The existence of competing interpretations isn't a refutation, you're just stating that you have a competing interpretation. Instead, the existence of competing interpretations should drive you to one of two conclusions: I should assume all interpretations are equally bad or good even if I come up with them on my own, as I have no reason to believe that my interpretation is better or worse than another's so long as everyone claims to be using the same criteria, or I should assume that there is some other quality which validates the interpretation that rises beyond dialectical processes. You get to pick the quality, and then you can either go to heaven or hell for it. I picked smell, I like incense.
#1. The local church is superior to the individual, the denomination superior to the local church, and the magisterium superior to the denomination. With each level, you gain a level of expertise, consensus, and accountability. If it's not perfect, it is the best humanity can reasonably come up with. The conclave where a traditional pope appoints traditional cardinals and then elects a traditional pope amongst themselves creates an environment of perpetual conservatism superior to any other denomination's selection of its leaders. A constitutional monarchy like the Anglicans or direct democracy like the Southern Baptists is inferior to this model and the fruits of the spirit and their divisions amongst themselves lay this out. #2. The divisions within Catholicism are highly technical and the rebels are extremely few relative to the main body. Nor is this exclusive to the RCC but found in every denomination. #3. Individual interpretation or local interpretation is not encouraged in the NT, the opposite. Paul and the Apostles make clear that the Gospel comes from them and no other source. Private revelation is not taught to be authoritative. In fact, Paul states that even should an angel say something contrary to the Gospel, do not believe it. The Gospel message and its interpretation are exclusive to the Apostles and their successors as authorities. And this is also plain to see in Revelation when Christ, through John, scolds and rebukes the Churches of Asia Minor. #4. The faults of the RCC in its practical application of the faith or some of its lower-level teachings could be greatly reformed by honest Protestants joining the RCC and changing it from the inside. By being outside, it's the worst of both worlds. The RCC is deprived of Protestant talent and morals that would greatly influence the Conclaves and the selection of popes. The Protestants are deprived of a central authority that prevents significant doctrinal shifts. #5. Whatever said about the RCC, it's quite clear many Mainline Protestant churches have become over many decades a Synagogue of Satan. Divine Providence is not with them. But as Peter said in his letter, they confuse the Scriptures to their destruction. Their model of authority and church governance has failed, and it also seems obvious that a regional denomination of only 1800 churches is not the True Church spoken of in Scripture.
1) shut up 2) might does not make right 3) numerical superiority does not equal sound logic 4.) go and actually read the Bible for yourself and quit asking others what it's supposed to mean, actually meet Christ for real and shut up long enough to listen
I still can't believe why he thought that "divisions" within Catholicism are any ground for a refutation. The Catholic Church actually has a mechanism for correcting division that its followers believe to be authoritative under God, while the non-catholic has to just hope that they are right according to their thought process about whatever differentiation they made.
Yes I second that, Baptist can hardly claim to have friendship with Luther outside of Justification through faith alone. I feel baptists want to do the opposite of the catholics. Therefore they do away with baptismal regeneration and real presence. Baptist should question themselves on why these doctrines were disposed of, thier position is relatively new.
The existence of competing interpretations isn't a refutation, you're just stating that you have a competing interpretation. Instead, the existence of competing interpretations should drive you to one of two conclusions: I should assume all interpretations are equally bad or good even if I come up with them on my own, as I have no reason to believe that my interpretation is better or worse than another's so long as everyone claims to be using the same criteria, or I should assume that there is some other quality which validates the interpretation that rises beyond dialectical processes. You get to pick the quality, and then you can either go to heaven or hell for it. I picked smell, I like incense.
bro why do they have lightsabers 😭😭😭
Great refutation!
But Christ is still present in the Eucharist and Baptism saves
Who said the apostles were infallible?
Quote scripture please.
#1. The local church is superior to the individual, the denomination superior to the local church, and the magisterium superior to the denomination. With each level, you gain a level of expertise, consensus, and accountability. If it's not perfect, it is the best humanity can reasonably come up with. The conclave where a traditional pope appoints traditional cardinals and then elects a traditional pope amongst themselves creates an environment of perpetual conservatism superior to any other denomination's selection of its leaders. A constitutional monarchy like the Anglicans or direct democracy like the Southern Baptists is inferior to this model and the fruits of the spirit and their divisions amongst themselves lay this out.
#2. The divisions within Catholicism are highly technical and the rebels are extremely few relative to the main body. Nor is this exclusive to the RCC but found in every denomination.
#3. Individual interpretation or local interpretation is not encouraged in the NT, the opposite. Paul and the Apostles make clear that the Gospel comes from them and no other source. Private revelation is not taught to be authoritative. In fact, Paul states that even should an angel say something contrary to the Gospel, do not believe it. The Gospel message and its interpretation are exclusive to the Apostles and their successors as authorities. And this is also plain to see in Revelation when Christ, through John, scolds and rebukes the Churches of Asia Minor.
#4. The faults of the RCC in its practical application of the faith or some of its lower-level teachings could be greatly reformed by honest Protestants joining the RCC and changing it from the inside. By being outside, it's the worst of both worlds. The RCC is deprived of Protestant talent and morals that would greatly influence the Conclaves and the selection of popes. The Protestants are deprived of a central authority that prevents significant doctrinal shifts.
#5. Whatever said about the RCC, it's quite clear many Mainline Protestant churches have become over many decades a Synagogue of Satan. Divine Providence is not with them. But as Peter said in his letter, they confuse the Scriptures to their destruction. Their model of authority and church governance has failed, and it also seems obvious that a regional denomination of only 1800 churches is not the True Church spoken of in Scripture.
1) shut up
2) might does not make right
3) numerical superiority does not equal sound logic
4.) go and actually read the Bible for yourself and quit asking others what it's supposed to mean, actually meet Christ for real and shut up long enough to listen
I still can't believe why he thought that "divisions" within Catholicism are any ground for a refutation. The Catholic Church actually has a mechanism for correcting division that its followers believe to be authoritative under God, while the non-catholic has to just hope that they are right according to their thought process about whatever differentiation they made.
Yes I second that, Baptist can hardly claim to have friendship with Luther outside of Justification through faith alone. I feel baptists want to do the opposite of the catholics. Therefore they do away with baptismal regeneration and real presence. Baptist should question themselves on why these doctrines were disposed of, thier position is relatively new.