Your arguments are frivilous, illogical, and historically wrong.
I won't deny that there are those with doctrinal differences within the Roman Communion and that Rome is not entirely the monolith of uniform truth that some of her apologists claim her to be, but it's just a little hyperbolic to claim that Rome is MORE disorganized than "evangelical Christianity" (however you may define that entity). Do you have any facts and figures to back that up?
I could do the research for you, but don't have the time right now. However, there are evangelical missions of different stripes and colors doing the same basic work that I am doing in different nations all over the world. I meet them in foreign nations all the time. They have the same basic message though a completely different background.
Again an assertion. Now how about some real proof?
Our message is the just shall live by faith. It is a simple message. Your message is confused. You can't even give a clear definition of what the new birth is. Almost every evangelical I meet, just the common person on the street can explain the new birth. My next door neighbors (Catholics) don't have a clue as to what the new birth is, and most Catholics don't know what it means, and those Catholics that remain on this board are probably confused as to its meaning as well. Yet without it you cannot enter the kingdom of God.
And is believed by all historic churches-Roman, Byzantine, Anglican, Coptic, Syrian, etc--as well
It isn't preached by all. It isn't preached by the RCC. As I have already testified to that fact. I was in the RCC for 20 years and never heard the gospel preached once. The mass does not preach the gospel. The sacrifice of the mass as it is called has nothing to do with the preaching of the gospel.
The faith "alone" part is the problem as it contradicts explicit Scriptures (James 2:24 for starters) and the consistant teaching of the historic Apostolic Church until Martin Luther.
I can't help you with your misunderstanding of the Scriptures. The blind lead the blind and they both fall into a ditch. The Bible does not contradict itself. The historic teaching of salvation is that it is by faith and faith alone, as Luther found out. We are justified by faith. He preached that message. It was consistent with the apostles and with Bible-believers from the early churches onward. We are not speaking of RCC revisionist historians.
Yet one is not saved without works which is what the Bible and the Historic Churches teach.
Take up your argument with God, the author of Eph.2:8,9 "without works"
Your problem is that you equate the "historic church with Catholicism." No wonder you are deceived.
Which message--that Jesus died for all or only the elect? that one only need receive Him as "Savior", or also as "LORD"? That repentence is necessary or isn't?
You are straining at a gnat. Both camps are evangelical. William Carey was a Calvinist, and one of the greatest missionaries known to manking. You may want to read his biography some time.
Not so, as I pointed out above. Also, Oneness Pentecostals, just "going by the Book" deny the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They would deny the Trinity is "fundamental"--who are you to say otherwise other than just another private interpreter of Scripture? Who breaks the tie when you or another "solo Scripturist" come up with a different list of "the great fundamentals of the faith"?
Perhaps you don't read the threads here often enough.
Oneness Pentecostals were banned from the BB, because they are a cult spreading false doctrine. Why bring in red herrings and try to smear Christianity. Have you heard of Pope Joan?
As I said at the beginning
Evangelical Christianity is united in their doctrinne more than Catholics are. But you are content to throw all the cults at us. There are quite a few Catholic offshoots also that are quite extreme. How about those who believe in four-person trinity that includes Mary?
No, not just my mind. Need I keep emphasizing to you it is the mind of
Evangelical Christianity. If you don't know what that is by now, you had better study it out, and find out. Stop misaligning all of Christianity just because you don't know how to define Christianity.
As does Luther, and the Anglicans, all the historic Church down until the time when some Radical "Reformers" denied this biblical truth.
After the Reformation it is doubtful that Luther believed in baptismal regeneration. For you cannot believe in "the just shall live by faith." and "justification by faith alone," and baptismal regeneration at the same time. I think you have your facts mixed up. As for the others, you again resort to your historic "Catholic" church which is only historic in your mind. That is illogical reasoning. It is not the "historical" church. It is only what you consider to be historical. you are deceived.
You mean the "message of salvation" as you interpret it.
If you don't know the message of "Evangelical Christianity" then I feel sorry for you. You need to learn it, that you may be saved. For it is by that message that one is saved. It is not my message. It is the message of "Evangelical Christianity," which we all agree on, and are united on. If you don't know what it is, you better find out, and act upon it immediately.
Indeed, and such apostates can be found, unfortunately, officially on the roles of both Protestant and Catholic Churches.
That is a red herring and has nothing to do with this subject. Why bring it up. The differences are not between cults or apostate churches. The differences are between Evangelical Christianity and the RCC. Our claim is that Evangelical Christianity is more united in their message and doctrine than the RCC is in theirs.
