Sunday, September 24, 2023

Survey Questions Used by USDA to Assess Household Food Security

Survey Questions Used by USDA to Assess Household Food Security [Source of alarming stats such as "Almost 25% of American adults are food insecure. Answer these:] USDA ^ | USDA

Food security for a household means access by all members at all times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food security includes at a minimum:

The ready availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods. Assured ability to acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways...

Households that report three or more conditions [in the span of 12 months] that indicate food insecurity are classified as "food insecure.".. The questions cover a wide range of severity of food insecurity....

Survey Questions Used by USDA to Assess Household Food Security

1. "We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

2. "The food that we bought just didn't last and we didn't have money to get more." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

3. "We couldn't afford to eat balanced meals." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

4. In the last 12 months, did you or other adults in the household ever cut the size of your meals or skip meals because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

5. (If yes to question 4) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

6. In the last 12 months, did you ever eat less than you felt you should because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn't eat, because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

9. In the last 12 months did you or other adults in your household ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

10. (If yes to question 9) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

(Questions 11-18 were asked only if the household included children age 0-17)

11. "We relied on only a few kinds of low-cost food to feed our children because we were running out of money to buy food." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

12. "We couldn't feed our children a balanced meal, because we couldn't afford that." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

13. "The children were not eating enough because we just couldn't afford enough food." Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months?

14. In the last 12 months, did you ever cut the size of any of the children's meals because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

15. In the last 12 months, were the children ever hungry but you just couldn't afford more food? (Yes/No)

16. In the last 12 months, did any of the children ever skip a meal because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

17. (If yes to question 16) How often did this happen—almost every month, some months but not every month, or in only 1 or 2 months?

18. In the last 12 months did any of the children ever not eat for a whole day because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No)

Considering the subjectivity in interpreting just what constitutes "enough money" (asked about 15 times) and "balanced meals," plus "worried;"

And given that most people exaggerate, including problems (I do not think that is an exaggeration), esp. when dealing with memory of past experiences as "wasn't enough money" (while a Study says authors exaggerate their findings in paper abstracts ,"

plus the scope of these answers on experiences being over the course of a whole year;

in addition to the exaggerated nature of a condition based upon affirming three or more negative experiences,

then "food insecurity" is a grossly misleading term, esp. as typically used, in which they also typically ignore the "wide range of severity of food insecurity" from Least severe to Most severe.

In which answering Yes or "sometimes" to questions such as,

1. Was this statement often, sometimes, or never true for you in the last 12 months? "We worried whether our food would run out before we got money to buy more," [“worry” simply does not necessarily mean that they live in need, especially as this covers 12 months]

7. In the last 12 months, were you ever hungry, but didn't eat, because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No) [Ever hungry? When + where + how long? What food? In the past year!]

8. In the last 12 months, did you lose weight because there wasn't enough money for food? (Yes/No) [Everyone losesweight between meals, + it is easy for forget cash or card + be hungry for a bit]

can be used for claims such as,

"Study finds nearly 25% of Americans are food insecure." (

And, Almost 30 million Americans didn't have enough food to eat .(

Study finds nearly 25% of Americans are food insecure MoneyWatch Nearly a quarter of U.S. adults sometimes don't get enough to eat...

Experts predicted America was racing towards a "looming hunger cliff." They were right, data shows (


73% of Americans are overweight or obese (42%). But via another form of "cooking" (see thread)it is inferred (CBS) that hunger is a significant problem in the US (don't you experience hunger every day? Do you sometimes not know what you are going to eat? If you can answer Yes or sometimes to 3 of the USDA questions (from which I think the below claims are usually derived) at link covering the last 12 months, then you also can be said to be "food insecure.")

Aug 30, 2019 The Poorest 20% of Americans Are Richer on Average Than Most European Nations

And consider the top salaries of some of the orgs which make such claims:

Sep 6, 2022 — 1 in 8 kids in the United States are living with hunger. (

The 18 most highly compensated employees [at] were reported to be:

  • $489,966:  William H Shore, Founder, Executive Chairman, Director

  • $487,040:  Thomas Nelson, President and CEO, Secretary

  • $358,427:  Peter Kaye, Former Chief, Revenue and Marketing (until 5/2019)

  • $314,035:  Charles Scofield, EVP

  • . [list continued]

34 million people are food insecure in the United States. That's millions of people facing hunger. (

1 in 8 children in America worry about their next meal (

Executive Compensation at Feeding America (2021)
 137 employees [] received more than $100,000 in compensation with the 19 most highly compensated employees listed below:

  • $969,325:  Claire Babineaux-Fontenot, CEO

  • $485,738:  Katherine Fitzgerald, EVP and COO

  • $434,516:  Paul Henrys, Treasurer... [list continued]

  • The 19 employees listed above were compensated nearly $7 million which equates to an average compensation of $370,000....

A graphic showing 783 million people who don't know where their next meal will come from (

Executive Compensation at Save the Children (2021) The 20 most highly compensated employees were reported to be:

  • $583,432:  Janti Soeripto, President and CEO

  • $490,272:  Mark K Shriver, SVP, US Programs

  • $488,891:  Eric Howell, EVP and COO

  • $457,335:  Greg Ferrante, CFO

  • $404,312: Jennifer Roberti, VP, Marketing, Communications, and Fundraising

  • $402,067:  Debbie Pollock-Berry, VP and Chief of HR 

  • . [list continued]

The 20 most highly compensated employees received more than $7 million in compensation.

Catholic Charities, with a billion in revenues, paid their president $521,554 and their CFO $310,000, last year. (

Should Non-Profit U.S. Food Bank Executives Earn Nearly $1 Million Per Year?

