Roman Catholicism: The One True Church?

For a group that detests the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura y'all sure like fragmenting Scripture and building an entire teaching on on that fragment.

Amazing, isn't it? Suddenly those who hold Bible believers in contempt become Bible literalists when it suits them.

Nothing about a priesthood, a home office in The Vatican. Pure and simple it is about how we are to respond, one on one, to sin, elevating to the local church and how the local church is to respond.

Matthew 18:20 which concludes this section seems to counter the idea of heavily institutionalized churches: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them." Jesus set pretty low entry hurdles for a church.

.
>> Matthew 18:20 which concludes this section seems to counter the idea of heavily institutionalized churches: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there in the midst of them.” Jesus set pretty low entry hurdles for a church. <<

Actually, he set a very high hurdle, compared to the catholic cult:

He said “In My Name,” not in the name of the mary/Ishtar/Easter proxy.
.

He set a low numerical hurdle but a high standard of Gospel : Jesus Christ and Him crucified (for our sins).

Catholics are, indeed, GOD's chosen people.
And Prots???

For a group that detests the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura y'all sure like fragmenting Scripture and building an entire teaching on on that fragment.

Amen bro. I would say some people are not even in the ballpark, when it comes to rightly dividing the word of truth.

Have you found that Official List of Pauline Traditions and a documented chain of custody yet?

It’s been an awfully long time since you claimed to have them.

Best.

bummmp

WVKayaker who having called Catholics “cultists,” now keeps repeating his blah, blah…”

Which you have only served to confirm with more of your soliloquy. Which contains not one valid argument for Rome which has not been refuted, and continues to resort to the delusion that since some intellects were deceived by the smoke and mirrors of Rome, assenting to a church which is radically contrary than that of the NT one - which began contrary to the premise that the lettered led the way - then other should follow their broad road to destruction.

RCs seem to be ignorant of the fact that such attempts at defending Rome are an argument against being a RC. No wonder some constantly resort to appeal to greater minds than them, even though Scripture overall does the contrary, as indeed it usually is to faith, while evangelicals have their real intellectuals who are wise enough to see and expose the deceptiveness of Rome based upon the wisdom God, that being Scripture. Thanks be to God.

Elise can’t seem to distinguish between the personal lives of Popes and Catholic doctrine.

Actually, Scripturally it is what one does and effects that constitutes the evidence of what one believes, which for Rome overall has ranged producing from popes obtaining and maintaining their power thru the use of the sword of men, to much hindering literacy in Scripture, to calling for cultic devotion, and fostering spiritual deadness as well as liberalism, which her scholasticism much examples. Yet as in Islam, there have been many RCs of character, and a few that know the Lord, but which is due to Scriptural Truths we also contend for.

But RCs have been trained from of old to be like a docile flock and follow the Pastors, and which (according to some brethren of yours quoting Pius X) as shown and ignored, extends beyond matters touching the faith, but "to all matters which the episcopal power embraces )which as Pope." And which obedience to men above unchanging Scripture has resulted in men torturing suspected "heretic" and witnesses, and exterminating the former, to affirming that Islam worships the same God as RCs, to opposing fracking and Climate Change.. When leadership goes South, which unchanging Scripture never does, so do its followers. /p>

Meanwhile, ignoring the fact that those who actually hold most strongly to the most primary principle of the Reformation have been the most committed and unified (on the popular level where it counts) in) in basic conservative beliefs, it is you who "can’t seem to distinguish between" men such as Jim Jones who operated more according to popes than men subject to Scripture, versus men who preached the historical Truths we both concur on, as well as against men like Jones.

Any reference to reputed Protestant and Evangelical theologians who convert to Catholicism is the subject of lampoon.

Actually, such have been shown to be contrary to your screed against Protestantism, and to provide testimony against RC propaganda.

Never mind they did so only after extended years of research and study at the university level.

But that measure you should at least convert to being an EO, and deny papal infallibility (from which the authority of RC bishops flows), as well as other things. Yet the very premise that intellectualism is the higher path to Truth usually leads to liberalism and often to atheism.

