What!!??!!
Only 15% or so of ALL Mormons will make it to the HIGHEST level of Mormon Heaven???
Posted on 01/12/2014 5:53:46 AM PST by knarf
Not to interrupt, but...You have to see this post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3111669/posts
I responded to one assertion, but the rest are just as laughable.
And that assertion was laughable as well.
Taking verses out of context is more dangerous than believing in eternal security.
Nothing pushes a Catholic over the edge quite as much as hearing someone say they are sure of their salvation.
Piping in here a moment,..... I think we have to tread very careful about what we “see” as someone walking the walk or not. I know Christians who you would not determine they are the “standard” sort of Christian....you should have seen them BEFORE they became a Christian.
We forget to give the Lord “time” to work His work in people .....we walk through life with Him..and sometimes run...other times waddle.
I've heard speakers and teachers who appeared to walk the walk but they're counterfeits and impostors....but they “Look” like the real deal.
Actually, it’s pathetic. Y’aal can’t even agree and it’s your own faith group!
The problem is both your idea of a what our faith group is, as well as the idea that RCs are more unified, which is not the case in reality.
The type of Christians that i represent are evangelical type believers, and which movement arose due to a shared commitment to core truths as the apostles creed (though "communion of saints" not meaning PTDS ), the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired word of God, and salvation by grace thru faith, not earned by works, etc., and who thus oppose cults, as well as doctrinal inventions of Rome.
And which are substantially more unified in core beliefs than those whom Rome treats as members in life and in death.
"True Protestants? Yes. Certain religious groups identifyed by sloppy Roman Catholic definitions, no
Prove it.
You mean you actually affirm that all the churches included in the specious 35,000 denomination list does not constitute a sloppy list?
How do you feel about atheists classifying Hitler as a Christian? I think you would even object to any pro-abortion liberal pols as being Catholic.
And your discussions with other protestants are never nearly as "spirited" as your clashes with Catholics.
If you raise a large specific target do not wonder if many shoot at it. When you incessantly promote an elitist church do not be surprised when it is gets a lot of challenges that expose it. Who else but Catholics post about 10 articles a day or more about the pope or the RCC? Do you want to see what happens when a Mormon tries such?
If i posted articles claiming the SBC was the one true church then i am sure i would get a lot of opposition. Yet i have had civil exchanges with the few RCs you can have such with, and which does not mean we cannot make divisive statements and give solemn warnings about the consequences.
And as far as specific doctrinal matters, along with others i have had extended exchanges with non-Catholics, which have become spirited when the other side reacts like most RCs do when faced with challenges (but the one with a Roy Masters devotee surpassed all.)
Right then. I'll remember from now on that "classical" protestants don't lose sleep over extra-marital sex.
I am sure your last item was overlooked by Gamecock amidst the peripheral issues you raised. Meanwhile, the things RCs can engage in various degrees of debate about is extensive , including what is not allowed any debate. And sects and schisms and substantial disagreements exist even within Catholicism
Well alrighty then!
God won’t destroy apostate religions until after the tribulation. He allows Satan to roam the earth doesn’t He?
I agree with your comments. Please notice I posted a self examination is what Paul calls for as well as Peter. We who love Jesus Christ and know Him, are drawn each day to His Well to drink in and purify ourselves with His Word. In effect if we are doing our daily Bible devotions and studies the way we should, we have a daily examination of our lives. An elderly man told me when I was a lad: “The Bible keeps you away from sin and sin keeps you away from the Bible.” I agree and should have taken his advice earlier in my youth.
John MacArthur calls reading, studying and meditating (not the new age hokey version of meditation) on the Word daily as getting a thorough washing of our mind, heart and soul. All of which we must love God with all our strength.
So I agree with your statements...I was alluding to self examination. The toughest examination there is because we want to think we are walking upright all the time or sometimes we are very hard on ourselves. Daily examination with His Word brings us back on ‘heading.’
...”Daily examination with His Word brings us back on ‘heading”....
