Protestantism was falsified here on TOL
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
The church has become so corrupted by our time that Jesus is standing on the outside seeking anyone inside to allow Him to come in.
Revelation 3
14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked:
18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
You're arguing against yourself!
There isn't one syllable of that gibberish that a protestant couldn't have said against you! Swap out the word "Protestant" with "Catholic" and how would you respond to it?
Any response you would make would be equally valid in the mouth of a Protestant.
Why?
Because you are arguing here against logic itself! Whether you intended to do so or not isn't clear but, one way or another, that's what you've done.
Logic (i.e. sound reason) is THE "valid universal authority". It is the ONLY - I repeat - it is the ONLY means your mind has to know ANYTHING. Nothing can be proven nor can anything be falsified apart from sound reason - period. Any argument you make presupposes both the veracity and necessity of logic. You cannot utter a single intelligible syllable without the use, and therefore the tacit endorsement of and submission to the authority of logic.
If two people claim to have used logic to arrive at contradictory conclusions then one or both have made an error in their use of logic and it is by the very same logic that it can be objectively determined who has made an error and what that error was. This is true even in matters of opinion because it requires reason to declare a thing to be a matter of opinion and thus one's error may well be treating a matter of opinion as though it were a matter of fact. In any case, no argument could be made on either side without the use of reason, which you're entire theological worldview (Catholicism) intentionally undermines.
John 1:1 In the beginning was Logic, and Logic was with God, and Logic was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
Resting in Him,
Clete
Is that why the RCC makes and bows before statues, which God forbids, because they make their own doctrines by ignoring scripture ?
Derf
Well-known member
The Catholic church isn't catholic.
Right Divider
Body part
That is completely INCORRECT, but I expect that from Cathaholics like yourself.
The "two or three gathering together" is about JUDGEMENT. Look the the fuller passage without your RCC blinders on.
That refers to the Law:
Right Divider
Body part
What stops me from going to "Mass" is that I avoid evil as much as possible.
Right Divider
Body part
That paragraph should be made into a "sticky" and everyone that logs in here should be made to read it and agree to it before they can post here.
Idolater
Matthew 28:19 Dispensationalist (aka Catholic)
Literally no qualified credentialed biblical translators ever chose "logic" to render the underlying koine Greek word there. Why not? If it were at least not unreasonable then at least someone would have selected "logic" like you have here, but nope. Meaning it's unreasonable to suppose that this is what the Apostle John meant here.
Your imagination is clearly vivid, that's good, but this is a bridge too far. It means 'word', it means 'speech', but not 'logic' or 'reasoning'. It doesn't mean "In the beginning was 'valid inference' and 'valid inference' was with God and 'valid inference' was God." It doesn't mean that.
I had an argument here long ago, and I gave up on it long ago.
I contended that this site should at least represent the real world make-up of the Christian world, which is mostly Catholic, and in which dispensationalism probably make up no more that 1%.
I was told that this site is funded and dedicated to a particular ministry and the POV of that ministry will always prevail here, and that's the way its going to be.
So, that's the way it is going to be here if not in the actual real world.
Matthew 7:14 ...narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.I had an argument here long ago, and I gave up on it long ago.
I contended that this site should at least represent the real world make-up of the Christian world, which is mostly Catholic, and in which dispensationalism probably make up no more that 1%.
I was told that this site is funded and dedicated to a particular ministry and the POV of that ministry will always prevail here, and that's the way its going to be.
So, that's the way it is going to be here if not in the actual real world.
You're not wrong.
The point was to refute your appeal to popularity.
The degree to which Catholics outnumber Dispensationalists is, according to Jesus, a point on the Dispensationalist's side of the column, not yours.
Interesting that the chart you cite includes "Non-Trinitary/Cult" as a category of "Major Christian Traditions". Biased much?
I have tried to explain this a million times and nobody understands. Maybe you will this time:
I understand that "right" is not found in the numbers. I do not say that our numbers make us right and you wrong. I have never said that.
I am simply saying that people should respect the Christian world and all who make it up, and understand that their opinion may not be held by everyone else. Take anti-Trinitarians for instance: They post as if their view "The" Christian view as if all of Christianity and 2,000 years of beliefs never happened.
