History of the "Born Again Christian" movement.

[redleghunter]

Also, I don't believe in a "One True Church". I believe there is a Church that is the most intelligent in apologetics and theology, but a One True Church is only validated from the person itself. The reason why the Catholic church and the EO can fit the description of the One True Church in terms of it's theological/apologetic views. That doesn't mean i am one of those who believe a Christian is defined by the specific denomination he is part of.

That’s not the reason your church calls themselves the one true church and I think you know that.

 

[Cis.jd]

If differences in Biblical interpretations defeats Sola Scriptura, then differences in who deems themselves the one true church defeats magisterial infallibility.

No, your statement is absolutely illogical and it shows your ignorance on the whole "One True Church".
If there is only 1 true church then obviously every other church other than it is infallible or just wrong.

One of your many guest out answers is "Protestant never made the claimed the "One True Church"... our only rule of faith being "what is in the Holy Scriptures" as you've put it. Which i've shown isn't true, there are many Protestants who claim they are the One True Church because their interpretation of scripture is the one that is correct. That is why I referenced the INC site and their arguments against the trinity, they believe they are the One True Church because they follow (what they think) Scripture really says. In short, the Scriptures to them became before the Church. For RCC and the EO, the Church came before the scriptures that is why your sentence here makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Cis.jd]

That’s not the reason your church calls themselves the one true church and I think you know that.

Yes, I am aware there are catholics who believe the "One True Church" reflects the correct dogmas, practices, and over all religious rules.. but as I said in the past, that i believe rationalism and even science should be important as a rule of faith. It is a personal belief that i choose to hold.

 

[redleghunter]

No, your statement is absolutely illogical and it shows your ignorance on the whole "One True Church".
If there is only 1 true church then obviously every other church other than it is infallible or just wrong.

One of your many guest out answers is "Protestant never made the claimed the "One True Church"... our only rule of faith being "what is in the Holy Scriptures" as you've put it. Which i've shown isn't true, there are many Protestants who claim they are the One True Church because their interpretation of scripture is the one that is correct. That is why I referenced the INC site and their arguments against the trinity, they believe they are the One True Church because they follow (what they think) Scripture really says. In short, the Scriptures to them became before the Church. For RCC and the EO, the Church came before the scriptures that is why your sentence here makes absolutely no sense.

Which Protestant churches believe they are the one true church?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

redleghunter said: ↑

Sir you must now address your own self defeating defeater.
If differences in Biblical interpretations defeats Sola Scriptura, then differences in who deems themselves the one true church defeats magisterial infallibility.

Your second sentence makes no sense. Now, can you answer the question or am I just going to assume that your answer is "yes, it's not scriptural"? I can get to how illogical your second sentence is after.

It is completely logical. If Sola Scriptura is invalid as the basis to determination of Truth (the issue behind your "we decided what the NT consisted of) since it results in differences in Biblical interpretations, then magisterial infallibility is also invalid as the basis to determination of Truth since it also results in differences in interpretations of both Scripture and Tradition. In your own words, two "completely different churches and [who] have been for many years." "We have a different view of which church is more accurate to the line of the apostles."

Why can you not comprehend the logic of the argument?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

No one has ever denied Moses' reputation but what you are bringing up here is a horrible argument. I assume you of all people understand the arguments christians make in explaining why we don't adhere to the mosaic laws or any of the jewish traditions anymore. That doesn't mean we don't see anything less about them but I don't think i need to explain to you why their traditions and old laws are no longer required anymore.
Moses never lost his authority, Jesus just made a new church. He already fulfilled everything. Every single tradition and all the mosaic laws were bits and pieces to help prepare the world for the 1st coming of the Messiah. You know that, yet here you are making this argument?

Rather than being a a horrible argument, the problem is you simply fail to comprehend the issue here! Of course i understand the arguments Christians make in explaining why we don't adhere to the mosaic laws or any of the Jewish traditions anymore, which is because of what Scripture says, NOT on the basis of ensured ecclesiastical veracity, which your horrible argument!

