Just spew your uninformed opinion, throw in some ad hominem, and move on like you won and "told him!".
Your ignorance is blinding and your hatred unChristian. Your disdain for Catholicism is palpable. "By their fruits you will know them". Your fruit is sour and repugnant.
I don’t hate Catholics, I abhor the RCC for its unbiblical teachings, nowhere in scripture does it say Peter was the bishop of Rome. Just because the RCC uses the title of bishop doesn’t mean it’s used biblically. If you want to follow man-made traditions through the church, that’s your business, but I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is spoken in His word.
But how do you know what His word is? Who presented it as His word? The Church did. The Bible doesn't say what is scripture, and it also doesn't say Sola Scriptura. Why then must that be the default position? I'd argue the most reasonable assumed position is that Christ instituted a visible Church and vested it with an authority to interpret scripture. Such that truth is external and objective, not internal and subjective (I believed this was necessary when I was protestant too, and came to the realization that the Church is the ultimate fulfillment of it. Before then, I was really just interpreting the bible myself, despite what I thought. This is hardly external and objective).
As for what is scripture, Luther coming along some 1300 years later and picking and choosing which books he thought were "actually" scripture sounds, to me, like a joke. I might as well run my own analysis of every book and see which ones fit. Maybe the Book of Enoch is inspired scripture. But then again, at that point I'd be making myself out as the authority on scripture, and in that sense making myself out to be God.
As for the traditions of Man, yes, I'd rather follow the traditions that have been carried down since the time of Christ. Sure, they've evolved, but they are not arbitrary, and they all serve at their core to glorify God in a beautiful, virtuous, and holy way. And none of them contradict the teachings of Christ. They all come from, and fulfill, His teachings. At worst, they don't contradict them.
And while obviously outward appearance isn't everything, if all else was the same, I'd pick the massive cathedral with strong traditions over the literal Burger King church that eschews all traditions every time (I always feel bad making a dig at the BK church. I'm sure they're good people, doing their best with what they have to follow God. Obviously, they can't just make a stone cathedral appear in some rural town. But it's still a Burger King, and that just epitomizes the soulless nature of our modern world for me. It's the complete opposite of what I want to go to Church for; To draw closer to God and to stray farther from the world).
As for the Pope, there is absolutely a scriptural argument. Jesus named Peter, which means rock, and then said, "on this rock I build my Church". You can disagree with this interpretation, and it does require believing extra-Biblical Roman claims, but that doesn't mean it isn't in there, and I'd simply refer back to what I said about knowing what is scripture. Without the knowledge of what is and isn't scripture, how do you know what the Bible really says? One of the books removed by Luther makes a much greater case for purgatory. Why isn't that book scripture? Because Rome says it is?
Whether you will admit it or not, every Roman doctrine is based on scripture. And the fact you reject their authority to determine what is scripture, quite ironically, means you don't really have any ground to stand on to authoritatively claim their interpretation is wrong. We'd simply be arguing personal opinions at that point.
You people love not answering questions.
Just spew your uninformed opinion, throw in some ad hominem, and move on like you won and "told him!".
Your ignorance is blinding and your hatred unChristian. Your disdain for Catholicism is palpable. "By their fruits you will know them". Your fruit is sour and repugnant.
I don’t hate Catholics, I abhor the RCC for its unbiblical teachings, nowhere in scripture does it say Peter was the bishop of Rome. Just because the RCC uses the title of bishop doesn’t mean it’s used biblically. If you want to follow man-made traditions through the church, that’s your business, but I choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ is spoken in His word.
But how do you know what His word is? Who presented it as His word? The Church did. The Bible doesn't say what is scripture, and it also doesn't say Sola Scriptura. Why then must that be the default position? I'd argue the most reasonable assumed position is that Christ instituted a visible Church and vested it with an authority to interpret scripture. Such that truth is external and objective, not internal and subjective (I believed this was necessary when I was protestant too, and came to the realization that the Church is the ultimate fulfillment of it. Before then, I was really just interpreting the bible myself, despite what I thought. This is hardly external and objective).
As for what is scripture, Luther coming along some 1300 years later and picking and choosing which books he thought were "actually" scripture sounds, to me, like a joke. I might as well run my own analysis of every book and see which ones fit. Maybe the Book of Enoch is inspired scripture. But then again, at that point I'd be making myself out as the authority on scripture, and in that sense making myself out to be God.
As for the traditions of Man, yes, I'd rather follow the traditions that have been carried down since the time of Christ. Sure, they've evolved, but they are not arbitrary, and they all serve at their core to glorify God in a beautiful, virtuous, and holy way. And none of them contradict the teachings of Christ. They all come from, and fulfill, His teachings. At worst, they don't contradict them.
And while obviously outward appearance isn't everything, if all else was the same, I'd pick the massive cathedral with strong traditions over the literal Burger King church that eschews all traditions every time (I always feel bad making a dig at the BK church. I'm sure they're good people, doing their best with what they have to follow God. Obviously, they can't just make a stone cathedral appear in some rural town. But it's still a Burger King, and that just epitomizes the soulless nature of our modern world for me. It's the complete opposite of what I want to go to Church for; To draw closer to God and to stray farther from the world).
As for the Pope, there is absolutely a scriptural argument. Jesus named Peter, which means rock, and then said, "on this rock I build my Church". You can disagree with this interpretation, and it does require believing extra-Biblical Roman claims, but that doesn't mean it isn't in there, and I'd simply refer back to what I said about knowing what is scripture. Without the knowledge of what is and isn't scripture, how do you know what the Bible really says? One of the books removed by Luther makes a much greater case for purgatory. Why isn't that book scripture? Because Rome says it is?
Whether you will admit it or not, every Roman doctrine is based on scripture. And the fact you reject their authority to determine what is scripture, quite ironically, means you don't really have any ground to stand on to authoritatively claim their interpretation is wrong. We'd simply be arguing personal opinions at that point.