Co- Redemptrix

[michaelvpardo]

Translation:
"I can't refute the Scriptural evidence you presented, so I'll just hurl moronic insults instead."[

Translation:
"I can't refute the Scriptural evidence you presented, so I'll just hurl moronic insults instead."

Translation: I'll pretend that I know what I'm talking about and someone might believe me.

 

[michaelvpardo]

I'm curious to see what your private interpretation of "Kecharitomene" is, so I can see how it lines up with it's development over several centuries, including the beliefs of Luther, Calvin and Zwingl.

The Bible, Luther, & Calvin on Calling Mary “Blessed”

John Calvin Believed in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary [6-17-10]

John Calvin: Sermon 22 on Matthew 1:22-25 (Mary’s Perpetual Virginity) [10-14-14]

Mariology of “Reformers” Zwingli & Bullinger [4-28-16]

Mary Mother of God: Protestant Founders Agree (Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Bullinger, and Lutheranism) [10-10-08]

Zwingli’s Belief in Mary’s Sinlessness [9-30-10]
Mary: The Blessed Virgin (Index Page)
You are cutting off the branch you are sitting on, unless you are in a fundie cult that defies all matter of authority (except yours).

Were any of your "authorities" God?

 

[Jun2u]

Ummmm, YOU stated that God instructed the men who wrote the Bible to write it down into a “Book”.

This is patently false. You gave me ONE example from Jeremiah.
Where was Isaiah and Joshua and Micah and Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Paul or Peter or Jude told who write everything down in a “Book”.
This is utter nonsense.

REALLY? I gave you three illustrations on how we received the Scriptures and not only one as you’ve claimed, but three, to Jeremiah, Moses, and Paul! I believe I will be exonerated if I called you a liar as you often called others here!

FYI, the above is exactly the methodology by which God communicated with mankind. Once again as I’ve dealt with your kind, the Scriptures below will prove the error of your church’s many misunderstanding of doctrines/teachings.

2 Peter 1:18-21 reads:

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; where unto ye do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Glory, Alleluia! I rest my case. What a wonderful way to refute those who think they know it all while they, themselves do not offer scriptures but opinions!

Is it appropriate to also say, do your HOMEWOK?

To God Be The Glory

 

[epostle1]

Were any of your "authorities" God?

What a cop out answer. You miss the point (again).
Where did I say the founders of Protestantism were God? Or anybody else? Where did I say they were MY authorities? THEY ARE ALL PROTESTANTS! Don't comment on links you haven't read.
Since you disagree with all of them what are you left with?

That many reformers, all anti-Catholic, all agree that Mary was sinless. It hasn't occurred to you they believed and taught this because it's true. Maybe one day a light will go on.

 

[epostle1]

michaelvpardo, I'm curious to see what your private interpretation of "Kecharitomene" is, so I can see how it lines up with it's development over several centuries, including the beliefs of Luther, Calvin and Zwingl.

 

[epostle1]

Nope, says no such thing. It requires a wild imagination, not hermeneutics to get sinless out of favored.

It's not "favored", and highly favored is a poor English translation of the Greek Kecharitomene, which michaelvpardo is arrogantly sidestepping. As usual, everything has to be spelled out in minute detail to satisfy the demands of hyper-literalist rationalists. Pay close attention, I've posted this about 5 times:

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer).
(oh, I forgot, michaelvpardo's opinions trump any Protestant scholar, he knows more than they do)

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .(Kittel, 1304-1305)

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14: (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save (michaelvpardor's error) or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. (michaelvpardo's second error)It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises. (that michaelvpardo doesn't have in the first place)

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant (but not michaelvpardo). Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God’s preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of “faith alone,” as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions (yet another instance of my general theme).
Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace") and the Immaculate Conception

 

[BreadOfLife]

REALLY? I gave you three illustrations on how we received the Scriptures and not only one as you’ve claimed, but three, to Jeremiah, Moses, and Paul! I believe I will be exonerated if I called you a liar as you often called others here!

FYI, the above is exactly the methodology by which God communicated with mankind. Once again as I’ve dealt with your kind, the Scriptures below will prove the error of your church’s many misunderstanding of doctrines/teachings.

Actually - I've NEVER called anybody here a "liar".
Unless you can find a post where I actually called somebody a "Liar" - then YOU have lied.

2 Peter 1:18-21 reads:

18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; where unto ye do well that you take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation,
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

Glory, Alleluia! I rest my case. What a wonderful way to refute those who think they know it all while they, themselves do not offer scriptures but opinions!