Our auditors at reviewed Feeding America’s payroll disclosures and found Diana Aviv, CEO, made $1.1 million (2019). This amount included $347,209 from a previous employer and rolled into a new 457B plan which was distributed to her when she left the organization that year.

In the previous year, Feeding America paid Aviv compensation of $860,909.

In 2019, other executives at the organization also made a lot of money: President Matthew Knott ($561,842, up $89,224), Treasurer Paul Henrys ($412,105, up $15,162), and Chief Marketing & Communications Officer Catherine Davis ($344,166, up $17,161). Chief Supply Chain Officer William Thomas made nearly $600,000 between 2018 and 2019 before leaving the organization.

For comparison, four-star generals in the U.S. military earn $268,344 salaries and have hundreds of thousands of troops in their command. Catholic Charities, with a billion in revenues, paid their president $521,554 and their CFO $310,000, last year. —

Monday, August 21, 2023

Responses to some anti-theist railings, part 1.


Comments after my answer to:

Was God gambling with Satan in regards to job's loyalty? I'm a compulsive gambler. It's difficult enough handling that without having God as an example.

By no means was God gambling, for He that inhabits eternity and can see all things from that perspective (and knows what your choices will be, without forcing you against your will) knew what Job would do.

In contrast, it was the devil who was gambling (and induces you to). For his major premise (as manifest in other places) was that God was unworthy of being Job’s God - the ultimate source of security and object of spiritual affection and loyalty (thus the devil’s original sin of presuming he should sit as God, that God needed to “share the wealth” so to speak: as he also essentially told Eve: Is. 14:12–14; Gn. 3).

Therefore the devil’s minor premise was that Job only loved God because of blessings Job enjoyed. Thus the 2-stage challenge was, take them away and Job would reject God (and likely commit suicide), with the only restriction being that the devil could not take His life (which his wife recommended that Job take).
However, while Job certainly expressed his bewilderment at his lamentable condition which he protested, asking at least at least 66 questions, yet he did not deny His Creator or foolishly verbally charge Him with iniquity.
And after God reminded Job by asking him (some count 77) rhetorical questions, such as “Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?” (Job 38:31) then Job realized that God did care for him and was in control, and had a purpose, where Job stated,

I know that thou canst do every thing, and that no thought can be withholden from thee. Who is he that hideth counsel without knowledge? therefore have I uttered that I understood not; things too wonderful for me, which I knew not. Hear, I beseech thee, and I will speak: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. I have heard of thee by the hearing of the ear: but now mine eye seeth thee. Wherefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. (Job 42:2-6)

Thus the devil lost again, and will yet do so, for he will be done gambling until the very end:

And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them. And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. (Revelation 20:8-10)

And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (Romans 8:28)

Comments have been deleted by Quora, but not before I copied them, and the anti-theist charges, which are basically typical and repeated atheistic objections, have been overall summarized per content, though responded to them as verbatim in my replies. And additional comments by me are in [brackets].

[anti-theist[ So a god that claims to be good destroys the life of a poor man, kills his whole family simply to make the devil lose a bet? Yet your god is the one that created the devil and evil in the first place! Why is this not absolute proof that the god of Abraham is XXXXX if the bible is true?

No, God did not destroy the life of a poor man and killed his whole family just to make the devil lose, much less would be even any sort of proof (unmentionable) if the bible is true. But which comments are typical of ignorant atheism, and which often seems to be driven by an animus toward the idea of an ultimate authority.

First, the issue was whether faithfulness to God is warranted or not, with the devil (and atheists) on one side and the likes of Job on that other. Who showed that his faith could endure loss, that his faithfulness was not simply due to the blessings he received but was deeper than that. Many POWs (Jeremiah Denton, etc.) suffering torture for their country likewise proved their love for country could not be defeated by atheistic Communism.

Secondly, the trial also for the sake of the character of Job, who came to essentially see what atheists typically refuse to see, that if God is omnipotent and omniscient (as was conveyed by the many rhetorical questions), then He alone knows what all the effects will be of even your next breath or the flap of the wings of a butterfly, not only for this life but for Eternity. And who alone can and will make it all work out for Good, for the good of those who love God and thus love the Good. (Rm. 8:28).

Thus Job realized that God knew exactly what Job was going thru, and was in control (His hand on the thermostat s to speak), and would make it work out for good. Which God did even just as regards this life, blessing the latter end of Job abundantly more than his beginning in every respect relative to what He had lost. (Job 42:12)

Thus - going by just what the Bible says since that is the God you are opposing - your objection cannot be that the sufferings of God were not worth it, and that taking away family and good was unjust.

Which charges are illogical and absurd, for we are simply not omnipotent and omniscient and in no position to tell the One who gave life that He cannot take life, or charge that the relatively momentary losses of this life are unjust in the light of eternity. Unless we are omnipotent and omniscient.

We do not know if the children of Job were fit to be destroyed due to what they were doing and would do, or that (most likely) they held to the faith and character of the Godly father, and are in glory right now. In either case you cannot logically charge God with being unjust since you only have a fraction of the knowledge of the past, present and future and the scope of it, or the ability to determine it.

Going back to the devil; his original presumption) was essentially that the created is fit to be as God, and that God is unjust in requiring obedience in order to obtain blessing, and in punishing disobedience or bluffing about it; but that it is the right of the created to have the power and position of God. Which premise also eliminates mercy (not getting the evil you deserve) and grace (getting the good that you do not), since it presumes that having what other’s merited is the right of those who have/do not.

