The One Baptism

[RLT63]

Hmmmm - another snappy, albeit, EMPTY denial.
You never seem to be able to Biblically-refute anything - but you've got that denial thing down pat.

Good luck with that . . .

Okay. That is your belief and you are entitled to it. I won't argue with you about it any further.

 

[RLT63]

This is yet ANOTHER example of your complete failure to do proper research.

“Roman” (Latin) is simply the name of ONE of about twenty or so Liturgical Rites that comprise the ONE Catholic Church. Some of the other Rites include the Byzantine, Coptic, Melkite, Maronite, Alexandrian, etc. We are all in FULL communion with each other and the differences are cultural, not doctrinal.

Anti-Catholics are always misrepresenting the Catholic Church by erroneously calling it the “Roman” Catholic Church. Byzantines, Coptics, Melkites, Maronites, Alexandrians, etc. are NOT Roman Catholics.

PS – instead of posting links to inaccurate or otherwise idiotic articles – how about doing your homework and writing a cogent response??

The definition of Catholic is wrong?

 

[RLT63]

Nope - just showing you that YOUR definition of "Balieve" is NOT the Biblical definiton of Faith.
According to the Word of God (James 2:19) - you're NO better off than the DEMONS, aho also "believe".

Faith requires obedience and cooperation.

I thought you didn't judge others. I haven't exactly been civil but the way you come across pressed my buttons and I've responded in kind. It's not productive and not normally the way I have discussions. You know a great deal about your Church and your faith and should be commended for that.

 

[Illuminator]

I'm not a Calvinist. Good article (if you're Catholic). Even if Got Questions is a Calvinist site they have some things right

Even a broken clock can be right twice a day. Using Calvinoid arguments to refute Catholicism is never safe.

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.​

55 Critiques of Jon Calvin

 

[RLT63]

Even a broken clock can be right twice a day. Using Calvinoid arguments to refute Catholicism is never safe.

The Institutes is widely used to this day. Since it is so critical of Catholicism, it needs to be answered from a Catholic perspective. I have tried to keep polemics to a bare minimum. That was assuredly somewhat difficult, because Calvin is often highly provocative and polemical: plain insulting; but my goal was to stick to rational arguments from Scripture and history.

I hope my reply is helpful for readers who seek to understand the difference between the two theological systems and competing claims. May God the Holy Spirit, our Helper, guide us all into all truth, and grant us the will, by His grace, to want to always seek truth.​

55 Critiques of Jon Calvin

Your arguments is with Calvin, not me or GotQuestions. Are you sure they are Calvinist? Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Illuminator]

Your arguments is with Calvin, not me or GotQuestions. Are you sure they are Calvinist? Calvinism vs. Arminianism - which view is correct? | GotQuestions.org

Then don't use a biased anti-Catholic source to make a point. GotQuestions doesn't allow challenges or discussion, it simply regurgitates The Institutes errors and sugar coats them to look more appealing. Your link is a comparison, but in the end, it says they are both wrong. GotQuestions is moderate Calvinism, not strict Calvinism. Answers concerning anything Catholic are misrepresentations and fallacies.
If you wanted to buy a Ford, would you go to a Chev dealer for information on Fords??? Of course not, you would go to Ford dealer.
Do you really think you are going to get reliable information from a system that has insulted Catholicism since its inception?

Search the world's largest database of answers about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith. Learn more about Catholicism through articles, books, videos and more. Place a question or topic in the box provided. Catholic Answers

 

[RLT63]

Then don't use a biased anti-Catholic source to make a point. GotQuestions doesn't allow challenges or discussion, it simply regurgitates The Institutes errors and sugar coats them to look more appealing. Your link is a comparison, but in the end, it says they are both wrong. GotQuestions is moderate Calvinism, not strict Calvinism. Answers concerning anything Catholic are misrepresentations and fallacies.
If you wanted to buy a Ford, would you go to a Chev dealer for information on Fords??? Of course not, you would go to Ford dealer.
Do you really think you are going to get reliable information from a system that has insulted Catholicism since its inception?

Search the world's largest database of answers about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith. Learn more about Catholicism through articles, books, videos and more. Place a question or topic in the box provided. Catholic Answers

Of course. I'm sure they will be completely unbiased. Kind of like getting all your news from watching The View or asking a Ford dealer which make to buy. What do think a Ford dealer is going to tell you?

 

[Illuminator]

Of course. I'm sure they will be completely unbiased. Kind of like getting all your news from watching The View or asking a Ford dealer which make to buy. What do think a Ford dealer is going to tell you?

The Ford dealer will be as biased as the Chev dealer. Preference for either one is purely subjective. I learned to drive on a '61 Chevy Biscayne; 3-on-the-tree standard transmission but I am not anti-Ford. I can drive anything.

Truth is not subjective. Post-enlightenment modernist relativistic liberalism gets passed off as truth; it's annoying. You could say I am biased in favor of objective truth.

 

[RLT63]

The Ford dealer will be as biased as the Chev dealer. Preference for either one is purely subjective. I learned to drive on a '61 Chevy Biscayne; 3-on-the-tree standard transmission but I am not anti-Ford. I can drive anything.

