Replies

You cannot cherry pick the canons

they are built one upon the other and lead to the truth of the conclusion....Nothing contradicts and everything is Truth.

Where does the document say that grace and the Holy Spirit come from?

I really do believe that if you stuck four Protestants in a room, you guys would come up with 5 different religions.

From my perspective there's only synergism and monergism. If there was a Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Methodist, Reformed Baptist, and Reformed ???(oops I'm out of (valid) denominations) all we would probably argue about is whether we should dunk or sprinkle. Now the rest of the Protestants who side with the Catholic synergistic model, you need to talk to them. They're your denominations, not ours.

Theologically, there are only Catholics and all the varying and expanding numbers of denominations. We don’t have denominations. There are Catholics and there are splitters and quitters.

And, from the arguments of the Reformed here, I can only come to the conclusion that the only Scripture that is infallible is the Scripture that backs one’s argument. The Scripture that refutes it is ignored completely and not even acknowledged in postings.

You might expand your explanation to: From my perspective (today, for a limited time only) there’s only synergism and monergism. That would be more accurate since the expectation is that Protestants can change their views at the drop of a hat because theology is of the whim of the individual. The individual, and not God.

Show me a Canon that addresses Indulgences.

The Council of Orange says that baptism confers the grace of God upon the individual and that the Holy Spirit works in the individual after that point. You guys say that the Holy Spirit ambushes the individual and that baptism results after that effect. Not Scriptural, is it?

If there was a Reformed Presbyterian, Reformed Methodist, Reformed Baptist, and Reformed ???(oops I'm out of (valid) denominations) all we would probably argue about is whether we should dunk or sprinkle.

Two points to make here. One, methods of baptism and their respective validity may be the hottest topic, but it's not the only topic. Eschatological beliefs vary widely, even among members of the same denomination, and the arguments that follow can get extremely heated. That no denomination has yet split along such lines, in my opinion, is only a matter of time.

Two, the issue of baptism is no small issue, even among the so called Reformed. Back in the day, when I was arguing with such people about matters of eschatology [*ehem*], I had the good pleasure of a Baptist gentleman informing me, in a most candid manner, that my Presbyterian baptism was of absolutely no value whatsoever. Suffice it to say, he felt rather strongly about his position. And from what I've seen so far, these two groups are in no danger of reconciliation.

In short, to say that Baptists and Presbyterians (/whoever) are only in schism over modes of baptism is not entirely unlike saying that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are only in schism over the filioque.