And what Scripture admonishes is not pride and higher reverence of men due to their intellectual status, but,

Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits. (Romans 12:16)

Daniel1212 is more colorful. For him these theologians are nothing but “bloviating bombast,”

Which examples an inability to follow an argument, despite your exaltation of intellect. For in reality, as one "can see , "bloviating bombast referred to your latest recourse to invoking intellectualism as being the standard for spiritual discernment, and therefore, "there is nothing more to discuss."

and then goes on to add it is “akin to the sneer of the blind learned chief priests and Pharisees in response to the judgment of common folk to the preaching of a certain itinerant Preacher.” It is unclear whether his reference is to theologians in general (including the early Church fathers); or only the ones who agree with him (since he does reference quite a few of them in his own post)

What ought to be clearly perceived, if not those whose minds are clouded by inability to see what refutes them, is that the bloviating bombast refers to the incessant assertions that in so many words argues that the judgment of intellectuals settles the matter as to Rome being the one true church. And to which my reply was perfectly pertinent.

For indeed, it was common souls who recognized what the learned elites did not/would not, but like RCs, the learned replied, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (John 7:47-49

Daniel1212 would therefore aggregate Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and Benedict “to the sneer of the blind learned chief priests and Pharisees.”

More of "this people who knoweth not the law are cursed," while it is the insolent attitude and assertions that these intellects example superior judgment that is justly rebuked.

To Iscool, theologians who converted to Catholicism lie. And by extension so too would be the early Church fathers since they extensively rely on their writings.

Actually, what is a lie is that most of all early Church fathers wrote is available, and that they were all uniform in beliefs, and all supported Rome, and are determinative for doctrine, and that their testimony is to be the basis for RC assurance. None of which is true.

while on his way to execution St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote: “Where the bishop is present, let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Which means that that Prot churches are Catholic churches, since Christ is there according to V2. And these actually have pastors which are distinctively called presbuteros (senior/elder) not hiereus (priests), which the NT knew nothing of (except as pertaining to all believers).

And neither this or other quotes by Ignatius of Antioch are going to testify to the supreme infallible Roman papacy to which all the church looked to. And who, in his letter to the Church at Rome in the light of his expected imminent martyrdom, stated, I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict.. (4.3 ) - http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm

Thus your "As early as 110 A.D." gains you no support for your papacy, nor will anything else as that was a latter development in deformation.

The Church believes that when the bishops speak as teachers, Christ speaks; for he said to them: “He who hears you, hears me; and he who rejects you, rejects me” (Lk 10, 16).

But that this refers to the Catholic church alone, based upon the premise of it maintaining her priesthood, is simply a question-begging assertion, and which effectively nukes the NT church (which is not new for you) since it had no class of sacerdotal believers distinctively titled "priests" due to a having distinctive sacrificial function.

Nor does Lk 10:16 teach that the Church of Rome uniquely (or if at all) has authority to preach in the name of the Lord, which sectarian spirit the Lord Himself reproved. (Mk. 9:38-40)

In short it is only “Iscool’s” own understanding of scripture (the oral Word of God in John 21: 25 doesn’t count for anything) that is “authoritative.”

You tried this before and which basis for support was exposed as spurious, as John 21: 25 would justify a virtual bottomless pit of material being claims to be inspired tradition, while John specifically says that he wrote his record so that we may have eternal life.

Do you ever come up with something original for Rome that has not been refuted?

We can include in this roster of those claiming scriptural theology as Bible Christians such luminaries as Jim Jones, David Koresh, Joel Osteen, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Moonies, and Billy Graham.

Yet again! Do you realize how dumb and desperate this broadbrush makes RCs look? Do you really think the likes of David Koresh, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the Moonies, were really operating under the premise of Scripture being the supreme authority as literally being the wholly inspired word of God as per Reformers, rather than being more like popes? Do you?

Your polemic is like a Muslim arguing for a Islamic theocracy since America produced liberal pols who sometimes invoke the Constitution, but which is not their real authority. For one who esteems intellectualism, you sure have exampled an inability to form a valid argument that can stand.

