There is the Church at Rome but never a Roman Catholic Church. Calling the Church at Rome the Roman Church is equally correct.
The Jerusalem council was Catholic. But it was not Roman. The Roman Church does exist. It had its beginning with the Church at Rome and has since turned into the thing that it is today. But, it does not represent the Catholic Church, though it wants to.
History is your enemy.
No, I do not accept your 'apostolic tradition'. I have no problem with tradition as long as it is correct and is not put on the same level or above the Scriptures.
That just proves you can't read, or avoid, my signature.
How can division be anathema when Jesus caused division? As I showed you.
You showed me an out of context verse that has nothing to do with Paul, and you are trying use that to justify a 15th century revolt. Jesus isn't talking about that either. Read some commentaries.
those who hold to the true doctrines to divide. (Rom.16:17) "Now I beseech you brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
Division is always necessary. Which is why so many turned away from the Romanist Church. (1Cor. 11:18-19) "For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you"
See? The approved recognize the heresies and separate themselves from them.
See the above post as to which heresies Paul is talking about.
How many Protestants refuted the Arian heresy at the Council of Nicae?
How many Protestants refuted the Nestorian heresy at the Council of Ephesus? Who were "the approved" that made these authoritive verdicts down through history? Approved Protestants? How many Protestant churches have ever held a council?
We follow the model of the Jerusalem Council, whereas you guys reject that or ignore it, because it doesn’t fit in with the man-made tradition of Protestantism and a supposedly non-infallible Church.
The whole thing is a far more complex matter than Protestants usually comprehend, because they have been taught only one way of looking at things:
sola Scriptura and anti-institutionalism, and anti-Catholicism (either subtle or more pernicious opposition).
What is straying from God’s word is the very notion of denominationalism, which is always considered an outrage in the NT;
the rejection of apostolic succession,
and of, e.g., bishops (plainly present in the NT),
or belief in a non-literal Eucharist,
or a baptism that doesn’t regenerate,
or
sola Scriptura
or faith alone (separation of justification and sanctification)
all the host of unbiblical teachings that are in Protestantism. That’s why I left the system; wanting to follow biblical teachings more closely, traditional moral teachings, and the historic Christian Church.
Galatians 1:8-9 is very real; thus, we reject Protestantism where it departs from God’s word. The Bible teaches that the true Church is infallible and indefectible. That is a promise of God. One either accepts it in faith or not. That is the task: does one accept all of what the Bible teaches, or just selectively, with man-made traditions added to it?
There is such a thing as a false church and false gospel, that must be rejected, and there is also
the one true Church that cannot fail doctrinally, based on God’s protection. You assert the first thing but reject the second, which is your difficulty (accepting one part of the Bible but not another). We accept both things and have no difficulty.
Dialogue with a Calvinist: Was Paul a "Lone Ranger"?