Thus the devil presumed in self-exaltation to put himself in the place of God, (Isaiah 14:12–20) and (being cast down for his unholy presumption) in Gn. 3:1–5 essentially told Eve that God was unjustly keeping something back from her, which was her right to have, and which would be hers by disobedience, rather than this resulting in the opposite, as God had forewarned. Gn. 3:1-7

For man will always makes someone or something his/her god, their ultimate source of security, and object of spiritual affection and allegiance, ultimately either the created or the Creator. And while God does not need anything (Psalms 50:7–12; Acts 17:25) it is only right and to man’s benefit that he choose the omnipotent and omniscient to be his God who is able to make all work out for the Good.

May God peradventure grant you "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)

The devil was urged on by god who ruined the mans life and and killed his family, which less remained even though in the end the man got a new family.

No matter how you spin it, this is a huge wicked act by the biblical god.

Instead of a good and loving god the Bible god is shown to be a a cruel jealous one that by any normal standards would be considered clearly evil, telling his people to be happy as they kill kids and killing people without reasons or for such not wanting to have sex with his dead brothers wife.

You need to engage in mental gymnastics to accept such as anything less than evil :)

Just what is behind your fallacious charges and inability to reason objectively and see anything but what is read into the text (and refrain from angry vulgarity)? You conclusions are simply not warranted by the facts.

God did not tell people to be happy as they killed children (but foretold that the slayers of a wicked people would be: Psalms 137:9), nor did He kill or do anything “for no reason,” or one for simply not wanting to have sexual relations with his dead brothers wife (versus refusing - and possibly repeatedly - to provide her a child due to his own utterly selfish reasons, contrary to God’s command and that of Judah: Gn. 1:28; 38:1–10).

And just how is it unjust for a Creator to take away the lives of people the He created and gave life to, while replacing them with even more and better (at least in beauty)? You can only assume that Job as well as all involved would not now say that this was right and best in the light of all the facts, past and future.

Which means that you indeed must presume omniscience or that God is not, nor omnipotent, who makes all things work out for the good who choose the Good.

Which would mean that such angry unreason-able atheist tirades flows from either ignorance or is directed to a god that is not of the Bible.

But your response indicates that have been indoctrinated by such, and insist on reading into Scripture what anti-theists can only contrive to actually teach, in context.

But such a caricature serves a malevolent purpose.

People that you claim to be “wicked” are only wicked according to the bible. [atheist goes on to basically just double-down on his ranting accusations) He turns Lot’s wife into salt for no reason, for she is never told to not look back .

People that you claim to be “wicked” are only wicked according to the Bible.” And? If you are going to attack the God of the Bible then you must go by what the Bible says. Thus if the Bible says that the people slain were wicked, you simply cannot change that to mean there were not wicked in order charge God with injustice. That is simply illogical and untenable.

And contrary to your next instance of changing the Bible to serve your purpose, “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones,” (Psalms 137:8,9)

This is not “Telling his followers to be happy as they kill children” as you charged, but that those (not the Jews) who executed what was just retaliation to Babylon would be happy. It would be like Jews in Hitler’s camps foretelling the satisfaction of Russians in executing just retaliation upon their persecutors.

Then you try to charge God with injustice as concerns Job, and selfish Onan, despite my showing you how your charges are fallacious and untenable in the light of the facts about the situation and of God. And which again shows you refuse to be reasoned with.

Then you example blindness with

He kills Lot’s wife, turns her into salt for no reason given. She was never even told to not look back. so she is not even breaking any rules,”

Yet the text plainly states that the angels laid hold upon his hand, and upon the hand of his wife, and upon the hand of his two daughters” and commanded them, “Escape for thy life; look not behind thee,… (Genesis 19:16,17)

Thus contrary to you, she is indeed told to not look back. yet she clearly disobeyed the expressed command of no less than manifest angels, and by looking back she evidenced she longed for that wicked place.

But of course they do not tell you that on anti-theist web sites whose lying charges you parrot.

Then we have your next charge:

Your omnipotent god chose mass extermination all because humans sinned. That included plentyof innocent children and multitudes of innocent animals. Yet as omnipotent he could chose another way to punish the sinners and exclude billion of innocent creatures.”

Yes, the Creator who gave life can take it, and here He punished people whose wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts was only evil continually, (Genesis 6:5) while delivering the innocent from becoming like their elders and perpetuating itself. And would include delivering animals [and children] from the perversions they were subject to.

Yet when God allows evil then atheists find fault with Him, as if they were omniscient and omnipotent! Which brings us to your next judgement on God:

Instead of a Good and loving god the bible is showing a cruel jealous god who driven by ego

Which is simply the logical fallacy of assuming what you have not and cannot establish. Which is that “a Good and loving god” is contrary to judging what is not “Good and loving,’ and which instead means that being Good and loving means that the Creator should not finally exterminate a people whose wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts was only evil continually.

But as said, if God did not, then atheists would object to that. You can argue that God should have rehabilitated them, though He gave them 120 years of Noah’s preaching before the Flood came, but that is also presuming that you know better than God what all the actions and effects are and will be of man. Which is indeed would be arrogant presumption.


Many Christians find at these difficult and troubling texts and engage in mental gymnastics to defend them

Which is irrelevant, for i provided you sound refutation of your ignorant and fallacious and presumptuous charges, and it you who must resort to mental gymnastics in order to read what you want into and out of Scripture.

Yet as you continue to demonstrate unreason-able intransigence should i continue?

If find it strange for you try to justify killing innocent children and billion of animals.

