Replies

"So the question to argue is "Whether Chapter 10 is an [explicit] attack on the [so-called] Catholic Church."

Chapter 10 says nothing that Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession doesn't say. Clearly a doctrinal creed. I guess we can't have the Westminster Confession quoted on a Protestant caucus thread either. I've seen Catholic caucus threads which go on and on about the authority of tradition. This could just as easily be characterized as an attack on Protestants as chapter 10 in the creed originally posted on this thread is asserted to be. The hypocrisy and venom is breathtaking.

I guess we can't have the Westminster Confession quoted on a Protestant caucus thread either.

I would guess that statements like these from Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession would probably not pass:

and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan.
Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God.

I've seen Catholic caucus threads which go on and on about the authority of tradition.

Yes, but do they reference Protestantism? Because if they do not, there is nothing wrong. Protestants can have a caucus on the five solas, they just need to do it without saying that those who don't adhere to the five solas are members of "synagogues of Satan."

The hypocrisy and venom is breathtaking.

Can you actually post a link to a Catholic Caucus thread which references Protestantism in a negative way?

For instance, saying that the Protestant Reformation began when Martin Luther posted the 95 Theses is a statement of historical fact and not negative; however, saying that Martin Luther was an agent of Satan who posted Satan's creed would be negative. (For the record, those here who know me know that I greatly respect and admire Martin Luther. I do not agree with all of his methods, but I understand his motivations and I do not believe that he set out to harm Christianity.)

Chapter 10 says nothing that Chapter 25 of the Westminster Confession doesn't say. Clearly a doctrinal creed. I guess we can't have the Weastminster Confession quoted on a Protestant caucus thread either.Well others are saying it better than I, but I'm thinking the problem is when a statement goes after others. I don't think we could have a Catholic caucus thread on the anathemas of Trent.

I've seen Catholic caucus threads which go on and on about the authority of tradition..

If they are PRO tradition, then they are not attacking somebody else. If, on the other hand they were to say, "Unlike those bozos who think the Bible is superior to tradition ..." Then there would be a problem.

In chapter 2 we find

We believe the authority of the Holy Scripture to be above the authority of the Church. To be taught by the Holy Spirit is a far different thing from being taught by a man; for man may through ignorance err, deceive and be deceived, but the word of God neither deceives nor is deceived, nor can err, and is infallible and has eternal authority.

I don't think that's a caucus buster, though I think most Catholics would find the Bible v. Church a false opposition. But the chapter is almost entirely positive in its language.

I THINK that is the criterion being applied.

I mean really, who cares? Reformed folks have a resurgence in Reformed theology that is changing the landscape of Protestant Christianity and is growing the true church to the glory of God. We are the future of American Christianity.

Roman Catholics own the religious forums on a website.

I’d say that of the two: we are in a significantly better position.