Friday, February 23, 2024

C. S. Lewis Didn't Convert — Chesterton Did

Why Wasn't C.S. Lewis Catholic!? w/ Dale Ahlquist
Pints With Aquinas | 21 févr. 2024

Own comments to the video:

1:27 "a sense of the real presence"

That one I'd like to see evidence for.

You see, he once in Letters to Children said he hadn't any clue why actually eating Jesus would make any difference. Not sure where.

That's probably his most dire lacuna ...

When it came to Evolution, when he became a Christian, it was he who was too Evolutionist to be Catholic, he considered not only man as a product of Evolution (apart from God at a certain point — we can't know when or how — imparting His image) and the individuals Adam and Eve as emblems.

At the end, he was fortunately moving away from that, but by then Humani Generis plus its reception involved some Catholics moving towards a very illogical compromise of Adam, yes, direct creation of his body from dust, no. He probably just wouldn't do that. Which is more creditable to him than the now mentioned lack of sense of the real presence.

As for "all seven sacraments" the Anglican community has all, either genuinely (Baptism, Marriage) or in simulacra (Ordination and any sacrament that needs an ordained minister). It's not like Classic Lutheranism, three, or Calvinism, two.

1:48 I think that's true about part of CSL's arguments.

But there is a part where I instead, with sorrow, think he got his bad arguments or positions from "Bishop" Charles Gore.

3:22 I have not read that essay the last ten years at least.

B u t, both to some degree illustrate "and the light shone in the darkness", however, it's only the stained glass window that illustrates the sequel of those words.

"Don't curse the dark, light a match" ... fireworks or the The Little Match Girl

Then there is a light from beyond the stars, where the darkness God separated from light never reaches. Grace is shown by the stained glass window, since a Cathedral at 9 am is only dark locally inside, and the stained glass windows are there to expel that darkness, with light from the outside.

3:59 That one, yes, that one I definitely have heard or read, and I think it's Chesterton.

4:39 Here is one of the versions:

‘It’s the first effect of not believing in God that you lose your common sense and can’t see things as they are. Anything that anybody talks about, and says there’s a good deal in it, extends itself indefinitely like a vista in a nightmare. And a dog is an omen, and a cat is a mystery, and a pig is a mascot, and a beetle is a scarab, calling up all the menagerie of polytheism from Egypt and old India; Dog Anubis and great green-eyed Pasht and all the holy howling Bulls of Bashan; reeling back to the bestial gods of the beginning, escaping into elephants and snakes and crocodiles; and all because you are frightened of four words:

‘He was made Man’.’

(The Oracle of the Dog)

5:40 Unless it's Cardinal Faulhaber, a great-grand-nephew several generations younger of Blessed Andrew Faulhaber (murdered by executioners of Frederick II, and sorrily enough, the Poles now living there aren't interested in a canonisation, after they drove away Germans in 1945 — Catholic Germans of Silesia, who honoured Fr. Andrew Faulhaber.

The Cardinal said "es ist unglaublich wie viel mann glauben muß um ungläubig zu sein" ...

Unbelievable, how much you need to believe to be an Unbeliever.

He also said "wo der Glaube geht hinaus, da geht der Aberglauben hinein"

Exit Faith, Enter Superstition.

Dialogues begun by others:


Matt Schneider
"The Roman Church where it differs from this universal tradition and specially from apostolic Christianity I reject. Thus their theology about the B.V.M. [Blessed Virgin Mary] I reject because it seems utterly foreign to the New Testament: where indeed the words ‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee’ receive a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction. Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St Paul towards St Peter in the Epistles. The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists in defining in a way wh. the N.T. seems to me not to countenance. In a word, the whole set-up of modern Romanism seems to me to be as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is." - C.S. Lewis

Jack was so real for this.