Which response is simply the “argument by outrage” tactic, which effectively has as its premise that it is outrageous for the Creator who gave life - and knows what all the effects will be - to also take it, exterminating the wicked and delivering the innocent.

Which means that it is your premise that is outrageous.

As has been and will be further shown, by the grace of God, despite your blind stubborn and absurd attempt to indict God as if you were omniscient and omnipotent.


let us presume that those people were indeed wicked.”

No, there is nothing hypothetical here: God says the “wickedness of man was only evil continually.”

Let me remind you of what I said before, that since you are attacking the God of the Bible for what the Bible says He did, then you must actually stick with what it says, and not attack or impugn the integrity of the Bible, which would be a different debate.

Do you really actually believe the infants were wicked also?”

Do you honestly read what I had said? “He punished people whose wickedness was great and every imagination of their thoughts was only evil continually, (Genesis 6:5) while delivering the innocent from becoming like their elders and perpetuating itself. And would include delivering animals [and children] from the perversions they were subject to.”

Both were most likely subject to sexual and physical abuse, and yet when God does not deal prevent or judge such promptly I am sure you would find fault with Him for that.


Being omniscient and omnipotent means he could chose ANY way to annihilate the sinners. Vaporize the, sickness, etc. or even compel them to repent. Instead, he wanted to kill billion of innocent creatures”

Meaning you find fault with the method God used to deal with man (who misused what God gave, and broke His good laws), based upon the premise that He could have acted differently in His omniscience and omnipotence.

But which presumes you know better than God, that somehow toasting them alive (thus having no space to repent) or dying of sickness would be better than drowning (not much of a choice), or force them to repent and thus deny man the freedom to make choices (see Theodicy).

And as for billions of innocent creatures, aside from drowning what loss did they suffer? A lion missing out their next meal chomping down a zebra, or the latter missing out on being part of the food chain? Or do you suppose the only-evil people took care of pets? Man is the reason of their pain and abuse, and they are not to be abused but are here to provide for man.

All of which postulations presume you know better than an omniscient and omnipotent God - who knows what man will chose and the consequences of even your next breath, for this life and the next - which means (once again) that you must presume omniscience.

Consider further the utter irrationality of your argument: The Creator gives life, breath and all good things, but He has no right - based upon what He knows and can do - to take the same?


Without the Creator there would be no life, and value to it, nor even the moral sense that taking innocent like is wrong, and thus nothing to take nor even the moral sense regarding the taking of it!

Thus you should thank God for your moral revulsion to God taking innocent life. However, this revulsion is based upon the premise that life is valuable and thus (in the Bible) those who take innocent life must lose theirs (based upon multiple eye-witness and executed at the hands of all the people via stoning), as man has no right to take innocent life. But why?

Knowing how many lives have turned out today, then if we could go back in time and then we might not only justify preventing the conception of some lives (as proabortionists do) but also the taking of the same (Stalin, etc.), since they would turn out to be destructive of life or greatly suffer.

However, the reason man is wrong for taking innocent life is because he neither,

*created life nor can give it in the eternal realm,

*can foresee, in all depth and detail, how a life will turn out,

*has the power to orchestra all the actions and works that man is allowed to engage in to work out for Good.

Thus you cannot rationally impugn iniquity to God for taking innocent life or man and animals unless you as establish that,

*God does not know in all depth and detail what all the effects will be of our actions for time and for eternity;

*God is not able to make all work out for the good of those who love God and thus love the Good;

*It was not better in the light of all that can be know that God acted as He did, including delivering the innocent from becoming like their damnable parents, and rehabilitating the earth. And making animals to be fertilizer and fuel for man.

*Man is omniscient and omnipotent and knows and can do the above

*The creator who gave life and all good things has not the right to take it, and cannot recreate it.


Also,a omniscient and omnipotent being can also NEVER claim he did not know this evil condition would result, thus this judgment of the evil means he planned to drowned the evil and the kids and billions of innocent animals.”

God did indeed know what would happen, as has been continually affirmed, yet knowing what man will do does not translate into forcing man to do it. [Again, see Theodicy and response to another poster after this one].

But regardless, it remains that you cannot rationally impugn iniquity to God for His actions or inactions unless you can establish what I listed above, and presume omniscience and omnipotence for man. Which makes man to be as God, which is simply irrational.


Many Christians change the definition of omniscient and omnipotent at will...mental gymnastics .

Which response is that of recourse to a irrelevant diversionary strawman, since I did not do at all what you describe even if some others many.

Instead I showed that it is you who must engage in gymnastics, arguing against God as if He was not omniscient and omnipotent and then arguing against Him for being so, which is all so much railing irrationality.

If fact consistent with what you have argued so far, unless God does what you believe is right and when you demand that He do it then you would judge Him as if you were omniscient and omnipotent.

So it have been good to see your vain arguments exposed as spurious, spurious, which I do hope actually helps you.

However as we are both intransigent in our positions and as this comment section is poorly set up for debates, then instead of much more extended debate here I would rather format this exchange and post this to a forum of my choice (maybe so that others may see it and respond.

So once again we see more intransigent irrationality. You write:

Your god cannot be omniscient and omnipotent for that means that god created Adan and Eve to eat the fruit. leaving them with no free will, no choice to do anything else”

Yet nowhere does God say that He did not know, yet neither does knowing what man will do mean that man can not choose to do it. [Again, see Theodicy and response to another poster after this one].

IF I know that you are going to continue to resort to such spurious objections then that does not mean I am making you do it against your will, though I provide you the situation to do it.


Being omniscient and omnipotent means he wanted to kill the all the firstborn in Egypt.