Which is that Cis.jd said: ↑ For you to show no doubt towards the 27 NT, means that you are following the rules and traditions of the Catholic church, in addition to having faith that they canonized the bible with pure honesty and accuracy."

And "This shows an infallible magisterium."

And as quoted in my response to you, The fact that you still have faith that the NT you have is correctly canonized, and that there is no other books than 27, then you are displaying actual assurance on the declaration of the Church. And yes, the church has to be infallible.

Therefore your argument essentially is that to affirm with what an authority affirms is to affirm the integrity and veracity of it and all its magisterial judgments, and thus since we concur with the judgment of your church on the NT, then we need to assent to its judgments on what else was of God (men, words, writings).

Which means, as patiently explained before, consistent with this Catholic (this argument did not originate with you) logic, that since the NT church affirmed the manifest judgment on the body of writings which had manifestly been established as authoritative by the time of Christ, then it thereby affirmed the integrity and veracity of it and all its magisterial judgments. Which means, 1st century souls should not have held an itinerant man in the desert was a prophet indeed, (Mark. 11:32) nor one from Galilee and His followers.

Which means your logic has effectively nuked the NT church.

And note that I responded to your argument before, here , only to have you still confused and in misrepresentation (or is this more willful error?)

To wit: "So here it is again, the ol "The [RC] Church showed what was Scripture; therefore she is the sure authority on any what other Divine revelation consists of." So since this presumes Rome, with her novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is essential to ascertaining what is of God, here again (and again and again) is the unanswered question (and which responds to your question: "But how do you know that the early [Catholic] church was right or not?"):

"Tell me how an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established by the time of Christ, from which both He and the NT church therefore appealed to in substantiating Truth claims. In RC theology, one cannot even discover the contents of the Bible apart from faith in her. "

I understand how dangerous answering this question is, for if an authoritative body of Scripture had quite manifestly been established before Rome presumed she was essential for this, then she was not, and contrary to your premise, souls could ascertain the inspired status of the 27 books of the NT, not on the basis of an infallible church saying so.

But if you want to argue that your church as a corporate body wrote these books, and passed them one, and thus she is infallible and must be submitted to, well then go ahead and say so.

If you think it's illogical for Catholics to claim the importance of following the apostolic traditions passed down by the church yet ignore the old mosaic laws, then can I ask what your arguments where in that old SDA thread about how the Bible says we should worship only on Saturday?

I find this rather incredible as well as distressing. Do you actually think that the NT does not show the law on the 7th day Sabbath as belonging to the class of laws regarding "holydays, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days" (Colossians 2:16)? If not, see here:

However, I think your question is another vain attempt to argue that SS-types disagree then it is an invalid means of determination of Truth, while holding that faith in leadership as infallible is the answer, which is basically how the SDA church began. And in reality division is seen under both means, but only one is how the NT church began, and it was not that of Rome's.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

PeaceByJesus said: ↑

Where did you ask this, or is that another intentional bit of error?

post #268

It simply is not there, for what it is worth.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I don't think I need to respond to your previous post because you obviously wrote before reading this.
I needed you to say why Luther disagreed with the canon --and also point out other events in where people had doubts with the canon-- on your own; because both of you were going far from the initial point and I needed you to bring up all the discussions in history regarding the agreements or disagreements over canonization with in NT.. thankfully you've done that.

- You've mentioned that Luther had disagreements due to scholarly reasons
- You've even mentioned how it continued even into Trent
- You've mentioned that even the church had members who didn't agree with the canonization of some of the books (research on some of those people, if you don't mind).
A little late, but at least we can see that you read some by now. But the point is that I did more than mention these things, but substantiated them, unlike you did for your intentional "bit of error."

