Why Calvinist, Catholics, Muslims, Others are Lost

[Cruciform]

Why not simply own up to your craftiness versus moving the goalposts with every post? Is it that hard to admit your behavior?

Your entirely transparent red herring is noted. Can you really not answer the question in Post #400---a question that is directly connected with your own prior comments?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Why not simply own up to your craftiness versus moving the goalposts with every post? Is it that hard to admit your behavior?

AMR

Your entirely transparent red herring is noted. Can you really not answer the question in Post #400---a question that is directly connected with your own prior comments?

Q.E.D.

AMR

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

You teach salvation by works like a parrot !

Do you ever get the feeling that nobody listens or
cares about whatever you have to say? I kind of think
you're in that particular situation.

 

[Cruciform]

Q.E.D.

Whatever you need to tell yourself, friend. In any case, given your apparent inability to provide an answer to the question in Post #400, your prior assertions simply fall flat.

 

[Robert Pate]

Whatever you need to tell yourself, friend. In any case, given your apparent inability to provide an answer to the question in Post #400, your prior assertions simply fall flat.

Here we have a case of the blind leading the blind.

They have both fallen into the ditch.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Exactly how many "Churches" do you imagine Jesus founded hint: Mt. 16:18; 1 Tim. 3:15)

Er, one, holy, apostolic, catholic church. There is but one universal (catholic) church, the invisible church comprised of those for whom our Lord came to redeem. Many visible vestiges of the Bride of Our Lord exist, the church militant, some more aligned with what He established, some not, some in name only. Rome, since Trent, lost any claim to being anything that resembles a church of Our Lord.

Which brings us back to:

Why not simply own up to your craftiness versus moving the goalposts with every post? Is it that hard to admit your behavior?

AMR

When will you admit your malfeasance?

Then again, why am I not surprised given your wax nose about what you stand for...

Spoiler

I was an Evangelical Protestant for forty years.

No need to tell me this. I hold a degree in Theology from a Calvinist university, and taught Bible and Doctrine on the staff of a Presbyterian church for years prior to entering the Catholic Church.

Nope. You brought in in when you accused me of not understanding logical fallacies. I mentioned my philosophy degree in order to demonstrate the error of your accusation (assumption). You responded that you also have a degree. My question now is simply to ask what subject your degree is in. The direction of this discussion is all on you, friend.

So, then, what's the subject of your degree...?

No problem, just scroll up to Post #248:

I hold a university degree in philosophy---how about you?

Don't think so. I hold a degree in Protestant theology from a Protestant university, and attended a Protestant seminary---not to mention having been a Protestant myself for over forty years. I think I have a pretty good grasp of the history of Protestantism and its beliefs.

The only wrong assumption here is your assumption that I don't understand the Protestant mindset. The fact is that I was a lifelong Evangelical Protestant before becoming Catholic in 2001. I hold university degrees from both Protestant and Catholic institutions, and served on the staff of a local Presbyterian church as an instructor of the Bible and Christian Doctrine for years. Thus, I myself held to sola scriptura and the right of private judgment for decades, and taught them to others.

Given that I hold a university degree in philosophy, I'm pretty sure I know what a Straw Man argument is. (At least my professors said I did.)

Friend, I've been a Catholic now for a decade, and hold a university degree in Catholic Thought from a Catholic institution, and I'm telling you that the epistles of Romans and Galatians are most certainly read and expounded upon in the Catholic liturgy. I can show you the relevant portions of the lectionary if you like. It sounds to me like those ex-Catholics who told you this had no real grasp of what goes on during Mass to begin with. It definitely sounds like more than a few Catholics I've met.

Yes, I left the Evangelical seminary I was attending when I entered the Catholic Church. I was half-way through an M.A. in Systematic Theology at the time. I'd love to finish my graduate degree, but simply can't afford it. That train has left the station, it appears. I'll have to be content with university degrees in Theology and Philosophy.

No, it isn't. In fact, I received my undergraduate degree in theology from an Evangelical Protestant university, then studied systematic theology at an equally Evangelical Protestant seminary. After that, I obtained a second undergraduate degree from a Catholic intitution, this time in philosophy. So once again your assumptions are predictably incorrect.

Absolutely. I "drank the Kool-Aid" of Evangelical Protestantism in both college and seminary. But eventually, through continued study, I was compelled to change positions. Incidentally, this was before I attended a Catholic college.

I've been studying ecclesiastical history for over thirty years, both as a Protestant and as a Catholic, at both university and seminary. Let me know when you've reached that level, and then we'll talk.