Indeed God did kill some who were not culpable/guilty of any sin themselves, which was a consequence of man’s actions that God foresaw, yet again, as said, for you to judge it to be wrong for the Creator to take away the life and breath that He gave presupposes that you know what all the consequences would be for them and for others if He did not act as He did.

Meaning once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence.


The claim that the giver of life has the right to take life still is flawed since it means an omniscient and omnipotent being is evil and cruel when he kill innocent creatures because they act the way he created them to.”

Rather, it is your argument that is flawed, since as said, knowing what man will do still does not force man to do it, and again, you can only presume that you know better than God that giving man the freedom to chose btwn 2 opposites, with consequences (rather than making man like a robot or cloud, or stopping man every time he was going to do evil, or reversing the effects every time man did evil, etc.), was unjust in the light of all that can be know about the past and future effects.

And the “children of the devil “(1 John 3:10) “fitted for destruction” (Romans 9:22) are not judged for what they could not help but choose to do, but they are condemned on the basis of the choices they could and did make contrary to what they knew was right, misusing good things gave graciously God gave them and breaking His good laws — their own works not those of others. (Dt 24:16; 1Kg 14:13; 2 Kg14:6; 22:18-20; 2 Chrn 25:4; Jer 31:29,3)

And as God owes grace to no one, then He cannot be unjust in showing more grace to some than others. Arguing what God could do and did not once again presupposes that you know better than God.

Meaning once again that you must presume omniscience omnipotence in order to judge God. There is no way around this.


You can only blindly assert that “everything god does is good j even killing innocent children because he is omniscient and omnipotent.”

Rather it means that when a being is omniscient omnipotent and can this take away life that He gave in the first place, and thus exterminate the wicked and deliver the innocent from becoming like the former, ending up in Heaven rather than Hell, then you as a very very finite being cannot indict Him as doing wrong.

Meaning once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence. There is no way around this.


According to the bible he is the creator of evil Isaiah 45:7 “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things””

Yes, God who made everything good, and who cannot commit iniquity, (Job 34:10) also creates evil, not moral evil but evil in the sense of sending evil/trouble/adversity in judgments. For that is how it is revealed in the Bible, in which context is how you understand the Bible.

But if you just read the prevaricating propaganda of atheist web sites you would not know that.


This means your god can only be a good god if you re define evil and good just because god does it.”

Rather, it is God who gives man [the] moral sense that you even need to make a moral argument [and moral judgment must take into account what the actor knew, and intent, and its effects], and God expressly defines the very morality of good and evil in the Bible.

However, atheism has no transcendent supreme standard for morality (as you said, “no teachings, no rules, no ideology, no claims, no answers”), and can itself justify sin while it condemns God for they simply cannot allow that God can be just and merciful such by exterminating the wicked and delivering the innocent from becoming like the former, ending up in Heaven rather than Hell.

You can also postulate other alternative means of dealing with choices and consequences but that presupposes that you know what all the consequences would be for them and for others if He did not act as He did.

Meaning once again that you are presuming omniscience omnipotence. There is no way around this.


the other alternative is that the god of the the bible is just another bronze age myth which takes mental gymnastics defend

Meaning when all else fails, you must resort to a strawman [the bronze age premise like that of the copycat fallacy] for your gymnastics charge to be valid, and attack the integrity and authority of the very Source that your argument has required. [your myopia would also likely fit in with the jurors initially in 12 Angry Men]

Which is irrational and leaves you without any valid argument, and which means I will do as I said and provide this exchange where public can see it better.

Which would be better taking up more of my time with your specious vain arrogant railings against the very Creator who have you life, breath and all things, and His Son who gave Himself for your salvation, that you may find life thru Him. May you yet do so. Good night.


God could have,

  • 1. made us (and angels) with no moral standard or sense or deprived us from the moral ability to respond to or choose good [morally insensible].

  • 2. granted us free moral agency, but never have given us anything to choose between [negation of moral choices].

  • 3. called man to make the Creator their ultimate object of spiritual affection and allegiance and source of security as being what is right and what is best for man, versus finite created beings or things being one's "god," and provided moral revelation and influences. But always have moved us to do good, and never have allowed us to choose evil (even if as by making believing in God and choosing good so utterly compelling — like God appearing daily and always doing miracles on demand, and preventing any seeming evidence to the contrary - so that no man could attempt to make excuses for not believing in Him [effective negation of any freedom to choose]).

  • 4. allowed us to choose evil, but immediately reversed any effects and not penalized such [negation of moral consequences].

  • 5. allowed us to do bad, but restricted us to a place where it would harm no one but ourselves [restriction of moral consequences].

  • 6. allowed us to choose between good and evil, and to affect others by it, but not ultimately reward or punish us accordingly [negation of eternal consequences, positive or negative].

  • 7. given us the ability to choose, and alternatives to chose from, and to face and overcome evil or be overcome by it, with the ability to effect others and things by our choices, and to exercise some reward or punishment in this life for morality, and ultimately reward or punishment all accordingly [pure justice].

  • 8. restrained evil to some degree, while making the evil that man does to work out for the good of those who want good, and who thus love God, who is supremely Good.

  • 9. in accordance with 8, the Creator could have chose to manifest Himself in the flesh, and by Him to provide man a means of escaping the ultimate retribution of Divine justice, and instead receive unmerited eternal favor, at God's own expense and credit, appropriated by a repentant obedient faith, in addition to the loss or gaining of certain rewards based on one's quality of work as a child of God. And eternally punish, to varying degrees, those whose response to God's revelation manifested they want evil, [justice maintained while mercy and grace given].

