Replies

Let’s take the contrarians defenders of the Protestant heresy one by one.

BLUEDRAGON takes issue with Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical, a tenured professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex, was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians who resigned and rejoined the Catholic Church.

Why? Because after having reviewed the materials from both sides, he changes his position and reverts to Catholicism. In other words, Beckwith cannot be trusted. One wonders what BLUEDRAGON would say about Ulf Elkman and Richard Neuhaus.

Ulf Ekman, the founder of Scandinavia’s biggest Bible school, with a congregation of some 4000 individuals, converted to Catholicism because his theological inquiry confirmed for him the indispensability of the Catholic sacraments.

Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, was a pre-eminent Lutheran theologian in America. He knew his Bible-text and history like no other Protestant having taught and written extensively on the subject. When he converted to Catholicism he said, “I have long believed that the Roman Catholic Church is the fullest expression of the church of Christ through time.”

DANIEL1212 produces a stack of comments to confirm that Catholicism requires unwavering obedience to its doctrines. But this is an unremarkable finding. Catholicism is not open to picking and choosing in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer divided itself into some 30,000 sects and keeps subdividing itself. Just as one cannot pick and choose to believe in the writings of one Evangelist versus another, (whose writings from hundreds of scripts were culled and presented as the authentic word of God in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority), one cannot as a true Catholic accept some part of Catholic doctrine and dispense with others.

Doctrinal menu selection is not how Petrine authority works. Christ, taught ONE coherent truth and this is why He established ONE Church and entrusted the Great Commission to go forth and “teach.” This is why St. Paul speaks of “obedience” to faith and teaching (Romans 6:17).

This implies not only that we cannot have different “teachers” from Billy Graham to David Koresh and your corner street Foursquare Church pastor all offering “different versions” of God’s worth, but that Catholic doctrine is a unified whole, and departures from it must of necessity be labeled a heresy.

DANIEL1212 however hails this division without realizing that he is talking about a division of “truth.” In support of this division he offers this pure piece of nonsense. He says that: “division produced Godly men such as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moody, Edwards, etc. Which are desperately needed today.” It escapes him that heretics, like atheists, Hindus, Rastafarian, can all lead good lives. They also all reject the Eucharistic Presence of Christ and the transubstantiation that occurs during the Sacrifice of The Mass, a centerpiece of Catholic doctrine.

Take for example Jay Richard. He is a senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. Richards holds a Master of Divinity degree, a Master of Theology degree and a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary. Read him speak about his transformation from Calvinist to Catholic.
http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/discovery-institute-fellow-is-dedicated-to-christian-unity/

aMOREPERFECTUNION insists that we post these “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church. The canon of the Bible may be the BEST example of Sacred Tradition that the Catholic Church is the Bible itself because nowhere in the Bible does it say what the canon is. We need to rely on Sacred Tradition that tells us what the canon is. Without Sacred Tradition, we have no way of knowing what is inspired Scripture and what is not.

A fuller explanation of this Sacred Tradition is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church: 74-95, 113

REDLEGHUNTER offers his version that St. Mary Magdalena of the Cross- a Catholic mystic made a pact with the devil. He offers this to prove that her beliefs were no different than those of David Koresh. Seriously?

DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM offers his “own” books on Meta-Christianity to refute Catholic doctrine and poses a series of questions about differences of opinion between James and Peter and Paul. He forgets the very genesis of this confusion. It’s an old Protestant theme used to undermine Petrine authority. This has been answered over and over again. But here’s a basic refutation.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html

If more is needed perhaps try reading some books by Benedict XVI, called the theological Einstein of our times. Maybe get a copy of Benedict XVI, “The Early Apostles.”

EDITOR-SURVEYOR seems to think that Christ is not true man and true God. The early Church Fathers buried this Arian heresy. Indeed, what was formerly a Jewish Sabbath of Saturday observed for centuries was now the First Day of the Week. An earth-shattering and profound change in custom and practice is what Benedict XVI offers as one of the many proofs of Christ’s bodily resurrection. Without a belief in the triune God, references to Yeshua is meaningless rot.

COMMERCECOMET scolds RBMILLERJR because apparently his comment of a “great post” was not directed to the contrarians. At least that much is obvious.

BOATBUMS attempts to minimize the Catholic intellectual tradition. For this he cites scripture: Corinthians 1:25 “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength,” is yet another supreme example of why Protestantism thrives in shallow waters.

