Christian Theological Pet Peeves, list them here!

[ImaginaryDay2]

But faith without works is dead according to the holy scriptures, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." (James 2:26 KJV)

Yes. I was keeping with the OP. I edited and added a few.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Faith without works is alright by God.
Don't baptize that baby! He/she doesn't know what he/she's doing...
You were baptized as an infant? No good. Start over.
We got the corner on the market. Everyone else is going to... well... you know... (#4 Dedicated to the United Pentecostal Church!)

Yes. I was keeping with the OP. I edited and added a few.

Yes, I see where you're going and agree; it is grace or it is work and if it is work then it can no longer be grace yet grace produces works and baptism is the beginning of grace for many.

 

[psalms 91]

Yes, I see where you're going and agree; it is grace or it is work and if it is work then it can no longer be grace yet grace produces works and baptism is the beginning of grace for many.

Exactly I have a problem with nthose who try to seperate works from grace and faith

 

[Josiah]

SO many....

+ "I'M infallible so I"M unaccountable" (whether the "I" is a person or a denomination - unless the "I" is GOD). As in "I (uniquely) can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I insists (as dogma!) that I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong - why can't you idiot get that through your thick skull and submit to ME, swallow whatever I say!!!!" "EVERYONE, EVERYTHING else if fully and immediately accountable cuz truth matters and all OTHERS can be wrong (in fact, all OTHERS are!), but I'M not because I can't be wrong, claims ME for ME."

+ "The way I know I'm right is that I look in the mirror to see if what I'm saying is what I'm saying and if it is, then I'M right" (Note: this is just an application of the above).

+ God promise to lead ME into all truth - just me (again, "me" can be a person, a denomination, a sect, a cult) so I'M the single, unique, infallible and unaccountable STUDENT of God. ME!

+ "Jesus is the Savior but I save myself by my good works"


Shall I go on?



If it's YOUR statement, the "burden of proof" is on YOU, but of course, what happens is that you will repeat it - over and over and over and over and over, as endless din - never once indicating you give a rip as to whether your position is actually true.

And what you are apt to do is take the position of ANOTHER and falsely state it (as here, since Sola Scriptura CANNOT be taught - it's impossible - Sola Scriptura is a PRACTICE and thus cannot be taught, it can only be done or not done) - THIS is a great problem, a strawman is invented and the inventor refuses to accept that it is false, so a FALSE concept is presented and thus corrected but to no avail. "I'M claiming I'M uniquely incapable of being wrong so I'M incapable of being wrong thus I'M not wrong - no matter how much it is shown otherwise" For example, Catholics are shown - over and over and over and over and over - their strawman they call "Sola Scriptura" is false but they don't care, don't give a rip, it's ENTIRELY moot to them because some RCC teacher said it and thus they swallow it and not even God in heaven above can tell them otherwise. Yup, THAT leads to endless, fruitless discussions.

There is always TWO issues: the position and its status. For example, IF the RCC had left its new, unique position of Transubstantiation/Accidents as ONE POSSIBLE THEORY or POSSIBLE explanation (as those medieval, western, Roman "scholastics" intended and as it was in Luther's day), then there would be little problem: you could choose to accept it, I could choose not to. But in 1551, a few years after Luther's death, the singular, individual, particular, unique RC Denomination made it DOGMA, a "line drawn in the sand" as a statement of highest importance and certainty, mandated to accept, associated with salvation - and suddently, we had a whole new enchlildada. Indeed, MUCH of the "division" between Catholicism and Lutheranism for example is not so much Catholic positions but the STATUS the individual RC Denomination NOW gives them. Catholics thus need to defend both the view AND its status - but they never do, they evade (like the Plague) that second issue, they WILL NOT discuss it.

But you see: here's the central issue: It's IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the issue of truth with those to whom truth is irrelevant, moot, immaterial - with those who replace the entire issue of Truth with docilic obedience to a single, individual church, denomination, sect, cult, teacher among us. The discussion becomes fruitless since for that person, whether the position is true or not is a point they've never considered and couldn't possibly care less about, their sole issue of whether they are docilicly swallowing and accurately echoing whatever their individual denomination/sect/cult/church is telling them 'cuz it itself is. Rarely does one question that they are accurately echoing, parroting the position but rather whether it is TRUE but that discussion is entirely irrelevant to the one for whom Truth is irrelevant, entirely displaced by another rubric: whether self is docilicly swallowing whatever their individual denomination says and accurating parroting it. THIS is why discussion of truth with some is fruitless.