Now, since you've been showing me how much "i don't know" maybe you can educate me more on what the final decision was for these doubted books?
Why not read linked material while you charged us with not doing so? The canon of Trent was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation, after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

In conclusion, your argumentation is an argument against being a RC, and I hardly think more laborious reproof is warranted.

 

[redleghunter]

but as I said in the past, that i believe rationalism and even science should be important as a rule of faith. It is a personal belief that i choose to hold.

So you are employing methods to test truth claims your own church does not sanction for doctrine.

Now who is being the “Solo Meo” advocate here?

 

[Cis.jd]

So you are employing methods to test truth claims your own church does not sanction for doctrine.

Now who is being the “Solo Meo” advocate here?

Not truth claims. But on social standards. My personal view is that there are things in our society in where scripture and church rule should be thought out more as an answer. The problem with Divorce for example.. many christian denominations, as well as catholicism, are against this and mostly because scriptural reasons. In fact, many Catholic countries don't allow divorce at all. While I understand the verses used to show how "immoral" divorce is, i think any rational person can actually understand why some people need to be separated and should have the right to re-marry depending on the persons circumstances. These are political differences, not theological ones. We are allowed to have these opinions and it isn't "Solo Meo".

 

[Cis.jd]

Why not read linked material while you charged us with not doing so? The canon of Trent was issued in reaction to Martin Luther and the Reformation, after an informal vote of 24 yea, 15 nay, with 16 abstaining (44%, 27%, 29%) as to whether to affirm it as an article of faith with its anathemas on those who dissent from it.

In conclusion, your argumentation is an argument against being a RC, and I hardly think more laborious reproof is warranted.

Ok, so from the link I can sum up that your answer: is the final decision was that these 27 books we have right now are the infallible Word of God of the NT. Do you have even the slightest doubts on this final decision or you are certain that they decided right?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ok, so from the link I can sum up that your answer: is the final decision was that these 27 books we have right now are the infallible Word of God of the NT. Do you have even the slightest doubts on this final decision or you are certain that they decided right?

I am certain that these 27 books we have right now are the infallible Word of God of the NT, but I am not certain because Catholicism affirmed they were, whether before Trent settled it or after. I only concur with their judgement on this, as I do with the judgment of those who affirmed the body of writings which were manifestly established as authoritative by the time of Christ.

Which thus simply does not comport with your fallacious logic that if one concurs with what an authority affirms then the former affirms the integrity and veracity of the latter, and thus all its magisterial judgments. And that since we concur with the judgment of your church on the NT, then we need to assent to its judgments on what else was of God (men, words, writings).

Also I also affirm that some U.S. Supreme Court decisions were right, but thus in your logic I must affirm Roe vs. Wade. I also have a broken watch will i am sure is correct twice a day, and which i could send you.

Now i have already logically demonstrated/explained to you numerous times why your logic is simply fallacious, only to have you stubbornly persist in trying to compel affirmation to it. But since I do concur with your judgment on some things then perhaps you insist i affirm your logic in all things.

Sorry, it is not going to work, and it makes RCs look bad. i suggest you return this polemic to the place your "purchased" it for a "refund."

 

[Cis.jd]

I am certain that these 27 books we have right now are the infallible Word of God of the NT, but I am not certain because Catholicism affirmed they were, whether before Trent settled it or after. I only concur with their judgement on this, as I do with the judgment of those who affirmed the body of writings which were manifestly established as authoritative by the time of Christ.

Which thus simply does not comport with your fallacious logic that if one concurs with what an authority affirms then the former affirms the integrity and veracity of the latter, and thus all its magisterial judgments. And that since we concur with the judgment of your church on the NT, then we need to assent to its judgments on what else was of God (men, words, writings).

Also I also affirm that some U.S. Supreme Court decisions were right, but thus in your logic I must affirm Roe vs. Wade. I also have a broken watch will i am sure is correct twice a day, and which i could send you.

Now i have already logically demonstrated/explained to you numerous times why your logic is simply fallacious, only to have you stubbornly persist in trying to compel affirmation to it. But since I do concur with your judgment on some things then perhaps you insist i affirm your logic in all things.