By now it should become readily apparent that that if these folks represent a sample of Bible Christian thinking

Since your premise is false, so is your conclusion, as usual, as in reality the likes of David Koresh, Rev. Jeremiah Wright were more like autocratic popes who presumed a level of veracity above that which is written, and or reduced the authority of Scripture as supreme by liberal views of it.

Hang the theologians, the early Church fathers included. Let’s get on with the show.

Which is akin to the Jewish argument that followers of common people are wrong since there leaders did not follow the itinerant preachers of the sect of the Nazarene. Instead, while evangelicals actually have contended quite strongly for Scriptural Truths such theologians articulated, and Reformists often invoked them, as with the NT church they rejected the tares of tradition.

Also, the esteemed Pelikan stated in sound mind, "Recent research on the Reformation entitles us to sharpen it and say that the Reformation began because the reformers were too catholic in the midst of a church that had forgotten its catholicity..." — Jaroslav Pelikan, The Riddle of Roman Catholicism (New York: Abingdon Press, 1959, p. 46),

“The reformers were catholic because they were spokesmen for an evangelical tradition in medieval catholicism, what Luther called "the succession of the faithful." The fountainhead of that tradition was Augustine (d. 430). His complex and far-reaching system of thought incorporated the catholic ideal of identity plus universality, and by its emphasis upon sin and grace it became the ancestor of Reformation theology. … All the reformers relied heavily upon Augustine. They pitted his evangelical theology against the authority of later church fathers and scholastics, and they used him to prove that they were not introducing novelties into the church, but defending the true faith of the church.”

“...To prepare books like the Magdeburg Centuries they combed the libraries and came up with a remarkable catalogue of protesting catholics and evangelical catholics, all to lend support to the insistence that the Protestant position was, in the best sense, a catholic position.

Additional support for this insistence comes from the attitude of the reformers toward the creeds and dogmas of the ancient catholic church. The reformers retained and cherished the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the two natures in Christ which had developed in the first five centuries of the church….”

“If we keep in mind how variegated medieval catholicism was, the legitimacy of the reformers' claim to catholicity becomes clear. (Pelikan, pp. 46-47).

Thus the recourse by Manning was to basically assert that history is only how Rome sees it!

Among all the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Christ.

WRONG. The church of Rome is fundamentally and otherwise in contrast to the NT church, as it is the result of progressive deformation. Which as said, even Cath. scholarship, as well as others, provides testimony to

However, the only one true church is the body of Christ, as it alone 100% consists of only true believers, while both they and tares express their faith in visible churches. As the Lord's letters to the churches (and absent of any mention of a pope) of Asia confirms.

And one can hold to various errors and yet lay hold of Christ, trusting God to save by His sinless blood, on His account, out of a poor and contrite heart which God promises to heed. (Ps. 34:18)

Thus the gates of Hell did not overcome the church according to its normal definition in the NT (aside from addressing specific organic bodies), which gates the Catholic church progressively has become for multitudes.

The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054.

Which say the same of you, though both hold to serious errors:

Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs.

Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II.

All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer.

On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

And Newman confessed,

“ It never could be, that so large a portion of Christendom should have split off from the communion of Rome, and kept up a protest for 300 years for nothing. I think I never shall believe that so much piety and earnestness would be found among Protestants, if there were not some very grave errors on the side of Rome. To suppose the contrary is most unreal, and violates all one's notions of moral probabilities. All aberrations are founded on, and have their life in, some truth or other—and Protestantism, so widely spread and so long enduring, must have in it, and must be witness for, a great truth or much truth. That I am an advocate for Protestantism, you cannot suppose;—but I am forced into a Via Media, short of Rome, as it is at present.” - John Newman, Apologia Pro Vita, Cp. 4, April 26, 1841; http://www.newmanreader.org/works/apologia65/chapter4-1.html

The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation that began in 1517.

Wrong, as the typical RC definition of "Protestant" so broad that you could drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Episcopalian Unification 747 thru it. Meanwhile, authenticity in the NT does not rest upon formal descent, anymore than that of a true Jew does, (Rm. 2:29,29) but like as "he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God, (Romans 2:29) so Protestantism is a manifestation of the NT church, as a necessary if incomplete and imperfect reformation (as all visible churches are) of the NT church.

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself.