Yes.....It’s been said His word is our compass throughout life, and though this is true it is so much more than that. He lifts the veil and shows us His way and understanding what perhaps prior escaped us. Amazingly so!
But you are avoiding the fact that both men and writings of God were recognized as being so, and Truth preserved, and men without a perpetual (conditionally) infallible magisterium, but which you held was necessary for determining what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected. Under which premise the church should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses.
Jesus Christ came first, His Apostles and Church come next, then New Testament Scripture. Yet, the Gospel didn’t wait for Scripture to be written, later. No, the Good News was taught after The Great Commission and obviously, prior to the written Word.
Which proves too much, as Israel and Moses came before the written law, yet this did not result in or require a perpetually infallible magisterium, which Rome "infallibly" has claimed herself to be.
Nor does being even the instrument of Holy Writ (as the corporate body to which the instruments belonged), render such the assuredly correct interpreters of it, even if they assuredly defined themselves as being so.
In addition, SS does not materially disallow additions of Scripture, but it provides for it, by affirming writings being recognized as being Scripture, due to their Divine qualities and attestation given them.
Moreover, iti s affirmed that what is written as Scripture first existed in oral form, but the kind of oral traditions affirmed in the NT were known truths, not some ancient folklore, and which could be written, and there is nothing that establishes they were not subsequently written, as is the norm for anything called the "word of God/the Lord."
Nor does holding Scripture supreme and sufficient mean that all that can be known is written, as Scripture states otherwise, (Jn. 21:25; 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but all that is needed t is either formally or materially provided.
The Scriptures are the Word of God and they should be searched, read, studied and prayed upon, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. God, who have us His Word, also gave us His Son.
Affirmed, but this avoids the issue that you are discouraged from objectively searching Scripture in order to determine the veracity of RC doctrine, as Rome is the supreme authority, whereby you may have assurance. Else you would be the Bereans.
His Son authorized His Church, “and hell shall not prevail against it”. Christ’s Church confirmed valid and accepted Scripture.We are to read this Scripture with the benefit of the Holy Spirit.
But that Rome is that infallible church is begging the question, and that it is necessary for writings to be established as being from God, and cannot be wrong in so doing. (And it took over 1400 years to indisputably finalize the canon, which may have differed (even if by one book) priors ones such as by Hippo, as it does from what the EOs overall accept. Besides others.)
When we have natural disagreements as to what The Word of God is saying, we have the “pillar of Truth”, to assist us.
Actually, since the veracity of RC teaching is not based upon the degree Scriptural substantiation, it has rarely infallibly defined Scripture texts, though excluding any from contradicting her. And within the parameters of RC teaching, the RC has great liberty to adopt interpretations in order to support Rome. And the wresting of texts in so doing has often been apparent here.
But we also can claim to have assistance from those in the teaching office, and general obedience was even required to the scribes and pharisees, but the issue is that of a perpetual infallible magisterium as being necessary and Rome as being it. It is not and Rome is not it.
“…then the church itself is rendered invalid, as it began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation, Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4) . (Romans 9:4-5) “
No. Jesus and Jesus’ Church is Truth. Christ came “not to destroy the Old Law…but to fulfil it.” It is clear that “some have heard but do not see”. I don’t see a valid theological or logical point in that assertion.
You may not see it nor refute it, but it is there. You affirmed that a (conditionally) infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, writings and men, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance, and argued that Rome is it based upon history showing her as the inheritor of promises and the steward of Scripture.
But unlike a church of Rome, Scripture affirms the Scribes and Pharisees as sitting in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the instruments and stewards of Holy Writ, and the inheritor of promises of Divine presence and preservation. Thus according to Roman logic, these were to be submitted to as Rome requires of her, and what she rejects must be rejected.
This is the premise behind the polemical "we gave you the Bible" statement we so often see employed by RCs here, though they avoid affirming they mean we are to therefore submit to Rome.
For the alternative is Truth being recognized as such in the light of Scriptural substantiation, by which the church began following holy man in the desert who are insects, and an itinerant Preacher from Heaven, but rejected by those in the seat of Moses.
