[xzins]

What his motives are is irrelevant as CDL stated.

CDL is wrong; Of course his motives are relevant. If his motive were to attack a protestant church because he is covertly anti-protestant would be very relevant.

But, the larger issue is that pro610 cannot legitimately protest methods and doctrines of others and simultaneously accept less than stellar methods and doctrines in his own church. As a methodist, I can protest homosexual ordination in other denominations if I protest it in my own.

I cannot protest it in others if I ACCEPT it in my own.

That is contradictory and illogical. I've lived with this and fought it in my own denomination for years, so don't tell me I'm wrong.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

CDL is wrong; Of course his motives are relevant. If his motive were to attack a protestant church because he is covertly anti-protestant would be very relevant.

CDL is NOT wrong. This is real simple.

• pro610 has presented a proposition concerning Rick Warren and/or the PDC/PDL.
• He has used evidence from Protestant Sources to present that proposition.
• He has not made any discernable comments concerning Catholic Dogma where it would disagree with Protestant Dogma...remember, we do share five creeds in common with Roman Catholicism...those of us who are Creedal. Certainly he has not done so on this particular thread.
• Whatever pro610's motives, those who would oppose his propositions are obligated to FIRST answer his arguments.
• If and ONLY if pro610's evidenced assertion is disproven on the basis of the EVIDENCE, then it is legitimate to quesion motives in search of the answer to the question of HOW pro610 could have been in error.

Q.E.D., Until pro610's assertion is determined to be either true or false, motive is irrelevant.

In the abstract, there are four distinct possibilities:

1. pro610's assertion is true, and he has an alterior motive.
2. pro610's assertion is true and he does not have an alterior motive.
3. pro610's assertion is false, and he does not have an alterior motive.
4. pro610's assertion is false and he does have an alterior motive.

Existence or non-existence of an alterior motive is not in itself a causual factor in whether the assertion is true or false. In other words, it does not answer the question IF. It may answer the question of HOW, but one must first prove the assertion to be false.

But, the larger issue is that pro610 cannot legitimately protest methods and doctrines of others and simultaneously accept less than stellar methods and doctrines in his own church. As a methodist, I can protest homosexual ordination in other denominations if I protest it in my own.

This does not follow. First, no one here knows to what extent pro610 holds to the truth of all Roman Catholic Dogma. He has been silent on that issue. Claiming that he affirms the Baltimore Catechism in it's entirety is at best, speculative, and an argument from inference that is proven false by the existence in schisms in both Catholicism and Protestantism, even within particular congregations. For example, Corin Stormhands has often told of his time of membership in a PCA congregation, yet he did not adhere to Calvinism, nor i believe (Corin, you may make adjustments to this statement as you feel the need)it's paedobaptism doctrine.

This is not a disagreement over Church Government forms, the PDC/PDL is practised in all forms of church Govermnent. It is not an issue of anthropology, the PDC/PDL has been introduced into both Calvinist and Arminian congregations. It is not an issue of the nature of the sacriments, the PDC/PDL has been introduced in congregations who believe Consubstantiation, Spiritual Presence, and Memorial meal with respect to the Communion...to the best of my knowledge, the Transubstantiation of Catholicism is not represented. i know of no Roman Catholic Congregation that is presently using the PDC/PDL. If there is such a congregation, i will accept correction on this point.

The basic issue is, as it always was, the extent and meaning of the Regulative Principle of Worship. The Regulative Principle, as i once pointed out to P-Marlowe, is a standard that all Christians presume, whether consciously or not, when arguing over what is or is not appropriate in a worship service. It is the EXTENT of the Regulative Principle, not it's existence, that genders question and contention. In that, pro610 is in the same boat as the rest of us.