Rome's tactics.

[GoKart Mozart]

I never said it was only RC.

This is your first allusion that your post includes other faith groups.

There is no support for baptismal regeneration in scripture.

You have made no effort to show that one way or the other (yet).

But that is exactly what they do, whether you agree with me or not, don't matter. They remove it by re-interpretation into a false doctrine.

Then show us.

Their doctrine of baptismal regeneration is not biblical.

You said that already but offer no other support for the statement.

Do you think this is the first time I looked into this? FYI I was born and raised RC. At a young age, I stopped going to Church. My mother remained RC. Since then, I have studied the religion quite extensively. It was one of my interests.

Oh well then, I know some Roman Catholics as well, quite a few in fact. That even includes a few family members. I find their faith/beliefs interesting also.
Gee, we have something in common.

Should I just throw all my education away and believe what you have to say about it..

No, no one has to take my word for anything. otoh, you could address their catechsim. All I did was post what Catholics' say.

 

[Carbon]

This is your first allusion that your post includes other faith groups.

Well, I already knew such. Didnt think I had to bring it up since we were talking R C-ism. Sorry

 

[Carbon]

You have made no effort to show that one way or the other (yet).

Your asking?

Then show us.

You said that already but offer no other support for the statement.

Oh well then, I know some Roman Catholics as well, quite a few in fact. That even includes a few family members. I find their faith/beliefs interesting also.
Gee, we have something in common.

No, no one has to take my word for anything. otoh, you could address their catechsim. All I did was post what Catholics' say.

As we go forward in this thread there will be a lot of time to bring these things up. Be patient my friend.

 

[Carbon]

You said that already but offer no other support for the statement.

I have to prove to you that baptismal regeneration is not biblical. Really?

I think you or a RC has to prove that it is biblical. Since you support the doctrine.
I know I'm asking you to gather proof for something that doesn't exist.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

I have to prove to you that baptismal regeneration is not biblical. Really?

I think you or a RC has to prove that it is biblical. Since you support the doctrine.
I know I'm asking you to gather proof for something that doesn't exist.

You started the thread. You are the one that said, "The RCC replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit with the outward ordinance of baptism. So, the outward ordinance of baptism replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit."
In my way of thinking, it would be on you to prove your point.

 

[fastfredy0]

As we go forward in this thread there will be a lot of time to bring these things up. Be patient my friend.

Grabs a bag of popcorn ... this should be entertaining.

 

[fastfredy0]

I think you or a RC has to prove that it is biblical. Since you support the doctrine.
I know I'm asking you to gather proof for something that doesn't exist.

It is difficult to prove something does not exist.

 

[Carbon]

You started the thread. You are the one that said, "The RCC replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit with the outward ordinance of baptism. So, the outward ordinance of baptism replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit."
In my way of thinking, it would be on you to prove your point.

As I thought. You cannot.


Okay, I will. But let's straighten one thing out first. The RCC does not replace regeneration by the Spirit with baptism, simply because it can't be replaced. But they teach regeneration through baptism, which replaces the truth with a lie. I hope you understand that.

Now, here is one passage about regeneration for now. John 3,
Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

As Jesus said in John 3:3 unless someone is born again ..... This born again is regeneration.

And how does this happen? By God, by grace. Not water baptism.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph 2.


There will be more.

 

[Carbon]

It is difficult to prove something does not exist.

Proving something exists that has nothing backing it is impossible. That's why he wouldn't try.

All one has to do IMO is explain what regeneration is according to scripture, that's all. I cant change people's minds, only God can do that. Some people's minds arent on the list to be changed. But. That is above my paygrade.

 

[makesends]

Grabs a bag of popcorn ... this should be entertaining.
View attachment 742

You aren't that funny. I hope.

 

[Mikeuk]

The RC Church has given people a religion that will allow them to indulge in their sinful lusts and yet still appear to be Christians.
holding to a form of [a]godliness although they have denied its power; avoid such people as these. 2 Tim 3:5.

One of the first things they do, (along with Arminians) is remove regeneration, the removing the corrupt nature into the image of God. This keeps many in the RCC and keeps them from going to a true church.

