Replies

BLUEDRAGON takes issue with Francis J. Beckwith

Rome needs some conservatives, yet some other RCs impugn such converts as being still infected with Prot theology.

DANIEL1212 produces a stack of comments to confirm that Catholicism requires unwavering obedience to its doctrines. But this is an unremarkable finding. Catholicism is not open to picking and choosing in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer divided itself into some 30,000 sects and keeps subdividing itself

You sure turn a blind eye to all that has refuted you so far, which you cannot recover from. At least you finally responded to one thing I said, yet which is the same specious comparison i exposed. as specious. As said but ignored, even the Armstrong apologist you invoked disowned the 33,000 sects, while you marginalize the divisions in your one organizational church while on the other hand RCs have such a broad definition of "Protestant" that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Unification 747 thru it. Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are far more unified in core conservative Truths than the overall fruit of Rome. Moreover, the fact is that Catholicism is indeed open to picking and choosing, the difference btwn it and Protestant is only a matter of degrees. But which division is covered up because Rome has organizational unity, which is because one can believe most anything and have this Org. treat and counts you a member and life and in death.

And she professes a limited degree of doctrinal assent, but which is largely on paper, with priests dissenting as well as laity. Moreover, what one does and overall effects is the evidence of what one believes, not merely what they profess. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 1:18; 1Cor. 4:20)

And both what level teachings fall under and their meanings are subject to different interpretation, even by councils. The result being, as shown before in the words of one poster who wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

RCs must count even even publicly know proabortion/sodomy/Muslim souls as bretheren, since Rome does and you are to follow your leaders, and cannot obey Scripture as fund,. evangelicals do. (2Cor. 6:14-18)

Then you have the significant differences with the EOs vs Rome.

Yet unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, as certain cults, which effectively operate under the Roman sola ecclesia model as the basis for the veracity of Truth claims, evidence the greatest corporate unity.

Under both sola ecclesia and sola Scriptura (or even prima Scriptura) we see divisions, and the real issue is what basis for the veracity of Truth claims is Scriptural.

And the fact is that, as explained but ignored, the church did not begin under the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. By which common souls judged men of God as being so, and followed itinerant preachers (and Preacher) in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Diving revelation, which under the Roman model are to be followed.

And under which manifest men of God (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) the church saw its early limited degree of unity. And which model for unity has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried, while Rome's carnal substitute is not Scriptural.

And as a former RC, who remained therein for 6 years after being manifestly born again, i can honestly testify that in terms of real spiritual unity based upon essential salvific Truth I have found far far more among evangelicals than among RCs (and i looked for such).

in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer

Actually, being able to separate, as Scripture requires, (2Cor. 6:14-18; cf. 1Co. 11:19) means that the the body of Christ and kingdom of God has greatly expanded itself thru division from liberal churches and Rome.Yet it seems RCs would rather have us be in liberal Prot churches than in conservative evang. ones, perhaps because the former are usually those closest to Rome.

And because multitudes of RCs become part of conservative evangelical churches which RCs attack, yet they are the most unified in conservative beliefs and values , despite being a faith which allegedly is all in disarray according to RCs. Because for RCs, the preeminence of Rome trumps all.

Just as one cannot pick and choose to believe in the writings of one Evangelist versus another,

RC theologians themselves still struggle to reconcile such in Scripture, but Rome does not get into officially defining many texts of Scripture much, and her commentary on such is often liberal.

(whose writings from hundreds of scripts were culled and presented as the authentic word of God in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority),

More dubious propaganda. The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

And scholarly doubts and disputes about books continued right into Trent, which provided the first "infallible" indisputable canon after the death of Luther. And who included the apocryphal books in his Bible, though in a separate section, in keeping with an ancient tradition.

Doctrinal menu selection is not how Petrine authority works.

Peter never gave the final word on doctrine as the head of all the church, and in Acts 15 it was James who provided the final judgment on what should be believed and done, confirmatory of what Peter Paul and Barnabas believed. And holy (he was) Peter was the only apostle to be openly rebuked by another apostle, (Gal. 2 due to his denial of this via his actions (though Barnabas also was also implicitly reproved).