Sorry, it is not going to work, and it makes RCs look bad. i suggest you return this polemic to the place your "purchased" it for a "refund."

Ok, I understand your answer: You agree with the church on the canon but not with the other things that are incompatible with those decided scriptures. I get that.

I myself have things I don't agree (or atleast have skepticism) with Catholicism - i've expressed those social disagreements. So theoretically speaking, If i want to convert to Protestantism because of (discovering how correct it is that scripture being the rule of our faith) does it matter what denomination I choose (SDA, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc)? Meaning to say, is it possible for me to be Presbyterian, because I agree with the Sacraments but disagree with the teaching of their elders, baptizing of infants, the rejection of confession?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ok, I understand your answer: You agree with the church on the canon but not with the other things that are incompatible with those decided scriptures. I get that.

What evidently you still fail to get is why, which is because the basis for selective affirmation this in contrary to your logical fallacy of affirm one thing (the NT canon)-assent the church is infallible=assent to all its like judgments.

I myself have things I don't agree (or atleast have skepticism) with Catholicism - i've expressed those social disagreements.

The issue is in the details, and note as concerns social teaching, the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states: "In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching, the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it ." - Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

And it is quite well evidenced that the popes encyclical (Laudato si' (24 May 2015) | Francis) on Climate Change etc. is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy. (172 references in this encyclical cite church teaching and prelates for support).

So theoretically speaking, If i want to convert to Protestantism because of (discovering how correct it is that scripture being the rule of our faith) does it matter what denomination I choose (SDA, Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc)? Meaning to say, is it possible for me to be Presbyterian, because I agree with the Sacraments but disagree with the teaching of their elders, baptizing of infants, the rejection of confession?

You are hardly fit to be a true Protestant, since despite extensive attempts to disabuse you of you idea that discovering how correct the judgment of a body is on one thing itself warrants conversion to it and assent to all its judgments.

But if he weight of Scriptural substantiation and not a magisterial judgment is to be determination of what is of God, then as to which body you should join, first you need to make sure you are converted by humbling yourself as a damned and destitute sinner, and believe in the Lord Jesus to save you, asking Him to do so with penitent heart, and seeking to be filled with His Spirit. And surrender in prayer to the Lord to obey His word to wherever it leads and to whatever church it will lead to, and choose one you can get to that in heart and word is in closest conformity to what the NT manifestly believed as seen in Acts-Revelation.

Just as you would if Tradition was your the rule of our faith and you were choosing btwn Rome and the EOs or some variant of them.

The question is, what should be the basis and means for deciding to convert to a religion? What is the basis for a Catholic? Does it require a prior assent of faith in the church as infallible and therefore convert because she says she is the OTC? (Which is still a fallible decision in an self-proclaimed "infallible" church.)

Or should it be on the basis of evidential warrant, even though that is subject to differing interpretations? And if the latter is the correct means to covert to Rome, why is wrong for those who choose evangelical faith?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Being a history buff,
After digging and reading into early Christianity, I found that history was silent on the existence of the "born again" movement. For example, as far as my studies lead me, even the Protestant Reformers such as Martin Luther, Uldrich Zwingli and John Calvin never mentioned or even said something in formality or in passsing about the born again Christian movement in any of their writings, or if they did, I missed it.

