Ask Mr. Religion
☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) 	
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Each time a Romanst writes "Church" in their mind it is Romanism as it is now and was after Rome laid claim to being the leader of all Christendom.
The Romanist continues to ignore the heresies answered at Nicea by the church (see that small "c"?) was not the Rome of the 13th century and forward. Rather at the time of these heresies it was simply the visible church militant at Nicea, were they were denounced, not by Papal decrees or bulls, but simply the church militant speaking in one mind against error at the time these controversies were beginning to lead many astray.
The Romanist simply cannot claim the Rome they serve now is the same Rome of the third century. That is wrong on so many levels, not to mention their blind following Rome as she papers over all her internal divisions, anachronisms, and abundant fallibility, yet while asserting her own perfection.
Have they even bothered to check the facts of history about church development from a few sources that are not tied to Rome?
http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-Volume-One-Pre-Reformation-ebook/dp/B00CW4VQ4Q/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D30RKE
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O7UPECI
http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Theological-Perspectives-Post-Vatican-Catholicism/dp/0820469556
http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholic-Theology-Practice-Evangelical/dp/1433501163
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077
Are they unwilling to put their confidence in Rome to the test by venturing outside its walls to honestly examine what others have to say?
If a Romanist would avail themselves of some non-Rome historical studies, they will learn that in the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome started claiming more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. Schism with the East soon followed and Rome was on a downward spiral towards the full aspostacy it made clear at Trent.
Men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were within their duty to come out from a church that had abandoned its Scriptural basis for being called "church". It is not schism to break away from an apostate church. It is a schism to remain in an apostate church, since to remain in an apostate church is to separate from the true church of Jesus Christ. Of course, per Vatican I we Protestants were all schismatics and heretics, but strangely by the time of Vatican II, we were merely "separated brethren". Yet another counter-example of claimed Roman monolithicity.
These are the unadulterated facts of the history of the church. Romanists can deny the facts, but it does not change the facts.
AMR
The Romanist continues to ignore the heresies answered at Nicea by the church (see that small "c"?) was not the Rome of the 13th century and forward. Rather at the time of these heresies it was simply the visible church militant at Nicea, were they were denounced, not by Papal decrees or bulls, but simply the church militant speaking in one mind against error at the time these controversies were beginning to lead many astray.
The Romanist simply cannot claim the Rome they serve now is the same Rome of the third century. That is wrong on so many levels, not to mention their blind following Rome as she papers over all her internal divisions, anachronisms, and abundant fallibility, yet while asserting her own perfection.
Have they even bothered to check the facts of history about church development from a few sources that are not tied to Rome?
http://www.amazon.com/Church-History-Volume-One-Pre-Reformation-ebook/dp/B00CW4VQ4Q/
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008D30RKE
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00O7UPECI
http://www.amazon.com/Evangelical-Theological-Perspectives-Post-Vatican-Catholicism/dp/0820469556
http://www.amazon.com/Roman-Catholic-Theology-Practice-Evangelical/dp/1433501163
http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-According-Rome-James-McCarthy/dp/1565071077
Are they unwilling to put their confidence in Rome to the test by venturing outside its walls to honestly examine what others have to say?
If a Romanist would avail themselves of some non-Rome historical studies, they will learn that in the ninth century Christendom was divided governmentally into five geographic regions, having heads in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch. Over the years Rome had started claiming more and more power and authority. The Bishop of Rome started claiming more and more right over the governance of all of Christendom, not just his own area. Schism with the East soon followed and Rome was on a downward spiral towards the full aspostacy it made clear at Trent.
Men like Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin were within their duty to come out from a church that had abandoned its Scriptural basis for being called "church". It is not schism to break away from an apostate church. It is a schism to remain in an apostate church, since to remain in an apostate church is to separate from the true church of Jesus Christ. Of course, per Vatican I we Protestants were all schismatics and heretics, but strangely by the time of Vatican II, we were merely "separated brethren". Yet another counter-example of claimed Roman monolithicity.
These are the unadulterated facts of the history of the church. Romanists can deny the facts, but it does not change the facts.
AMR