The protest is that you cannot have unity under this method, and instead the church as supreme with an infallible magisterium is needed. But while the latter model helps deal with the problem of competing truth claims among individuals, it results in competing claims among sola ecclesia churches.
[Warning: essay beginning] If not engaging in assertions of the claims of Rome and that the RCC is necessary, the RC invokes evidences as establishing his claims, such as by extrapolating a perpetual infallible magisterium (and even though infallibility is rare and conditional, it is foundationally critical) out of texts like "thy faith fail not."
But in so doing he is seeking to bring one to assurance of a truth that disallows assurance of a truth can be realized that way, as for a RC assurance is based upon the premise of the veracity of Rome, otherwise he is is operating like an evangelical.
It can be argued that the RC is appealing to human reasoning in order for the subject to make a fallible human decision to implicitly trust an authority which claims infallibility, but we find this unScriptural and unwarranted, and unlike faith in Christ (and even being the instrument of revelation does not make one superior to it).
However, although ascertaining the veracity of Truth claims in the light of Scriptural substantiation, being in conformity with Scripture and the manner of attestation give to it, is how souls believed on Christ, the problem is that under this model you have a larger problem of competing claims than under the Roman model for determining Truth. The question then is why.
And the answer i believe is the same as why no church today can act as a centralized universal magisterium as seen in Acts 15. Even if such did not presume Rome's manner of assured infallibility. Which is because today we do not see the manner of manifest apostolic power, purity, passion and performance by which supernaturally attested and established the apostles as being of God.
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:19-21)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, By honour and dishonour, by evil report and good report: as deceivers, and yet true; As unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; As sorrowful, yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things. (2 Corinthians 6:4-10)
The church never ceased to exist as the body of Christ, visibly manifest wherever by faith which worketh by love, as long as humble faith existed in Christ to save, as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18)
But increasingly errors were established as doctrine, and faith became institutionalized, and carnality in both rule and morals. Reformation, if imperfect, was thus necessitated. And while Catholicism unity is largely on paper and organizational, overall Christianity exists as a divided kingdom, but with a blessed spiritual unity among born again believers due to a shared personal conversion an and relationship with Christ, and which is greater than their external divisions which is transcends.
And it is only as believers die to self and exalt Christ, not their organization body, and humble themselves before God in repentance and surrender, will that body be more unified, even if it be a relative remnant. [End of ecclesiology essay.]
I would assert by the Grace of God, I can see Truth. And I submit to it. I believe it takes quite a bit of pretzel twisting and long-learned myths to not see the obvious Truth in Scripture.
Indeed, and we both agree on such Truths as the apostle's creed professes, but the manner of extrapolation needed to justify the claims in contention is not the same.
And I think it is far fetched to believe that God would allow an imposter Church of His, to lead Christians for 1,500 years. That to me is uniquely unbelievable knowing the omnipotence of God.
The problem is with the premise that the church was wholly an imposter, and that souls could not be saved within it, which is still possible today for those who lay hold of Christ thru the institutional trappings. Remember the church had to begin in descent, and it was a relative remnant that were saved under bad leadership.
If Catholics worship Mary, or anyone or anything other than the Trinitarian God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church condemns it.
Yet you must hold that God would let imposters lead Rome in the light of sexually active or otherwise impenitent morally popes, or who sanctioned torture and killing of people such as myself, as such leaders would not even qualify as church members in the NT church. And even if it is argued they did not infallibly deny any article of faith, RCs had to obey such or face penalties conservative RCs can only wish would be visited upon liberal RCs today.
If Catholics worship Mary, or anyone or anything other than the Trinitarian God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church condemns it.
I know you are sincere, but we look at this with amazement, as it presupposes they know, or even the persons doing so, when one has crossed the fine line btwn hyperdulia and latria. Bowing down to an image is only condemned, and beseeching any one else in Heaven is nowhere sanctioned, and doing both, even if not engaging in latria, crosses the line of what is safe, while in fact PTDS is attributing attributes to men that only God is shown possessing.