Nonsense. "Unbroken succession" can only be claimed under Rome's autocratic definition of "unbroken," which has no limit on how long the chair can be absent (and has been up to about 3 years at least once), and regardless of rival popes.

As your esteemed Ratzinger summed up (though already shown you and ignored),

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196).

Christians all this is “blah, blah blah,” including Matthew 16:19: “And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” These keys were not given to Daniel1212 and WVKayayker, or Elsie, or Iscool.. You ask how this Tomfoolery is justified, and Bible Christians would reach down into the shallowest of the shallow waters of exegesis and toss out a quote from Matthew 18:20 “For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” They appear to have no clue in the meaning of the phrase “in my name.” That royal phrase not only means based on all His teachings, it gathers force from the prior verses:

Which again manifests that it you who are guilty of what you charge, as first, “in my name” is just what the man was acting in whom the disciples forbade him from doing, but who was sanctioned by the Lord. (Mk. 9:38-40)

Secondly, the preceding also does not restrict this binding/loosing to the magisterium, as Mt. 18:15-17 deals with the judicial aspect of disfellowship and consequences, which judgment is also seen in the OT, and is not even dealing with doctrinal issues despite RCs invoking it for that. Yet the binding aspect goes beyond this, to "whatever you bind on earth," and as with "in my name" extends to all holy believers. For binding and loosing also refers to such things as healing and acts such as Elijah showed, which gifts and acts are not restricted to the magisterium.

Of course, if you want to argue that no one can have valid authority apart from the sanction of the historical magisterium, then go ahead and nuke the NT church again.

A concise comparison for you:

