[Dr Warmoose]

The scripture demands a unified church, free of schism and division, and insists that one such church shall persist. I pointed out how the protestant church does not meet that scriptural requirement.

Your argument fails on every point:
Demands made in Scripture are just that - demands. God commands all sinners to repent, yet few do. Demands are made all of the time in Scripture, and rarely every fulfilled. The only demands that really do find its completion are those that God demands of Himself.

Your argument also fails in its presumption that the demand is fufilled by the church, yet Paul writes to the first church (the one that the RCC claims descendancy from) exhorting them to be free of schisms and division. Clearly that is the optimum, yet unachieved state of the Church. Little has changed in two thousand years.

There is no singular protestant church (noting your use of the definite article). Therefore whatever you tried to point out is invalid.

To say that because the protestant church has allegedly failed makes it aximatic that the Roman Catholic Cartel has succeeded is a non-sequitor.

You probably get what you feel are ad-hominems because that appears to be the only level of debate that you can comprehend and appreciate.

[dangus]

>>Your argument fails on every point:
>>Demands made in Scripture are just that - demands. God commands all sinners to repent, yet few do. Demands are made all of the time in Scripture, and rarely every fulfilled. The only demands that really do find its completion are those that God demands of Himself. >>

Actually, what it does is demonstrate that the "Reformation" was sinful. If the early Protestants were right, they should've done what the Jesuits did: Continue within the church to promulgate their viewpoints until they are adopted by the Church. Learn about Ignatius of Loyola or Francis of Assissi or Catherin of Sienna (or dozens of other reformers) before you accept that schism was necessary because of the sinful state of the church.

That being said, what I argued was not that the bible commands that there be one church, but rather that it insists that there *shall* be one church. "I shall build my Church (singular), and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." Doesn't say, "should not prevail against it." It says "shall not."

>> There is no singular protestant church (noting your use of the definite article). Therefore whatever you tried to point out is invalid. >>

No, that's my POINT, that the very commonly used Protestant apologetic that all the protestants who agree with the given apologist comprise a single "church of all believers" regardless of their denomination is not valid.

>>To say that because the protestant church has allegedly failed makes it aximatic that the Roman Catholic Cartel has succeeded is a non-sequitor.>>

Except that's not what I'm saying. I never claimed my one post was a comprehensive apologetic. I plainly acknowledge that one could read what I wrote, agree with it, and become an Orthodox Christian.

>> You probably get what you feel are ad-hominems

Oh right... I only "feel" the cheap shot about pederast priests was an ad hominem...