.

Sola scriptura is no taught

True. FEW practices are taught in Scripture - but that doesn't mean they ergo are bad. You worship on Sunday - we are NEVER told to do that in Scripture. You worship in English - we are NEVER told to do that. You post on the internet - we are NEVER told to do that in Scripture. You drive a car - we are NEVER taught to do that in Scripture. How silly of you to insist that we can ONLY do what we are TOLD to do in Scripture. NO Protestant would join you in that silly rubric (especially not by using electricity and computers and the internet to post it in English on a website!). Using Scripture as the rule in the norming of disputing dogmas among us is not TEACHING anything (practices cannot teach anything), and yes, while we are never specifically TOLD to do that, we have that illustrated, exampled, over and over and over - some 50 times by Jesus Himself, athough sound practices NEED NOT be exampled in Scripture (or you'd be forbidden to speak English, use electricity, use the internet, post on this website).




Thank you.



Pax



- Josiha

 

[Tallguy88]

Prosperity gospel, name it claim it, KJV-onlyism, iconoclasticism.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Prosperity gospel, name it claim it, KJV-onlyism, iconoclasticism.

KJV Onlyism can be quite fun

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

KJV Onlyism can be quite fun

How canst thou thusly respondest? Canst this be thine true utterance?

 

[MoreCoffee]

True. FEW practices are taught in Scripture - but that doesn't mean they ergo are bad. ...
- Josiha

There is something rather absurd about the claim that practices cannot be taught ...

 

[Josiah]

SO many....

+ "I'M infallible so I"M unaccountable" (whether the "I" is a person or a denomination - unless the "I" is GOD). As in "I (uniquely) can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I insists (as dogma!) that I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong - why can't you idiot get that through your thick skull and submit to ME, swallow whatever I say!!!!" "EVERYONE, EVERYTHING else if fully and immediately accountable cuz truth matters and all OTHERS can be wrong (in fact, all OTHERS are!), but I'M not because I can't be wrong, claims ME for ME."

+ "The way I know I'm right is that I look in the mirror to see if what I'm saying is what I'm saying and if it is, then I'M right" (Note: this is just an application of the above).

+ God promise to lead ME into all truth - just me (again, "me" can be a person, a denomination, a sect, a cult) so I'M the single, unique, infallible and unaccountable STUDENT of God. ME!

+ "Jesus is the Savior but I save myself by my good works"


Shall I go on?



If it's YOUR statement, the "burden of proof" is on YOU, but of course, what happens is that you will repeat it - over and over and over and over and over, as endless din - never once indicating you give a rip as to whether your position is actually true.

And what you are apt to do is take the position of ANOTHER and falsely state it (as here, since Sola Scriptura CANNOT be taught - it's impossible - Sola Scriptura is a PRACTICE and thus cannot be taught, it can only be done or not done) - THIS is a great problem, a strawman is invented and the inventor refuses to accept that it is false, so a FALSE concept is presented and thus corrected but to no avail. "I'M claiming I'M uniquely incapable of being wrong so I'M incapable of being wrong thus I'M not wrong - no matter how much it is shown otherwise" For example, Catholics are shown - over and over and over and over and over - their strawman they call "Sola Scriptura" is false but they don't care, don't give a rip, it's ENTIRELY moot to them because some RCC teacher said it and thus they swallow it and not even God in heaven above can tell them otherwise. Yup, THAT leads to endless, fruitless discussions.

There is always TWO issues: the position and its status. For example, IF the RCC had left its new, unique position of Transubstantiation/Accidents as ONE POSSIBLE THEORY or POSSIBLE explanation (as those medieval, western, Roman "scholastics" intended and as it was in Luther's day), then there would be little problem: you could choose to accept it, I could choose not to. But in 1551, a few years after Luther's death, the singular, individual, particular, unique RC Denomination made it DOGMA, a "line drawn in the sand" as a statement of highest importance and certainty, mandated to accept, associated with salvation - and suddently, we had a whole new enchlildada. Indeed, MUCH of the "division" between Catholicism and Lutheranism for example is not so much Catholic positions but the STATUS the individual RC Denomination NOW gives them. Catholics thus need to defend both the view AND its status - but they never do, they evade (like the Plague) that second issue, they WILL NOT discuss it.