Partial list of contrasts between the New Testament church and Roman Catholicism.
Leadership	NT church	Commentary (a short summary, as by God's grace, defenders of Rome have been refuted time and time again into silence or there recourse to spitwads, as can be shown).
	• No apostles elected by voting. • No successors after Judas, with the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office by way of ordination being that of presbuteros/episkopos. • Peter as as non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, with no succession or preparation for one. • No corporate view of Peter as their first of supreme infallible popes in Rome. • Nowhere in the NT, interpretive of Mt. 16:18, is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. • No leadership claiming/possessing ensured perpetual infallibility. • No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice. • No leadership distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests): only presbuteros/ episkopos (same office: Titus 1:5-7). • No leadership with unique sacrificial function, offering food as sacrifice. • The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God. • No required celibacy for leadership. Most were married.	• There were no apostolic successors after Judas, which was (in order to maintain foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) Peter was the initial, non-assertive street-level leader among the 11, once even listed after James (who provided the conclusive judgment in Acts 15) in Gal. 2 as one of 3 present who appeared to be pillars. To whom Rome's ensured perpetual formulaic infallibility is nowhere promised, and in contrast holy (he was) Peter was the only apostle directly publicly rebuked. • No succession for Peter or preparation for one is seen in the NT, an incongruous conspicuous omission for a cardinal doctrine, while ordination of leaders is described and taught. For the only continuously perpetuated pastoral office (unless deacons are included) by way of formal ordination was that of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both of which refer to those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7) • Nowhere is the church described as looking to Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads in Rome, nor told to even in any of the church epistles or in the Lord's commendations and criticisms of the 7 churches of Asia. • Nowhere interpretive of Mt. 16:18 is Peter called or described as the Rock upon which the church was built. Instead, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) • Nowhere is leadership/magisterial office promised ensured perpetual infallibility. RCs extrapolate support for this out of promises of God's presence and preservation, but which Israel has as well. They also hold that an infallible magisterium is essential to know what is of God (writing and men) and their meaning, but which was never required before, and is contrary to how the church began. • Nowhere is leadership distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests), which distinctive title is only used for Jewish and pagan priests. Catholics try to defend the use of priests by relying on an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy ">etymological fallacy </a>, since "priest," from old English "preost," etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," but which is not what the latter means. Instead the use of the title priests was a latter development due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function, which they did not. • Nowhere is leadership even shown distributing food as part of their specific ordained function, (Acts 6:3,4) and is nowhere is the Lords' Supper shown to be led by priests conducting it, let alone offering it as a sacrifice for sins to be consumed to obtain eternal life. The command to “do this in memory of Me” is nowhere shown to be specifically and uniquely given to leadership, let alone a class titled “priests.” • The primary function of pastors was that of prayer and preaching the word of God, (Acts 6:3,4) which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers, and believing it is how the lost obtain life in themselves. (1 Timothy 4:6; Psalms 19:7;Acts 15:7-9) • Nowhere is celibacy a requirement for leadership, as in contrast marriage was the norm for pastors, include most of the apostles. Paul and Barnabas under a vow to stay single. (1Cor. 9:4; 1Tim. 3:1-7)
The Lord's Supper	• The Lord's Supper is ordained as an ordinance by which that believers remember the Lord's death and show fellowship with Christ by a commemorative shared meal. • Nowhere is spiritual life obtaining by literally eating anything physical. Instead, spiritual life is obtained by hearing and believing the gospel of grace.	• Nowhere, interpretive of of the gospels, is the Lord's Supper itself described as offering for sin, or to be consumed in order to obtain essential spiritual life. Instead is only described in one epistle and in which it is analogous to pagans having fellowship with their gods, not by consuming their flesh, but by the communal meal done in dedication to the object of worship. By which believers remember the Lord's death and fellowship with Christ by a commemorative communal meal, sharing food in recognition of each other being part of the body of Christ which He purchased with His own sinless shed blood. Only the metaphorical See here. By God's grace. • Nowhere is spiritual life obtaining by literally eating anything physical, as per transubstantiation. Spiritual life is obtained by hearing and believing the gospel of grace, which is said to "nourish" the souls of believers and build them up (1 Timothy 4:6; Acts 20:32)
Baptism	• Baptism is ordained by which souls confess the Lord Jesus, identifying with Him in His death by full immersion. • It is the faith behind baptism that purifies the heart, not the act itself effecting it. • Nowhere are any infants manifestly described as being baptized.	• Souls confess and identify with the Lord Jesus in baptism by full immersion, as that alone corresponds to burial (as a liquid grave) and is what the Greek word means. (Acts 8:38; Rm. 6:1ff) • It is the faith behind baptism that purifies the heart, as Peter preached and described, (Acts 10:43; 15:7-9) not the act itself effecting it. As baptism requires and evidences faith, so it is promised that those who will repent and baptized will be saved, just as whosoever shall call upon the Lord, who believe in their heart and confess with their mouth faith in the gospel are promised salvation. (Rm. 10:9-13) • Nowhere are any infants manifestly described as being baptized, the stipulated requirements for which are repentance and wholehearted faith. (Acts 2:38; 8:36,37) .
Gospel and soteriology	• Preached the death, burial and resurrection of the Lord Jesus, the Son of God, and forgiveness of sins and regeneration by the Spirit of God by faith, which is counted for righteousness, but which is a faith that is (normally) confessed first in baptism.	• Believers are promised forgiveness of sins and regeneration by the Spirit of God by faith in the Lord Jesus who died for us and whom God raised up. As a result, their faith (a living faith, such as is confessed in baptism and following the Lord) is counted for righteousness, and the believer is washed, sanctified and justified on account of thew sinless and perfect Christ, not their own righteousness. (Rm. 3:10- 5:1; 1Cor. 6:11; Eph. 2:8,9; Titus 3:5) • The merit of works is excluded as the basis for justification, with “works of the law” usually being used as that is the epitome of salvation by merit. "If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law." (Galatians 3:21) When Abraham believed God to do what he could not do then it was counted unto him for righteousness, though he had done works before that. Likewise we must believe God to do what we cannot not do, that is, to justify ourselves by becoming good enough to be with God, which God does by imputation of righteousness by faith in the Jesus Christ the righteous. • In contrast, Catholicism teaches that the one is formally justified by his own holiness, first effected by the act of baptism, leaving the subject holy enough to be with God. Thus Rome holds that most believers must spend an indeterminate postmortem time suffering “purifying torments” in mythical “Purgatory” until the subject becomes good enough, free of character defects, to be with God (and atone for sins). • Works/holiness do have a justificatory effect, that of justifying one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace, with God rewarded faith in recognition of its works, (Mt. 25:31-40; Heb. 6:9,10; 10:35; Rv. 3:4) even though in conversion, man is both enabled and motivated (Jn. 6:44; 16:8-11; 12:32; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Eph. 2:8,9) to do what he otherwise could not and would not do, and then enables and motivates the believer to live for God. (Phil. 2:13; 1Co. 11:32) • However, believers can choose to sin, and are warned against having an evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God, falling from grace, drawing back into perdition, making Christ of no effect/profit, falling from grace. (Heb. 3:12; 10:38; Gal. 5:1-4) Thus God works to chasten wayward souls to repentance, lest they “be condemned with the rest of the world.” (1Co. 11:32