4h  ·

No, that irrational parroted polemic is simply non-sense. Simply put, knowing what a person will do does not require removing his ability to choose, as well as alternatives to choose btwn.

Nor is the above removal required in order to that person to fulfil a role that an omniscient being knows that they will, correspondent to his plan. Being in a script according to foreknowledge does not require one to have no choice scripted

As concerns the latter, due to the character of a person (which character is due to previous choices), I can quite assuredly know how a certain person will react to words of mine, such as a moral reproof, and which could actually accomplish a plan I have, even though that person need not react as I know he will.

In the case of old Pharaoh, in the program of God delivering the Hebrews, then Moses both records that Pharaoh hardened his own heart, (Ex. 8:15, 32) as well as that God stated that He would harden Pharaoh’s heart, (Ex. 4:21) and did, Ex. 14:8) as an example of what not to do, (1 Sam, 6:6)

Yet God did not hardened Pharaoh’s heart by taking away his will or any alternatives, and in fact at some points Pharaoh relented to some degree.

But instead, God hardened Pharaoh’s heart via actions that normally would have moved a person to rationally change his mind, as requested and as others did.

How you react to this reproof is your choice.

Moreover, as an infinitely wise omniscient as well as omnipotent being, then morally speaking, knowing what every single effect will be of every choice of man - immediate, resultant and progressive, not only in this life but the future and in eternity - as well as the motive behind each one, and being able to make all to ultimately work out for what is Good, with justice as well as with mercy and grace;

means that you are beyond being judged by manifestly finite exceedingly ignorant man, though anti-theists habitually do so according to nature, thereby presuming omniscience.

Being an omniscient entity means knows exactly what will happen which means there can be no choice for humans. A human can only hopt to predict a response which is not omniscience

Actually, your response examples irrationality, since it presumes omniscience equates to predetermination as requiring the removal of choice, which is simply not a rational conclusion. If I could go back in time to 50 years ago then I could know for certain things that would happen, but that simply does not mean I must make any happen. And yet for an eternal omniscient the future is seen as well as the past.

And I were omniscient and also omnipotent, then I could also know what all the effects would be of any possible choices I made while in the past, and even know what brought them about, and know how to be able ensure man would be able to make choices, and yet, as with Pharaoh, leave him with the ability to make his own choices.

God knew just what the Pharaoh would do”

Yes, indeed God did know exactly what the Pharaoh would do. But that in no way meant Pharaoh had no alternative choice, not only in the one's at issue, but the previous moral choices he made which left him with a heart that resulted in the character that he had, with its resultant response to manifestly supernatural reproofs.

“means that you are beyond being judged by manifestly finite exceedingly ignorant man,” Really? What do you think happens daily in court rooms around the world? I’ll give you a clue. Humans sit in judgement of other humans.

The exceedingly finite judging the same is simply not analogous to the exceedingly finite, profoundly relatively ignorant of all that can be known, and existing as mere specks in the universe, and in the expanse of time, presuming to condemn an omniscient and also omnipotent being as immoral, which is absurd, seeing as the former is in no position to know all the facts, past, present and future and all the causes, and effects, past and future into eternity...

Humans may be far from knowing everything yet he is hardly ignorant, especially since the last two centuries.”

Which also another proffered polemic of antitheists, that argues that science has discovered the physical causes of such occurrences as lightning which used to ascribed as purely supernatural. then all else will be, that the universe is a result of purely natural processes, which is a position of faith since it certainly is no proven.

And to the contrary, the more we learn of an exceedingly vast, systematically ordered universe, exquisitely finely tuned for life with intricate astounding complexity, then the more it testifies to design, requiring a First Cause (at the least), that of a powerful being of supreme intelligence being behind the existence of energy and organization of matter.

Thursday, August 17, 2023

10-Point+ Biblical Refutation of RC Attempted Refutation of Sola Scriptura


10-Point+ Biblical Refutation of RC Attempted Refutation of Sola Scriptura (which vain  attempt was was by RC apologist Dave Armstrong, published in the National Catholic Register, December 11, 2016) 
1. It's Not Taught in the Bible Scripture certainly is a “standard of truth”, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic tradition and the Church.

Plainly wrong. First, "authentic apostolic tradition" is based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) as per Rome which is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture (leading into all Truth" does not mean that). Thus EPMV itself flows from tradition, but it is another example or Catholic circularity.

Secondly, "authentic apostolic tradition" has as it corollary that of Jewish tradition, which the Orthodox also invoke today in rejecting Christ, but the Lord and His apostles never invoked tradition as being the supreme standard. And while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, and thus call souls to hold fast to their tradition, Rome does not and cannot presumes its popes and ecumenical councils speak as wholly inspired of God.

But it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. And Scripture provided the epistemological doctrinal and prophetic foundation for the NT church, which it is grounded in and supports, being the support "of the Truth." Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (.44,45; ; 18:28, etc.)

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

[1b] Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient: i.e., every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency). Nor can sola Scriptura be deduced from implicit passages.

SS actually includes the materially sense as regards sufficiency, but not as in Catholicism, (esp. RC) in which "The Church" asserts that written and oral tradition teach ensured perpetual magisterial veracity in formal teaching on faith and morals uniquely for their church, thus effectively validating its own claim, and thus if they claim the Assumption is a fact, then all are to believe it. But SS does teach material sufficiency in the sense that "what is "necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added [as public express revelation], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). And that,

.".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.”

