Protestantism was falsified here on TOL

8940a780c0a3b28576e79b6b93ddaf07.jpg
 

marke

Well-known member
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.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Is there some Protestant doctrine that isn't probable opinion? I mean there's no Protestant authority on doctrine, or on anything that the Bible may mean. Every Protestant doctrine has to be 'probable opinion,' because you can't validly appeal to any other authority, because there is no valid universal authority to appeal to, in Protestantism. "Scripture Alone."

But what does the Scripture mean?

Well I think it means this. And I think it means that. Well I just believe what it says. I do too. We all believe what it says, but what do we believe that it means? How do we sustain our claim? Is there just one right answer? How do you know? Without either begging the question, or appealing to authority? Well I use logic. So do I, so if we disagree on what Scripture means, then which one of us is using logic better?
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
 

Right Divider

Body part
" For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."

That means Mass. Just like 'breaking bread' means Mass. Confer Hebrews 10:25 " the assembling of ourselves together"
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.
Matt 18:15-20 (AKJV/PCE)
(18:15) ¶ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (18:16) But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. (18:17) And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. (18:18) Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (18:19) Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. (18:20) For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
That refers to the Law:
Deut 17:2-7 (AKJV/PCE)
(17:2) ¶ If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, (17:3) And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; (17:4) And it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and inquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel: (17:5) Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. (17:6) At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; [but] at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. (17:7) The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you.
 

Right Divider

Body part
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.
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

"Lahey, I live in a tent!"
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.​
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.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
Finito doneski DOA, in February 2016, over five years ago.

It was an impromptu battle royale debate, many participants (many of whom have ceased participating on TOL, which I don't think is coincidental), during which a group of Catholic users and an Orthodox user and a Noncatholic-Nonprotestant user, defeated every other Protestant view on the matter of the Real Presence of Christ in the (validly celebrated) Eucharist.

This thread's a hundred pages long, but you only have to read to like page four to see the end. Nobody, not a single Protestant, could argue the point. In this thread it was proven that the whole Church believed in the Real Presence going all the way back as far as we can tell.


That makes Catholicism and Orthodoxy the only two serious contenders for the real Church in the Bible.

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.

christian-traditions-chart-1.gif
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.

christian-traditions-chart-1.gif
Matthew 7:14 ...narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
The point was to refute your appeal to popularity

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:

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
The degree to which Catholics outnumber Dispensationalists is, according to Jesus, a point on the Dispensationalist's side of the column, not yours.

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.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
I have tried to explain this a million times and nobody understand. 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.
Your post implied it in more than one way.

I am simply saying that people would 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 instances: They post as if their view "The" Christian view as if all of Christianity and 2,000 years of beliefs never happened.
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.

Consider homosexuals who call conservatives extremists.
What do they call homosexual conservatives?

They up ended 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.
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.

The same goes for dispensationalists, and other new kids on the block:
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.

Believe as you will, and make your case, but do not act like 2,000 years of Christianity was not Catholic.
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.

Do not pretend that 2,000 years of beliefs are just inventions.
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.

Again, they are welcome to their beliefs but they are not welcome to re-write history.
You mean like the Catholics did?

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.
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.

That's all I want to see..
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)
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
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.
It doesn't matter how you see it. IT IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION!!!

Your pseudo argument only makes the entire analogy meaningless.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
Your post implied it in more than one way.

No it didn't, because I didn't. That's just how your mind processed it.

Again, they are welcome to their beliefs but they are not welcome to re-write history.
You mean like the Catholics did?

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.

rel_timeline_720.png
 
Last edited:

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
No it didn't, because I didn't. That's just how your mind processed it.
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.

We did not, and that is the end of this discussion.
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.

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 are so idioticly delusional that I regret having even engaged you in discussion. What a completely asinine thing to say.


You speak the opposite of the truth. You are a religious Marxist.
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:
Top