Afterlife	• All true believers go to be with the Lord at death or at His return, the latter being the next transformative effect believers look to. After which is the only suffering believers will realize, that being the loss of rewards.	• What Scripture teaches wherever it manifestly speaks about the next life, is that since believers are forgiven on account of Christ, on His merit, then all true believers presently are “accepted in the Beloved,” and made to sit together with Christ in the heavenly, (Eph. 1:6;2:6) and go to be with the Lord at death or at His return. it is always with the Lord. (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3;2) And which is the next transformative event believers look to, that of being conformed to Christ. (2Cor. 5:2,3; 1Cor. 15; 1Jn. 3:2) • At/after which coming ( versus purgatory, which has souls suffering upon death) believers at the judgment seat of Christ (1Cor. 3:8ff; 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4) will gain or lose rewards based on the quality of the material they used to build the church with, which loss is only (and momentary) suffering (along with the grievous displeasure of the Lord) believers will realize after leaving this world. Scripture also only reveals growth in grace and overcoming and prolonged suffering as being realized in this world, with its temptations and trials, (1 Peter 1:6-7; 1Jn.2:14; 5:4,5; Rv. 2.7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21) where alternatives to submitting to God can be made (suffering itself does not make one mature) and thus it was here that the Lord Himself was made “perfect,” (Heb. 2:10) as in being “in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.” (Heb. 4:15)
Scripture	• Scripture is manifest as being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. • Scriptural substantiation in word and in power was the basis for the veracity of Truth claims. • Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity	It is abundantly evidenced that the word of God/the Lord was normally written, even if sometimes subsequent to being spoken, and that as written, the written word of God became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.) Scriptural substantiation in word and in power was the basis for Truth claims, not the premise of ensured papal/magisterial infallibility, which is nowhere seen or promised nor necessary to preserve faith. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity as per Rome, if available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.
Oral tradition	• Oral “tradition” was that of orally preaching Scriptural Truths, as a Sola Scriptura preacher is to do, while it also included new revelation as well as wholly inspired preaching of the word of God. • Nowhere was the veracity of oral tradition based upon the premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.	Oral “tradition” was that of orally preaching Scriptural Truths by the whole church,(Acts 8:4) as a Sola Scriptura preacher is to do, while it also included new revelation and Divinely revealed Truths as the wholly inspired preaching word of God (which is uniquely powerful: Heb. 4:12). neither of which Rome claims to do (she claims her oral tradition is inspired, but not the written promulgation of it). Nowhere was the veracity of oral tradition based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but Scripture was the standard by which all was tested by. (Acts 17:11)
Prayer	• Prayer directly to God by the blood of Christ, who is the only heavenly intercessor between God and man. • Never prayed to any created beings in Heaven.	• Nowhere in all of Scripture, with its over 200 recorded prayers, did any believer pray to anyone else in Heaven by God, who alone is shown to be able to hear and personally respond multitudinous prayers to Heaven. The Lord's own instructions on prayer was to “Our Father who art in Heaven,” to whom the Spirit in believers cries out to, never “Our Mother.” • Communication between created beings always required both to be in the same realm, even if via a vision. Christ is taught as being the only and wholly sufficient and accessible heavenly intercessor between God and man. (1Tim. 2:5; Heb. 2:18 4:14-16)
Mary	• Mary simply presented as a holy devout vessel of God, used to provide the body God had prepared for His Divine Son, whom she owed her existence to. • No prayers were made to her, while she prayed directly to the Lord, nor are many other things taught of her that are said of the Mary of Catholicism.	• Mary presented as a holy vessel of God used to provide the body God had prepared, (Heb. 10:5) owing her very breath to the Son of God who was incarnated through her, (Jn. 1:1-3) and whom she was a mother to. Which Christ said all obedient believers were. • Scripture never records her as a women who never sinned, and or as a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as in leaving and sexually cleaving), nor as one who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted (officially or with implicit sanction) as the Queen of Heaven, as an almost almighty demigoddess. • Scripture does not teach the Mary of Catholicism, to whom "Jesus owes His Precious Blood" to. Whose [Mary] merits we are saved by; who "had to suffer, as He did, all the consequences of sin;" whose power now "is all but unlimited," "surpassing in power all the angels and saints in Heaven," so much that she "seems to have the same power as God," that “even God himself, is subject to the Blessed Virgin” since her prayers and requests are as commands, and that "the Holy Spirit acts only by the Most Blessed Virgin, his Spouse," and that “sometimes salvation is quicker if we remember Mary's name then if we invoked the name of the Lord Jesus," and who (obviously) cannot "be honored to excess."
Worship	• Worship was to God alone, with such things as making supplication to other being in heaven being idolatry.	• Worship was to be to God alone in spirit and in Truth, (Jn. 4:24) with ascribing uniquely Divine attributes to created beings, including the ability to hear and personally respond to prayer in Heaven, and bowing down as before them (or their representative images) and making supplication to them, constituting idolatry, (Jer. 44; Acts 7:43) even if it was an instrument used by God. (Num. 21:9; 2Ki. 18:4)
Miscl.	• “Saints” denoted all believers. God was distinctive from that of the known God of pagans. • Did not rule over those without, nor use the sword of men for church purposes.	• The NT never called a separate class of believers “saints,” which term denoted all believers. • Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an "unknown god") is the same as theirs. • Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters, as instead disfellowship and the spiritual power was their recourse, and relegated dealing with those without the church to being outside their realm. (1Cor. 5:4,5,11-13; 1Tim. 1:20)