(I pray more to St. Joseph myself). I know this is difficult to understand because I’ve been where you are at and thought it was absurd. The best way I can explain it is to think of Mary or any other Saint, as a prayer partner.
Who is part of a special class of believers called saints, unlike in Scripture wherein that applies to all (as can be showed), and like only God is in Scripture, is addressed in prayers to Heaven, and like God in the holy of holies which believers directly go to, can hear infinite amounts of prayer - or virtually that much - and personally process them. Yes, i find this Scripturally absurd.
If they were sincere, then they were wrong. We have the option to forgive them.
Be assured, they were as seen by the context. But i have stated as a matter of doctrine that Rome is basically preaching a false gospel, though a relative few within it are saved, but overall it has become as the gates of Hell for multitudes. As is true of many Prot churches. It is a narrow gate.
You have been given the Grace of knowing the Lord Jesus Christ, His Holy Word and the Holy Spirit and you are a Christian brother of mine and also of those who lost their temper and falsely demeaned you.
I sincerely hope that you are, or will be, and am glad are much a contrast to the majority.
“Under which premise the church should have submitted to those who sat in the seat of Moses.”
I don’t think your premise supports your conclusion. The Christian faith and Jewish faiths, though linked, are totally distinct. So, there was absolutely no reason for the Early Christian Church to submit to Jewish leaders.
(The Scriptures are the Word of God and they should be searched, read, studied and prayed upon, with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. God, who have us His Word, also gave us His Son.)
“Affirmed, but this avoids the issue that you are discouraged from objectively searching Scripture in order to determine the veracity of RC doctrine”
My search of the Scripture had led me to believe that the Catholic Church is the one, Holy and Apostolic Church that Christ gave us, “loosing…binding….and retaining”. When I read Scripture I do not read to validate the Catholic Church or invalidate Protestant Churches, I read to grow closer to God.
“But that Rome is that infallible church is begging the question, and that it is necessary for writings to be established as being from God, and cannot be wrong in so doing.”
So, your castle point is that this line of reasoning is circular, begging the point. I suppose we could use that same line of debate to accuse the entire of Christianity as being false. We would likely have an Arian Church and a Christ is Divine Church. Mass confusion, uncertainty and not even consensus on what it means to be a Christian at the most basic level.
If we don’t accept that the Catholic Church, its Councils, writings are valid (as we must do with your line of reasoning)…how do we accept the Apostles actions and comments as real and not fantasy folktales? The Gospels? The entire Canon confirmed by the Church? Was Jesus Christ really the Son of Man? How do we know, beyond our feelings of personal bias, if we don’t have any of the above? Maybe the powerful and influential Arians would persuade the people and Christianity would be dead as we know it, not even a basic agreement that Christ was God.
*…Note: I will tackle the balance of your response in the morning as I’m crashing on a work project right now.
But Yeshua isn’t.
On the contrary, Jesus is.
Should one not try, or die trying ?
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Dedication and following the rules is very important in cults.
It’s big trouble if the truth leaks through to you, but then freedom in Christ is available as He draws a lost soul to Him.
“Paradise,” not “heaven.” Thanks. Got it.
Only 15% or so of ALL Mormons will make it to the HIGHEST level of Mormon Heaven???
And then you say there's MORE???
Mormon leaders have taught that the husband has the ability to call his wife from the grave on resurrection day. According to Charles W. Penrose, who later became a First Counselor to Heber J. Grant:
"In the resurrection, they stand side by side and hold dominion together. Every man who overcomes all things and is thereby entitled to inherit all things, receives power to bring up his wife to join him in the possession and enjoyment thereof" (Mormon Doctrine Plain and Simple, 1888, p. 51).
In 1857, Mormon Apostle Erastus Snow, declared:
"Do you uphold your husband before God as your lord? 'What! - my husband to be my lord?' I ask, Can you get into the celestial kingdom without him? Have any of you been there? You will remember that you never got into the celestial kingdom without the aid of your husband. If you did, it was because your husband was away, and some one had to act proxy for him. No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant" (Journal of Discourses 5:291).