Is it appropriate to also say, do your HOMEWOK?

To God Be The Glory

You "rest" your case??
WHAT case??

The quote from Peter doesn't say anything about them being TOLD by God to write their letters down in a "Book", as you falsely claimed.
The Holy Spirit INSPIRED what they wrote - they were not coerced.

BIG difference, sparky . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Were any of your "authorities" God?

NONE of your Protestant Gathers were God.
That's why YOU should ask yourself why you're following a splinter of a splinter of a splinter of of a splinter of what they taught.

Why do you believe what they taught - EXCEPT for the things you don't want to believe in??
This is what we Christians refer to as Cafeteria Christianity. "I'll take some of this but NONE of that."

Either they were right - or they were wrong. And, IF they were right - then YOUR abandonment of what they believed and taught is your own invention . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Translation: I'll pretend that I know what I'm talking about and someone might believe me.

And you're doing the same thing with the Scriptural evidence that Kepha31 presented as you did with what I presented.
You can't intelligently address ANY of it, so you run away - leaving behind a trail of angry insults and stupid comments.

Anybody reading this can see that you're NOT equipped to debate this matter . . .

 

[bbyrd009]

...with a hypocrite

 

[Jun2u]

...with a hypocrite

 

[Jun2u]

...with a hypocrite

Excellent...Bravo...Touche!

 

[michaelvpardo]

What a cop out answer. You miss the point (again).
Where did I say the founders of Protestantism were God? Or anybody else? Where did I say they were MY authorities? THEY ARE ALL PROTESTANTS! Don't comment on links you haven't read.
Since you disagree with all of them what are you left with?

That many reformers, all anti-Catholic, all agree that Mary was sinless. It hasn't occurred to you they believed and taught this because it's true. Maybe one day a light will go on.

I'm not here to receive any points from you. The Lord is my teacher which is more than sufficient.

 

[michaelvpardo]

It's not "favored", and highly favored is a poor English translation of the Greek Kecharitomene, which michaelvpardo is arrogantly sidestepping. As usual, everything has to be spelled out in minute detail to satisfy the demands of hyper-literalist rationalists. Pay close attention, I've posted this about 5 times:

Protestants are hostile to the notions of Mary’s freedom from actual sin and her Immaculate Conception (in which God freed her from original sin from the moment of her conception) because they feel that this makes her a sort of goddess and improperly set apart from the rest of humanity. They do not believe that it was fitting for God to set her apart in such a manner, even for the purpose of being the Mother of Jesus Christ, and don’t see that this is “fitting” or “appropriate” (as Catholics do).

The great Baptist Greek scholar A.T. Robertson exhibits a Protestant perspective, but is objective and fair-minded, in commenting on this verse as follows:

“Highly favoured” (kecharitomene). Perfect passive participle of charitoo and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace as in Ephesians. 1:6, . . . The Vulgate gratiae plena “is right, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast received‘; wrong, if it means ‘full of grace which thou hast to bestow‘” (Plummer).
(oh, I forgot, michaelvpardo's opinions trump any Protestant scholar, he knows more than they do)

Kecharitomene has to do with God’s grace, as it is derived from the Greek root, charis (literally, “grace”). Thus, in the KJV, charis is translated “grace” 129 out of the 150 times that it appears. Greek scholar Marvin Vincent noted that even Wycliffe and Tyndale (no enthusiastic supporters of the Catholic Church) both rendered kecharitomene in Luke 1:28 as “full of grace” and that the literal meaning was “endued with grace” (Vincent, I, 259).

Likewise, well-known Protestant linguist W.E. Vine, defines it as “to endue with Divine favour or grace” (Vine, II, 171). All these men (except Wycliffe, who probably would have been, had he lived in the 16th century or after it) are Protestants, and so cannot be accused of Catholic translation bias. Even a severe critic of Catholicism like James White can’t avoid the fact that kecharitomene (however translated) cannot be divorced from the notion of grace, and stated that the term referred to “divine favor, that is, God’s grace” (White, 201).

Of course, Catholics agree that Mary has received grace. This is assumed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception: it was a grace from God which could not possibly have had anything to do with Mary’s personal merit, since it was granted by God at the moment of her conception, to preserve her from original sin (as appropriate for the one who would bear God Incarnate in her very body).