But you see: here's the central issue: It's IMPOSSIBLE to discuss the issue of truth with those to whom truth is irrelevant, moot, immaterial - with those who replace the entire issue of Truth with docilic obedience to a single, individual church, denomination, sect, cult, teacher among us. The discussion becomes fruitless since for that person, whether the position is true or not is a point they've never considered and couldn't possibly care less about, their sole issue of whether they are docilicly swallowing and accurately echoing whatever their individual denomination/sect/cult/church is telling them 'cuz it itself is. Rarely does one question that they are accurately echoing, parroting the position but rather whether it is TRUE but that discussion is entirely irrelevant to the one for whom Truth is irrelevant, entirely displaced by another rubric: whether self is docilicly swallowing whatever their individual denomination says and accurating parroting it. THIS is why discussion of truth with some is fruitless.




.

There is something rather absurd about the claim that practices cannot be taught ...

A practice can be taught (although very few are in Scripture) but what I said is that practices cannot teach. Obviously, undeniably. Practices are what is DONE, not what is taught.

 

[MoreCoffee]

A practice can be taught (although very few are in Scripture) but what I said is that practices cannot teach. Obviously, undeniably. Practices are what is DONE, not what is taught.

One learns a practise by being taught it. It's absurd to contend that practises are not taught.

 

[Josiah]

One learns a practise by being taught it. It's absurd to contend that practises are not taught.

AGAIN: practices can be taught but practices cannot teach. We all know that.


See posts 11 and 14





.

 

[Tigger]

How canst thou thusly respondest? Canst this be thine true utterance?

ound:

 

[MoreCoffee]

AGAIN: practices can be taught but practices cannot teach. We all know that.

Since you now admit that practises can be taught then the statement that I originally made, namely, that sola scriptura is neither taught in holy scripture, nor by the Catholic Church, nor in holy tradition is both reasonable and, I say, accurate. And before you say "the onus of proof is on me" I ask how exactly does one prove that a statement is not made in a 1,500 page book, nor in dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church, nor in the holy tradition of said church? I dare to say that proving a negative is not usually possible, but on the other hand, proving that sola scriptura is in fact taught in the sources mentioned ought to be quite straight forward - all that need be done is point to a passage in holy scripture that teaches sola scriptura and the matter would be settled if the passage really does teach it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

How canst thou thusly respondest? Canst this be thine true utterance?

Yea verily it is my true belief and yea verily it is amusing to discuss holy scripture with KJV only teachers because the KJV itself denies their naughty doctrine.

 

[Josiah]

So many.....


+ "I'M infallible so I"M unaccountable" (whether the "I" is a person or a denomination - unless the "I" is GOD). As in "I (uniquely) can't be wrong so I can't be wrong when I insists (as dogma!) that I can't be wrong so I can't be wrong - why can't you idiot get that through your thick skull and submit to ME, swallow whatever I say!!!!" "EVERYONE, EVERYTHING else if fully and immediately accountable cuz truth matters and all OTHERS can be wrong (in fact, all OTHERS are!), but I'M not because I can't be wrong, claims ME for ME."

+ "The way I know I'm right is that I look in the mirror to see if what I'm saying is what I'm saying and if it is, then I'M right" (Note: this is just an application of the above).

+ God promise to lead ME into all truth - just me (again, "me" can be a person, a denomination, a sect, a cult) so I'M the single, unique, infallible and unaccountable STUDENT of God. ME!

+ "Jesus is the Savior but I save myself by my good works"


Shall I go on?



.

Since you now admit that practises can be taught then the statement that I originally made, namely, that sola scriptura is neither taught in holy scripture

It's irrelevant. It's a strawman. Practices don't teach.

proving that sola scriptura is in fact taught in the sources mentioned ought to be quite straight forward

If there is no such practice, why do you mention the practice?

all that need be done is point to a passage in holy scripture that teaches sola scriptura

Strawman. If a practice isn't TAUGHT, you hold that doesn't make it unsound; after all, YOU are using English, using electricity and posting on the internet - all practices never TAUGHT in a passage in holy scripture - but you're doing it so obviously you don't think a practice must be TAUGHT in a passage of Scripture (no one else does, either - you are proposing your own strawman NO ONE - including YOU - thinks is correct). You go to church on Sunday - not one Scripture teaches that practice..... probably arriving by car - not one Scriptue teaches that...... shall I go on? It's a strawman.





.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nobody but you said anything about a practise teaching. But it's obvious you're discussing something quite absurd so I'll leave you to it.

 

[ImaginaryDay2]

This is beginning to remind me of another infamous thread - something about "Protestant Errors"...op2:

 

[MoreCoffee]

This is beginning to remind me of another infamous thread - something about "Protestant Errors"...op2:

That was a great thread