes. So I'll pray and trust that you and NishantXavier and the other well-informed Catholic Conservapedians will stand ready armed in the breach with answering fire to the assaults against the Holy Faith Santa Fe.
The Catholic Church is the most biblical church on the face of the earth proclaiming the Full Gospel of the Lord unto salvation through the precious blood and Sacred Heart of Jesus with the prayers of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the side of her Son being one with him in glory ruling together with all the saints and angels as one Body of the Lord Our God willing and doing according to His good pleasure forever. Amen.
Pax vobiscum. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2020 (EDT) Michael Paul Heart

Do you suppose IndependentSkeptic can edit if you aren't able to see well? It'd be great if I can at least frequently know how you, I.S., and your mother are doing. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 23:05, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

He did edit at my direction. We're both tired. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

What if I.S. can just post on my user mail page once a week (or once every two weeks) on how you guys are doing? Would that be okay for him? —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 23:43, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Dataclarifier, I'd hate to sound repetitive and impatient, but can you please answer my question before this page may potentially get blanked? Thank you! —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 00:15, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

(ec) LOL! Dataclarifier complaining about answering in detail!

Look, you are welcome here. We want a pleasant editing environment for everybody. I think most people, myself included, respect your breadth of knowledge on rather obscure historical items. Myself and other editors only ask that you focus on debate and responding to specific items regarding Roman Catholic doctrine. A blanket claim of "authority" won't cut it. You're going to have reconcile every difference between Catechism and the Bible line by line, not simply toss out Matthew 16:18 when backed into a corner. I would suggest focusing more on citing specifically Catechism, cause your use of scripture definitely looks disingenuous when you (1) claim Catechism adds to or overrides scripture, and the (2) attempt to use scripture to support that claim. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:08, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

For those who defend the sola scriptura position, Romans 13:1-2 and Matthew 16:17-19 with 1 Timothy 3:15 should be enough. The church has the established authority that God has ordained by the word of Christ Himself. Those who left are antichrist (1 John 2:18-19). So their churches they founded are disqualified both by that fact of disobedience and departure and different doctrine, and the fact they were established after the time of the apostles and cannot be the original church Jesus founded. Therefore all that the church teaches as doctrine and dogma must be the truth. Read all the scriptures cited with links on the Debate page. The whole context of the testimony of the Bible answers every detailed objection altogether. Church doctrine (expressed in the Catechism with Bible proofs, which I cited with connecting links to their texts) has answered every objection and will continue to do so until the day of judgment when all will be revealed. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

As I've said before, when you finally make up your mind who the rock is upon which the church is built, let me know. And remember, God is not the author of confusion. Likewise, remember those whose carcasses fell in wilderness for not believing (i.e. "disobedience") the gospel of grace and salvation when it was preached. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:49, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

He did specify a reason REPEATEDLY. it was to get rid of debates on the talk pages. Shobson20 (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't recall the Concservapedia Commmandments or Guidelines specifically prohibiting debates on user talk pages. Conservative may personally oppose it, but he alone doesn't decide the CP rules. —Liberaltears^{May Dataclarifier be well! | Don't be an anti-Catholic zealot!} Tuesday, 22:39, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

I locked the page to prevent further spamming. Under debate rules, the specific topic is the only topic to be addressed. Spamming the page with off-topic links such as claiming "church authority", as is Dataclarifier's habit when he can not respond to specific discussion items, will no longer be tolerated. All references and citations must be of specific Catechism paragraphs or Bible verses with context relevant to the Debate question, and not wholesale carpet bombing alleging "church authority". RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 22:19, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

This is extraordinary specious reasoning; Dataclarifier alleges God's Word is evolving through the Magisterium, which directly contradicts the Bible. Then he attempts to carpet bomb pages with cut n pasted Bible scriptures (with no context) to support his claim. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 22:22, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

You demanded one-by-one responses, then locked the page to prevent any response. Classic. You lose. --Dataclarifier (talk) 22:48, 24 August 2020 (EDT)
No context? The Bible speaks for itself sola scriptura. Scripture interprets scripture. Remember? And you rearranged the original format you yourself set up. The affirmative defending section was first, making it the beginning of the debate, and then followed by the negative adversarial opposing response. But now you have not only reversed the two sides of the presentation of the debate, you have made the opposition argument now first, so that now the affirmative position is last as the reactionary argumentive adversarial response. Then you locked it. Context. You can't succeed against the whole context of the scriptures which support the authority and doctrines of the Catholic and Orthodox Church. "The gates of hell shall not prevail against it" --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:04, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Yep. I rearranged the page, cause you were attempting to obscure, by spamming the page with nonsense, the fact that you were getting your butt handed to you in a debate. You started three days ago. The debate should have just ended there and we move on. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:16, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