The Catholic argument hinges upon the meaning of kecharitomene. For Mary this signifies a state granted to her, in which she enjoys an extraordinary fullness of grace. Charis often refers to a power or ability which God grants in order to overcome sin (and this is how we interpret Luke 1:28). This sense is a biblical one, as Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel points out:

Grace is the basis of justification and is also manifested in it ([Rom.] 5:20-21). Hence grace is in some sense a state (5:2), although one is always called into it (Gal. 1:6), and it is always a gift on which one has no claim. Grace is sufficient (1 Cor. 1:29) . . . The work of grace in overcoming sin displays its power (Rom. 5:20-21) . . .(Kittel, 1304-1305)

Protestant linguist W.E. Vine concurs that charis can mean “a state of grace, e.g., Rom. 5:2; 1 Pet. 5:12; 2 Pet. 3:18” (Vine, II, 170). One can construct a strong biblical argument from analogy, for Mary’s sinlessness. For St. Paul, grace (charis) is the antithesis and “conqueror” of sin (emphases added in the following verses):

Romans 6:14: (cf. Rom 5:17,20-21, 2 Cor 1:12, 2 Timothy 1:9)

We are saved by grace, and grace alone:

Ephesians 2:8-10: (cf. Acts 15:11, Rom 3:24, 11:5, Eph 2:5, Titus 2:11, 3:7, 1 Pet 1:10)

Thus, the biblical argument outlined above proceeds as follows:

1. Grace saves us.

2. Grace gives us the power to be holy and righteous and without sin.

Therefore, for a person to be full of grace is both to be saved and to be completely, exceptionally holy. It’s a “zero-sum game”: the more grace one has, the less sin. One might look at grace as water, and sin as the air in an empty glass (us). When you pour in the water (grace), the sin (air) is displaced. A full glass of water, therefore, contains no air (see also, similar zero-sum game concepts in 1 John 1:7, 9; 3:6, 9; 5:18). To be full of grace is to be devoid of sin. Thus we might re-apply the above two propositions:

1. To be full of the grace that saves is surely to be saved.
2. To be full of the grace that gives us the power to be holy, righteous, and without sin is to be fully without sin, by that same grace.

A deductive, biblical argument for the Immaculate Conception, with premises derived directly from Scripture, might look like this:

1. The Bible teaches that we are saved by God’s grace.

2. To be “full of” God’s grace, then, is to be saved.

3. Therefore, Mary is saved (Luke 1:28).

4. The Bible teaches that we need God’s grace to live a holy life, free from sin.

5. To be “full of” God’s grace is thus to be so holy that one is sinless.

6. Therefore, Mary is holy and sinless.

7. The essence of the Immaculate Conception is sinlessness.

8. Therefore, the Immaculate Conception, in its essence, can be directly deduced from Scripture.

The only way out of the logic would be to deny one of the two premises, and hold either that grace does not save (michaelvpardor's error) or that grace is not that power which enables one to be sinless and holy. (michaelvpardo's second error)It is highly unlikely that any Evangelical Protestant would take such a position, so the argument is a very strong one, because it proceeds upon their own premises. (that michaelvpardo doesn't have in the first place)

In this fashion, the essence of the Immaculate Conception (i.e., the sinlessness of Mary) is proven from biblical principles and doctrines accepted by every orthodox Protestant (but not michaelvpardo). Certainly all mainstream Christians agree that grace is required both for salvation and to overcome sin. So in a sense my argument is only one of degree, deduced (almost by common sense, I would say) from notions that all Christians hold in common.

One possible quibble might be about when God applied this grace to Mary. We know (from Luke 1:28) that she had it as a young woman, at the Annunciation. Catholics believe that God gave her the grace at her conception so that she might avoid the original sin that she otherwise would have inherited, being human. Therefore, by God’s preventive grace, she was saved from falling into the pit of sin, rather than rescued after she had fallen in.

All of this follows straightforwardly from Luke 1:28 and the (primarily Pauline) exegesis of charis elsewhere in the New Testament. It would be strange for a Protestant to underplay grace, when they are known for their constant emphasis on grace alone for salvation. (We Catholics fully agree with that; we merely deny the tenet of “faith alone,” as contrary to the clear teaching of St. James and St. Paul.)

Protestants keep objecting that these Catholic beliefs are speculative; that is, that they go far beyond the biblical evidence. But once one delves deeply enough into Scripture and the meanings of the words of Scripture, they are not that speculative at all. Rather, it looks much more like Protestant theology has selectively trumpeted the power of grace when it applies to all the rest of us Christian believers, but downplayed it when it applies to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

What we have, then, is not so much a matter of Catholics reading into Scripture, as Protestants, in effect, reading certain passages out of Scripture altogether (that is, ignoring their strong implications), because they do not fit in with their preconceived notions (yet another instance of my general theme).
Luke 1:28 ("Full of Grace") and the Immaculate Conception

Mistranslations, misinterpretations, and outright lies require no response other than warning of the imminent visitation. Your judge is at the door.

