re: Protestant-Only Religious Service at Pentagon

quote:

---

Id love to see you a Foo debate over this

Is there a foo signal?

shite even he believes baptism is a sacrament

---

He’s a Calvinist. I’m not.

And look, it’s not that I don’t think a believer shouldn’t be baptized with water. I actually do, but not to be saved I don’t.

quote:

---

He’s a Calvinist. I’m not.

---

Yeah its just fun seeing protestants argue over who's interpretation of the Bible is correct particularly when one of thems interpretation is inline with the Catholic church.

Baptists and non-denom/pentecostal/seventh day adventists are one step away from Mormonism

quote:

---

Well, there’s only one correct interpretation of scripture and that’s the one taken in context, not plucked out of context and thrown into the salvation gumbo.

---

Baptists and their likes are literally the only Protestant denominations that believe it that...go to other mainline Protestant churches and the apologists will walk you out the building in a debate on Baptism.

Seriously, just watch the videos

None of this is new to me. Over the past 50 years or so I’ve heard them all, and when you get down to it none truly have any assurance of their salvation because they’re looking to their unfinished works rather than Jesus and His finished work on their behalf and the assurances He gives us in the word we can trust in. All of it boils down to trusting in yourself, when Jesus died for all of your sins, not most of them. If He didn’t cover them all, then none of us will make it because only Jesus’ blood forgives sin, and He’a not getting on the cross every day to die for the one’s He missed. He didn’t miss any.

quote:

---

Look man, you may be a man of God, but Baptists and their ilk are totally out of line with Baptism. Its not even a purely Catholic belief.

---

I’m not a Baptist, and besides, not all baptists are the same. Some do hold strong to water baptism for salvation, and some do not.

I was christened Catholic as an infant and that didn’t save me. Then, after I believed upon Jesus I was baptized, but that didn’t save me either. My putting my faith upon Jesus for my salvation is what saved me according to the scriptures. The baptism was to announce my faith in Jesus, under the water as the old man died, and out of the water in newness of life in Christ. Water doesn’t save. It’s water. Jesus saves you when you put your faith in what He did for you and on your behalf. Water just testifies of your faith in Jesus as your savior.

quote:

---

i don't pretend to know what goofy schit protestants do on good friday, i always assumed it was just another friday for them, like ash wenesday is just wenesday.

---

Really?

quote:

---

You keep saying you’re fine with authority, just not infallible authority, but that’s exactly where your position breaks down.

---

I don't agree that it does. That which is infallible does not need to be received by an infallible receiver. If it did, we would need an infinite number of infallible authorities to both proclaim and to receive/interpret. The church of Rome has no problem giving the lay people allegedly infallible dogmas that they have to fallibly understand and believe.

quote:

---

On the Pharisees, you’re proving my point. Yes, they had real authority, and yes, they could err. But notice what that creates. If the authority that interprets Scripture can err, then disputes about what Scripture means are ultimately unresolved. That’s exactly what you see in Protestantism today. Competing interpretations with no final, binding resolution.

---

The Pharisees and the Sadducees debated on whether or not there was a resurrection of the dead. Jesus set the record straight (there is a resurrection), but there was still debate by the Jews on doctrine even though Jesus held them accountable to Scriptures that they never infallibly decided on by Council.

You still haven't touched on that point, and I think it's critical to this debate. Rome is essentially claiming the position of the Pharisees in having an authority that must be followed, and yet Jesus rebuked them for being wrong (they weren't infallible) and for placing their traditions in a position that nullified the authority of the word of God.

Again, I'm not denying the Church has authority, but I'm denying that she has an infallible authority. That's the position Jesus took when He rebuked them for their rejection of the Scriptures in favor of their traditions, even while He recognized that they had some authority. He taught their authority was subordinate to the Scriptures, which is the position I'm taking.

quote:

---

On the canon, you keep repeating “we can be certain without being infallible,” but that doesn’t solve the problem. You’re claiming an infallible rule of faith while admitting your identification of that rule could be wrong. That’s not just a philosophical nuance, that’s a foundational issue. If your canon could be mistaken, then your “infallible authority” could include non-inspired books or exclude inspired ones. That undermines the whole system.

---

I think we're talking past each other at this point, since we are repeating the same things.