Truth is not subjective. Post-enlightenment modernist relativistic liberalism gets passed off as truth; it's annoying. You could say I am biased in favor of objective truth.

I started posting on this thread because I felt my religion was being attacked. It's not normally the way I have discussions. You don't like your denomination being attacked either.

 

[RLT63]

Then don't use a biased anti-Catholic source to make a point. GotQuestions doesn't allow challenges or discussion, it simply regurgitates The Institutes errors and sugar coats them to look more appealing. Your link is a comparison, but in the end, it says they are both wrong. GotQuestions is moderate Calvinism, not strict Calvinism. Answers concerning anything Catholic are misrepresentations and fallacies.
If you wanted to buy a Ford, would you go to a Chev dealer for information on Fords??? Of course not, you would go to Ford dealer.
Do you really think you are going to get reliable information from a system that has insulted Catholicism since its inception?

Search the world's largest database of answers about the beliefs and practices of the Catholic faith. Learn more about Catholicism through articles, books, videos and more. Place a question or topic in the box provided. Catholic Answers

Is the Catholic Church Infallible? No, and Here's Proof - Berean Patriot

 

[Illuminator]

Got Questions is a Calvinist organisation and they promote Calvinism with vigor.

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davea...-of-john-calvin-introduction-master-list.html

Why are Jesus, Peter, and the rest of His disciples not infallible as the Pope does? Is it because Jesus and His disciples are humble?
No. The question is erroneous. Jesus, God the Son, is Truth itself and utterly infallible.

Peter as the first among the apostles, renamed Kephas, Rock, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, taught Jesus’s message without error. He was the first Pope, and was infallible in this teaching.

The question poses a conflict between the charism of infallibility and the virtue of humility. There is no reason whatsoever why this should be.

Infallible guidance is a gift of God. It means that the Holy Spirit prevents any Pope or General Council from solemnly and definitively teaching error on matters of faith and morals.

The members of such Councils, or individual Popes, might be saintly or scoundrels, humble or ambitious, generous or self-regarding, docile or obstinate

It makes little difference. Jesus’s promised that the Holy Spirit would reveal his teaching to His community the Church more deeply and “lead you into all truth.” The gates of hell would not prevail against His Church.

It is not pride to believe what one honestly thinks to be correct and from God. But we should always be ready to listen to the teaching of the Church which Jesus founded, since the combined spiritual experience and insight of 2000 years of saints, martyrs, mystics, prophets, scholars, theologians, doctors, confessors, bishops and Popes, is vastly greater than the insight of any one limited individual today.

It does need humility to let go of one’s limited individualistic notions and accept the teachings of the great and Universal Church. Far too many prefer to cling to their own limited notions. It was pride which turned angels into devils: it is humility which allows humans to share paradise with the angels.
by Francis Marsden

 

[Illuminator]

Is the Catholic Church Infallible? No, and Here's Proof - Berean Patriot

First, they present a distorted definition of infallibility, then attack their own made up definition. And they take out-of-context snippets from church documents to make their straw man more convincing. It's standard anti-Catholic methodology and it's dishonest. The polemics reminds me of a professional liar named James White. Same poop, different toilet.

 

[RLT63]

First, they present a distorted definition of infallibility, then attack their own made up definition. And they take out-of-context snippets from church documents to make their straw man more convincing. It's standard anti-Catholic methodology and it's dishonest. The polemics reminds me of a professional liar named James White. Same poop, different toilet.

An honest critique and thanks for the link to Catholic Answers so I can see what the official Church position is

 

[BreadOfLife]

How do you know what my definition of believe is? All I did was quote a scripture. Do you have an issue with that scripture?

Nope – I don’t have an issue with ANY Scripture verse.

I was merely exposing YOUR false easy-believeism spin - because you don’t have a CLUE what the Bible means by “believeing” in Christ.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Okay. That is your belief and you are entitled to it. I won't argue with you about it any further.

So, that’s how you discern truth? By issuing empty, baseless denials without evidence to the contrary??

WOW . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

The definition of Catholic is wrong?

You didn’t define “Catholic”.
You tried to define “Catholic Church” – and you failed.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I thought you didn't judge others. I haven't exactly been civil but the way you come across pressed my buttons and I've responded in kind. It's not productive and not normally the way I have discussions. You know a great deal about your Church and your faith and should be commended for that.

I didn’t judge you. READ what I wrote.

I said that according to the Word of God – you are NO better off than the demons because YOU believe like THEY believe, per James 2:19.
You think that intellectual assent is “faith” – and that’s ALL that they have.

Faith requires cooperation and obedience – otherwise it’s just belief . . .,

 

[RLT63]

So, that’s how you discern truth? By issuing empty, baseless denials without evidence to the contrary??

WOW . . .

I posted evidence to the contrary of your claim. You just dismiss it

 

[RLT63]

Nope – I don’t have an issue with ANY Scripture verse.

I was merely exposing YOUR false easy-believeism spin - because you don’t have a CLUE what the Bible means by “believeing” in Christ.

Thanks for not making this personal or being insulting

 

[RLT63]

You didn’t define “Catholic”.
You tried to define “Catholic Church” – and you failed.

I posted this definition of Catholic. Google it