A "movement" means that of souls discovering the transformative effects of regeneration by faith, as in To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10:43) "hear the word of the gospel, and believe..giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;...purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:7-9)

And as for Luther,

Romans 1:17. “At last, as I meditated day and night on the relation of the words ‘the righteousness of God is revealed in it, as it is written, the righteous person shall live by faith,’ I began to understand that ‘righteousness of God’ as that by which the righteous person lives by the gift of God; and this sentence, ‘the righteousness of God is revealed,’ to refer to a passive righteousness, by which the merciful God justifies us by faith, as it is written, ‘the righteous person lives by faith.’ This immediately made me feel as though I had been born again, and as though I had entered through open gates into paradise itself. From that moment, I saw the whole face of Scripture in a new light. ... And now, where I had once hated the phrase, ‘the righteousness of God,’ I began to love and extol it as the sweetest of phrases, so that this passage in Paul became the very gate of paradise to me.” - Dr. Luther’s Theology | Christian History Magazine (emp. mine)

And as an aside, contrary what we see in modern Catholic commentary such as much in the NAB ,

"Luther held a high view of the inspiration of the Bible, calling it once “the Holy Spirit book.” But what truly distinguished his exegesis was his ability to make the text come alive. For him, Bible stories were not distant historical acts but living current events, as we see in his treatment of Gideon... (ibid)

 

[Cis.jd]

What evidently you still fail to get is why, which is because the basis for selective affirmation this in contrary to your logical fallacy of affirm one thing (the NT canon)-assent the church is infallible=assent to all its like judgments.

So what are the things you don't disagree about with Roman Catholicism? You agree about their decision amongst people like Luther to include these 4 books and not question, but what theological/scriptural views that are in your view unscriptural - praying to saints, justification?

The issue is in the details, and note as concerns social teaching, the "Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church" (2005) states: "In the Church’s social doctrine the Magisterium is at work in all its various components and expressions. … Insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching [which , the Church’s social doctrine has the same dignity and authority as her moral teaching. It is authentic Magisterium, which obligates the faithful to adhere to it ." - Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church

Yes, I am aware about the Church's social doctrine but i do not accept it.. this is the same with Protestants too.
For me, personally, I believe there are 3 important rules of faith - Tradition, Scripture, and Reason/Science. You can probably find threads of me talking about this, this is a different topic.

You are hardly fit to be a true Protestant, since despite extensive attempts to disabuse you of you idea that discovering how correct the judgment of a body is on one thing itself warrants conversion to it and assent to all its judgments.

But if he weight of Scriptural substantiation and not a magisterial judgment is to be determination of what is of God, then as to which body you should join, first you need to make sure you are converted by humbling yourself as a damned and destitute sinner, and believe in the Lord Jesus to save you, asking Him to do so with penitent heart, and seeking to be filled with His Spirit. And surrender in prayer to the Lord to obey His word to wherever it leads and to whatever church it will lead to, and choose one you can get to that in heart and word is in closest conformity to what the NT manifestly believed as seen in Acts-Revelation.

Ok, so lets say I want to be Baptist. Is accepting Jesus and everything you said that is underlined, all i need to do, and are there certain beliefs/rituals that i need to change/abandon such as believing in Sacraments is this because of traditional purposes or is it because it's not scripture?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

So what are the things you don't disagree about with Roman Catholicism? You agree about their decision amongst people like Luther to include these 4 books and not question, but what theological/scriptural views that are in your view unscriptural - praying to saints, justification?

Which is another implicit admission that you do not necessarily read linked pages, for more than one I have linked to a list of many Catholic distinctives that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

And yes, praying to saints and other created beings in Heaven is one of them

Yes, I am aware about the Church's social doctrine but i do not accept it.. this is the same with Protestants too.

But you have been attacking Protestants for not assenting to the judgments of Rome, based upon the fallacious reasoning that concurrence with its judgment on a canon requires assent to her other judgments.

Thus you would be being inconsistent with yourself if you do not assent to the social teaching insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching.

The question thus becomes whether the nature of your dissent is to Catholic social teaching insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching. When opens a Pandora's box of all the teachings of Rome which are subject to variant interpretations, from how many infallible teachings there are (not just papal), and what they all are and all mean, to the magisterial level of all teachings (encyclicals, Bulls, etc.) and just what they all are and all mean.