This quote has everything to with the paradox of the cross. The verses preceding 1:25 puts the selected quote in context. “For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

This is the same BOATBUMS who a while ago posted this:

“There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start. Creeds, on the other hand, HAVE changed as well as their interpretation on each point.”

The dozen Bible Churches in your town have different pastors and each unlike the Joel Osteens, TD Jakes, and Jimmy Swaggarts all provide different interpretations of God’s word. I suspect they don’t have a Credo or a Catechism.

Reviewing these posts by Bible Christians make it impossible to disagree with Dr. A. David Anders, a born and raised Bible Christian and a Wheaton-educated Protestant historian who after several years of intense study converted to Catholicism and wrote: “Protestantism is a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.”

>>>DEPROGRAMLIBERALISM offers his “own” books on Meta-Christianity to refute Catholic doctrine and poses a series of questions about differences of opinion between James and Peter and Paul. He forgets the very genesis of this confusion. It’s an old Protestant theme used to undermine Petrine authority. This has been answered over and over again. But here’s a basic refutation. http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/50-new-testament-proofs-for-petrine.html<<<

Yawn - more obfuscation...

By the way, my books were not written to specifically refute RC doctrine - but they do anyway, along with a lot of Protestant doctrines as well.

.
>>”Indeed, what was formerly a Jewish Sabbath of Saturday observed for centuries was now the First Day of the Week” <<

.
Typical error of ignorance.

The only ‘first day’ worship that the early and true assembly ever respected was held at the beginning of that “work day” on what you Romans call Saturday evening. it was a potluck dinner and Bible study, called Havdalah.

The “mystery of iniquity” eventually brought about the serious depredation of that true worship.

BOATBUMS attempts to minimize the Catholic intellectual tradition. For this he cites scripture: Corinthians 1:25 “For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength,” is yet another supreme example of why Protestantism thrives in shallow waters.

You continue to fall back on your arguments by assertion and arguments based on authority, yet these defenses have been refuted numerous times. Do you imagine no one can remember back that far? Do you imagine your arguments are enhanced by insulting those with whom you debate? You keep referring to a "shallow waters" or the inference that no non-Catholic is capable of deep theological thought. I, too, can prance out a list of numerous powerhouses of the Protestant/Evangelical faith, lists of former Roman Catholics who converted to Protestant/Evangelicalism and a litany of the tomes of their writings that could match up to anyone you might presume is the prime example of a "really, really smart person", but that isn't the point, is it?

This quote has everything to with the paradox of the cross. The verses preceding 1:25 puts the selected quote in context. “For Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are called, Jews and Greeks alike, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God.”

No, this has WAY more to do with human capacity for intellect than just the world's view of the cross. Because God HAS chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise, the weak things to bewilder the mighty, we ALL may know that the glory for all things is God's. You trot out your roster of smart people as if we should just surrender to anything they say because they just must be right seeing they are so smart and all, but you cannot honestly deny that some of the most brilliant people who ever lived were deniers of God, rejecting His authority and placing themselves as the epitome of human thinking and accomplishments. Scripture tells us God laughs in derision at such men, that those who profess themselves wise are really fools. Is there a place for wisdom in men and women of God? Of course! God grants wisdom to those who seek it from Him. The beginning of wisdom is the fear of God, let's not forget.

So, how do we know who is wise in God's eyes? Those who seek Him, to know Him, to love and serve Him. He mocks those who mock, but gives grace to the humble. (Proverbs 3:34) So, that's why I minimize not just the Catholic intellectual "tradition" but ANY tradition that rests on it's laurels and presumes the "little people" will be awed and amazed at their brilliance that they swallow whole whatever is spun by them. Without reliance upon the word of God, it's all just human wisdom, which can be foolishness. I find it quite curious how much you cherry pick the writings of these Catholic stalwarts. You skipped right on past that paragraph from Benedict on the sad state of the Catholic hierarchy leading up to the Reformation. I guess it must be difficult to see one's bubble burst? That ones' Rome-colored glasses are quite smudged.

This is the same BOATBUMS who a while ago posted this: “There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start. Creeds, on the other hand, HAVE changed as well as their interpretation on each point.” The dozen Bible Churches in your town have different pastors and each unlike the Joel Osteens, TD Jakes, and Jimmy Swaggarts all provide different interpretations of God’s word. I suspect they don’t have a Credo or a Catechism.