There once were two cats of Kilkenny
Each thought there was one cat too many
So they fought and they fit
And they scratched and they bit
Till (excepting their nails
And the tips of their tails)
Instead of two cats there weren’t any!
I beg to differ, as we are dealing with spiritual principles as regards how truth is determined, and how both men in writings of God are recognized as being so. The RC premise, which you affirmed, is that an infallible head and magisterium is necessary to determine what and who is of God, so that what it rejects must be rejected, whereby you have assurance. And that on the basis of historical descent Rome is that incontestable authority.
Nor are the two faiths that different, and the parallels are more similar, but the point is that under the Roman logic neither writings or men of God should have able to have been est. as being so without an infallible head and magisterium, and first century souls should have submitted to the scribes and Pharisees.
My search of the Scripture had led me to believe that the Catholic Church is the one, Holy and Apostolic Church that Christ gave us, “loosing…binding….and retaining”. When I read Scripture I do not read to validate the Catholic Church or invalidate Protestant Churches, I read to grow closer to God.
So you claim to have arrived at a decision based upon a evangelical means of determining truth, which results in you rejecting that means of determining truth. As a former Catholic, who became manifestly born-again even while the Catholic, my journey which was the opposite. In any case, not objectively examining Scriptural evidences in order to determine the veracity of what is preached is cultic, not Christian. Reading Scripture is for devotion and direction, but it is also for doctrine.
So, your castle point is that this line of reasoning is circular, begging the point.
It is indeed. RCs engage in arguments by assertions, as if "Rome has spoken in the matter is settled." Which for them it is, as that is their basis for assurance of Truth. And thus they disparage our searching the Scriptures and evidences in order to ascertain truth, as only Rome can assuredly provide that. And they assuredly know that because Rome has assuredly said so.
For as said, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Which includes the premise that she is the one true and infallible church. You cannot go wrong with that.
I suppose we could use that same line of debate to accuse the entire of Christianity as being false. We would likely have an Arian Church and a Christ is Divine Church. Mass confusion, uncertainty and not even consensus on what it means to be a Christian at the most basic level.
That is not the same line of debate, and your reasoning is a logical fallacy, for it supposes that because of the negative examples of not having a universal centralized magisterium, then unity cannot be realized as a result of holding Scripture as supreme as the wholly inspired and basically literally word of God, and supposing that the unity of of sola ecclesia is greater in quality. The former testifies of greater practical (where it counts the most) unity in core beliefs overall than what Catholicism produces, despite lacking it organizationally.
Meanwhile, it supposes a degree of unity under the Roman Catholic model that is simply not there. Why actually unity does Rome have as a church? What one believes is manifest by what it does and effects, and Rome's claim to universal unity is mainly a paper or a thin one and organizationally. Taking part in a universal ritual with the perfunctory professions it much produces does not establish much of a degree of unity. More evangelicals (93%) believe the Bible to be the full inspiration of Scripture (which 27% of Catholics do not) than do Catholics in transubstantiation (30-82%). And Catholics overall, including its clergy, are much more diverse and liberal in beliefs than those who most strongly believe in Scripture being the supreme authority, which basis RCs attack.
In addition, the Roman Catholic model, in which what they church says supremely determines Truth, results in competing churches claiming they are the supreme magisterium to whom all must submit.
And again, the debate is not whether there needs to be magisterial oversight and authority, that the manner of claims. Rome makes herself in claiming to be Christianity's supreme authority.
We must therefore go back and ask ourselves under what basis was the New Testament church established. How could writings and men of God be est. as being so without an infallible magisterium? (cf. Mk. 11:28-33: "for all men counted John, that he was a prophet indeed.") How could souls have assurance that an itinerant preacher was the Christ when he was rejected by the people who sat in the seat of Moses? ("By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things? Mark 11:28.) Did Christians believe because of affirmation from the latter, or on the basis of scriptural substantiation in word and in power?