So I'll make you a deal: I can very much respect the 38 hours and dedication you put into formatting those cut n pasted, non-relevant to the Debate, external links to bible verses. If you remove the irrelevant spam to the Debate question, we can revert the Protagonist to the top again. Otherwise I can pledge, in the bottom position, I won't touch it. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:29, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The strength of your argument should be able to stand without all the excess spam. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 23:31, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

The strength of the argument for the Roman Catholic doctrine of grace is the Bible. All of it. The Church has known this for almost 2000 years of continuous existence and growth in both numbers and understanding of God's revelation. That's why she cites so much of it in the Catechism. The strength of "my" argument is not my argument but that of the scriptures faithfully preserved and defended by the Church. The Bible is not spam. It's the answer to every point you raised. And the scriptures I cited there on that page and others, and here (Romans Matthew John Paul) are completely sufficient to point to the truth of the authority of the church as the pillar and bulwark/foundation/ground of the truth led forever by the Spirit of truth into all the truth. The doctrine of the Church is the truth. Read it. Believe it. Live it. You have the promise of Jesus Christ the Living Son of God Who cannot lie. In the Bible. "All of his promises are faithful and true." We have the answer if we will only listen and obey him and not lean on our own private understanding and interpretation relying only on our own judgment by thinking we are wiser than the Church the Body of Christ and "all the doctors of Christendom". The Dwelling Place of God in the Spirit. --Dataclarifier (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2020 (EDT)

Romans 6:14 - ye are not under the law, but under grace.

So if I'm not under law, what authority does the Roman church have? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

The authority established by God Romans 13:1-2, 1 Timothy 3:15, Matthew 16:17-19.

Conservative—If you don't blank this page by the end of this year, I will. You can do it now for all I care. Thanks. --Dataclarifier (talk) 00:08, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

I guess grace is not grace and Roman church authority is only for the unsaved. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:10, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Anyways, you should be grateful I hide you embarrassing loss, helping you obscure this edit by reversing the protagonist and antagonist positions. It was after that edit (which you never responded to) you began spamming the page, enlarging it 32% (from 174K to 234K bytes by adding 57K bytes in less about 6 edits). I can honestly say in my 16 year wiki career I've never had to stoop to such transparently futile and embarrassing tactics to hide my foibles, which have become your trademark. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 00:38, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

In saying "It was after that edit (which you never responded to)" you cover up the fact that when I was prepared to respond (immediately after posting and checking the Bible references links from the footnotes of the Catechism of the Catholic Church) you locked the page. You willingly interpreted the delay due to the immediate posting of the edit as a refusal to respond. You dismissed the edit as irrelevant spam and the Catechism citing the Bible as "garbage". It isn't irrelevant and it isn't spam. The Bible is not irrelevant. The Bible is not spam. The Catechism citing proofs from the Bible that Catholic doctrine is biblical is not garbage. It is directly relevant to Protestant objections that the Catholic doctrine of grace is not biblical.

In answer to your edit "One mediator, huh?" with your quote box of the relevant text from the Catechism, I went to edit mode ready to answer and found the page locked. You prevented a response.

You cleverly presented the isolated text from the Catechism as a blatant hypocrisy, taken entirely out of context, and shrewdly ignoring the fact that in the last 2 centuries the words "intercession" and "mediation" have become by careless usage virtually synonymous, and that that is the sense in which the Catechism says priests make mediation for the people on their behalf as ambassadors of the Lord representing them before him and urge the people also to petition God for sinners and for themselves and for the leaders of the Church before the throne of his mercy by the blood of Jesus Christ as brethren all redeemed by Christ, each seeking to fulfill their particular vocation of service to God and men as appointed by the Holy Spirit giving gifts to men for the benefit of all, not for themselves alone.

(See article Intercession for a treatment of the culturally rooted confusion of intercession with mediation stemming from careless common abusive usage of language.)

Not only does Paul urge Timothy to teach that he himself, as his and their example to be imitated, desires intercessions to be made by men everywhere lifting up holy hands in prayer, he also says both the Holy Spirit and Christ make intercession (Romans 8:26-27,34; 11:2; Hebrews 7:25), which means the Holy Spirit is our intercessor also, besides and in addition to Christ.

According to the misleading Protestant argument from Paul that there is "only one mediator" meaning "only one intercessor", therefore the Holy Spirit cannot make intercessions for us—because the Protestant interpretive eisegetical reading of 1 Timothy 2:5 says, "For there is one God, and there is one intercessor between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." I was taught that same interpretation when I was a Baptist during my tweens and teens years. That interpretation of "only one intercessor between God and men" contradicts 1 Timothy 2:1-4. (That was not their only error, as I found out when I got deeper into reading the Bible.)