Every time you trot this out, it only shows how shallow your own little knowledge pool is. I'm beginning to think you would drown in that deep end you so like to boast of. Do you imagine that the dozens of Catholic priests, bishops, popes and lay people don't also have their own personal interpretations of God's word? Tell me, has the Roman Catholic church EVER produced a comprehensive Bible commentary? Has the official catechism of the Catholic church guaranteed that NO Catholic thinks outside of the magesterium-built box? Sure, you can claim all you want that the tenets of the Catholic religion are spelled out in this document, but you cannot in all honesty claim it has brought about "unity" of belief. There IS such a thing as absolute truth - and it's true whether anyone believes it or not. God's truth, as revealed in His sacred word, is that truth and as long as someone is seeking to know it, God will reward him. This was understood from the start. God's word is truth. It stands as an unmovable rock. Whatever little "extras" man adds to his religion either doesn't matter or makes the difference between salvation or condemnation. We should major on the major things, not the minor things. Keep the main thing the main thing. I repeat, “There IS a firm set of beliefs that identify genuine Christians. They are ALL Biblical, have been believed always, everywhere and by all and have never changed from the start. Can Catholicism claim this?

Do you imagine non-Catholic Christians are ignorant of the writings of the "early church fathers"? How many times have we presented their words to dispute the false assertion of modern Catholics that they hold the SAME faith as the early church? Do you want to go around THAT carousel again? All you have is bluster and swagger as if you are clinging to the shirt tails of those whom you admire and can garner some of their "glory" by praising them. It is so transparent that you don't seem to do much thinking of your own. Perhaps that is why you lash out at others while never addressing the actual questions posed to you. Great men of God were never afraid to do that because they knew that TRUE wisdom comes from above.

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. (James 3:17)

You said;

BLUEDRAGON takes issue with Francis J. Beckwith, a “born-again” evangelical, a tenured professor at Baptist-affiliated Baylor University in Waco, Tex, was the president of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), an association of 4,300 Protestant theologians who resigned and rejoined the Catholic Church.

I "took issue" with Beckwith, by quoting him?

That is absurd.

The portion I was quoting from Beckwith refuted a central tenet of your own positions, not my own.

I was agreeing with him, as far as that went...

That should have been obvious.

Among that which you continued with, is this little bit of mind-reading/attributing of motive;

In other words, Beckwith cannot be trusted. One wonders what BLUEDRAGON would say about Ulf Elkman and Richard Neuhaus.

In other words?

No, there is no "in other words", as far as my own words went. Those other words are YOUR words, not my own.

One would have had to be a mind reader, or an actual prophet of God, to be able to "see" into myself in such way that you could attribute motive/mind read, etc., in the ways which you just did (as has been a long habit of yours for doing).

If yourself not claiming prophecy, or else having prophetic insight (you don't have it, at this juncture -- maybe some other time you may?) until then; refrain from attributing motive, mind reading, and the 'ol "in other words" wherein you try to put words into the mouths of others.

That sort of discussion/debate tactic leads to flame wars.

But hey, if that's all you've got, then I've already won this round, and will continue on course of my own long string of minor victories, for what those are worth (not all that much, in the larger scheme of things). It's like taking candy from a baby.

It is yourself who appears, or seems to be saying that Beckwith should not be trusted.

One need not follow Beckwith all the way to his own reverting back to Roman Catholicism, in order to rightfully enough quote him, in part, as for a narrower issue.

I was "trusting" Beckwith as far as his own estimation of the preaching aptitude of so-called Protestant evangelicals.

It appears to me that it is yourself who is being dismissive of Beckwith...

Here is what I was refuting, of your own words;

No one can deny that the Catholic intellectual tradition is second to none.

And here is your own witness, Francis Beckwith, testifying against that [quoted immediately above] statement of yours [underlining, bolding, and enlarging for emphasis, my own];

"...Catholics would do well to plumb these works, since in them Protestant evangelicals often provide the biblical and philosophical scaffolding that influenced the Church Fathers that developed the catholic creeds as well as the Church’s understanding of the Bible as God’s Word.
But these evangelicals do so by using contemporary language and addressing contemporary concerns. This will help Catholics understand the reasoning behind the classical doctrines.
In terms of expository preaching, as well as teaching the laity, Protestant evangelicals are without peers in the Christian world.
For instance, it is not unusual for evangelical churches to host major conferences on theological issues in which leading scholars address lay audiences in order to equip them to share their faith with their neighbors, friends, etc. Works by evangelical philosophers and theologians such as [J.P.] Moreland, [Paul] Copan, and William Lane Craig, should be in the library of any serious Catholic who wants to be equipped to respond to contemporary challenges to the Christian faith.

source=http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/2772

Obviously, Beckwith strongly disagrees with your own frequently repeated, and insulting estimations of "Protestant' scholarship.

