Replies

“Well, I will believe in Rome. As Newman in essence said, to go back into history is to cease to be Protestant.”

...Well, it doesn’t surprise me that Newman would say that. Unfortunately for him, it doesn’t work that way in practice.

...Now, the rest of what you wrote probably seems convincing to you, in the same way Romans here want to tell Protestants that Luther supported certain beliefs - as if I follow Luther, or must believe what he believed. I am certainly grateful to Luther for recovering the Gospel and opening the door for believers to study the Word and arrive at a complete understanding of all revelation. But I am not convinced about anything because Luther may have believed it.

...................

“You will not find the doctrines you find in American Evangelical Protestantism in the early CHurch.”

...Oh, sure. Not in the early church, if you mean hundreds of years out, after paganism crept in. In the Bible, yes. In the actual early church, yes. And let’s be frank, the NT Church did not have all the inspired writings to systematically examine, so there will be differences.

“Do you think the Early Church, the Church Fathers and the Doctrines expressed at say the first 4 Councils [Nicea 325AD, Constantinopile 381AD, Ephesus 431AD and Chalcedon 451AD], who had the same NT books as you and I do [although the NT canon itself is a process of development and defining not really codified totally until the late 4th century] had a theology as it relates to Sacraments, Ecclesiology, soteriology consistent with the Catholic Church, and for that matter, Orthodoxy, or American Evangelical Protestantism?”

...Your question presumes an answer that you prefer.

...A much better question is how could they arrive at a number of crucial decisions theologically, and yet accept paganism in many practices? Nature of man, I guess. They often went around killing those in opposition in earlier times, even though they got the Virgin Birth right. Why? Human nature I guess.

...Again, I don’t doubt that you are convinced these arguments you put forth are air-tight. But you are arguing within a box you prefer.

“You will note I did not mention Christology as I have no evidence, as of yet, that you embrace any of the numerous Trinitarian and Christological heresies of the early Church, Gnosticism, Modalism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, etc, etc.”

...You kill me with the arrogance of your post, but I’ll leave that to Him.

In the meantime, perhaps you might revisit the topic of this thread and explain why Catholics are vanishing.

I did in a post that I laid out the statistics. Catholics are not disappearing at a different rate than any other Christians. See my post #244.

Hmm, so lets see, Mr internet FR Protestant Theologian or Newman?????? Ok

Oh the old I go back to the Bible position [when the NT canon that was not formally defined until the 4th century by that “bogey man Catholic Church” at Councils in Hippo, Carthage and Pope Innocents Letter to the Bishops in France in 405AD]. For the record, every heresy in the early Church was because somebody read the Bible and contrived and idea that was in conflict with the orthodox consensus. Everyone of them started out with someone with your view, that is they read the some scriptural passage came up with some Doctrinal position that was heretical. You said you studied Church History, well, what did you actually study. Well, maybe you just forgot. Some examples, Marcion, the Gnostic Heretic took Luke 6:43 and speculated how could and all knowing God Allow the evil and the fall of man, from that we get two different trees and fruits to Two Gods, one Evil and one Good and even the Good one would not use matter [hmmm, kind of goes against Christ and the Incarnation]. But hey, Ole Marcion claimed he was lead by the Spirit when he interpreted Luke 6:43. The Adoptionist interpreted Acts 2:32-36 to conclude CHrist was a man powered by the Holy Spirit to do Gods’ work [not Divine Substance but by Adoption]. Good Ole Sabellius [the Leading Modalist] interpreted Isiah 44:6 as a passage that was linked to Christ and thus No dinstiction, just different modes of God. Arius and the Arians used Proverbs 8:22-31 to justify their position.

So you will not answer the Questions about the Councils that I mentioned. And not sure who was killing whom in that period. The Church was not given legal status until the Edict of Milan in 313AD, and that only allowed it to be Legal. The Marriage of Church and State in the Roman Empire did not happen till around 380AD with the Emperor Theodosius. And what pagan practices are you referring to.

And btw, St. Paul quotes pagan Greek Philosophers and writers in several places. The Epistle of Jude quoted from Enoch. Do you reject those writings on those accounts?

Well, whether I am arrogant or not is a matter of debate.

For the record, it is obvious I am Catholic, some Protestants identify themselves as Reformed, Pentecostal, Baptist, etc, so for transparency, which form of Protestantism are you affiliated with?