I'll say again that one does not need to be infallible in order to be certain. If we needed to be infallible knowers, then even the lay Catholic would need to have infallible knowledge that Rome is infallible in her declarations and interpretations. I could turn that around to you and say how do you know that the Church is infallible? That Councils are infallible? That the Pope is infallible (when he speaks from Peter's chair, at least)? How can you be certain of these things when you, yourself, are not an infallible knower?

My certainty is based on God's promises in His word, not on the infallibility of men who receive that word. I believe that the tradition of men rightly received and affirmed the Scriptures. Not because the tradition or the Church is infallible, but because God providentially kept His promise to preserve His word.

quote:

---

Appealing to “the Spirit” and “abundance of evidence” doesn’t fix that either. Every group claims the Spirit. Every group thinks the evidence is on their side. That’s why you get contradictory doctrines from the same Bible. So again, the method doesn’t produce certainty, it produces fragmentation.

---

Sin produces fragmentation, not the Bible nor the Spirit.

It seems you are being dismissive of the Spirit's work in authenticating His own Word. Just because many wrongly claim that the Spirit supports them, doesn't mean the Spirit doesn't support the truth. Just as many claim "science" supports competing views, the Spirit does actually support and affirm the truth, even if some misuse their understanding of the Spirit's work.

You also seem to confuse an infallible authority with absolute unity. When the Scriptures were being written, the Apostles were still authorities given by God to the Church, and they had to continue to correct error, even after they had taught what was true. Having an infallible authority doesn't mean error will cease, but the error must be tested in light of the truth.

quote:

---

Your John the Baptist analogy still doesn’t land. Recognizing Christ in front of you is not the same thing as identifying, preserving, and binding a universal canon of texts for the entire Church. One is immediate revelation, the other is a historical, ecclesial process. Those aren’t parallel.

---

Again, the principle is the same. We're not talking about special vs. ordinary, but infallibility vs. fallibility in regards to epistemology.

You are claiming that the truth of God's word can only be received and declared with confidence by an infallible authority in the Church. I'm saying that that isn't required at all, because what is ultimately authoritative is not the one who receives the truth, but the truth, itself. John merely received the truth of Christ, and he was able to recognize the truth for what it was and proclaim it to others even though he wasn't infallible in his recognition. Likewise, the Church need not be infallibly authoritative in order to receive the infallible authority of the Scriptures.

quote:

---

On Acts 15, you’re trying to soften what actually happened. The apostles didn’t say, “Here’s our best fallible opinion.” They issued a binding judgment for the whole Church, and explicitly grounded it in authority: “it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” That’s not just “real authority,” that’s authority claiming divine guidance.

---

You are now equating non-equal issues with this. Acts 15 was foundational to the Church with apostolic witness and authority being grounded in Scripture (they quoted Amos 9 to support their decision). While Rome teaches an apostolic succession with the same infallible authority as the apostles, I don't believe the Scriptures teach such a thing, and Acts 15 represents a transitional period where the Scriptures were still being written (carrying on the infallible teaching of the apostles by the Spirit), not an ongoing mechanism for infallible authority in men.

quote:

---

And here’s the key point you keep sidestepping. You say the Church can err and be corrected by Scripture. But who makes that call? You… Or your tradition… Or your interpretation… That just relocates authority to the individual level, even if you don’t want to say it that way.

---

You are mixing up what occurs as reception and interpretation and what is authoritative. Catholics are fond of saying things like the individual (Protestant) is his own Pope, but the posture of the Protestant is that he can be wrong, and that he should continually seek to study and understand the Scriptures. We believe we can be wrong and we are not an infallible authority, We can and should be continually corrected by the only infallible authority in the Bible.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, your position still rests on fallible identification of an infallible canon and fallible interpretation of that canon, while denying any infallible authority to resolve disputes. Calling that “certainty” doesn’t actually make it stable, it just makes it subjective.

---

What's objective is God's word, and we should seek to be conformed to it continually. Not having an infallible teaching authority beyond the Bible doesn't mean we don't have an infallible teaching authority at all. It's not subjectivism any more than it is subjectivism for each lay Catholic to personally understand and interpret the infallible teaching of the Church.

Are they preaching a prosperity gospel message at this service? A name it and claim it message.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure all Protestants agree that baptism is a sacrament.

---

Pretty sure baptists dont (ordinances)

Well some baptists might but they arent normal baptists

quote:

---

You needa watch that video too

---

You need to read the Bible in context absent the lens you’ve been told to read it with in support of your RC doctrines.