Protestant disinfo debunked-Catholics are also Christians

reply to post by NOTurTypical



Why? Just because I am not brainwashed to believe that three gods equal one?

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Okay, so what is the end result of your claim? That the Son of God was created at some point? That there was a point where He never existed, just the Father?

My hoped for "end result" would be to have a better understanding of the problems involved in the so-called Arian controversy, where it would seem better to me to call it the Athanasian ego problem.
Like I said in my next to the last post on this thread, I am happy being a polytheist.
Jesus, in my opinion is eternal, just we don't need some weird Athanasian invention to legitimize it.
Since you are a Driscoll fan, you may be interested in that a book that he co-authored proposes that the theory (or doctrine) of eternal generation of the Son be left in the scrapheap of history.
Believing that the person who became Jesus was eternal is easy enough for me because I think that we all are eternal. That does not mean that we are somehow gods, we aren't, we are just people, but being eternal doesn't mean anything other than we existed 'before' material existence was possible, seeing how the universe was not yet created. God is more 'eternal' in that He never suffers material death, unless that particular god person happens to be Jesus, who though he did suffer a death like we do, is still around to talk about it. We can't raise ourselves from the dead (as Jesus claimed that he could) but need God to do that.

Decided to move to its own thread.

reply to post by truejew

Trinitarians are polytheists. Wake up from your brainwashing.

You seriously need to make that its own thread.
Do you realize this is a thread on Protestants vs. Catholics?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Trinitarians are polytheists. Wake up from your brainwashing.

You seriously need to make that its own thread.
Do you realize this is a thread on Protestants vs. Catholics?

I actually tried to get back on topic a long time ago, but the others had other plans.

However, I will try to move it to its own thread.


Trinitarians are polytheists

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Why? Just because I am not brainwashed to believe that three gods equal one?

You must not have advanced math training, perhaps I don't really struggle with the concept because in math you can have three completely different numbers of infinity that all equal infinity.

So it's easy for me to conceptualize three persons comprising one God.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The discussion has been moved. Please see link in previous post.

Originally posted by truejew

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

So Jesus told a half-truth when He said "no man" had seen the Father? That He was playing semantics?

A half-truth is still a lie.

No, it is the truth. No man has seen the invisible Father.

So I'm correct in my assessment, you think Jesus was playing a game of semantics and told people a half-truth.

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The discussion has been moved. Please see link in previous post.

I just looked at it, you made a troll/flame thread.

Bravo.

I have a better idea, how about you and Adj have a sanctioned and moderated debate in the debate forum?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by truejew

 

Trinitarians are polytheists. Wake up from your brainwashing.

You seriously need to make that its own thread.
Do you realize this is a thread on Protestants vs. Catholics?

Well, as I suggested to him several times and he refused. There are numerous threads already existing that deal with Trinitarianism and he should post there in them instead of making a new thread. That would be the correct forum protocol.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by truejew
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The discussion has been moved. Please see link in previous post.

I just looked at it, you made a troll/flame thread.

Bravo.

I have a better idea, how about you and Adj have a sanctioned and moderated debate in the debate forum?

edit on 9-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

So, because I followed the advice of another member and moved the discussion, I am now labeled a troll?

The topic has been moved to it's own thread. I suggest you post there.

reply to post by truejew


No, why would someone be labeled a troll for merely making a new thread. The reason it's trolling/flaming/baiting is the inflammatory remark at the end of it.

So what about having a formal and sanctioned debate that's moderated with Adj in the debate forum?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

No, why would someone be labeled a troll for merely making a new thread. The reason it's trolling/flaming/baiting is the inflammatory remark at the end of it.

So what about having a formal and sanctioned debate that's moderated with Adj in the debate forum?

That remark is no different than remarks that Adjensen has made.

reply to post by truejew


The difference is you don't BEGIN a thread with them, which you just did. That is a thread intended to flame and bait members.

A third time now, what about a moderated and sanctioned formal debate with Adj in the debate forum?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

A third time now, what about a moderated and sanctioned formal debate with Adj in the debate forum?

