Daedalus, he's got a really good point here. Centuries, and an untold amount of blood were spent breaking away from the church. To claim 'Christians' must follow the church is to ignore the considerable effort required to break away from it. 'Christians' are free to do what they please.
I must admit I say it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but I think an argument could be made:
As a Roman Catholic myself I must say your argument is "A rather poor one at that". Let's see why.
1. They did set up the formal church and set the Canon. If all other Xians get their undertanding of Jesus's teachings from the Bible it is from the Roman Catholics.
Nonsense. The New Testament Scripture was compiled into the current form with only a few variations from church to church by the mid second century long before there was a Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholics did not agree on a formal Cannon until over 150 years later.
2. The RC have the strongest intellectual tradition with respect to apologetics and study of the Bible. Few Prots are even close in the amount of scholarship that the RC church has put in. Hell, I can become an ordained minister online in about a hour - and am, btw ;-))
All of this is of course debatable and barney blows credibility with such silly statements.
3. If you accept that Calvin and Luther are valid, then you have trouble stopping there. It opens the flood gates and lets any poor sod who wants to interpret the Bible. Surely they can't all be right - and in fact, I dare say, less than 1 of them are.
Like all other humans, Calvin and Luther were correct about some things and wrong about others. Your propensity to be incorrect and your propensity to deceive and lie here on this board is well known, so one should be cautious in accepting your claims.
4. The Pope said it - he's infallible. If you disagree, then you are attacking a man who follows the Bible and his religion to a "T". He epitomizes Xianity as presented in the Bible and you'd be calling him a Liar, Lunatic or Lacking Lucidity.
I don't see where any present day Popes claim to be infallible. The evidence from the distant past speaks for itself on this point. barney I find your arguments feeble.
If this is the case, why trust another person's interpretation of an ancient text that they can't read in the original language, haven't read all the external documents, haven't gone through years of study or exhibit any behavior that is "Jesus-like"?
You are making a Special Pleading that the interpretations of the Bible should not be trusted, but if then we should reject all books since it is possible to misinterpret what the author was trying to convey. since I am sure you are not making this argument, it becomes a special pleading.
The Baptist minister at my church became a preacher a few years ago - in his 40's because he "heard the call". He rushed through seminary (2 years) and, lo, is now telling his congregation how to think about the Bible.
That's his prerogative, just as you try to preach your worldview here on this site.
6. The RC actually does hold to the doctrines that are found in the Bible more closely than the others. This is demonstrable fact.
more closely than some others but not by a long shot the closest.