I can agree with him, as far as that goes...

Yet, it is not fine philosophy and scholarship which can lead one to God, but His own drawing of a man (or woman) to Himself.

There truly is not other Way.

Even your own ~~Church~~ ecclesiastical association agrees with that estimation..well...at least since some time after the Protestant Reformation forced the issue(s), and considerations as for that (how one comes to the Lord -- not by their own will, but by the will of God) had to be re-aligned closer to the treatments of the subject as it is written, in Holy Scripture.

Let’s take the contrarians defenders of the Protestant heresy one by one.

Are you begging the question just a wee bit here?

...impossible to disagree with Dr. A. David Anders, a born and raised Bible Christian and a Wheaton-educated Protestant historian who after several years of intense study converted to Catholicism and wrote: “Protestantism is a confused mass of inconsistencies and tortured logic.”

It's impossible to disagree with ELSIE, a born and raised heathen that was re-born as a Bible Christian and a HolySpirit-educated Protestant bible student who after several years of intense study remains a Protestant and writes: “Catholicism is a confused mass of inconsistencies and a history of tortured HERETICS.”

Steelfish,

You addressed this snippet to me. I will allow everyone else to handle the issues you raised for them.

"aMOREPERFECTUNION insists that we post these “sacred traditions” of the Catholic Church."

You claimed there are Sacred Traditions and posted a verse from Paul to try to back up your claim.

I am asking for proof. If there are sacred traditions from Paul, post the list. That is all. You are not providing anything to support your specific claim.

If your claim is true, you should be able to DEMONSTRATE it with facts, evidence and logic. You have not in three or four posts about this topic.

If that list you claim is valid, simply:

1. Post the official list of Sacred Traditions from Paul
2. Demonstrate it is from Paul and was transmitted without error.

When you do that, you will have supported your truth claim. If you can't do it - and you cannot - you made an unsupported claim that is just opinion without fact.

"The canon of the Bible may be the BEST example of Sacred Tradition that the Catholic Church is the Bible itself because nowhere in the Bible does it say what the canon is."

Nor does it need to do so. I recommend you do a thorough study of history about the Canon. This is not only false, the Canon has been reexamined repeatedly over centuries and earlier errors corrected without "Sacred Tradition."

"We need to rely on Sacred Tradition that tells us what the canon is. Without Sacred Tradition, we have no way of knowing what is inspired Scripture and what is not."

FIRST, I must point out that instead of backing up your truth claim that Paul passed on traditions, you shifted ground to the canon. Perhaps you didn't realize your error. It happens sometimes.

In doing so, you committed the Logical Fallacy of Ambiguity. Some might see it as "Moving the Goalposts." Whatever.

In doing so, you failed to support your claim.

In doing so, you also found a new logical fallacy you've not used:

Circular Reasoning - purporting that sacred tradition is evident because we need sacred tradition so sacred tradition must exist - and making the Bible lower on authority than tradition. How highly you have made man over the inspiration of God!

If you have proof, why aren't you posting it Steelfish?

I do love beef. Give me a half-pound of ground, put this behind us and go have a beer!

Best.

Please show that what the Catholic Church teaches as tradition is exactly what the apostles taught that they referred to as tradition. If you cannot do that I have no choice but to believe that the Catholic Church teaches something different than what the apostles taught and are thereby accursed for preaching another gospel.

BLUEDRAGON takes issue with Francis J. Beckwith

Rome needs some conservatives, yet some other RCs impugn such converts as being still infected with Prot theology.

DANIEL1212 produces a stack of comments to confirm that Catholicism requires unwavering obedience to its doctrines. But this is an unremarkable finding. Catholicism is not open to picking and choosing in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer divided itself into some 30,000 sects and keeps subdividing itself

You sure turn a blind eye to all that has refuted you so far, which you cannot recover from. At least you finally responded to one thing I said, yet which is the same specious comparison i exposed. as specious. As said but ignored, even the Armstrong apologist you invoked disowned the 33,000 sects, while you marginalize the divisions in your one organizational church while on the other hand RCs have such a broad definition of "Protestant" that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Unification 747 thru it. Meanwhile those who hold most strongly to Scripture as literally being the wholly inspired and accurate word of God are far more unified in core conservative Truths than the overall fruit of Rome. Moreover, the fact is that Catholicism is indeed open to picking and choosing, the difference btwn it and Protestant is only a matter of degrees. But which division is covered up because Rome has organizational unity, which is because one can believe most anything and have this Org. treat and counts you a member and life and in death.