Sadly, that's not how they work. Even with Reckart on his speed dial, he wouldn't trust the judgement of an unbiased panel of judges on his illogical theology -- I've poked enough holes in it in the past that it would probably be a foregone conclusion, and he knows it.

Frankly, I'm surprised that he's even on here, a forum where he has no control over the content. I'd even go so far as to say I'm a bit impressed, though I suspect that if Reckart knew it, he'd get chewed out for leaving a trail of evidence of theological fail.

It's kind of funny, watching those guys on Facebook -- they block each other, delete posts, gang up on others, it's like watching 12 year old girls arguing over who's the bigger Justin Bieber fan. In the middle of an argument, they'll go in and delete the other guy's posts after blocking him, so it looks like they're arguing with no one. And they go on about the weirdest things imaginable... there was a long argument, where some guy told Reckart that you had to baptize in natural water -- rivers, lakes, the ocean -- and that Reckart's bathtub and hot tub baptisms were invalid, because the Apostles clearly didn't have jacuzzis. That got pretty heated before the inevitable name calling, blocking and post deletions, lol.

Ultimately, it's a "I'm right, you're wrong" argument, and having control in order to just get rid of anything that proves you wrong is key to them staying relevant, even in their own minds. So I wouldn't hold out much hope for a fair and unbiased debate, though I would accept one, of course.

reply to post by adjensen


All I can think of is when Jesus mocked the pharisees in Mark 7 for making the Word of God of no effect by clinging to the traditions of the elders.

Pot washers and mint tithers.

And I figured out out today considering I mentioned it three times and all I hear is crickets. I figured he would be confident enough of his position to prove it in a formal debate.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by truejew

 

The difference is you don't BEGIN a thread with them, which you just did. That is a thread intended to flame and bait members.

A third time now, what about a moderated and sanctioned formal debate with Adj in the debate forum?

edit on 9-5-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)

Those type of debates only serve one purpose... To be lifted up in pride.

The only "mocking" I see going on is coming from your side.

Now I once again suggest you two let the original topic of this thread return.

I said I was going to post this, on topic and important to show the non-Catholic Christian heresy of "private
judgment" is not of Christ.

www.catholicnick.blogspot.com...

+ + +

Wednesday, May 1, 2013


Protestants are #1! (They can't be #2.)


A common rebuttal Protestants give to Catholics when accused of engaging in "Private Interpretation" of Scripture is that Catholics engage in "Private Interpretation" as of Scripture as well, particularly when it comes to a Catholic deciding for themself that the Catholic Church is the church to join. The Protestant envisions that he and the Catholic both are fallibly interpreting Scripture and each are coming to their own fallible conclusions. Given this, the Protestant sees any arguments given for submitting to Rome as not only unnecessary, but even engaging in the same fallible private judgment that Catholics clobber Protestants for doing. In short, the Protestant sees the Catholic engaging in circular reasoning and special pleading.

When I encountered this for the zillionth time, here is the response I gave to one Protestant Blogger (slightly modified for this blog post):

The problem with that claim is there is a misunderstanding (even equivocation) going on with the term "interpret". Really, there are two distinct things going on:


(1) Studying the Evidence and coming to a fallible but plausible conclusion.

(2) Authoritatively teaching a binding doctrine, including authoritatively interpreting a text of Scripture.


Everyone must engage in category #1. That's not the issue. The issue is category #2. When it comes to addressing category #2, one must see that there either is an authoritative teaching body ("Magisterium") or there is not. If there is no Magisterium, then there are no definitive doctrines, only fallible but plausible opinions. That's basically the state of Protestantism and why fewer and fewer doctrines are seen as "essential". If there is a Magisterium, one must engage in #1 to locate and eventually submit to which Magisterium is the most credible.

Let me give an example of the problem with Protestantism. Let's say that St Paul came down from Heaven into your denomination and told your pastor that your pastor was teaching incorrect doctrines and rather your pastor should be teaching these other doctrines. In the Protestant view, your pastor could theoretically disagree with St Paul if your pastor felt Paul's comments did not align with your pastor's interpretation of Scripture. In the Protestant mind, both your pastor and St Paul were in the category #1 above: they were both fallible men doing their best to discern what the Spirit was telling them through Scripture. Neither could or were teaching authoritatively.