Thus while Scripture itself does not provide a full table of contents, yet since it is manifest that souls did discern both men and writings as being of God (as seen by John the baptizer being judged as a prophet and the establishment of what the Lord referred to as "all the Scripture" (; ) before there was a church, then thus by logical (Scripture also materially evidences, affirms, provides for the use of reason) "good and necessary consequence" then the development of a canon is found to be Scriptural.

meaning that whatever a thus it affirms that "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)

Thus the issue is that of sola prima,

2. “Word of God”
“Word” in Holy Scripture quite often refers to a proclaimed, oral word of prophets or apostles. They spoke the word of God, whether or not their utterances were later recorded in Scripture (see, e.g., , ). The oral “word” had equal authority. This was also true of apostolic preaching ().

As said, this argument and its polemical premise is invalid, since while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, and thus call souls to hold fast to their tradition, Rome does not and cannot presumes its popes and ecumenical councils speak as wholly inspired of God.

3. Tradition is Not a Dirty Word
The Bible condemns corrupt traditions of men (e.g., , , ). Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic traditions are also positively endorsed. These traditions are in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. In that sense, Scripture is the “final judge” of tradition, but not in the sense that it rules out all binding tradition and Church authority (see, e.g., ; ; ; ; 2:2; ).

What binding tradition and Church authority means is that As said, what authentic apostolic traditions consist of rests upon the premise of the tradition of ensured magisterial veracity, thus being circular logic. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals. 

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example, in , Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on a teaching succession from Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna.

Wrong. First, if the RCs cared to search, though should fined that the idea - as a principle - of supreme - but not of ensured perpetual infallibility - magisterial authority can be found in the Old Testament, as can that of civil authority and the supreme court, () as well as successors in Judaism ; ; )

Secondly, the fact that something found in a source called "tradition" is cited in Scripture does not mean that whatever is in that tradition is of God, any more than Paul citing a truth expressed by a pagan () means that whatever else is in that tradition is of God. And SS affirms the principle of more Scripture being added to the OT and discerned as it.

The issue thus becomes the authority of the entity that states that something is of God, and in the cited examples it is wholly God-inspired sources, Christ and Paul, who affirm such, while as for Rome, she does not speaks as wholly God-inspired voice, and her claim of EPMV is one that rests upon itself.

[4b] In , St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, i

More ignorance: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" () is indeed spoken of, the literal event of water out of a rock (Exo. 17:6; ; , , ) which represented spiritual drink and the spiritual Rock which was Christ. And who followed them. (, ) Whatever tradition says does not negate the Biblical basis for this statement.

Paul refers in : to “Jannes and Jambres” who “opposed Moses”. These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage ( ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

Again, the fact that something found in a source called "tradition" is cited in Scripture does not mean that whatever is in that tradition is of God, any more than Paul citing a truth expressed by a pagan () means that whatever else is in that tradition is of God. The issue thus becomes the authority of the entity that states that something is of God, and in the cited examples it is wholly God-inspired sources, Christ and Paul, who affirm such, while as for Rome, she does not speaks as wholly God-inspired voice, and her claim of EPMV is one that rests upon itself.

5. Jerusalem Council
The Jerusalem Council () made an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians ().

Indeed, and again SS affirms "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerinially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions" if Scriptural, and James provided Scriptural substantiation in the concluding judgment on this matter of discipline.

But while we know that this was of God since it is recorded in Scripture, neither this or any other event examples or teaches ensured perpetual magisterial veracity as per Rome, and Peter did not decree anything here. 6. Pharisees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the pharisaical tradition of Judaism (which accepted oral tradition). Christian Pharisees are referred to (; ), so neither the (orthodox) Old Testament Jews nor the early Church were guided by the principle of sola Scriptura.

Non-sensical leaps of illogic. Scripture provided the epistemological doctrinal and prophetic foundation for the NT church, which church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (; cf. ) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, () as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (, ; 17:4,7,8; ; Lv. 10:11; ; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; , , ; )

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and which the Messiah reproved, based upon Scripture as being supreme, () and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (; , ; , ; ; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; , etc.)

The fact that the church flowed from the OT and thus elements of Pharisaical authority simply does not affirm or equate to adoption of all their modus operandi and premise of veracity, and instead of affirmation of all their tradition they are are reproved for being contrary to Scripture. ()

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura / Necessity of Interpretation
Ezra read the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (). Thirteen Levites assisted him and “helped the people to understand the law” (8:7)

SS strawman. Sad that an professional RC apologist engages in this, as if Westminster all the SS commentaries and teachers were the ones who did not understand SS.

[7b] St. Peter states that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (), and [he] refers to parts of Paul's epistles being “hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,

Which in context, refers to how written prophecy was given, (cf. ) and not to understanding it. Thus in his driven defense of his church-god, Armstrong actually examples false ignorant understanding of Scripture while telling us we need Catholicism to understand it.

8. : The Protestant “Proof Text” This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency.

It does not need to. SS includes material sufficiency as defined above, and Godliness is also said to be "profitable," (- same word) and any source that is able to provide the man of God so that he "may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" is teaching a sufficiency Rome arrogates to herself.

Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14).

Paul is referring to himself and wholly God-inspired teaching, not the elitist presumptions of a church whose distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Also, a very similar passage, , would prove (using Protestant reasoning) the sufficiency of “pastors” and “teachers” for the attainment of Christian perfection.

Yes, but as instruments using the instrument which provides the man of God so that he "may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" - not the arrogant claims of Rome, which can even claim an event occurred which history failed to record when it would have been.

9. Paul Casually Assumes that His Passed-Down Tradition is Infallible and Binding

Same failed argument of arrogant presumption as above.