While Catholics attack Bible Christians for divisions based upon their judgment of what Scripture means, Catholicism has its sects and divisions based upon their judgment of what valid church teaching is and means. And the words and the V2 magisterium has actually made that manifest, versus created more unity.
Do you concur with the popes encyclical (Laudato si' (24 May 2015) | Francis) on Climate Change etc. or deny that it is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy?

For me, personally, I believe there are 3 important rules of faith - Tradition, Scripture, and Reason/Science. You can probably find threads of me talking about this, this is a different topic.

But for a faithful RC just what Tradition, Scripture consists of and authoritatively mean as well as the validity of certain conclusions of Reason/Science are to be determined by what your church officially states (the status of which can be subject to debate). And much historical papal teaching makes required assent to such teaching quite broad.

Thus as one sanctioned RC apologist stated,

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914

Ok, so lets say I want to be Baptist. Is accepting Jesus and everything you said that is underlined, all i need to do, and are there certain beliefs/rituals that i need to change/abandon such as believing in Sacraments is this because of traditional purposes or is it because it's not scripture?

What does "all i need to do" mean? To go to Heaven even at the moment of conversion all that is needed is to believe, but which must be by Biblical saving faith which will effect obedience, while a Cath. believes all one needs to do to go to Heaven the moment of conversion would be to be validly baptized, even (for an infant) without the Biblically required personal penitent faith, by which the subject becomes good enough to be with God. But since the unholy recalcitrant sinful nature remains after baptism, then after that the RC must become personally practically good enough to actually be with God in Heaven, usually through her Purgatory (see link).

But to be one which can claimed to be a believer that is justified by faith, and to be counted as such, then presuming ability and relative to grace given) one needs to manifest "things which accompany conversion," (Hebrews 6:9) Thus Paul knew that the Whereby Paul could say to the Thessalonians, "Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God. (1 Thessalonians 1:4) And ye became followers of us, and of the Lord, having received the word in much affliction, with joy of the Holy Ghost: So that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia. For from you sounded out the word of the Lord not only in Macedonia and Achaia, but also in every place your faith to God-ward is spread abroad; so that we need not to speak any thing. (1 Thessalonians 1:6-8)

However, while one is judged to be a true believer - whose faith is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and made accepted in the Beloved on His accounted, and made to positionally sit with Him in Heaven, in which the believer has immediate direct access into the holy of holies to come to God, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; Hebrews 10:19) - based upon the evidence of his faith, and is rewarded for it; (Hebrews 10:35; Matthew 25:31-40)

Yet his saved status is not appropriated/obtained on the basis of his works, and or personal interior holiness, as if fit to be with God thereby, as in Catholicism, but it is because his faith is counted/imputed for righteousness. "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Corinthians 5:21)

In the light of which evidential faith one can know they presently have eternal life, (1 John 5:13) and as it is by faith then believers are thus warned as believers to persevere in faith, not drawing back into perdition (Hebrews 10:38,39) via an "evil heart of unbelief in departing from the living God" (Hebrews 3:12) as manifest by impenitent willful continuing in know sin, (Hebrews 10:25ff) and going back into bondage and making Christ of "no effect," to no profit, by faith in a false gospel. (Galatians 5:1-4)

But instead we are to hold to "the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end," (Hebrews 3:12,14) and not resist God who is the one who motivates and enables both conversion (John 6:44; 12:32; 16:8; Acts 11:18; 16:14; Ephesians 2:8,9) and obedience to the Lord Jesus, (Philippians 2:13) but believers are to yield to Him, to His Spirit in obeying the Word of God, who works obedience. (Romans 8:4)

Thus in a word, all you need to do is believe on the crucified and risen Lord Jesus, the Divine Son of God, but just as all we do is due to what we really believe - even if at the moment - then saving faith is manifest by obedience by the Spirit, (Romans 8:13,14) with believers characterized by this, including repentance when convicted of not doing do. (2 Corinthians 7:9-11) Thanks be to God.