Acts 2

Acts 10

Comment

The absurdity of these Bible Christians are in their fullest display when in an attempt to devalue the role of Mary in salvation they would go so far as to rewrite scripture itself. Daniel 1212 does this by borrowing from what appears to be from an anti-Catholic blog. For emphasis he adds an accompaniment to his posting of an animated cartoon. He writes: “The word for “full” is not even in Lk. 1:28.” Here’s Luke 1:28 based on the Douay Reims version: “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.”

Which only reveals your lack of an actual argument again, makes RC ignorance more manifest, as if you dared to read what refutes you then you could see that the DRB version is wrong, as is the Vulgate whence it can, and thus your own NAB and RNAB, which are Bibles sanctioned by your bishops (if you are an American) correct it and say, "high favored." This is what is read in Mass. Thus you must also accuse sanctioned RC scholarship of rewriting scripture itself. Yet the superior intellect of Rome is what you direct us to. Of course, it is apparent that you are part of a traditionalist sect, formally or not, in that great amalgamation of Rome.

After heaping scorn on the “bloviating bombast” of scholars, he takes on their mantle and we see an emperor, a pretender to the throne of theologian without clothes.

Which, in the light of evidence, is simply more desperate “bloviating bombast” which is a poor substitute for a valid argument.

aMoreperfectunion demands we show him a single “deep fact or piece of evidence” that Bible Christians swim as “shallow fish in shallow waters.” We just gave him one courtesy of Daniel1212.

Rather, contrary to your desperate recourse to sarcasm, it is you who have been shown to be ignorant time and time again.

And while Scripture teaches no other successors to apostles (as for James: Acts 12:1,2) except for presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), which refers to those in the same office, (Titus 1:5-7) Rome ordains a class of believers distinctively titled “hiereus” (priests), and which is defended by the use of an etymological fallacy , since "priest" from old English "preost" etymologically is derived from "presbyteros," due to imposed functional equivalence, supposing NT presbyteros engaged in a unique sacrificial ministry as a primary function, which they did not.

aMoreperfectunion replies: “Obviously, they knew what the traditions were that Paul referred to.” But he never takes the next step to then tell us why it was so “obvious” and if obvious “what” those obvious traditions are or at what point those traditions “ceased” to be obvious.