The RCC replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit with the outward ordinance of baptism. So, the outward ordinance of baptism replaces the inward regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.

The next thing the RCC does is provide a substitute for the internal sanctification of the whole person.

Thought? comments so far?

Thoughts? How sad.

It is time you studied the origin and beliefs of catholicism.
It IS the early church instituted by Jesus. It holds the beliefs of the early church Jesus set up..

Several things are definitively true:
1/ The early church passed on the true faith by "word of mouth and letter". AKA tradition. Which is why Paul told you to stay true to that.

2/ Scripture was not written as a comprehensive faith manual, and on many topics it is ambiguous. Which is why protestants disagree on every important aspect of doctrine, and why they have schismed into 10000 bits..

3/ Even questions like "what is scripture" cannot be answered by scripture alone, and when Calvin says it is obvious reading it "because of the feeling it gives " he claims EXACTLY the same imprimateur as JWs and mormons!
It is an historic fact that the church decided what was scripture, from many competing books. It did not drop from the sky!

So How can you know what is true teaching?
Answer history tells you.

The earliest fathers were disciples of the apostles and record the beliefs of Jesus' church.
Start with polycarp, ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr.
It is true - they are not "inspired" in the same sense as scripture. They can go off the rails.

But when ALL of them from the first are unanimous about a set of principles, and none are dissenting you can be sure that is a true record of what the early church taught "by word of mouth and letter". That is the tradition you all deride, the true faith handed down which as scripture says you should only listen to those who were "sent". They were sent!!!

Who sent Calvin? or You? By what imprimateur do you speak?

Take born again refers to baptism and baptismal regeneration. No doubt about it. So that is what catholics believe.

So on these - the early fathers in some cases taught by John the apostle and a few generations later they are united to present day. The nicean fathers echo the same.
First - the succession of appointed bishops hand down the true faith. The early fathers , provably taught in some cases by John the apostle or only a generation away. Theyare the custodians of the true faith. Iraneus can list them all to his time.
They hand it down as "tradition".

Second the church had a succession and structure and as we learn from scripture, it is that you take disputes on doctrine. The first council noted "it seemed good to us and the holy spirit". They had the power to bind and loose. Even questions like "what is scripture" from many competing books were a decision of the church, as much defined by what they rejected as what they accepted. Even Jerome the first well known translator deferred to the church on what was scripture.

So when Calvin decried this and said "you know by how you feel" what is scripture, did you know he is echoing the exact same nonsense as mormons and JWs? Calvin does not have authority. The eary church was certainy not calvinist it was catholic. Your tradition "calvinism" the lens through which you view scripture has no authority. Are the canons of dort inspired? Can they claim any succession or link to those who were inspired. Not. Calvinism is a man made tradition of the middle ages!

Third The early church was liturgical and sacramental and believed unanimously in a eucharist of the real flesh / body valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.

I could go on... but that is what the early church - Jesus church - believed from the first. So all you who claim to want to return to the early church need only knock on the door of your local catholic church. The acorn became an oak. But it is the true church none the less.

The writings are not the only record of what the early church believed . On an early tomb in rome long before nicaea or even the new testament was decided there is an inscription on a tomb of justin : "Peter and Paul Pray for him" So the early church clearly did believe in both a purification state (where prayers for the dead are effective) and also that intercessory prayer is valuable. But then t prayers for the dead are also referred in macabees which is a part of scripture.

Luther had no authority to remove it, despite his dislike of what it said. Luther had no authority to remove it.

Do you have a true eucharist (which is needed for eternal life , see John 6) presided by a bishop in succession?
That is what john 6 means. The early fathers are united on it.
If not you are not compatible with the early church or part of the true church.
Without those bishops given power to bind and loose you cannot be sure of doctrine.


So in answer , yes we believe in baptismal regeneration. Of the true kind, we know becase of tradition, the teaching and dispute resolution power of the church given in scripture.. That teaching authority was given by christ. "How can they (like calvin) preach if they are not sent" So scripture tells us.

Alas it is so sad to see, protestants diverge on all significant issues of doctrine, because when they disagree they have nowhere to go, except schism. It often seems to me that the ONLY thing that unites protestants (I was one) was dislike of catholicism THey disagree on everything else!