Susan D
My dear friend, please read that section you refer to again, all the way through. Jesus responds saying, "No, rather, 'Blessed those hearing the Word of God and keeping it.'" ( cf. Luke 11:28) Who was the very first person to hear that God was becoming a Man? And who was it kept all these things in her heart? (cf. Luke 2:19 and 51) Who is the first Christian, and the one that Jesus Himself honored, as He never broke any of the Ten Commandments? Why don't you think it right to honor her, too? She was filled with the Holy Spirit when she said "All generations will call me blessed" (cf. Luke 1:48) Not because she bore Him, but because she was His first follower, as Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, said, "and blessed is she who has believed there will be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her concerning the Lord." (cf. Luke 1:45)

Zachary Evans
@susand3668 she was indeed an important woman but she was not sinless.

Frieda Wells
I think an honest reading of John 6 strongly supports the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"a rejoinder pointing in exactly the opposite direction."

A rather dull misunderstanding of what Jesus said on the occasion.

She had been happier being told She was sinless by St. Elisabeth, than being told She was being the Mother of God by Gabriel. Her Son was on the occasion asking them to give Her the right compliment.

Not the best CSL quote, and I'm afraid it is genuine.

"Their papalism seems equally foreign to the attitude of St Paul towards St Peter in the Epistles."

1) One occasion in Galatians 2, after St. Peter had been named "Peter" in chapter 1, mentions "Cephas" ... probably already a common name, shared in Hebrew form by Caiaphas;
2) Most (though not the Stromatist) presume it is St. Peter, and they consider momentarily speaking up against a Pope doing wrong as fair game on this account (so, St. Thomas).

He has a bad prooftext, expands it to "several occasions" in the epistles when it's only one, and applies it with Ignoratio Elenchi.

"The doctrine of Transubstantiation insists in defining in a way wh. the N.T. seems to me not to countenance."

So does the dogma of the Holy Trinity, which was defined 17 councils before Trent. Against Arius.

"as much a provincial or local variation from the central, ancient tradition as any particular Protestant sect is."

One could conceivably compared to other Apostolic-Succession type Churches without a Reformation have that opinion about Catholicism, I tried it and it failed, I am a revert from Orthodoxy. But the comparison here is widely underestimating what the evils of any Protestant sect are, given that they all involve the totally anti-Biblical Reformation. Condemned in its premiss about the immediate pre-Reformation Church, as much as Mormonism and JW, by Matthew 28:20.

Now, in fact all of the Apostolic-Succession type Churches without a Reformation do in fact state Our Lady was without sin. Not all of them say "conceived", which is bad, but all say so about Her acts.

added and withdrawn
[Matt Schneider "Hans-Georg Lundahl St. John Chrysostom explicitly taught that Mary sinned, my dude."]

[Note sure whether he withdrew or it was deleted for him]

Hans Georg Lundahl
@mattschneider78 — did you withdraw an answer yourself or was it censored?

Matt Schneider
@hglundahl Withdrew a comment....decided I wasn't interested in a back and forth in the comments section. I'm currently off of X for lent, but if you want to talk you can find me on there. Blessings.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@mattschneider78 This is youtube, not X.

Ask your priest.

Also great was his letter to his friend Dom Bede Griffiths, who zealously tried to make him pope: "One of the most important differences between us is our estimate of the importance of the differences. You, in your charity, are anxious to convert me: but I am not in the least anxious to convert you. You think my specifically Protestant beliefs a tissue of damnable errors: I think your specifically Catholic beliefs a mass of comparatively harmless human tradition which may be fatal to certain souls under special conditions, but which I think suitable for you….As well–who wants to debate with a man who begins by saying that no argument can possibly move him? Talk sense, man! With other Catholics I find no difficulty in deriving much edification from religious talk on the common ground: but you refuse to show any interest except in differences."

Hans Georg Lundahl
@tomsdigest Dom Bede was a religious, and as such had a formal duty to witness.

If CSL was right about the Catholic system, he was for that very reason wrong to support such a bloody and fanatic business as the Reformation (or spell it with D if you like) actually was.