I certainly know what Trinitarians believe (even if you do not), since I've held to the doctrine all of my life, have studied it at both university and seminary, and have taught it for years.

I studied their writings constantly, and attended a Reformed university and seminary.

I served on staff of a Presbyterian church (OPC) here in Michigan for several years prior to becoming Catholic.

Were you an ordained elder in that church?

AMR

I was apprenticing there while in seminary with the intent of being ordained in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

I certainly know what you think they mean, given that I attended a Reformed university and seminary, and that I taught Scripture and Doctrine on the staff of a Presbyterian church for years.

The fact is that I've always been fascinated by Martin Luther, both as a longtime Evangelical Protestant, and now as a Catholic. I attended a Reformed university and seminary where Luther's teachings were widely assumed. I taught many of his opinions when I was on-staff at an Orthodox Presbyterian church as an instructor of Scripture and doctrine.

I've had 8 years of Christian university (two degrees), 30+ hours at seminary, and nearly 50 years of being a Christian, which I guess makes me more qualified than you to post here, hmm?

At CARM:

I quietly resigned from the church staff (I was an instructor of adult doctrine and Scripture), not wanting to upset the unity of the congregation any more than necessary. Though the church's session began the disciplinary process, I had already had my name removed from the "books" (so to speak) before it progressed very far. (This was all eight years ago.) I'm still friends with several people from that OPC congregation.

Our Lord, in Matthew 16:18 most certainly does not mean that the Church will be built on Peter personally much less then through the bishops of Rome exclusively as his successors. Rather Our Lord means that the church is built upon the faith confessed by Peter, that is, the person of Christ, His works.

So, yes, Peter is a rock in this sense only; a foundational stone of the church built upon word and preaching. The person of Our Lord is upon which the church is built as its cornerstone, see (1 Cor 3:11). Just as in Ephesians 2:20, using the same language it is clear the church is not built upon Peter exclusively but upon all the teaching and preaching of the prophets and apostles as found in the NT.

And the "keys" represent the authority to exercise discipline in the church and to open or shut the kingdom of God of God to men by proclaiming the gospel and the conditions for receiving forgiveness of sins.

Despite your claims to superior knowledge, you simply have no facility with the history of Romanism or the teachings of the ECF, so you have simply swallowed what you have read here and there from Rome and its apologists. Would that you turn that vast intellect of yours towards an unbiased reading of history and the ECF, and you will, if you are honest with yourself, realize that all is not what Rome claims.

AMR

 

[Bright Raven]

Er, one, holy, apostolic, catholic church. There is but one universal (catholic) church, the invisible church comprised of those for whom our Lord came to redeem. Many visible vestiges of the Bride of Our Lord exist, the church militant, some more aligned with what He established, some not, some in name only. Rome, since Trent, lost any claim to being anything that resembles a church of Our Lord.

Which brings us back to:



When will you admit your malfeasance?

Then again, why am I not surprised given your wax nose about what you stand for...

Spoiler

At CARM:

I quietly resigned from the church staff (I was an instructor of adult doctrine and Scripture), not wanting to upset the unity of the congregation any more than necessary. Though the church's session began the disciplinary process, I had already had my name removed from the "books" (so to speak) before it progressed very far. (This was all eight years ago.) I'm still friends with several people from that OPC congregation.

Our Lord, in Matthew 16:18 most certainly does not mean that the Church will be built on Peter personally much less then through the bishops of Rome exclusively as his successors. Rather Our Lord means that the church is built upon the faith confessed by Peter, that is, the person of Christ, His works.

So, yes, Peter is a rock in this sense only; a foundational stone of the church built upon word and preaching. The person of Our Lord is upon which the church is built as its cornerstone, see (1 Cor 3:11). Just as in Ephesians 2:20, using the same language it is clear the church is not built upon Peter exclusively but upon all the teaching and preaching of the prophets and apostles as found in the NT.

And the "keys" represent the authority to exercise discipline in the church and to open or shut the kingdom of God of God to men by proclaiming the gospel and the conditions for receiving forgiveness of sins.

Despite your claims to superior knowledge, you simply have no facility with the history of Romanism or the teachings of the ECF, so you have simply swallowed what you have read here and there from Rome and its apologists. Would that you turn that vast intellect of yours towards an unbiased reading of history and the ECF, and you will, if you are honest with yourself, realize that all is not what Rome claims.

AMR

:thumb:

 

[Cruciform]

Er, one, holy, apostolic, catholic church. There is but one universal (catholic) church, the invisible church comprised of those for whom our Lord came to redeem.