Has the church bishops or popes behaved impeccably? Of course not, they are people and people are sinners. They have done dreadful things.
But Jesus gave them the power to jointly decide doctrine with the power to bind and loose. It is why catholic doctrine on the succession , eucharist, baptismal regeneration etc have never changed

 

[Carbon]

Thoughts? How sad.

It is time you studied the origin and beliefs of catholicism.
It IS the early church instituted by Jesus. It holds the beliefs of the early church Jesus set up..

Several things are definitively true:
1/ The early church passed on the true faith by "word of mouth and letter". AKA tradition. Which is why Paul told you to stay true to that.

2/ Scripture was not written as a comprehensive faith manual, and on many topics it is ambiguous. Which is why protestants disagree on every important aspect of doctrine, and why they have schismed into 10000 bits..

3/ Even questions like "what is scripture" cannot be answered by scripture alone, and when Calvin says it is obvious reading it "because of the feeling it gives " he claims EXACTLY the same imprimateur as JWs and mormons!
It is an historic fact that the church decided what was scripture, from many competing books. It did not drop from the sky!

So How can you know what is true teaching?
Answer history tells you.

The earliest fathers were disciples of the apostles and record the beliefs of Jesus' church.
Start with polycarp, ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr.
It is true - they are not "inspired" in the same sense as scripture. They can go off the rails.

But when ALL of them from the first are unanimous about a set of principles, and none are dissenting you can be sure that is a true record of what the early church taught "by word of mouth and letter". That is the tradition you all deride, the true faith handed down which as scripture says you should only listen to those who were "sent". They were sent!!!

Who sent Calvin? or You? By what imprimateur do you speak?

Take born again refers to baptism and baptismal regeneration. No doubt about it. So that is what catholics believe.

So on these - the early fathers in some cases taught by John the apostle and a few generations later they are united to present day. The nicean fathers echo the same.
First - the succession of appointed bishops hand down the true faith. The early fathers , provably taught in some cases by John the apostle or only a generation away. Theyare the custodians of the true faith. Iraneus can list them all to his time.
They hand it down as "tradition".

Second the church had a succession and structure and as we learn from scripture, it is that you take disputes on doctrine. The first council noted "it seemed good to us and the holy spirit". They had the power to bind and loose. Even questions like "what is scripture" from many competing books were a decision of the church, as much defined by what they rejected as what they accepted. Even Jerome the first well known translator deferred to the church on what was scripture.

So when Calvin decried this and said "you know by how you feel" what is scripture, did you know he is echoing the exact same nonsense as mormons and JWs? Calvin does not have authority. The eary church was certainy not calvinist it was catholic. Your tradition "calvinism" the lens through which you view scripture has no authority. Are the canons of dort inspired? Can they claim any succession or link to those who were inspired. Not. Calvinism is a man made tradition of the middle ages!

Third The early church was liturgical and sacramental and believed unanimously in a eucharist of the real flesh / body valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.

I could go on... but that is what the early church - Jesus church - believed from the first. So all you who claim to want to return to the early church need only knock on the door of your local catholic church. The acorn became an oak. But it is the true church none the less.

The writings are not the only record of what the early church believed . On an early tomb in rome long before nicaea or even the new testament was decided there is an inscription on a tomb of justin : "Peter and Paul Pray for him" So the early church clearly did believe in both a purification state (where prayers for the dead are effective) and also that intercessory prayer is valuable. But then t prayers for the dead are also referred in macabees which is a part of scripture.

Luther had no authority to remove it, despite his dislike of what it said. Luther had no authority to remove it.

Do you have a true eucharist (which is needed for eternal life , see John 6) presided by a bishop in succession?
That is what john 6 means. The early fathers are united on it.
If not you are not compatible with the early church or part of the true church.
Without those bishops given power to bind and loose you cannot be sure of doctrine.


So in answer , yes we believe in baptismal regeneration. Of the true kind, we know becase of tradition, the teaching and dispute resolution power of the church given in scripture.. That teaching authority was given by christ. "How can they (like calvin) preach if they are not sent" So scripture tells us.