The problem with the above example is obviously that we know St Paul is not on par with your pastor, and in fact St Paul was entrusted by God with the role of #2 above. This means your pastor and his congregation, who are all in category #1, are not free to overturn Paul's teaching should they come to a different interpretation of the Bible. They'd be in the wrong and Paul would be in the right.

What you and other Protestants do is think that a Christian in category #1 has the (optional) duty of locating a denomination and pastor also in category #1. And since everyone is in category #1, then it's possible there could come a time when you disagree with your pastor's fallible but plausible interpretation of Scripture on a doctrine you plausibly but fallibly believe is important, and at that point you could leave to find another denomination or start your own. All the Protestant is doing is shifting between denominations of category #1, completely oblivious to or denying the existence of someone of category #2.

Unless Catholics and Protestants can differentiate and understand these two categories, they will continue to talk past each other.

Originally posted by colbe
I said I was going to post this, on topic and important to show the non-Catholic Christian heresy of "private
judgment" is not of Christ.

www.catholicnick.blogspot.com...

+ + +

Wednesday, May 1, 2013


Protestants are #1! (They can't be #2.)


A common rebuttal Protestants give to Catholics when accused of engaging in "Private Interpretation" of Scripture is that Catholics engage in "Private Interpretation" as of Scripture as well, particularly when it comes to a Catholic deciding for themself that the Catholic Church is the church to join. The Protestant envisions that he and the Catholic both are fallibly interpreting Scripture and each are coming to their own fallible conclusions. Given this, the Protestant sees any arguments given for submitting to Rome as not only unnecessary, but even engaging in the same fallible private judgment that Catholics clobber Protestants for doing. In short, the Protestant sees the Catholic engaging in circular reasoning and special pleading.

When I encountered this for the zillionth time, here is the response I gave to one Protestant Blogger (slightly modified for this blog post):

The problem with that claim is there is a misunderstanding (even equivocation) going on with the term "interpret". Really, there are two distinct things going on:


(1) Studying the Evidence and coming to a fallible but plausible conclusion.

(2) Authoritatively teaching a binding doctrine, including authoritatively interpreting a text of Scripture.


Everyone must engage in category #1. That's not the issue. The issue is category #2. When it comes to addressing category #2, one must see that there either is an authoritative teaching body ("Magisterium") or there is not. If there is no Magisterium, then there are no definitive doctrines, only fallible but plausible opinions. That's basically the state of Protestantism and why fewer and fewer doctrines are seen as "essential". If there is a Magisterium, one must engage in #1 to locate and eventually submit to which Magisterium is the most credible.

Let me give an example of the problem with Protestantism. Let's say that St Paul came down from Heaven into your denomination and told your pastor that your pastor was teaching incorrect doctrines and rather your pastor should be teaching these other doctrines. In the Protestant view, your pastor could theoretically disagree with St Paul if your pastor felt Paul's comments did not align with your pastor's interpretation of Scripture. In the Protestant mind, both your pastor and St Paul were in the category #1 above: they were both fallible men doing their best to discern what the Spirit was telling them through Scripture. Neither could or were teaching authoritatively.

The problem with the above example is obviously that we know St Paul is not on par with your pastor, and in fact St Paul was entrusted by God with the role of #2 above. This means your pastor and his congregation, who are all in category #1, are not free to overturn Paul's teaching should they come to a different interpretation of the Bible. They'd be in the wrong and Paul would be in the right.

What you and other Protestants do is think that a Christian in category #1 has the (optional) duty of locating a denomination and pastor also in category #1. And since everyone is in category #1, then it's possible there could come a time when you disagree with your pastor's fallible but plausible interpretation of Scripture on a doctrine you plausibly but fallibly believe is important, and at that point you could leave to find another denomination or start your own. All the Protestant is doing is shifting between denominations of category #1, completely oblivious to or denying the existence of someone of category #2.