He's treating Anglicans and Catholics as sister churches, when Anglicans only exist because of a daughter rebelling against a mother.

I think that Dom Bede was (at this point) aware that CSL was already having nice edifying chats with Catholics like the Italian priest, like Sister Penelope, like the sibling group who wrote him a fanletter on a Narnia book.

As Matt
seems unwilling to engage, I will take it up. No, I looked it up, and would be more detailed had he actually aswered. St. John Chrysostom spoke of imperfection, not of sin. You need to go as far away as Theodoret and an Alexandrian of the V and VIth CC. to get even a hint about "reproach" and in common life reproaches are not just for offenses, but also for clumsiness. However, most ancient authors and the canonised saints among them, don't even agree with that.

Barely Protestant
@friedawells6860 You demonstrate you did not know well the Anglican or Lutheran understanding of the Blessed Sacrament. We literally claim we are eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Jesus in the Eucharist, and that we receive Salvation in It.

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl we are under no obligation to presume the lies of papism are true; in fact, Truth obligates us to reject the papal lies for what they are.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 Lutheranism and to some degree Anglicanism has a more Catholic understanding of the Blessed Sacrament than the rest of Protestantism.

By now it would in both communities depend on what school someone belongs to.

@barelyprotestant5365 Is it a papal lie that Luther and Cranmer got ordained as priests in the Catholic Church?

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl No, and we would never even want to claim otherwise. We literally call ourselves Catholic. We literally confess to be part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Also, if it depends in Anglicanism and Lutheranism on what schools someone belongs to, whether or not they believe in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the same can just as strongly be said concerning Papism. Anglicanism and Lutheranism explicitly reject, Confessionally reject, ANY understanding of a mere symbolic and/or non-salvific understanding of the Blessed Sacrament (and Baptism, as well).

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 "On 3 April 1507, Jerome Schultz, the Bishop of Brandenburg, ordained Luther in Erfurt Cathedral."

Jerome Schulz opposed the Reformation.

"To support himself and his wife, he took a job as a reader at Buckingham Hall (later reformed as Magdalene College). When Joan died during her first childbirth, Jesus College showed its regard for Cranmer by reinstating his fellowship. He began studying theology and by 1520 he had been ordained, the university already having named him as one of its preachers."

Nicholas West would probably have been the bishop ordaining him as priest, he died before the English Deformation.

He was also consecrated bishop. By John Longland. A man who believed not just in the Real Presence, but actually in Transsubstantiation.

"During the English Reformation, he was among the conservative bishops, recognizing Transubstantiation. His conservatism is attested to by his complaint in 1536 to Thomas Cromwell about Protestant preachers in his diocese.[5] Longland is referred to by John Foxe, the martyrologist, as "a fierce and cruel vexer of the faithful, poor servants of Christ." Foxe states that he violently constrained men, women, and maidens to testify against one another. He delivered some over to the secular arm to be burned."

It can be noted, Longland and Cranmer were in 1533 still Catholics in good standing with the Pope, Clemens VII.

So, it is not a lie to say that what happened was not even seeming like an even split, it was seeming like what it was, subordinates rising up, permanently, against the papacy as such. As I said.

"the same can just as strongly be said concerning Papism."

Not unless you count Vatican II Modernism as Papism, which I don't.

"reject, ANY understanding of a mere symbolic and/or non-salvific understanding of the Blessed Sacrament"

But usually don't admit Transsubstantiation, and especially not the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl your argument is...what, exactly? That the Reformation happened? Um, yeah: it happened. And...?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 Yes, it happened, and not as an even remotely equal split where both parties had at least some claim of being traditionalists rather than restorationists, which is against Matthew 28:16--20.

The problem is not that God would not send someone to correct His Church if it fell, the problem is, God would not allow His Church to fall that low in the first place.

Barely Protestant
@hglundahl I mean, at this point you are just moving the goalposts. I'm not interested in a "dialogue" like that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@barelyprotestant5365 My comment 12 days ago was:

"He's treating Anglicans and Catholics as sister churches, when Anglicans only exist because of a daughter rebelling against a mother."