Alas it is so sad to see, protestants diverge on all significant issues of doctrine, because when they disagree they have nowhere to go, except schism. It often seems to me that the ONLY thing that unites protestants (I was one) was dislike of catholicism THey disagree on everything else!

Has the church bishops or popes behaved impeccably? Of course not, they are people and people are sinners. They have done dreadful things.
But Jesus gave them the power to jointly decide doctrine with the power to bind and loose. It is why catholic doctrine on the succession , eucharist, baptismal regeneration etc have never changed

There are some really good questions there, I’ll try to answer them later when I have more time.

 

[QVQ]

Now, here is one passage about regeneration for now. John 3,
Jesus responded and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless someone is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

As Jesus said in John 3:3 unless someone is born again ..... This born again is regeneration.

And how does this happen? By God, by grace. Not water baptism.

For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph 2.

Agree with you Carbon

This RC doctrine has puzzled me because:
Infant Baptism,
Obviously the infant is not regenerated either before or after baptism.

Will every infant baptized "see the kingdom" even if they are indifferent to God later in life?

 

[Carbon]

Thoughts? How sad.

It is time you studied the origin and beliefs of catholicism.
It IS the early church instituted by Jesus. It holds the beliefs of the early church Jesus set up..

That would be the catholic church, not the Catholic Church. Do you know the difference?

The church is the body of Christ, not an established building with priests, cardinals, and popes.

Several things are definitively true:
1/ The early church passed on the true faith by "word of mouth and letter". AKA tradition. Which is why Paul told you to stay true to that.

So, what are you trying to say?
Are you going to attempt to sell sacred Tradition?

2/ Scripture was not written as a comprehensive faith manual, and on many topics it is ambiguous. Which is why protestants disagree on every important aspect of doctrine, and why they have schismed into 10000 bits..

Just about every verse in scripture is faith and or gospel. You say that is why there is disagreement and division between protestants? Do you realize how your popes have disagreed also? Do you know there were two popes at one time? Do you know your popes were murders and fornicators? The list goes on.
Yet you say disagreeing between protestants is an issue?

3/ Even questions like "what is scripture" cannot be answered by scripture alone, and when Calvin says it is obvious reading it "because of the feeling it gives " he claims EXACTLY the same imprimateur as JWs and mormons!
It is an historic fact that the church decided what was scripture, from many competing books. It did not drop from the sky!

Scripture interprets scripture. If you RCC was a Christian church, you would know that.

So How can you know what is true teaching?
Answer history tells you.

You mean your RCC?
If you're interested in going through their history, you will be in denial or greatly surprised.

The earliest fathers were disciples of the apostles and record the beliefs of Jesus' church.
Start with polycarp, ignatius, iraneus, justin martyr.
It is true - they are not "inspired" in the same sense as scripture. They can go off the rails.

These were not RC. In fact ignatius, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John wrote the antichrist would come from a place surrounded by 7 hills, can you guess where that is?

But when ALL of them from the first are unanimous about a set of principles, and none are dissenting you can be sure that is a true record of what the early church taught "by word of mouth and letter". That is the tradition you all deride, the true faith handed down which as scripture says you should only listen to those who were "sent". They were sent!!!

Who sent Calvin? or You? By what imprimateur do you speak?

God rose up Calvin.

Take born again refers to baptism and baptismal regeneration. No doubt about it. So that is what catholics believe.

Thanks for admitting that. Hopefully, Mozart reads this.

So on these - the early fathers in some cases taught by John the apostle and a few generations later they are united to present day. The nicean fathers echo the same.

You Church has tried to prove that but with the many forgeries and no line of popes among other things, oops, sorry, can't prove it. Actually, the more you look into it the more you see how the Church is antichrist along with her pope.

First - the succession of appointed bishops hand down the true faith. The early fathers , provably taught in some cases by John the apostle or only a generation away. Theyare the custodians of the true faith. Iraneus can list them all to his time.
They hand it down as "tradition".

That is what you hope.

Second the church had a succession and structure and as we learn from scripture, it is that you take disputes on doctrine. The first council noted "it seemed good to us and the holy spirit". They had the power to bind and loose. Even questions like "what is scripture" from many competing books were a decision of the church, as much defined by what they rejected as what they accepted. Even Jerome the first well known translator deferred to the church on what was scripture.