Unless Catholics and Protestants can differentiate and understand these two categories, they will continue to talk past each other.

IMO, what Protestantism has tried to do is make "each believer a priest." As a Protestant, I was my own confessor, my own interceder, and of course, my own authority to interpret Scripture however I saw fit.

Originally posted by Snsoc

Originally posted by colbe
I said I was going to post this, on topic and important to show the non-Catholic Christian heresy of "private
judgment" is not of Christ.

www.catholicnick.blogspot.com...

+ + +

Wednesday, May 1, 2013


Protestants are #1! (They can't be #2.)


A common rebuttal Protestants give to Catholics when accused of engaging in "Private Interpretation" of Scripture is that Catholics engage in "Private Interpretation" as of Scripture as well, particularly when it comes to a Catholic deciding for themself that the Catholic Church is the church to join. The Protestant envisions that he and the Catholic both are fallibly interpreting Scripture and each are coming to their own fallible conclusions. Given this, the Protestant sees any arguments given for submitting to Rome as not only unnecessary, but even engaging in the same fallible private judgment that Catholics clobber Protestants for doing. In short, the Protestant sees the Catholic engaging in circular reasoning and special pleading.

When I encountered this for the zillionth time, here is the response I gave to one Protestant Blogger (slightly modified for this blog post):

The problem with that claim is there is a misunderstanding (even equivocation) going on with the term "interpret". Really, there are two distinct things going on:


(1) Studying the Evidence and coming to a fallible but plausible conclusion.

(2) Authoritatively teaching a binding doctrine, including authoritatively interpreting a text of Scripture.


Everyone must engage in category #1. That's not the issue. The issue is category #2. When it comes to addressing category #2, one must see that there either is an authoritative teaching body ("Magisterium") or there is not. If there is no Magisterium, then there are no definitive doctrines, only fallible but plausible opinions. That's basically the state of Protestantism and why fewer and fewer doctrines are seen as "essential". If there is a Magisterium, one must engage in #1 to locate and eventually submit to which Magisterium is the most credible.

Let me give an example of the problem with Protestantism. Let's say that St Paul came down from Heaven into your denomination and told your pastor that your pastor was teaching incorrect doctrines and rather your pastor should be teaching these other doctrines. In the Protestant view, your pastor could theoretically disagree with St Paul if your pastor felt Paul's comments did not align with your pastor's interpretation of Scripture. In the Protestant mind, both your pastor and St Paul were in the category #1 above: they were both fallible men doing their best to discern what the Spirit was telling them through Scripture. Neither could or were teaching authoritatively.

The problem with the above example is obviously that we know St Paul is not on par with your pastor, and in fact St Paul was entrusted by God with the role of #2 above. This means your pastor and his congregation, who are all in category #1, are not free to overturn Paul's teaching should they come to a different interpretation of the Bible. They'd be in the wrong and Paul would be in the right.

What you and other Protestants do is think that a Christian in category #1 has the (optional) duty of locating a denomination and pastor also in category #1. And since everyone is in category #1, then it's possible there could come a time when you disagree with your pastor's fallible but plausible interpretation of Scripture on a doctrine you plausibly but fallibly believe is important, and at that point you could leave to find another denomination or start your own. All the Protestant is doing is shifting between denominations of category #1, completely oblivious to or denying the existence of someone of category #2.

Unless Catholics and Protestants can differentiate and understand these two categories, they will continue to talk past each other.

IMO, what Protestantism has tried to do is make "each believer a priest." As a Protestant, I was my own confessor, my own interceder, and of course, my own authority to interpret Scripture however I saw fit.

Snsoc,

You explain very well the problem with Protestantism. Catholic NIck saying similar (I underlined part of it above).

"If there is no Magisterium, then there are no definitive doctrines, only fallible but plausible opinions. That's basically the state of Protestantism and why fewer and fewer doctrines are seen as "essential".

And my dear non-Catholic friend would argue with me, saying the differences of belief in Protestantism
are non-essentials. That is lame, Jesus said do all that I command of you. My friend thinks it is enough
to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior (faith alone heresy).