And she professes a limited degree of doctrinal assent, but which is largely on paper, with priests dissenting as well as laity. Moreover, what one does and overall effects is the evidence of what one believes, not merely what they profess. (Mt. 7:20; Ja. 1:18; 1Cor. 4:20)

And both what level teachings fall under and their meanings are subject to different interpretation, even by councils. The result being, as shown before in the words of one poster who wryly commented,

The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html

RCs must count even even publicly know proabortion/sodomy/Muslim souls as bretheren, since Rome does and you are to follow your leaders, and cannot obey Scripture as fund,. evangelicals do. (2Cor. 6:14-18)

Then you have the significant differences with the EOs vs Rome.

Yet unity itself is not the goal of the Godly, as certain cults, which effectively operate under the Roman sola ecclesia model as the basis for the veracity of Truth claims, evidence the greatest corporate unity.

Under both sola ecclesia and sola Scriptura (or even prima Scriptura) we see divisions, and the real issue is what basis for the veracity of Truth claims is Scriptural.

And the fact is that, as explained but ignored, the church did not begin under the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, but upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. By which common souls judged men of God as being so, and followed itinerant preachers (and Preacher) in dissent from the historical magisterium and stewards of Diving revelation, which under the Roman model are to be followed.

And under which manifest men of God (2Cor. 6:4-10; 12:12) the church saw its early limited degree of unity. And which model for unity has not been tried and found wanting, but wanting to be tried, while Rome's carnal substitute is not Scriptural.

And as a former RC, who remained therein for 6 years after being manifestly born again, i can honestly testify that in terms of real spiritual unity based upon essential salvific Truth I have found far far more among evangelicals than among RCs (and i looked for such).

in the way Protestantism is that has like a cancer

Actually, being able to separate, as Scripture requires, (2Cor. 6:14-18; cf. 1Co. 11:19) means that the the body of Christ and kingdom of God has greatly expanded itself thru division from liberal churches and Rome.Yet it seems RCs would rather have us be in liberal Prot churches than in conservative evang. ones, perhaps because the former are usually those closest to Rome.

And because multitudes of RCs become part of conservative evangelical churches which RCs attack, yet they are the most unified in conservative beliefs and values , despite being a faith which allegedly is all in disarray according to RCs. Because for RCs, the preeminence of Rome trumps all.

Just as one cannot pick and choose to believe in the writings of one Evangelist versus another,

RC theologians themselves still struggle to reconcile such in Scripture, but Rome does not get into officially defining many texts of Scripture much, and her commentary on such is often liberal.

(whose writings from hundreds of scripts were culled and presented as the authentic word of God in the Synod of Rome in AD 382 under Petrine authority),

More dubious propaganda. The claim that the Council of Rome (382) approved an infallible canon is contrary to Roman Catholic statements which point to Trent, and depends upon the Decretum Gelasianum, the authority of which is disputed (among RC's themselves), based upon evidence that it was pseudepigraphical, being a sixth century compilation put together in northern Italy or southern France at the beginning of the 6th cent. In addition the Council of Rome found many opponents in Africa.” More: http://www.tertullian.org/articles/burkitt_gelasianum.htm

And scholarly doubts and disputes about books continued right into Trent, which provided the first "infallible" indisputable canon after the death of Luther. And who included the apocryphal books in his Bible, though in a separate section, in keeping with an ancient tradition.

Doctrinal menu selection is not how Petrine authority works.

Peter never gave the final word on doctrine as the head of all the church, and in Acts 15 it was James who provided the final judgment on what should be believed and done, confirmatory of what Peter Paul and Barnabas believed. And holy (he was) Peter was the only apostle to be openly rebuked by another apostle, (Gal. 2 due to his denial of this via his actions (though Barnabas also was also implicitly reproved).

Christ, taught ONE coherent truth and this is why He established ONE Church and entrusted the Great Commission to go forth and “teach.”

Which church is a critical deformation of the NT church , beginning with her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is the basis for the veracity of her claims. For 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.

This is why St. Paul speaks of “obedience” to faith and teaching (Romans 6:17).

And utterly fails to even mention Peter in his extensive letter to that church on the obedience of faith, not even among his 27 acquaintances in Romans 16, nor in any epistles or letters in the life of the church does the Holy Spirit provide a reminder to submit to the pope as the supreme infallible Father/head of in Rome, or at least specifically to pray for him, or present him as first of a line of exalted infallible heads, all of which would befit a cardinal doctrine.