Consider homosexuals who call conservatives "extremists". They up-end thousands of years of history and beliefs, and all of a sudden want to pretend that they are the normal ones in society. Well, they are welcome to their beliefs but they are not welcome to re-write history.
The same goes for dispensationalists, and other new kids on the block: Believe as you will, and make your case, but do not act like 2,000 years of Christianity was not Catholic. Do not pretend that 2,000 years of beliefs are just inventions. Again, they and you are welcome to your beliefs but they are not welcome to re-write history.
Re-writing history is a hallmark of socialists and the Left Make you case based on your beliefs, but do not adopt the ways of your political enemies and deny or re-write ecclesiastical history.
That's all I want to see..
Last edited:
I understand you see it that way, but I do not. You see, in the Catholic Church, many are frauds and fakes, like Pelosi and Biden. They are in the wide gate. As an obedient Catholic, I am in the narrow gate.
Right Divider
Body part
Don't forget the "Pope".
If you were, you'd not be in there.
Your post implied it in more than one way.
Because it is not relevant to whether their position is correct.
Also, whether or not God is a Trinity or not is not a matter of opinion. It is either true or it is false. If you believe it, you are either right or you are wrong. This is not how matters of opinion work. Peas taste like pellets of green snot. That's my opinion. It is true for me but for someone else, peas might taste like little popping packages of pure joy and that would be true for them. This is how opinions work and there is very little room for them in matters of doctrine.
What do they call homosexual conservatives?
That's because they are wrong. Whether they are normal or not is just simply not a matter of opinion. They either are or they aren't. There is no objective argument that can be made that they are even close to being normal because they are NOT normal. That's why the term "pervert" works.
You should educate yourself better. We're not so new as you've likely been lead to believe. The doctrines have existed much longer than the name. Not that it would be relevant to whether dispensationalism is true or false.
The modern Baptist church has its origins primarily in the mid 17th century and Catholics love to think that there was nothing but Catholicism until the Reformation but there is Catholic history that dates the anabaptists to as far back as 400ad (if memory serves me correctly *). Catholicism has never been so "universal" as priests want their parishioners to believe.
Some are, some aren't. Indulgances, for example - clearly an invention. Pergatory is another great example of purely made up out of whole cloth, theological fantasy.
You mean like the Catholics did?
Most Catholics are left wingers and if you think that virtually every Christian was a Catholic before the 1600s then you've fallen victim to a Catholic rewrite of history. Something that cannot be avoided when you make "tradition" one of the pillars upon which the Pope's power is predicated.
Well, I get your gist and I don't disagree with you in principle. Intellectual honesty is really what you're advocating for here and that's certainly a rare find these days. My point has been in this post to point out that you aren't immune to these problems just because your a Catholic. In fact, given your theological reliance on tradition, you're not even insulated from them.
* I cannot find that reference. Perhaps someone here can find it for me. It had to do with a letter that one Catholic priest wrote that mentioned the Anabaptists and how long they'd existed)
It doesn't matter how you see it. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION!!!
Your pseudo argument only makes the entire analogy meaningless.
No it didn't, because I didn't. That's just how your mind processed it.
We did not, and that is the end of this discussion.
Look in the mirror, and see the Leftist Marxist that you despise in the political realm: See him in you, and how you have adopted their practice in the religious realm.
You speak the opposite of the truth. You are a religious Marxist.
Last edited:
I read it again before I said that and yes it did. It is not your audiences fault for misunderstanding you, it's yours for not being clear.
You completely did and you probably know it, based on that idiotic "end of the discussion" comment. No one says such things if they have anything substantive to say on the subject. Not that I'm the least bit interested in debating it. Such discussion cannot be had with Catholics, it requires them to ask to many questions about beliefs that are too deeply entrenched.
You are so idioticly delusional that I regret having even engaged you in discussion. What a completely asinine thing to say.
You are a liar.
Nice copy paste job from Wikipedia!
I'll find the reference eventually where some catholic priest in something like the 1600s writes about what he called the anabaptists being an issue for some number of centuries. Its a reference that places whoever those people were (not the 16th century version of anabaptist but clearly something other than Catholics) to a time well before most Catholics say that Catholicism started, which is somewhere around 400ad.
Clete
Last edited: