Replies

I see, so your propensity to rely on mind-reading extends into psychohistory. Quite fitting.

I believe it's called (with all that the word implies) "forensics."

You seem frighteningly able to ignore the fact that no one ever heard of (at least) a couple of the "Solas" (Insofar as the way the Reformation defined them) for fifteen hundred years before Luther showed up.

All the speculation about some hidden strain of Protestantism that existed from the time of Christ is just so much wishful thinking on the part of those who will not tolerate themselves to be refuted, even if it's by their own standards.

'hidden strain of Protestantism' is a clear nobn sequitur, since the name you prefer using is tied to the false religion of catholiciism 'in protest mode.

Non-institutionalized Christianity has been alive since the Day of Pentecost, despite the growing ISM of your chosen religion seeking to drown out Truth. Your ism didn't get a firm foothold in pagan Rome for more than 100 years, while the Gospel of Grace, salvation by faith alone in Christ alone was spreading world-wide.

If you would try to refute this assertion, why not post documentation instead of just your smarmy insults and denials, chicken?

All the speculation about some hidden strain of Protestantism that existed from the time of Christ is just so much wishful thinking on the part of those who will not tolerate themselves to be refuted, even if it's by their own standards.

I find this argument compelling. It is not just all those in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints that Protestantism opposes. It is every single historical church descended from the Apostles, every single church for fifteen centuries.

Recreating, reconstructing, or re-forming the faith once delivered to the saints without a genuine apostle or prophet of Israel is a perilous path to start or follow.

Even though I would have had it otherwise (LORD, will thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ?), it was not up to me. We are called in the circumstances in which we found ourselves.

I believe it's called (with all that the word implies) "forensics."

When still means that you are engaging in psychology, attributing motive to Luther's writing of the 95 theses, which is your fitting opinion,

You seem frighteningly able to ignore the fact that no one ever heard of (at least) a couple of the "Solas" (Insofar as the way the Reformation defined them) for fifteen hundred years before Luther showed up.

" Frighteningly able to ignore," how dramatic. But instead it seems you are frighteningly (to some) able to imagine that sola scriptura and sola fide are manifestly taught in the 95 theses, "the culmination of Luther's work to design a pseudo-Christianity." And even if one accepts your psychohistory babel, that this was the culmination of Luther's work in that regard is absurd.

All the speculation about some hidden strain of Protestantism that existed from the time of Christ is just so much wishful thinking on the part of those who will not tolerate themselves to be refuted, even if it's by their own standards.

Actually, the idea that the NT church was that of Rome with her distinctives is just so much wishful thinking on the part of those who will not tolerate themselves to be refuted by the supreme standard the NT church invoked, and thus seek to avoid it. Meanwhile, it was always a relative remnant that made of the only one true church of 100% believers, which exist in the admixtures of visible organic fellowships.