10. Sola Scriptura is a Radically Circular Position
When Protestants are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to the “Bible’s clear teaching”. This is similar to people on two sides of a legal, constitutional debate both saying, “well, we go by what is constitutional, whereas you guys don’t.” But judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are binding. Protestantism lacks this element because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book (which must always be interpreted by human beings).

Actually, the Radically Circular Position is that of Rome. Bible Christians are the ones who most strongly work to establish the authority of the Bible, and not just invoke it, while the RCC teaches that one must have faith in her to know what the contents of Scripture are. ( matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium;; ...when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility;

The issue is the basis for veracity. While the veracity of the claims of a Bible Christian must rest upon the weighty of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, while for a faithful RC, assurance is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, who has infallibly declared she is conditionally perpetually incapable of error, at least in salvific matters. Thus Scripture, tradition and history can only assuredly consist of and mean what Rome may say they do.

Thus no less than Cardinal Manning stated, • "It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28

That Armstrong's Radically Circular Position assertion supremely applies to Rome.

Thus Rome can even declare something to be a matter of binding belief that was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that her own scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.

As Ratzinger states,

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. ), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. , for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 (words in [brackets] are mine). 

Which relates to the Catholic presumptuous  premise that since men such as the apostles (who could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby) could enjoin obedience to what they orally taught (citing ) and which a SS preacher can only do under the premise that what is taught is in Scripture)  somehow validates binding Catholic oral tradition - regardless of whether it is taught in Scripture or not, even though Rome does not and cannot claim its popes and ecumenical councils speak as wholly inspired of God.

Which means that as seen above,  Rome can claim to "remember" what history failed to record for hundreds of years, citing . , for support.

And from which comes the belief that Mary is crowned as the Queen of Heaven, and prayed to, which contradicts the Biblical teaching that believers are not given crowns until after His return, while the Queen of Heaven in Scripture is only that of pagans, and that only they prayed to someone else in Heaven (as over 200 recorded prayers by believers attest).

Which means that, as the pompous assertion by Manning exemplifies,  the word of God is whatever Rome (or EO as they have conflicts over what tradition teaches) says it is, and far more could be asserted to be the word of God, even Mary parting the Red Sea, if not for those pesky Bible Christians acting like noble Bereans.     

Thus I have my own here are questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia: 1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or  Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of the written word of God, or the NT church, and what provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure, substantive source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture ever subject to testing by the oral words of men, or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scriptura must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office (and ideally a centralized one)  as the  formal  judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme source of Truth)?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, as the sole sure, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
73 posted on 8/16/2023, 8:40:40 PM by daniel1212 (As a damned+destitute sinner turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves souls on His acct + b baptized 2 obey) 

Finally, the Catholic premise that  the Sola Scriptura has a fatal flaw  in that it lacks a supreme central magisterium to define and interpret Scripture  (as is argued by a "Casey Chalk"), while ignoring the conflicts between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox over what tradition teaches, is a    a smoke screen. 

Who interprets the Interpreter? Since this is a issue (except in strong mind-control cults) then there are divisions among the anti-divsionists. Yet TradCaths of various sects attack classic evangelical Bible Christians as they are to examine what is taught by examination of its conflation with valid church teaching,  which TradCaths also do, and with divisions among both.

Thus, by subjecting the veracity of modern RC teaching to their judgment of what valid RC teaching consists of and means, then TradCaths are essentially acting as Bible Christians are supposed to, 

But the difference btwn traditional evangelical Bible Christians and TradCaths is that the latter look to what they selectively choose as being past RC, pre-V2  teaching, while the former are to look to the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest.

Today you have basically 3 types of RC's, with formal and informal divisions among them. One is a liberal dissident, and the other is a traditional one, and the other one just passively submits to the living magisterium. 

These may be  considered the most faithful RC by their church today, but  tend to see the first two classes mentioned as essentially being as Protestants, and in turn, they are considered to be conservative by the liberal, and a liberal by the traditional.

The liberal dissidents are the  Ted Kennedy  type Catholics, but whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death, if not the most faithful.

The traditional RCs selectively dissent from the modern living magisterium or reject it outright, ranging from selective reformers to those who, as on ttps://, refer to Francis as

"Bergoglio the Heretic;" who

"preaches and authors heresy;" being a

"material and formal heretic;"

a fraud of a pope;

“an apostate,”

"not a Catholic;"

"Pope Frank..protestant;"

And that "The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell;"

 And that The Catholic Church has  shut itself up since VCII.

And no longer proclaims, "Christ, the Sovereign King, to all nations;"

A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is with some detail, while we have a more charitable description by a novus ordo priest:

It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....

Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...

“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...

The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker;

And thus you have  articles as,

Is Catholicism about to break into three?

Archbishop ViganĂ²: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’

The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6

Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?

The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope … Unlike the TradCath, 

Yet, while considered to be liberal compromisers by TradCaths, the passive obedient RC basically subscribes to past papal teaching such as states,

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources

The means by which a TradCath absolves themselves from such required submission is to reject the validity of the popes and Vatican Two with which they disagree. 

But which illustrates the reality that sola ecclesia also results in division since interpretation at some level cannot be avoided, except via strong suppression. 

And while the NT has its unity in heart and in the basic faith under manifestly very true men of God ( 2 Co. 4:1-2; 6:4-10)   with Scriptural substantiation in word and in power and which is needed   today, yet  those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired supreme authority testify to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death. But under the vast umbrella called Protestantism then perhaps only about half actually believe in the Bible.