Here's you chance Protestants

You may be able to get away with that with someone who has no experience in the RCC; however, I was raised it it, and the "gospel" of the RCC is not the gospel of Christ or Paul.

 

Um...Jesus' words. Guess He had a 'reprobate mind'; I expect that's why they crucified Him...

 

I don't love my wife perfectly, yet I love her and we are married. What makes a marriage: is it just the wedding ceremony and marriage certificate? Or is it also a lifetime of love, growing together and laying down our lives for each other through acts of loving service? If the latter is absent, then is there really a marriage?

 

Who died and appointed you arbiter of who's a Baptist and who isn't?

 

Where did Christ the Lord say that wafers and wine will magically turn into Blood and Skin? Repent of your Sin or perish.

 

Clearly I misspoke if you conclude that there is only a "tiny" wall between us.

Father: Christ claimed that for Himself, not the man with the title in Rome.

And enough with the bad hermeneutics: it leads to indulgences and a morality that sways with the needs of expedience and financial gain.

Or have you forgotten that whenever the RCC has had to choose between financial gain and the Word of God, it changed its tradition to suit financial gain.

What would one day about a professing brother who did the same?

The RCC is remarkably consistent in relegating God's Word as less than absolutely authoritative.

Which is good for the true Body of Christ because the RCC's abominations are clear to anyone who cares to look.

Indulgences, the blessing of slave ships by the Pope, the Crusades, executing men and women for distributing Bibles, pedophilia, money laundering and every other evil under the sun.

The name of Christ is blasphemed among the nonbelievers because of the Catholic Church.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Where's your evidence for all these outlandish claims? They are so manifestly inaccurate that I don't know where to start.

Let's kick off with your claim that the RCC has banned Revelation - why, then, is it in their Lectionary (Ok, they call it The Apocalypse but that's just an Anglicisation of the original Greek title - it's the same book)?

The Waldensians originated in south-east France in the 12th century - nothing to do with Constantine. I suppose you can regard them as proto-Protestants or proto-Evangelicals if you want , but they weren't proto-Baptists (they wouldn't have understood the concept of believer's baptism); most accurately they were perhaps proto-Franciscans, anticipating a lot of the reforming ideas of Francis of Assisi a half-century later that he got away with as he was prepared to work within the Catholic Church rather than outside it, or even proto-Calvinists as they joined with Calvin's lot in the 1530s (I've been to a Waldensian church in Provence and it was pretty similar to your standard Presbyterian service).

As to Cathars and their ilk being Christian, I can hardly see how a gnostic dualist cult that advocated a fast to the death of its 'spirituals' (their elite) could be construed as 'Christian'.

As to the Early Church documenting their traditions ('traditio' = 'handing on/ passing down"), well, yes they did - but I don't expect you'll like what they wrote. Consider, for example, their writings handed down to them from the Apostolic Age on the very topic being debated on the last few pages, all within a hundred years of the death of the last of the Apostles:

Pretty clear, isn't it? As you say, 'remarkable unanimity'.

 

If you can show me it's a sin, then by all means. But why would I perish for this one sin - surely we are saved by faith alone, brother, not by whether we agree with you on the doctrine of the Lord's Supper? I think you may be adding a few things to your own Gospel there...

 

Witchcraft is a sin. If you're trusting in a mystical practice, witchcraft, to save you, then you are perishing.

 

So are we saved by faith alone or by whether or not we (allegedly) practise witchcraft? Which is it? Or are we witnessing a case of Schroedinger's Gospel?

 

See my edit.

 

...which doesn't answer my question: am I saved by faith alone or not? If I have faith and yet can apparently be damned by what you call witchcraft, then my faith does not save me - I am not saved by faith alone. Please make up your mind and clarify whether you believe in salvation by faith alone or not

 

We are saved by God's GRACE ALONE--through faith--In the FINISHED Work of JESUS CHRIST.

 

So it doesn't matter if I occasionally attend Mass then

 

1 Cor. 10:21
You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord's table and the table of demons.

1 Cor. 10:22
Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

I would say it matters.

 

1 Cor. 10:23
You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is beneficial.

 

So, not 'faith alone' then for you.

Thanks for clarifying

 

I said:
We are saved by God's GRACE ALONE--through faith--In the FINISHED Work of JESUS CHRIST.
Eph. 2:8-9
8 For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.

If you are trusting in a pagan, mystical practice to save you--Transubstantiation, you will be damned forever.

 

OK, this is going all over the place - now you are saying 'grace alone', not 'faith alone'. You have at least confirmed that it's not 'faith alone', so let's move on to 'grace'.

Define 'grace' - what is it, how does it work, how do we receive it?

 

Yes, but I think St Paul would run a mile from you if he realised you were using his words to condemn the Mass, LOL!