You mixing the church up with the RCC.

So when Calvin decried this and said "you know by how you feel" what is scripture, did you know he is echoing the exact same nonsense as mormons and JWs?

By how you feel? Would you show me where he said such?

Calvin does not have authority.

He has more authority than your popes and priests.

The eary church was certainy not calvinist it was catholic.

Yes, it was catholic (not Catholic) and I believe the church was reformed, call it Calvinistic if you wish.

Your tradition "calvinism" the lens through which you view scripture has no authority. Are the canons of dort inspired? Can they claim any succession or link to those who were inspired. Not. Calvinism is a man made tradition of the middle ages!

That's what you have been taught. You have been lied to friend. Would you like to look into a particular subject?

Third The early church was liturgical and sacramental and believed unanimously in a eucharist of the real flesh / body valid only if presided by a bishop in succession.

I think you better read the early church fathers and you will see many perhaps most did not believe that.
The early church was working through many doctrines.

I could go on...

Well, let's do that. But let's take one at a time, shall we?

but that is what the early church - Jesus church - believed from the first. So all you who claim to want to return to the early church need only knock on the door of your local catholic church. The acorn became an oak. But it is the true church none the less.

The Catholic church has become corrupt, a long long time ago.

The writings are not the only record of what the early church believed . On an early tomb in rome long before nicaea or even the new testament was decided there is an inscription on a tomb of justin : "Peter and Paul Pray for him" So the early church clearly did believe in both a purification state (where prayers for the dead are effective) and also that intercessory prayer is valuable. But then t prayers for the dead are also referred in macabees which is a part of scripture.

Again, read the early church fathers.

Luther had no authority to remove it, despite his dislike of what it said. Luther had no authority to remove it.

Ha. Luther had the authority God had given him. Luther just wanted to reform the church. Do you know Luther wrote some very kind letters to the pope at first? When he realized there was no changing them back to the word of God, he soon saw and believed the pope was the antichrist.

Do you have a true eucharist (which is needed for eternal life ,

Transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine. It wasn't even practiced until around the 12th century. Matter of fact it is a doctrine of demons.

see John 6) presided by a bishop in succession?

There is no line of popes. Peter was not a pope either.

That is what john 6 means. The early fathers are united on it.
If not you are not compatible with the early church or part of the true church.
Without those bishops given power to bind and loose you cannot be sure of doctrine.

The popes and the RCC abuse scripture.

So in answer , yes we believe in baptismal regeneration. Of the true kind, we know becase of tradition, the teaching and dispute resolution power of the church given in scripture.. That teaching authority was given by christ. "How can they (like calvin) preach if they are not sent" So scripture tells us.

Well, your pope tried. I'll give you that. But they are not a Christian church.

Alas it is so sad to see, protestants diverge on all significant issues of doctrine, because when they disagree they have nowhere to go, except schism. It often seems to me that the ONLY thing that unites protestants (I was one) was dislike of catholicism THey disagree on everything else!

Lets discuss some of these things one at a time. Interested? Or scared?

Has the church bishops or popes behaved impeccably? Of course not, they are people and people are sinners.

You mean it is okay for the Vicar of Christ to murder, fornicate swell offices, and all sorts of unbiblical things?

They have done dreadful things.
But Jesus gave them the power to jointly decide doctrine with the power to bind and loose. It is why catholic doctrine on the succession , eucharist, baptismal regeneration etc have never changed

In your dreams.

 

[Carbon]

Agree with you Carbon

This RC doctrine has puzzled me because:
Infant Baptism,
Obviously the infant is not regenerated either before or after baptism.

Of course, the infant is not regenerated. what the infant is is joined to the visible church and the new covenant. Just like circumcision in the old covenant.

Will every infant baptized "see the kingdom" even if they are indifferent to God later in life?

I do believe God chose an elect.
Also, even though a Christian baptism is conducted by a human, it is God who baptizes.