Your every attempt to defend Rome exposes the fallacious nature of your polemics.

This implies not only that we cannot have different “teachers” from Billy Graham to David Koresh and your corner street Foursquare Church pastor all offering “different versions” of God’s worth,

True to form, here you are lumping a man who operated more akin to Rome does with her popes with standard evangelical preachers. Yet you object to Mary Magdalena of the Cross as an example of what can exist in Rome, but this time was supposedly exposed. And as David Koresh types and liberals are to be combated, thus the modern evangelical movement arose in the last century, to combat liberal revisionism, which those who subscribe to this tradition still do, against such as deny the core apostle's creed truths we both concur on, as well as those who add to Scripture such as Mormonism and Rome. But also including the liberal revisionism Rome has taught in her own sanctioned Bibles for decades. The differences among such defenders is not on of God’s worth, but secondary issues.

Yet as with conservative RCs, they see the strongest unity as well as the strongest disputes, both due to their stronger commitment to Truth.

but that Catholic doctrine is a unified whole, and departures from it must of necessity be labeled a heresy.

Pure propaganda. A RC is not living in the real world but in a fantasy if they believe that. The doctrinal unity of Rome is overall largely on paper, and subject to variant interpretations, and thus you have schisms and sects among those who are committed to doctrinal purity based on historical writings. But rather than that, Rome seeks its members to implicitly assent to leaders, which define what Rome means in each generation. Meanwhile, in the past Rome has seen even more confusion at times.

He says that: “division produced Godly men such as Matthew Henry, Spurgeon, Wesley, Moody, Edwards, etc. Which are desperately needed today.” It escapes him that heretics, like atheists, Hindus, Rastafarian, can all lead good lives.

That is a manifestly desperate bit of sophistry, as the men listed were not simply good men, but Godly men of faith, being unified in core salvific Truths and love for Christ, though disagreeing on such issues as efficacy of grace with human freedom (which remains an unresolved dispute in Rome) and the larger issue of election.

They also all reject the Eucharistic Presence of Christ and the transubstantiation that occurs during the Sacrifice of The Mass, a centerpiece of Catholic doctrine.

Which makes them unified in rejecting heresy, which the Sacrifice of The Mass, the centerpiece of Catholic doctrine, manifestly is , with her separate class of believers distinctively titled priests (hierus), which the Holy Spirit never called NT presbuteros/episkopos, nor described them as having a distinctive sacerdotal function, nor are even shown dispensing bread as part of their ordained duties, and whose primary function is to pray and preach the word. (Acts 6:3,4; 2Tim. 4:2) The only priesthood in the NT church is that of all believers, who are all called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; Heb. 13:15,16)

Take for example Jay Richard. He is a senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. Richards holds a Master of Divinity degree, a Master of Theology degree and a Ph.D. in philosophy and theology from Princeton Theological Seminary.

Which is simply another example of an apostate, and of your seeming mesmerization with intellectual elites, yet which, as showed before, is contrary to how the NT church began. It was the common people who hear the Lord gladly, and were led by unlettered men before Paul, whom we much esteem as compared with RCs, while the lettered looked down their nose at such.

Why don't you get one of your heavy weights to come here and debate here, who will actually defend Rome in her past and present incarnation? Let me know if you can get one to show up.

In post 594, Steelfish wrote: before I spend a minute on any other sophomoric screed.

Oh, the irony!!

COMMERCECOMET scolds RBMILLERJR because apparently his comment of a “great post” was not directed to the contrarians.

I was astonished that anyone would commend such a "sophomoric screed" (to properly redirect your insult to material worthy of it).

Thank you, Elsie, for post 605. Has Steelfish missed any of those logical fallacies in his posts?

In post 608, rbmillerjr informs us that he has already had a logics and fallacies class. Did you pass? I have to wonder how much you retained from the class when you commend post #552. What did you see that was of value?

Thank you for the time and completeness for that extraordinary defense of Catholicism. A well done does not suffice. You cite several searchers who have found truth in the fullness of the Catholic faith.

The convert, Cardinal Newman, has the words Lead, Kindly Light as the first lines in one of his poems. He wrote this poem while still a young Anglican clergyman. Later he was to say that converts come to the Catholic Church “not so much to lose what they have, but to gain what they have not, by means of what they have, more may be given to them...”

I say Lead, Kindly Light. And in Cardinal Newman’s following words ‘amid the encircling gloom, Lead Thou me one!