Please cite a New Testament text in which the word "church" is used to refer to anything but a visible, tangible, historical, and structured community of baptized disciples of Jesus Christ. For example, see this.

When will you admit your malfeasance?

I've already replied to your imaginary conspiracy theory/red herring. Don't bother.

Then again, why am I not surprised given your wax nose about what you stand for...[spoiler]

Do you actually have a point in all of these quotations, or is this simply more of your extended and continuous Red Herring Fallacy? :think:

At CARM:

:darwinsm: ...This is telling.

I quietly resigned from the church staff (I was an instructor of adult doctrine and Scripture), not wanting to upset the unity of the congregation any more than necessary. Though the church's session began the disciplinary process, I had already had my name removed from the "books" (so to speak) before it progressed very far. (This was all eight years ago.) I'm still friends with several people from that OPC congregation.

And...?

Our Lord, in Matthew 16:18 most certainly does not mean that the Church will be built on Peter personally much less then through the bishops of Rome exclusively as his successors. Rather Our Lord means that the church is built upon the faith confessed by Peter, that is, the person of Christ, His works.

• Precisely what inherently binding doctrinal authority does Matt Slick possess that would allow him to decide for all believers what Jesus supposedly "meant" or "did not mean" that was not possessed by, say, Arius, Pelagius, or Sabellius?
• CARM's anti-Catholic claims on this point are categorically refuted here and here.

So much for your above quotation.

Despite your claims to superior knowledge, you simply have no facility with the history of Catholicism or the teachings of the ECF, so you have simply swallowed what you have read here and there from your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect and its apologists. Would that you turn that vast intellect of yours towards an unbiased reading of history and the ECF, and you will, if you are honest with yourself, realize that all is not what your chosen anti-Catholic sect claims.

Fixed it for you. Pot, meet Kettle.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

:thumb:

Oops! Try again (Post #409).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

So much for your above quotation.

Quote of what exactly? Have you lost it? The only mention of CARM in my post comes from a quote of your own post at that site.

I think you might be in need of some help, Cruciform.

AMR

 

[Cruciform]

The only mention of CARM in my post comes from a quote of your own post at that site.

It's difficult to tell where your CARM content ends and your personal statements begin. Fine, simply apply my response to your own false statements, and to yourself. Problem solved.

 

[Cruciform]

...if you are honest with yourself...

Please carefully and thoroughly read this, and be "honest with yourself" as you do so. (I recommend making a paper copy, and studying it at your own pace.)

 

[Cruciform]

Here we have a case of the blind leading the blind.

Your assertion that the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself is "blind" is noted. Sadly for you, Jesus himself stated that anyone who rejects his one historic Church has likewise rejected Jesus himself (Lk. 10:16; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15).

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Please carefully and thoroughly read this, and be "honest with yourself" as you do so. (I recommend making a paper copy, and studying it at your own pace.)

No need for a paper copy as I have Sungenis' actual work with the content therein that I obtained when it first appeared a dozen or so years ago. I will fish it out and give it a read.

AMR

 

[Robert Pate]

Your assertion that the one historic Church founded by Jesus Christ himself is "blind" is noted. Sadly for you, Jesus himself stated that anyone who rejects his one historic Church has likewise rejected Jesus himself (Lk. 10:16; cf. 1 Tim. 3:15).

There is nothing in the bible about your one Historic Church.

Which is a very serious concern.

 

[Cruciform]

No need for a paper copy as I have Sungenis' actual work with the content therein that I obtained when it first appeared a dozen or so years ago. I will fish it out and give it a read.

It's a well-organized and informed treatment, one of the best of which I'm aware. I hope you find it interesting, if not compelling.

 

[Cruciform]

There is nothing in the bible about your one Historic Church.

Categorically refuted here. Try again.

Which is a very serious concern.

Were I you, I would be concerned about the sobering implications of Post #414 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Robert Pate]

Categorically refuted here. Try again.


Were I you, I would be concerned about the sobering implications of Post #414 above.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

I can't find anything in the Bible that says Christ one historic church is the Catholic church.

Where did you get that?

 

[Cruciform]

I can't find anything in the Bible that says Christ one historic Church is the Catholic Church. Where did you get that?

From Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a personal disciple of John the Apostle, who first began to refer to Christ's one historic Church as "the Catholic Church" in the very early 2nd century A.D.

 

[Robert Pate]

From Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, a personal disciple of John the Apostle, who first began to refer to Christ's one historic Church as "the Catholic Church" in the very early 2nd century A.D.

Where does it say that Peter went to Rome?

There were so many atrocities being committed against Christians by Rome that If had gone there they would have killed him.