Christ, taught ONE coherent truth and this is why He established ONE Church and entrusted the Great Commission to go forth and “teach.”

Which church is a critical deformation of the NT church , beginning with her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is the basis for the veracity of her claims. 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.

This is why St. Paul speaks of “obedience” to faith and teaching (Romans 6:17).

And utterly fails to even mention Peter in his extensive letter to that church on the obedience of faith, not even among his 27 acquaintances in Romans 16, nor in any epistles or letters in the life of the church does the Holy Spirit provide a reminder to submit to the pope as the supreme infallible Father/head of in Rome, or at least specifically to pray for him, or present him as first of a line of exalted infallible heads, all of which would befit a cardinal doctrine.

Your every attempt to defend Rome exposes the fallacious nature of your polemics.

This implies not only that we cannot have different “teachers” from Billy Graham to David Koresh and your corner street Foursquare Church pastor all offering “different versions” of God’s worth,

True to form, here you are lumping a man who operated more akin to Rome does with her popes with standard evangelical preachers. Yet you object to Mary Magdalena of the Cross as an example of what can exist in Rome, but this time was supposedly exposed. And as David Koresh types and liberals are to be combated, thus the modern evangelical movement arose in the last century, to combat liberal revisionism, which those who subscribe to this tradition still do, against such as deny the core apostle's creed truths we both concur on, as well as those who add to Scripture such as Mormonism and Rome. But also including the liberal revisionism Rome has taught in her own sanctioned Bibles for decades. The differences among such defenders is not on of God’s worth, but secondary issues.

Yet as with conservative RCs, they see the strongest unity as well as the strongest disputes, both due to their stronger commitment to Truth.

but that Catholic doctrine is a unified whole, and departures from it must of necessity be labeled a heresy.

Pure propaganda. A RC is not living in the real world but in a fantasy if they believe that. The doctrinal unity of Rome is overall largely on paper, and subject to variant interpretations, and thus you have schisms and sects among those who are committed to doctrinal purity based on historical writings. But rather than that, Rome seeks its members to implicitly assent to leaders, which define what Rome means in each generation. Meanwhile, in the past Rome has seen even more confusion at times.

He says that: “division produced Godly men such as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moody, Edwards, etc. Which are desperately needed today.” It escapes him that heretics, like atheists, Hindus, Rastafarian, can all lead good lives.

That is a manifestly desperate bit of sophistry, as the men listed were not simply good men, but Godly men of faith, being unified in core salvific Truths and love for Christ, though disagreeing on such issues as efficacy of grace with human freedom (which remains an unresolved dispute in Rome) and the larger issue of election.

They also all reject the Eucharistic Presence of Christ and the transubstantiation that occurs during the Sacrifice of The Mass, a centerpiece of Catholic doctrine.

Which makes them unified in rejecting heresy, which the Sacrifice of The Mass, the centerpiece of Catholic doctrine, manifestly is , with her separate class of believers distinctively titled priests (hierus), which the Holy Spirit never called NT presbuteros/episkopos, nor described them as having a distinctive sacerdotal function, nor are even shown dispensing bread as part of their ordained duties, and whose primary function is to pray and preach the word. (Acts 6:3,4; 2Tim. 4:2) The only priesthood in the NT church is that of all believers, who are all called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; Heb. 13:15,16)

Take for example Jay Richard. He is a senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. Richards holds a Master of Divinity degree, a Master of Theology degree and a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Which is simply another example of an apostate, and of your seeming mesmerization with intellectual elites, yet which, as showed before, is contrary to how the NT church began. It was the common people who hear the Lord gladly, and were led by unlettered men before Paul, whom we much esteem as compared with RCs, while the lettered looked down their nose at such.

Why don't you get one of your heavy weights to come here and debate here, who will actually defend Rome in her past and present incarnation? Let me know if you can get one to show up.