Since they were enjoined to obey what was preached, it is obvious (if not to you) that they knew what these traditions were. Whether aMoreperfectunion argued the rest i know not, but RCs face the same problem of showing what those traditions are. And as said, the veracity of which rests upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.

He, Editor-Surveyor needs no interpretation on the “Word” of God.

Your use of fring Prots here is akin to invoking those of history, while dismissing your own even though it is you that is preaching a particular church, and and which reveals your desperation, duplicity and sophistry.

“No ‘interpretation’ is definitive. Scripture is understood by the ‘reasoning of Christ.’”...Hang the theologians!

Yes historical Protestantism built universities such as Harvard, Yale before libs took over, and produced many notable theologians.Thus one can see thru your broadbrush.

The Great Commission given to Peter: “Go forth and teach….” no longer matters.

Rather, this applies to all believers, and evangelicals do far more in this regard thanks be to God.

So when the Christ says: “If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church...” these Bible Christians would perhaps answer Him: “We need no church,” “We need no human institution,”

Which is contrary to the Reformation, which, as shown, affirms this, while libs find a comfortable home in Rome far more than in evangelical bodies.

“The people you are ‘dialoging’ with refuse to acknowledge that indeed, they use their own interpretation (opinion) of Scripture as ‘evidence’ of their position.”

And which you are not dialoging with, but avoid this by superficial pot shots, while what RCs refuse to acknowledge is that indeed they use their own interpretation (opinion) of Scripture and RC teaching as ‘evidence’ of their position, while censoring evangelicals who make the weight of Scriptural warrant their basis for veracity, which is Scriptural.

Bible Christianity by its own terms is quicksand. Once you step on it you are pulled deeper. It’s just like a deep-water theological rip tide that pulls you in, and when you resist, you drown.

Since Bible Christianity by your own terms is defined by Jim Jones, to the Moonies, to whatever, then this is simply more sophistry by a RC.

I agree this much. When all is said and done they are our brothers and sisters even when “not in full communion with the Church” as Daniel 1212 once appeared to quote with approval Benedict’s magnum opus on “Dominus Iesus."

Which seems to compel backtracking on your part, as the affirmation of Dominus Iesus (those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church. ” “All who have been justified by Faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ: they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” — http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html) is certainly contrary to your inane scornful conclusion that "Protestantism is a mass of sheer rot," "all drivel."

However, contradicting modern RC teaching, and statements of the very intellects you invoke, while making David Koresh a Bible Christian has never phased you. Such is the substance of your sophistry and spitwads.

Thus we do well to heed the advice of the RM in such a case:

If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.

I think we have all said enough.

Glad you concur.

But RCs have been trained from of old to be like a docile flock and follow the Pastors...

poor training is evidently RAMPANT!!

Many of our FR Catholics show a distinct aversion to their present pope.

Folks wonder what qualifies them to make such a judgment call.

A most excellent post...Thank you...

WVKayaker who having called Catholics “cultists,” now keeps repeating his blah, blah…”

Actually, "blah, blah, blah" is more cogent and intellectually honest that the screeds posted by that one. After refutation, his posts recite the same defeated arguments and contain little more than ad hominem's looking for a place to settle. But, those of us who have accepted the Truth of God's plan, are instructed to speak against all that hogwash.

Roman Catholicism exists because too may people are too willing to accept those things taught them at an early age, without questioning the veracity thereof. Scripture offers everything necessary for Salvation. Jesus paid the price for our sinful nature and our sinful lives. There is nothing to add to that, and looking at their practices, it is clear they seek tangible aspects of religion, over the comfort (and sometimes Discomfort) of His indwelling Holy Spirit.

Paul sums it up nicely in his letter to the Romans. It is difficult to excerpt only one part of that letter, but one that stands out in my mind is his reflection on human nature... his own...

Romans 7: 14 We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.

21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!

So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.

Note that somehow the html from the table that was inserted must have failed to have had a break, so that the below is in the right column. Sorry.