ARTICLE One Mediator Between God and Men TIM STAPLES • 3/24/2013

A surface reading of I Timothy 2:5 would seem to eliminate the idea of Christians “mediating” graces to one another: “There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” Protestants will argue, “If Jesus is our one mediator, then Christ alone mediates grace. In saying anyone else can, Catholics are usurping and thereby denying Christ’s singular role as mediator. That’s blasphemy!”

THE CATHOLIC RESPONSE: Much to the surprise of many Protestants I have spoken to over the years, the Catholic Church actually acknowledges Christ to be our one and absolutely unique mediator who alone can reconcile us to the Father in a strict sense. In his classic, The Catholic Catechism, Fr. John Hardon explains:

… the Incarnation corresponds to mediation in the order of being, and the Redemption (remission of sin and conferral of grace) is mediation morally.

This kind of mediation is incommunicable. No one but the Savior unites in himself the divinity, which demands reconciliation, and the humanity, which needs to be reconciled.

Protestants generally agree with us on this point. However, Fr. Hardon goes on to say:

Nevertheless, lesser and subordinate mediators are not excluded. The question is what purpose they serve and in what sense do they mediate. They can help the cause of mediation in the only way that human beings (or creatures) can contribute to the work of salvation, namely, by their willing response to grace; either better disposing themselves or others for divine grace, or interceding with God to give his grace, or freely cooperating with grace when conferred.

The “lesser and subordinate mediators” is where the trouble starts. And yet, the context of I Timothy 2:5 demonstrates Fr. Hardon’s point. In the first two verses, St. Paul commands “supplications, prayers and intercessions to be made for all men…” Intercession is a synonym for mediation. Hebrews 7:24-25 refers to Jesus acting as our one mediator at the right hand of the Father and refers to him as intercessor:

But [Christ] holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.

Christ is our one mediator/intercessor, yet, St. Paul commands all Christians to be intercessors/mediators. Then notice the first word in verse five: “For there is one God and one mediator…” And then in verse seven he says, “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle.” What is an apostle if not a mediator? The very definition of apostle, according to Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, is “a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders.” That’s an essential part of what a mediator is. In short, St. Paul says we are all called to be mediators because Christ is the one mediator and for this reason he was called to be a mediator of God’s love and grace to the world!

Is this a contradiction? Not at all! The fact that Jesus is our one mediator does not preclude him from communicating this power by way of participation. The Bible also declares: “But you are not to be called Rabbi, for you have one teacher, (Gr. – didaskolos) and you are all brethren.” This text cannot be any clearer, yet James 3:1 and Ephesians 4:11 tell us we have many teachers (Gr. – didaskoloi) in the Church. The key is to understand that the many teachers and mediators in the body of Christ do not take away from Christ as the one teacher and mediator because they are, in a sense, Christ on this earth and they serve to establish his offices of teacher and mediator in him. As members of the body of Christ graced with a specific task by Christ they can say with St. Paul in Galatians 2:20, “It is not I, but Christ who [teaches] in me…”

And remember, we are not talking about necessity here. The Church is not claiming Christ couldn’t get the job done so he needed help. Of course not! He could do it all—and all by himself—if he wanted to. He could come down here right now and write this blog post much more effectively than I ever could. But he chooses not to do everything himself, strictly speaking. He delights in using his body to communicate his life and love to the world.

THE BODY BEAUTIFUL Perhaps the most important image for the People of God in Scripture for understanding our topic, whether we are talking about the “mediation of all grace” with reference to the Mother of God, or the mediation of graces through the prayers and sufferings of other members of the Church, is given to us in I Corinthian 12, when St. Paul describes the Church as a body. CCC 753:

In Scripture, we find a host of interrelated images and figures through which Revelation speaks of the inexhaustible mystery of the Church. The images taken from the Old Testament are variations of a profound them: the People of God. In the New Testament, all these images find a new center because Christ has become the head of this people, which henceforth is his Body. Around this center are grouped images taken from the life of the shepherd or from cultivation of the land, from the art of building or from family life and marriage.

The Old Testament has beautiful images for the People of God. They are shown to be God’s bride (cf. Jer. 3:1-14); They are children of a God who is revealed to be their “father” (cf. Mal. 1:6), and more. But with the advent of Christ these analogies were brought to a whole new level unthinkable to the Old Testament mindset (cf. CCC 239-240).

God was revealed to be “like” a father in the Old Testament. In the New, he is revealed to be Father within the eternal relations of the godhead. Through our mystical union with Christ through baptism, we become sons and daughters of God whereby we can truly call God “Abba”—father (cf. Gal. 4:4-7). We become brothers and sisters of Christ and true sons of Mary (cf. Romans 8:14-17; John 19:27—Rev. 12:17). The concept of “bride” reaches new heights when we speak of the Church as the “bride” of Christ (cf. Eph. 5:24-32). But even more radically, “we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another” (Romans 12:5), whereby we are caught up into the very inner life of God as members of Christ’s body by grace (cf. Eph. 2:5-6), and by virtue of that fact we have been made to be “partakers of the divine nature” as II Peter 1:4 says.

