***“How do you know?”
I believe in my heart and confess with my mouth Christ.***
Then you do not know.
***“What is the RCO?”
Again? I’ve answered this already a number of times.***
You have not other than call it the Roman Catholic Organization. I have asked you repeatedly to tell me what that is.
***“Before the Reformation, there was no need of other descriptors. After the Reformation, the hubris of individual men led them to hideous beliefs such as sola scriptura and double predestination.”
I know nothing of the Reformation.***
Your posts exemplify their developments.
***All I know is the Bible.***
With respect, I would say not. Your dismissal of Matthew is most telling.
***There is a ton of hubris and hideous beliefs in the RCO too.***
Sounds like a nasty bunch. Who are they?
***“A man may be a Catholic or else not.”
Like this idolatry for the RCO.***
What does this mean?
***“I don’t want to invoke Petronski’s No Gibberish Rule.”
Of course. Doing that would mean that you have conceded the argument.***
There really isn’t much of one.
***“What in the world are you talking about?”
Members of the RCO love the organization above Christ.***
Sounds like a nasty bunch. Who is the RCO?
“Then you do not know.”
What do you mean?
“With respect, I would say not. Your dismissal of Matthew is most telling.”
I do no such thing. I instead dismiss false interpretations of Matthew.
“There really isn’t much of one.”
I thought it was going well as you presented an argument instead of just dismissing mine. Now though it is just the “we are the one true church” mantra. Even so, getting to hear your previous argument had given me the insight I was looking for.