Replies

"A Reformed thinker knows that the rule of Faith is an objective standard"

LOL!!! - then a Reformed thinker believes in an oxymoron.

Nothing is objective if the rights of the individual intellect to interpret it according to its own authority are always paramount.

The destination of this doctrine is straight down the liberal yellow-brick road of "What's true for you may not be true for me". It invites subjectivism and relativism as surely as the original sola fide doctrine.

<> This is a common occurence on these threads. Some Protestant claims the Early Catholic Church Fathers were REALLY Calvinists, Sola Scripturists, Evangelicals, Baptists, ect.. ect. but,then Constantine....blah..blah... blah...and Rome then...blah...blah....blah, and then the Pope...blah....blah....blah ...Crusades...blah... blah... blah....Inquisition...blah....blah....blah...Holocaust...blah...blah...blah...Mary....balh...blah...blah...so there.

I have never understood, and I never will, why protestants think Catholics ought to accept that the Early Catholic Church Fathers were Protestants when they were clearly Catholic.

Good grief. Just read them for yourselves..it is all there Mass, Eucharist, Baptism, Holy Orders, Pope, Bishops, Priests, Confession, Prayers for the Dead,Purgatory, Fasting ect ect ect...

If this wasn't so insane, it would be funny.

But, in the end, it IS insane. We are asked to accept an arguement that falsifies reality. That ain't Christian<>

<> I think the Mormons ought to start a project wherein they isolate various statements of the 16th Century Heretical Revolutionaries to prove they were really Mormons.

The Unitarians could profit from such an approach also.

The only thing necessary is historical eisegesis combined with presentism and distain for rationality<>