Now if you want to make the issue just what precisely what faith-obedience entails beyond basic core beliefs in the Lord Jesus to save damned sinners on His account by effectual faith, which effects standard works of faith (worship, prayer, study, sharing the gospel etc.) and a life of traditional Biblical morality, to meaning one must understand and assent to theological definitions from infralapsarianism to RC metaphorical Eucharistic theology, which souls saved on the day of Pentecost never heard of, then the answer is no.

Saving faith is that which is to go wherever the Truth of Scripture leads to, and must not be rebellious to it, but saving faith obeys the light one has, thus the council in Acts 15 only required the most basic moral obedience, while inferring more light would be given.

And note that comprehensive doctrinal unity has been a goal never realized, and will not until the Lord returns. (1 Corinthians 13:10-12; 1 John 3:2) And there is even in Catholic theology a hierarchy of Truths, and varying degrees of warrant for belief exist for what is taught, and the believer must obey what he is convinced of, "Holding faith, and a good conscience; which some having put away concerning faith have made shipwreck." (1 Timothy 1:19)

It is certain that one cannot deny such a cardinal doctrine as that Jesus Christ came in the flesh, which John emphasizes, (1 John 4:2,3; 5:6,7) that of being truly incarnated, with a true and manifestly actual physical body, (1 John 1:1-3) versus merely being as a phantom, whose appearance did not correspond to what He physically was (as is the case with the christ in Catholic Eucharistic theology), but whether He will return before, during or after the Great Tribulation is something devout believers can disagree on.

It is revealing that cults are known for both their psychological tactics (like requiring implicit assent to elite leadership as possessing ensured veracity) and denial of certain core beliefs common to the rest of Christianity, whom they have no fellowship with, but consider their competition. Which is very contrary to the norm in evangelical faith, despite differences.

I can testify that I have realized an instant basic bond with many souls I have met (usually by offering a gospel tract) who had had a "day of salvation" by repentant faith in Christ, which conversion I realized while still being a weekly Mass-going RC, and the reason for this fellowship is due to us both entering into a life-changing relationship with the Lord.

But which basic fellowship I rarely have found with Catholics I have tried to engage conversation with, or tried to about Christ and salvation (even while i was a RC). For instead of Christ being the focus, if anything spiritual, it is their church,and Mary and the wafer, and thus they are often antagonistic toward any talk about salvation, or simply ambivalent or avoid it.

 

[Cis.jd]

Which is another implicit admission that you do not necessarily read linked pages, for more than one I have linked to a list of many Catholic distinctives that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

And yes, praying to saints and other created beings in Heaven is one of them

But the thing is though, you were making claims that "whatever we know" or use as a source against you is from Catholic sites, and here you are backing up your claims using links to Protestant sites and also your own. It's not that I'm not reading it, but why can't I use the same style of dismissal towards what you provide?

You said (and linked) that praying to saints and other created beings in Heaven is one of them. However, there are some protestant denominations and EO that do: Anglican/Episcopal praying to Mary
Some of those Protestant denominations also have priests and bishops.

Clement I (who died before 100AD) also wrote about it, he was even considered a Bishop by Irenaeus and Tertulian. So why do you have the same, fallacious protestant arguments about this as examples of "unscriptural-man created" teachings by the Catholic church? So now, since these are not just exclusive to catholicism, then by your logic, those other protestants are also guilty of unscripture regardless of Sola Scriptura being the main principle and ruling of faith? Maybe they are following it's just you align to the interpretation of your denomination which is why you see them as unscriptural?

But you have been attacking Protestants for not assenting to the judgments of Rome, based upon the fallacious reasoning that concurrence with its judgment on a canon requires assent to her other judgments.

When I am saying "not following Rome/the church", i am speaking on the subject of Theology and Apologetics.

The point of that argument was just to show you that "you are following rules of a church" that you accuse of scriptural violations.. but some these accused "unscriptural traditions" with in the catholic church are agreed by other protestant denominations. All of you have a different opinion on what teachings are "unscriptural".

