Do you do something similar to that which you write against ? The LORD Jesus Christ promised us a church against which the gates of hell would not prevail. He did not promise us a Bible, although we have a Bible that the visible holy catholic church compiled and preserved across twenty centuries. Will you name an alternative church to the Catholic Church ? I read so many attacks on the Catholic Church and yet the closest claim I read was a pair who ostensibly evangelized Britain to which some Baptists churches of whom I've not heard claim their apostolic succession to that pair, albeit the claim was somewhat disavowed upon mention. Do you set up yourself as an authority as does the Catholic Church, but without a published provenance that the Catholics proffer ? I assume you are not among some secret Pentecostal society that denies the commandment water baptism. It is not enough to deny the Catholic claim. Wherefore my judgment is one must offer an actual alternative.
Which can in no way be the corrupted conglomerate that is the Catholic Church. The ekklesia that is spoken of in scripture and which Christ is the head of has no resemblance to the cultic organization that today calls itself the Roman Catholic Church.
>>Will you name an alternative church to the Catholic Church ?<<
There is no such word as "church" in the New Testament nor is there the concept that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed that it calls "church". The organization that Catholics refer to as the "church" is nothing more than a pagan religion built on corruption off and additions to the word of God. There can be no legitimate alternative to the "Catholic Church" as the very idea is contrary to God's word.
>>Wherefore my judgment is one must offer an actual alternative.<<
The only true ekklesia of God are those who have been "called out" by God to be the body of Christ. Their allegiance and trust is in Christ alone through faith alone.
No i do not, as contrary to the "little pope" RC strawman, I do not claim assured infallibility, but instead my claim to veracity of any teachings must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, upon which the church began, and contrary to Rome.
And thus you not only have rested upon a fallacious foundation for your claims, but have struck out trying to equate me with dong do.
The LORD Jesus Christ promised us a church against which the gates of hell would not prevail. He did not promise us a Bible, although we have a Bible that the visible holy catholic church compiled and preserved across twenty centuries.
Another fallacious argument, as the very church He promised had its doctrinal foundation in Scripture, the warrant of which Christ invoked and manifested to support His Truth claims. And His Spirit inspired men to write more wholly inspired words which were added to the existing body.
And thus it is Scripture that is the supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God, which cannot be said even of RC "infallible" teachings of tradition.
Will you name an alternative church to the Catholic Church ?
Certainly, from the church of the Thessalonians to the Ephesians, to the Corinthians, etc. Even the church of the Laodiceans was called a church of God.
Absolutely none of these manifestly looked to an exalted supreme head in Rome claiming to be the first of a line of (conditionally) assuredly infallible popes, and even if such included men who were morally closer to Judas than Peter, and who employed carnal force to obtain their seat, and by voting.
Or who prayed to angels and departed saints, or ordained (normatively celibate) men distinctively given the same title as Jewish priests;
whose primary function was to offer human flesh and blood as an expiation for sins and dispensed to the members in order to obtain spiritual life thereby.
Or which sanctioned very liberal views on Scripture.
Nor who preached justification and entrance into Heaven by actually becoming good enough.
Or who treated even public prosodomite immoral mean as members in life and in death, conveying that what ultimately really matters is to die as a RC, fostering faith in herself, and thus her members are liberal as a majority.
Etc .
Thus the "church" of Rome is basically invisible in Scripture. But I can point you to churches (from Calvary chapels to Reformed to conservative Baptists to some holiness Pentecostals) that hold Scripture as the supreme standard as the wholly inspired assured and accurate word of God, preach salvation by grace thru purifying faith which is counted for righteousness, and is confessed in baptism by immersion, and who take part in the Lord's supper, and ordain (normatively married) men as pastors, and whose fruit is far more conservative than the overall fruit of Rome.
It is you who do not have a real church to go to as long as you remain a Cath!
Do you set up yourself as an authority as does the Catholic Church, but without a published provenance that the Catholics proffer ?
Oh no, see strawman #1 at top. But if you mean whether i may correctly discern what is of God in the light of Scripture, based upon the weight of evidence, and make my case on the basis, and that the magisterium while authoritative, can err, then yes, i do claim that, but not as one possessing assure infallibility. If you hold than an infallible magisterium is essential to know what writings and men are of God, then you will have to make your case. Which is usually interesting.
I assume you are not among some secret Pentecostal society that denies the commandment water baptism. It is not enough to deny the Catholic claim. Wherefore my judgment is one must offer an actual alternative.
At least you keep vainly trying.
Rest assured i certainly affirm baptism, and I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit in a fundamental Baptist church about 6 years after prayerfully leaving Rome, and have been part of about 1,000 services and meetings in Baptist (Ind. and SB) churches alone over the years, including so think i must believe in baptism - even somewhat stronger than most of them do.
And for the record (and before you ask again) before this you widely asserted that as i reject paedobaptism then it seem that i hold all the Protestants are in error, and then that most Christians belong to denominations that practise infant baptism, and were once again shown to be in error.
But again, your preoccupation with particular churches presumes that i and other evangelicals are promoting a church, or that the one true church is one particular denomination, which is false. Only the body of Christ is 100% constituted by believers, while its varied (and they were in Scripture) visible churches have never been made up of 100% believers for long, nor did they realize comprehensive unity, or could presume to maintain complete freedom from any error.
But God always preserved faith, but not by a perpetual infallible magisterium, though magisterial authority has its place, but God often raised men from without the magisterium to correct it, and or add revelation, and preserver it. And thus the church began and thus has faith been often preserved.