My comment just now was simply spelling out why this follows from Reformation in relation to Matthew 28.

But if you are taking this as my moving the goal posts, go for it.

Btw, if it was about John 6, I bumped in on your answer to Frida who was by "Protestant" arguably not mainly thinking of Lutheran or Anglican views. So, not doing a reformation which implies God left His Church in ruins for centuries is not moving goalposts on this issue, it's the other issue.


Lewis was raised in an exceedingly anti-Catholic environment, told Tolkien as much, and said that Tolkien couldn’t understand how deep it went and how becoming Catholic was simply impossible for him.

Maybe he would have eventually been able to get over his upbringing.

Carlos Sardina 3
Bulverism at its finest. Maybe, perhaps, he was actually convinced Catholicism was false!

Ted’s Music
I doubt he would’ve gotten over it. Irish Protestants don’t often become Irish Catholics.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@carlossardina3161 Being actually convinced doesn't preclude being wrong for specific non-rational reasons.

We are here in a somewhat Catholic company where the position "Catholicism is false" is presumed to be already disproven on other grounds than any analysis of CSL.

I'd be happy to take your finest pick of his arguments against Catholicism (he had some) and disprove them without presuming on (though maybe looking forward towards) the upbringing of CSL

Hans Georg Lundahl
"Maybe he would have eventually been able to get over his upbringing."

While he wasn't, one of the possible explanations is he was overvaluing human attachments over God's call to truth.

"an exceedingly anti-Catholic environment,"

Is that really so?

One man, the clergyman grandfather, arguably was exceedingly anti-Catholic. I think the rest were more like snobbishly anti-Catholic. I think he remained snobbishly anti-Catholic, close to a High Church Lutheran plainly saying Luther was wrong, but waiting to convert until Catholicism first cleans up a bit of "popular piety" (dreaded word!) about the Blessed Virgin. He was also at a certain point in the forties when writing The Problem of Pain or Miracles or both equally snobbishly anti-Fundamentalist. "We are not Fundamentalists" / "aren't" whichever it was.

Paul O'Donnell
@hglundahl That is really so.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@pod1977pod Like, in the Protestant parts of Belfast, there is no difference between Ulster Scots and Ascendancy, back then?

Carlos Sardina 3
@hglundahl Even if Lewis' reason for not being Catholic are irrational, Catholics should engage with his arguments instead of presuming he isn't Catholic because of his group identity. That type of argumentation should not be encouraged.

And you're welcome to look up Lewis' reasons for not being Catholic yourself; they're not hard to find.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@carlossardina3161 Once the arguments are settled, and I am highly willing to do so, and I have engaged with them myself, I am not as ignorant about CSL as you seem to presume, one can proceed to argue, is such and such a group identity, and I would not say Ulster Scot heavily Anti-Catholic, I would say Ascendancy and therefore snobbishly Anti-Catholic, is fair game.

I think CSL actually said so in the essay on Bulverism.

You seem to want to reduce his highly intelligent observations on that day to a kind of basically ban on calling out group identities, roughly equivalent to newspapers refusing to directly tell the name of a suspect who's an immigrant.

If CSL for instance thought that Torquemada went to Hell for persecuting people over their real religion, crypto-Judaism, or Henry VIII did so over his over-eagerness to get a Catholic annulment instead of a regular Anglican divorce, he could obviously argue that this was wrong, but he would be foolish to not add that this supposed wrong (and a real wrong in not wanting to stay faithful to Catherine!) stemmed from them being Catholic. Indeed, he basically did in a letter to Dom Bede Griffiths.

Once I had satisfied myself that CSL was actually sloppy in his arguments against converting (and yes, I am aware of them), I am free to ask, what made him so. Over reliance on "bishop" Gore (for instance on Luke 11) would be one; i e obedience to the wrong guys. But given he was simply snobbish about Fundies, it can be argued without absurdity, he was snobbish about Catholics too.