 

[Carbon]

In the gospels, there is no trace of the primacy of Peter above the rest of the apostles. Scripture acknowledges but one Master and Head; and though the Lord Jesus had rebuked his disciples whenever their fleshly hearts conceived desires of pre-eminence, a Primacy of Peter was invented, and supposed by misinterpreted texts, and men proceeded to acknowledge in that apostle, and in his pretended successor, the visible representative of the head of the church.

 

[Carbon]

Thoughts? How sad.

It is time you studied the origin and beliefs of catholicism.
It IS the early church instituted by Jesus. It holds the beliefs of the early church Jesus set up..

Has the church bishops or popes behaved impeccably? Of course not, they are people and people are sinners. They have done dreadful things.
But Jesus gave them the power to jointly decide doctrine with the power to bind and loose. It is why catholic doctrine on the succession , eucharist, baptismal regeneration etc have never changed

Do you know the history of Theodosius II and Valentinian III?

Do you know they proclaimed the bishop of Rome the ruler of the whole church? I bet your church didn't teach you about this'?

 

[Carbon]

There were also many saints that your Church claimed as their own whose theology was totally against RC theology.

Here is one example. read the history and the writings, don't just assume.

A poor Carthusian, brother Martin wrote this affecting confession.
"Oh most merciful God! I know that I can only be saved, and satisfy thy righteousness, by thy merit, the innocent suffering, and death of thy well-beloved Son. Holy Jesus! my salvation is in thy hands. Thou canst not withdraw the hands of thy love from me; for they have created, and formed, and redeemed me. Thou hast inscribed my name with a pen of iron, in rich mercy, and so as nothing can efface it, on thy side, thy hands, and thy feet; &c. &c.

After this, the good Carthusian placed his confession in a wooden box and enclosed the box in a hole he had made in the wall of his cell.

This would never have been known if his box had not been found, it was found on December 21, 1776, in taking down an old building which had been part of the Carthusian convent at Bale.

 

[Mikeuk]

That would be the catholic church, not the Catholic Church. Do you know the difference?

The church is the body of Christ, not an established building with priests, cardinals, and popes.


So, what are you trying to say?
Are you going to attempt to sell sacred Tradition?

Just about every verse in scripture is faith and or gospel. You say that is why there is disagreement and division between protestants? Do you realize how your popes have disagreed also? Do you know there were two popes at one time? Do you know your popes were murders and fornicators? The list goes on.
Yet you say disagreeing between protestants is an issue?

Scripture interprets scripture. If you RCC was a Christian church, you would know that.

You mean your RCC?
If you're interested in going through their history, you will be in denial or greatly surprised.

These were not RC. In fact ignatius, who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John wrote the antichrist would come from a place surrounded by 7 hills, can you guess where that is?




God rose up Calvin.

Thanks for admitting that. Hopefully, Mozart reads this.

You Church has tried to prove that but with the many forgeries and no line of popes among other things, oops, sorry, can't prove it. Actually, the more you look into it the more you see how the Church is antichrist along with her pope.

That is what you hope.

You mixing the church up with the RCC.

By how you feel? Would you show me where he said such?


He has more authority than your popes and priests.

Yes, it was catholic (not Catholic) and I believe the church was reformed, call it Calvinistic if you wish.

That's what you have been taught. You have been lied to friend. Would you like to look into a particular subject?

I think you better read the early church fathers and you will see many perhaps most did not believe that.
The early church was working through many doctrines.

Well, let's do that. But let's take one at a time, shall we?

The Catholic church has become corrupt, a long long time ago.

Again, read the early church fathers.

Ha. Luther had the authority God had given him. Luther just wanted to reform the church. Do you know Luther wrote some very kind letters to the pope at first? When he realized there was no changing them back to the word of God, he soon saw and believed the pope was the antichrist.

Transubstantiation is not a biblical doctrine. It wasn't even practiced until around the 12th century. Matter of fact it is a doctrine of demons.

There is no line of popes. Peter was not a pope either.

The popes and the RCC abuse scripture.

Well, your pope tried. I'll give you that. But they are not a Christian church.

Lets discuss some of these things one at a time. Interested? Or scared?

You mean it is okay for the Vicar of Christ to murder, fornicate swell offices, and all sorts of unbiblical things?