 

[michaelvpardo]

NONE of your Protestant Gathers were God.
That's why YOU should ask yourself why you're following a splinter of a splinter of a splinter of of a splinter of what they taught.

Why do you believe what they taught - EXCEPT for the things you don't want to believe in??
This is what we Christians refer to as Cafeteria Christianity. "I'll take some of this but NONE of that."

Either they were right - or they were wrong. And, IF they were right - then YOUR abandonment of what they believed and taught is your own invention . . .

I haven't learned from "protestant gathers", but from God. If you were one of His you would learn from Him, but apparently you have another father.

 

[michaelvpardo]

And you're doing the same thing with the Scriptural evidence that Kepha31 presented as you did with what I presented.
You can't intelligently address ANY of it, so you run away - leaving behind a trail of angry insults and stupid comments.

Anybody reading this can see that you're NOT equipped to debate this matter . . .

I must apologize for having fun at your expense, but it isn't possible for me to take a "church" apologist seriously regardless of how pompous and sacrilegious a title or screen name he or she may use. I'm not here to debate you, but to present truth to anyone with an ear to hear , and to fulfill my calling as a witness to the judgment. I've given warning to you and since this is a public venue, to your church and your Vatican. The hour of your visitation is nearly upon you and I have written what was required of me to be free of the guilt of your blood. Now your blood will be upon your own head. Save your arrogance for God, it is He that holds you in derision.
This is the curse that has gone out into the whole Earth: "It shall enter the house of the thief And the house of the one who swears falsely by My name. It shall remain in the midst of his house And consume it, with its timber and stones."
Let justice be swift. Amen and Amen.

 

[mjrhealth]

@michaelvpardo

Gal_1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

who needs Jesus when the world is filled with smarter men, and you will never convince them otherwise, when a mans heart had an idol it wont let go, as you can see.

 

[epostle1]

I haven't learned from "protestant gathers", but from God. If you were one of His you would learn from Him, but apparently you have another father.

I'm not here to receive any points from you. The Lord is my teacher which is more than sufficient.

30. The lack of a definitive teaching authority in Protestant (as with the Catholic magisterium) makes many individual Protestants think that they have a direct line to God, notwithstanding all of Christian Tradition and the history of biblical exegesis (a “Bible, Holy Spirit and me” mentality). Such people are generally under-educated theologically, unteachable, lack humility, and have no business making presumed “infallible” statements about the nature of Christianity.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2015/10/150-reasonscwhy-i-am-a-catholic.html

Mistranslations, misinterpretations, and outright lies require no response other than warning of the imminent visitation. Your judge is at the door.

Face it, your post enlightenment heresy got exposed, and you reply with this pious temper tantrum. The topic is the sinlessness of Mary. You can't stay on topic and don't know when to leave it alone. Your arguments have been demolished.

I haven't learned from "protestant gathers", but from God.

This is Protestantism to the core, thus contradictory.

If you were one of His you would learn from Him, but apparently you have another father.

You offer no intelligent reply to the topic but reply with this stupid insult.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I must apologize for having fun at your expense, but it isn't possible for me to take a "church" apologist seriously regardless of how pompous and sacrilegious a title or screen name he or she may use. I'm not here to debate you, but to present truth to anyone with an ear to hear , and to fulfill my calling as a witness to the judgment. I've given warning to you and since this is a public venue, to your church and your Vatican. The hour of your visitation is nearly upon you and I have written what was required of me to be free of the guilt of your blood. Now your blood will be upon your own head. Save your arrogance for God, it is He that holds you in derision.
This is the curse that has gone out into the whole Earth: "It shall enter the house of the thief And the house of the one who swears falsely by My name. It shall remain in the midst of his house And consume it, with its timber and stones."
Let justice be swift. Amen and Amen.

I don't think it's about "having fun" or not. It's about being equipped with the truth - which you have proven NOT to be time and again.

If you're not prepared to defend your statements - maybe a debate forum is NOT the best place for you to be spending your time.

 

[BreadOfLife]

I haven't learned from "protestant gathers", but from God. If you were one of His you would learn from Him, but apparently you have another father.

Wrong.

You know what you know because of your Protestant Fathers. The problem is that you went further off the rails than they did because you have invented some newer, wackier ideas.

This is the fruit of the confusion that is Protestantism.