Praying to saints, belief in Sacraments, infant baptism, and if someone can lose their salvation are examples. Some protestants have this on their list of unscriptural teachings from Catholics while other protestants think this is scriptural.

Now, if this is not agreed on, then you can't argue with someone who has skepticism towards the Bible. Your site shows all the the violations with in the RCC, look at how untrustworthy they are.. so logicallly why should someone trust any of their decisions, which include the 27 books?

That is why it isn't me that making a logical fallacy: If the Catholic church doesn't follow scripture/apostolic tradition at 100%, then why would they canonize these books and putting the proof against them for the world to see?

 

[Cis.jd]

Thus you would be being inconsistent with yourself if you do not assent to the social teaching insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching.
The question thus becomes whether the nature of your dissent is to Catholic social teaching insofar as it is part of the Church’s moral teaching.
snip.

Yes, it is inconsistent but it's more of a problem I have with Christianity in general and not just Catholicism. I am highly against the religion being used to define and rule every sociological, scientific, and even moral reasoning in this world. I personally think that there are facts in this universe and situations in life/society that isn't answered in the Bible nor has it been taught by the Apostles. Examples are: the story of the Heliocentric theory, Young Earth, flat earth, divorce, abortion, climate change (as you brought up).

While Catholics attack Bible Christians for divisions based upon their judgment of what Scripture means, Catholicism has its sects and divisions based upon their judgment of what valid church teaching is and means. And the words and the V2 magisterium has actually made that manifest, versus created more unity. Do you concur with the popes encyclical (Laudato si' (24 May 2015) | Francis) on Climate Change etc. or deny that it is intended to teach what the Church's moral teaching demands as regards ecology and economy?

No, I don't concur.

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith What does "all i need to do" mean? snip.

It is based on what I underlined in your post on #317: first you need to make sure you are converted by humbling yourself.....snip

I am asking if that is all I need to become a Baptist. will my beliefs in Sacraments and beliefs in praying to saints cause a problem? I should be ok regardless, since it's not needed in protestantism to concur with everything.

However, while one is judged to be a true believer - whose faith is counted for righteousness (Romans 4:5) and made accepted in the Beloved on His accounted, and made to positionally sit with Him in Heaven, in which the believer has immediate direct access into the holy of holies to come to God, (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; Hebrews 10:19) - based upon the evidence of his faith, and is rewarded for it; (Hebrews 10:35; Matthew 25:31-40)
snip

Ok, i'm confused. So there are evidences of faith, so what do i need to show that I believe in Jesus? How can someone just judge another person on what they truly believe in?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

No, your statement is absolutely illogical and it shows your ignorance on the whole "One True Church".
If there is only 1 true church then obviously every other church other than it is infallible or just wrong.

One of your many guest out answers is "Protestant never made the claimed the "One True Church"... our only rule of faith being "what is in the Holy Scriptures" as you've put it. Which i've shown isn't true, there are many Protestants who claim they are the One True Church because their interpretation of scripture is the one that is correct. That is why I referenced the INC site and their arguments against the trinity, they believe they are the One True Church because they follow (what they think) Scripture really says. In short, the Scriptures to them became before the Church. For RCC and the EO, the Church came before the scriptures that is why your sentence here makes absolutely no sense.

I'm gonna chalk this up as a false dilemma. Reason being, there is only one true Church, but it is neither the RCC nor EO, nor Protestant or any other Church established by men. The one true Church is the Church of Jesus Christ which He is the head and mediator of. (1 Timothy 2:5) From God's perspective, from the perspective of eternity, there is only one true Church. However, those members of the kingdom of God, only God knows in temporal time where they are placed, when they are born, where they gather with similar minded believers. We can spend all day discrediting this or that sect or denomination, because there is no shortage of examples of wolves among the sheep and examples of errors among men to be pointed out from every sect/denomination under the umbrella of Christendom.