tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post3314073868038879519..comments2023-03-03T03:06:43.757-08:00Comments on Faith Working Through Love: Peter Dimond and skewed theologyWilliam Albrechthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05637978153246908035noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-41901264257440133392010-04-26T11:02:07.181-07:002010-04-26T11:02:07.181-07:00Looks like you can't be the clown you're a...Looks like you can't be the clown you're accustomed to being anymore. Get a life and stop trolling blogs. Instead of parroting other people, educate yourself in Theological matters.William Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05637978153246908035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-72557893072580608632010-04-23T07:05:44.948-07:002010-04-23T07:05:44.948-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-88862267817021046852010-04-23T06:52:03.497-07:002010-04-23T06:52:03.497-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-25091365703478281262010-04-20T16:47:39.918-07:002010-04-20T16:47:39.918-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-15663491250192109322010-04-14T17:01:03.429-07:002010-04-14T17:01:03.429-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-8373991453405938202010-04-14T15:51:16.975-07:002010-04-14T15:51:16.975-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-20464582746982992922010-04-14T10:26:58.167-07:002010-04-14T10:26:58.167-07:00"the Scriptures were not materially sufficien..."the Scriptures were not materially sufficient."<br /><br />Perhaps a course in logic is necessary for you. Never have I asserted that the Scriptures were materially sufficient in this debate. Never did I even RELY solely on the text either! If your best retort is that Sola Scriptura is untenable, then your position is really in trouble.William Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05637978153246908035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-24923404637351538762010-04-14T10:25:39.156-07:002010-04-14T10:25:39.156-07:00The problem with your assertion is that I am relyi...The problem with your assertion is that I am relying solely on the Scriptures. In reality, I am relying on verses that Trent FORMALLY DEFINED. If these verses show an ACTUAL Eucharistic passage and actual references to a TRUE anamnesis, then the Sedevacantist is in a bind. The burden of proof is on YOU to show that Trent was wrong and or lying here and that these accounts which were FORMALLY defined are indeed INCORRECT institution accounts. Unfortunately for you, the Fathers and the tradition of the Church stand squarely against you. Sedevacantism is an abandonment of all logic. Give it your best shot.William Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05637978153246908035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-21750005191992506312010-04-12T16:35:38.126-07:002010-04-12T16:35:38.126-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-45303984343472987052010-04-12T16:33:30.332-07:002010-04-12T16:33:30.332-07:00The Council of Trent declared that the revelation ...The Council of Trent declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.<br /><br />This is all fine by you however as you merely brush all of Trent's teaching aside in favor of your own heretical intrepretation. You truly show what you stand for, and it has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Chruch!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-63547339804996387842010-04-09T14:37:38.973-07:002010-04-09T14:37:38.973-07:00It is obvious that this is what Sola Scriptura is-...It is obvious that this is what Sola Scriptura is--in one of it's variant forms. Nevertheless, a reading of the Scriptures--which are tradition based--in a concise manner that then correlates them to the documents from Trent is hardly that which adds the addendum SOLA to the BIBLOS in and of itself. Learn your theology.William Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05637978153246908035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-13927854632633605542010-03-19T15:48:19.746-07:002010-03-19T15:48:19.746-07:00"I'm not preaching Sola Scriptura, I'..."I'm not preaching Sola Scriptura, I'm reading the Bible"<br /><br />Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, "by scripture alone") is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible and inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness. Consequently, sola scriptura demands that only those doctrines are to be admitted or confessed that are found directly within or indirectly by using valid logical deduction or valid deductive reasoning from scripture.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-84477390285981997112010-03-18T20:47:23.374-07:002010-03-18T20:47:23.374-07:00i agree peter dimond is such a scaredy cat he woul...i agree peter dimond is such a scaredy cat he wouldnt dare debate u again so he challenges 15 yr old boys and other sto debate. talk about a cowardAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-14593981482182157562010-03-17T14:12:33.457-07:002010-03-17T14:12:33.457-07:00What has once been refuted, reamins refuted.....What has once been refuted, reamins refuted.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-68323393415086971972010-03-16T13:28:35.107-07:002010-03-16T13:28:35.107-07:00"What an amazing diatribe of garbage. Once ag..."What an amazing diatribe of garbage. Once again proving who clearly is the child (Albrecht) and who speaks the cahtolic FAITH (MHFM).........what an adolescent. Just like the debate, he points to nothing substantial and supports it with thin air!!!"<br /><br />If it's a diatribe of garbage, I highly doubt Peter Dimond would be throwing a fit and demanding 8 outrageous conditions to debate me again. Such behavior is outrageous. If you think my arguments were invalid, then I challenge you to refute them. Give it your best shotWilliam Albrechthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05637978153246908035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-26584642916606078772010-03-14T10:15:51.654-07:002010-03-14T10:15:51.654-07:00Looks good William =)Looks good William =)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-1045056624976579062010-03-12T17:13:02.754-08:002010-03-12T17:13:02.754-08:00What an amazing diatribe of garbage. Once again p...What an amazing diatribe of garbage. Once again proving who clearly is the child (Albrecht) and who speaks the cahtolic FAITH (MHFM).........what an adolescent. Just like the debate, he points to nothing substantial and supports it with thin air!!!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8830854444898280947.post-16035520798780387572010-03-12T11:48:52.136-08:002010-03-12T11:48:52.136-08:00AMAZING RESPONSE THANK U!AMAZING RESPONSE THANK U!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com