In your dreams.

All protestants when faced with impossible questions resort to answers line by line.
You failed to make a material answer the important issue.. I am not going to play.

I will repeat it. When all the early fathers are unanimous and none dissent you can be certain THAT is what the early church did, said and believed. It is a historical record. So That is the teaching handed to them they handed down which is the meaning of paradosis "tradition" to which St Paul tells you to "stay true". The first fathers who were taught by the apostles so no room for misunderstandings. That WAS the early church.

To a man they tell you the church IS physical, it DOES have bishops in succession charged with handing on the true faith and resolving disputes given the power to bind and loose which they did in council decisions including deciding scritpure.

So that is the church that Jesus started. In which only those "sent to preach" can preach. Calvin wasnt.
And since that succession can be traced all the way to those early fathers the catholic church and the Catholic church are the same thing whether you like it or not.. Calvinism has a start date in the middle ages. The start date of Catholicism is the apostles.

That counts calvin out. Your teaching from him is provably traditions of men.

The early church. Jesus's church was certainly not calvinist.

Indeed as for the importance of bishops - you cannot have a valid eucharist of the real flesh without a Bishop in succession. T Since that is what John taught his disciples John means, as we know from their writings. That is what John 6 means. Tradition is not separate from scripture. It gives the true meaning to scripture. It resolves the ambiguities.The word of God is a three legged stool. Scripture. Tradition. Authority to resolve disputes. Lose any one as calvinists have and the stool falls over. It is why you all disagree.

My suggestion is you read a fascinating historical text. That of Francis de Sales in the late 1500s. "The catholic controversy.". Read it.
It is as true now as it was then.

All 70000 of the chablais had converted to Calvinism in the previous few decades.. Only a score of catholics were left.
De sales went to the area, and just focussing on the issue of authority, succession, who Jesus gave the power to define the truth, the area came back to catholicism. You try and pick a hole in any of De Sales arguments. I will wager you cannot. At the end of a few years there were 70000 catholics back and only twenty calvinists left. Calvinism makes a good intellectual "sales pitch" - as an academic liked to talk a good game over the heads of those he taught, but in the light of day the claims just on church authority do not stand scrutiny.
.

 

[Carbon]

All protestants when faced with impossible questions resort to answers line by line.
You failed to make a material answer the important issue.. I am not going to play.

When all the early fathers are unanimous and none dissent you can be certain THAT is what the early church did, said and believed.
So That is the teaching handed to them they handed down which is the meaning of paradosis "tradition" to which St Paul tells you to "stay true". And the first fathers who were taught by the apostles so no room for misunderstandings. That was the early church.

To a man they tell you the church IS physical, it DOES have bishops in succession charged with handing on the true faith and resolving disputes given the power to bind and loose which they did in council decisions including deciding scritpure.

Indeed you cannot have a valid eucharist of the real flesh without a Bishop in succession. Since that is what John taught his disciples John means, as we know from their writings. That is what John 6 means.

So that is the church that Jesus started. In which only those "sent to preach" can preach. Calvin wasnt.
And since that succession can be traced all the way to those early fathers the catholic church and the Catholic church are the same thing whether you like it or not.. Calvinism has a start date in the middle ages. The start date of Catholicism is the apostles.

That counts calvin out. Your teaching from him is provably traditions of men.

The early church. Jesus's church was certainly not calvinist.

My suggestion is you read a fascinating historical text. That of Francis de Sales in the late 1500s. The catholic controversy.
It is as true now as it was then.
All 70000 of the chablais had converted to Calvinism in the previous few decades.. Only a score of catholics were left.
De sales went to the area, and just focussing on the issue of authority, succession, who Jesus gave the power to define the truth, the area came back to catholicism. You try and pick a hole in any of De Sales arguments. I will wager you cannot. At the end of a few years there were 70000 catholics back and only twenty calvinists left. Calvinism makes a good intellectual "sales pitch" - and as an academic talked a good game over the heads of those he taught, but in the light of day the claims just on church authority do not stand scrutiny
.

Well it seems that debating these things are probably to much for some huh?
Well, I’ll continue, if you feel the desire just jump in.