so you abandoned the 2,000 year history of christianity, the Catholic Church, for an evangalestic store frone church of what's happening now??? O.K., I guess, but what are the odds that you chose the right one out of the 30,000 or so protestant denominations???
” so you abandoned the 2,000 year history of christianity, the Catholic Church, for an evangalestic store frone church of what’s happening now??? O.K., I guess, but what are the odds that you chose the right one out of the 30,000 or so protestant denominations??? “
Great trade - religion for Christ!
You keep repeating this number. Is this the best you can do in 500 years?
At least I produce Names and Evidence - you just mechanically jabber a number as though that is supposed to mean something.
Man up, big boy, and produce a LIST for us all to read!
You are begging the question, presuming what needs to be proved, which is that r that even if Rome truly has an unbroken line of popes from Peter, which is historically problematic even based on scholarship from RCs, then historical descent is the basis for authenticity. (contra Mt. 3:9; Rm. 2:28) Or that even if she was the steward of Scripture and the inheritor of the Divine promises of God's presence, then this means that she is the uniquely infallible interpreter of Scripture.
Then you have the competition from other sola ecclessia churches, such as the EOs. also claiming to be the One True Church. (OTC)
for an evangalestic store frone church of what's happening now???
The church basically began as a evangelistic store front church, for as as said and shown before, contrary to the RC model in which the magisterium is the supreme authority and must be submitted to, instead the church began following an Itinerant Preacher who was rejected by the magisterium.
Thus it began in dissent from those, who, like Rome, presumed a level of assured veracity above that which was written, and which the Lord and early church reproved by Scripture. Which is the transcendent material standard for truth and obedience, as is abundantly evidenced .
.OK., I guess, but what are the odds that you chose the right one out of the 30,000 or so protestant denominations???
Once again you are arguing from a false premise, which is that the church only consists of one denomination, or that the OTC is one denomination, which cannot be unless it is perfect, which Rome is certainly not,
The only one true church is the body of Christ, as only this consists of born again children of God, not an admixture of them and those "born after the flesh," which Rome manifestly mostly consists of.
A false gospel leaves one accursed, (Gal. 1:6-9) while believers are baptized by the Spirit into the body of Christ upon conversion. A true church then within the OTC is that which mostly essentially preaches the gospel which effects conviction of sin and or righteousness and of judgment, (Jn. 16:9) so that souls realize their need for salvation as helpless damned and destitute souls (versus being children of God via paedobaptism and their own goodness). As seen in Acts 2, 10, 13.
And and thus cast all their faith upon the mercy of God in Christ,, trusting the risen Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood and righteousness. Which decision, or "day of salvation" is shown in baptism in identification with the Lord and His death and resurrection, and then following Him. As this is what my church works to do, with about an hour of strong preaching regularly emphasizing the holiness of God, and need for conversion and commitment and sound doctrine, and personal testimonies of God's grace and manifest regeneration, the "odds" of my being in a true if imperfect church with the OTC are very good.
And much in manifest contrast to what i experienced before as a weekly mass-going (about 1500) RC, with its weekly ritual (typically fostering perfunctory professions) and its 10 minute sermonette, and which church treats even very liberal known RCs as members in life and in death.
Rome can be said to essentially be a false church with many true doctrines, which she overall makes of none effect by fostering faith in ones own merit and her own for salvation. In which RC souls are those who are (typically) held to having been born again by sprinkling, upon proxy faith, which act makes justified by their holiness.
And who merit eternal life thru cooperation with grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, and (typically) ends with souls becoming good enough to enter Heaven in purgatory. Out of which RCs are can be delivered with the power and merits of Rome.
This is a false gospel, as it is not the act of baptism that effects regeneration, but the personal faith it requires and expresses, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) not the faith of someone else, and requires repentance and wholehearted faith, (Acts 2:28; 8:36,37) which an infant cannot do. Nor is it needful to baptize infants, for having an inherited sinful nature does not mean they are culpable for sin and damned for it, (Dt. 24:16; 2Ki 14:5,6; 2Ch 25:4; Jer 31:29,30; Eze 18:20) though we all suffer or benefit (Jn. 4:38; Rm. 11:38) from the effects of the acts of our forefather.
Nor do believers experience suffering of "fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments” commencing at death, but are present with the Lord, (Lk. 16:19-31; 23:43; Acts 7:59; 2Cor. 5:6,8; Phil. 1:21-23; Heb. 13:23; Rv. 6:9.10) awaiting the judgment seat of Christ, which occurs at the Lord's return.
Nor is it because of the one's character or works of righteousness that one is accepted into Heaven, which (due to man's nature and Rome's emphasis on salvific merit) RCs routinely testify is the based of their hope of eternal life, along with some confidence in God's mercy as He grades on a scale. For while true justifying faith must be of the kind that effects holiness of heart and deed, which testifies to one having true faith and worthy of reward, (Heb. 10:35) yet it is faith that is counted for righteousness, justifying the unGodly, . (Rm. 4:5) not the works that faith results in that justify him as being saved.