Certainly the latter means has the problem of competing claims (although so does sola ecclesia, if to a lesser scope), but which necessitates the manner of power, purity, probity and performance the Lord and his apostles manifested. Yet Rome claims more for itself than even the apostles did, as in a perpetual quality of assured veracity for their office. And you must have such in proportion to your claims, but it is almost obscene to compare Rome (or me, without making her claims) with the apostles. But insofar as any church does, it will gain more true followers. A evangelical type believer should look for a man as Peter, but which popes stand far in contrast to (as do i), some worse than others.
If we don’t accept that the Catholic Church, its Councils, writings are valid (as we must do with your line of reasoning)…how do we accept the Apostles actions and comments as real and not fantasy folktales?
You certainly do not have to do so with my line of reasoning, in which both writings and men of God are est. as being of God due to their enduring divine qualities and attestation, which the powers that be are to confirm, yet they are such even if rejected by such powers, as was the case in the beginning of the church.
You have the cart before the horse. It was because men and writings had been est. as being of God before there ever was a church in Rome that the church began, yet which church God used to further attest to the supernatural origin of Scripture.
"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following. Amen." (Mark 16:20) "So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed." (Acts 19:20)
And thus, as Israel did, the church itself became was an instrument for additional revelation, but which does not make the former the supreme authority over the latter. Which was a basic error of the Pharisees. (Mk. 7:2-16) Akin to Rome, "For the decision of their Scribes, or "Soferim" (Josephus, σοπισταί; N. T., γραμματεἴς), consisting originally of Aaronites, Levites, and common Israelites, they claimed the same authority as for the Biblical law, even in case of error (Sifre, Deut. 153-154); they endowed them with the power to abrogate the Law at times (see Abrogation of Laws), and they went so far as to say that he who transgressed their words deserved death (Ber. 4a). By dint of this authority, claimed to be divine (R. H. 25a), they put the entire calendric system upon a new basis, independent of the priesthood. They took many burdens from the people by claiming for the sage, or scribe, the power of dissolving vows (Ḥag. i. 8; Tosef., i.). - http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12087-pharisees
The Gospels? The entire Canon confirmed by the Church?
Once again you reverting back to the argumentation an infallible magisterium is necessary to recognize writings as being of God, and that the that the steward of Scripture is that magisterium. Which reasoning has already been made void.
Was Jesus Christ really the Son of Man? How do we know, beyond our feelings of personal bias, if we don’t have any of the above? You are again making the mistake of confusing the validity of the teaching office, but which is not above Scripture, thus while it can be wrong the elect have a higher source, with that of what Rome claims, with its magisterium being the supreme and infallible source.
Well, then, one wonders how anyone know that the book of Isaiah, among others, were of God, and that John the Baptist was, and that Jesus was the Christ, without an infallible magisterium!
Maybe the powerful and influential Arians would persuade the people and Christianity would be dead as we know it, not even a basic agreement that Christ was God.
Here again you ignore the fact that Evangelicals historically have had great success in refuting the Arians and such, due to a shared contention for core truths, which is why the modern evangelical movement arose. Thus they have been attacked by both liberals and Rome, as their greatest threats. Meanwhile Rome in the modern world increasingly became home to many diverse beliefs, and had its greatest success in suppressing doctrinal error and lack of submission by her unholy and unscriptural use of the sword of men.
But when unable to do combat heretics as we have done, I think an error of Catholicism in was that of increasingly resorting to arguments from tradition. In respect to such groups as the Arians, traditions which upheld scriptural truth could were invoked, but increasingly tradition was placed in the same level as Scripture, including extra biblical traditions of men, and thus they were also perpetuated.
(I suppose we could use that same line of debate to accuse the entire of Christianity as being false. We would likely have an Arian Church and a Christ is Divine Church. Mass confusion, uncertainty and not even consensus on what it means to be a Christian at the most basic level.)
“That is not the same line of debate, and your reasoning is a logical fallacy”
It IS a logical fallacy. Because I simply took your fallacious reasoning in regard to your Christian/Jewish argument and carried it forward to it’s illogical conclusion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.