It is this image of “the Body of Christ” that aids us in understanding how one member of the body can aid another in the communication of the divine life to one another without diminishing the role of “the head.” For example, if I pick up a pen here on my desk would we say “the head,” or “I,” would have had nothing to do with it? “Oh no, your hand did that, Tim, not you!”

So it is with Christ and his Body. Eph. 1:22-23 goes so far as to say the Church is, “The fullness of him who fills all in all.” Thus, the Church is Christ in this world. This does not take away from Christ’s unique mediation; it establishes that unique mediation. Different members of the Church mediate various graces in accordance with their respective gifts while the whole body functions to bring Christ to the world. Romans 12:4-6 says:

For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us.

And this radical union with Christ and with the other members of the Body of Christ does not cease at death. Romans 8:35-38 tells us, among other things, “neither death nor life… shall be able to separate us from the love of Christ.” Thus, those alive on earth can still benefit from—they are still connected to—the other members of the Body of Christ in heaven.

Is Christ our one, true mediator? Absolutely! And it is this same Christ who has chosen to use his Body to mediate God’s grace to the world in and through him.

This has got to be a joke. Father Hardon? RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:51, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Ok, Smarty-pants. Then reconcile right here, right now, without spamming, in front of these witnesses these two conflicting doctrines, one from the Bible, and one from the Catechism:

1 Timothy 2:5 - there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus

CCC 1456 - "When Christ's faithful strive to confess all the sins that they can remember, they undoubtedly place all of them before the divine mercy for pardon. But those who fail to do so and knowingly withhold some, place nothing before the divine goodness for remission through the mediation of the priest" [my bolden and emphasis added].:^[1]

And an appeal to authority won't work cause believers are not under law.

RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:39, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Paul's references to "the law" according to the whole context of his writings refer always to "the law of Moses". You falsely equate "law" with "authority". God establishes authority and commands obedience to it. Antinomianism utterly rejects authority and is condemned by the Bible as "disorderly conduct". See Romans 13:1-19 and 1 Peter 2:13-17. As for Paul's statement "Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law" (Romans 13:19), he is referring to the law of Moses—doing no wrong to a neighbor includes doing no wrong to those in authority by disrespect, contempt, or defiance. That includes the State in defiance of the Church's teaching on morals and doctrine by disrespect for the dignity of every human being from conception throughout life to the grave.

Loving correction is one thing; blatant defiance is quite another, especially when one's own conscience and personal individual understanding is made the supreme infallible authority that no one else in any position of authority has a right to question or correct. See Jude 8 and 11 and 19, Numbers chapter 16, and the article Individualism. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

A Christian believer is not bound to any spiritual law the Roman church pretends to have. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:21, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

It's no pretense. I have shown from the Bible itself the authority given to the one church Jesus built on a rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The Church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:28, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

See, this is where you fall down. This is where you prove the Catholic gospel is not a gospel of grace - by threatening to send members to hell for not confessing to a priest. By grace are ye saved, through faith; not of works: if by works, grace is not grace; ye are not under law, but under grace. Your threats of sending people to hell for violating Roman church tenets are empty, spurious, deceptive, and do not have authority of God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 09:56, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

And the issue is not now, nor over the past 500 years, Protestantism vs. Roman Catholicism; the issue for the past 1500 years has been the Bishop of Rome vs. the Word of God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:01, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Obey your leaders who spoke the word of the Lord. Hebrews 13:7 and 17, and 1 Peter 2:13-17 and Romans 13:1-2, and Matthew 18:15-18. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2020 (EDT)
This is where you fall down, in your utter disregard for every passage of the Bible that commands obedience to established authority. Like the Pharisees "who go about to establish their own righteousness" in opposition to the ordinance of God. That was the "discovery" of the Protestant Reformation, together with private interpretation of the scriptures against the word of Peter that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation and his warning that unstable and ignorant people are the ones who distort the scriptures, to their own destruction. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Render unto Caeser is essentially what those verses mean. He bares not the sword in vain, i.e. the cops carry a gun for a reason. This is strictly life in the flesh and has little or nothing to do with salvation. You seem to forget My kingdom is not of this world. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:17, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

And you utterly disregard Christ's word about those who refuse to listen to the church, and his command to hear what the Spirit says to the churches. --Dataclarifier (talk) 10:22, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Let's go a step further: Jesus says we are sexless in the afterlife (they neither marry nor are given in marriage); the Roman church, with a cute little piece of deception, declares Mary a "Mediatrix". What a farce! And they've had 2,000 years to add this kind of nonsense and garbage to render the word of God to no effect. Why? So they can continue in their pride and not humble themselves before God. RobS^{Trump 2Q2Q} 10:26, 25 August 2020 (EDT)

Refs