The Proceedings
Get real. I know its hard for Catholics to look past themselves, but C.S. Lewis was a staunch Protestant from the time of his conversion to his death. He flat out refused his good friend's request to join the church. At the end of time, there will be all the churches and we will all realise the fulfillment of the Lord as Catholics and Protestants alike. Catholicism is a choice, not an inevitability.

Carlos Sardina 3
Thank you. You can find much about why he isn’t Catholic if you just do a bit of searching. It takes a lot of pride to think that Lewis would have become Catholic given enough time.

Dr Jan
Protestants are lost.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"as Catholics and Protestants alike."

I don't think that since CSL's death we have moved that direction.

More like the end times will see Protestants in roles like Lion power and Leopard power and partaking of the final composite beast.

Remegio Sagarino
I dont believe that Catholic faith becomes only a choice

The Proceedings
@remsaga I don't see how you could believe anything else, considering that not everyone believes as you do.

The Proceedings
@hglundahl I'm glad you think so low of us and our God. Go with peace.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@theproceedings4050 "and our God" ... are you the kind of high ranking Calvinist modernist who's likely to head the Calvinist leopard head and aware that your god is the Devil?

Or do you worship the true God, in which you could be a misplaced Catholic soul?


Jackson Esq
God gave Lewis the great grace of putting Tolkien and others in his life so that Lewis might become Catholic. Lewis rejected this great grace. He remained an Anglican. Therefore he remained a heretic. Therefore he remained outside of the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation. What a tragedy.

Alex Brown
Shouldn’t God give everyone a chance to learn about the Catholic Church ?

Jackson Esq
@thyikmnnnn It isn’t for us to tell God what He should do. How did you reach an abyss of depravity such that you believe that it is?

The Proceedings
Who are you to make these claims? Are you God? It sounds like you like to be your own ruler and that of others. You preach your own Gospel, but let it be elsewhere Satan.

David fettig

E. M.
That is not true. It's not the name of your denomination that saves you It's repentance from sin, faith in the work of Jesus on the cross (and subsequent resurrection) and living a life for God.

Dr Jan
@e.m.8094 Catholicism isn’t a denomination.

Zachary Evans
Did the devil inject his influence into the Roman Catholic leaders who were responsible for the atrocities (mass murder and fear) that the RCC committed throughout the vast majority of her dominion? Because this is what has driven people away from the church Christ established. But part of that statement in and of itself is contradictory because one could infer I am conflating the RCC with the Church Christ established. It is not. Not anymore. And comments like yours do not help anyone come to know Christ.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@zacharyevans8152 "the atrocities (mass murder and fear) that the RCC committed throughout the vast majority of her dominion"

Is your history professor's name Jack Chick?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@theproceedings4050 "Are you God?"

I hope to belong to the Church that God visibly founded.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 "It's not the name of your denomination that saves you"

The other things you mention are available in the Catholic "denomination" ... less clearly so in some others.

E. M.
@hglundahl I think you may have missed the point of my post. I was responding to a comment saying that you had to be Catholic for salvation. That's heretical.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 When exactly was it condemned?


Jackson Esq
It’s not enough to be on the trajectory, because merely being on the trajectory doesn’t place one inside the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation. Are Fradd and Alquist adherents of the false religion of Vatican II, which teaches that there IS salvation in other religions? As for his remark about one either being a nihilist or a Catholic after 1000 years, it’s nonsense.

Hans Georg Lundahl
I don't think it is nonsense.

In the pre-Flood world men lived nearly that long, most became, while aware of God's deeds in the past, nihilists, possibily denying them, certainly considering them irrelevant.

Men not unlike Putin.

We can see hopes of CSL converting, we can see fears of his not converting, Anglicanism isn't self contained like "I don't care" is or like truth is. In a thousand years, he would have decided one way or the other.

In the pre-Flood world, they did, and God sent a Flood.


Georg Wagner
As an ex-catholic, most of these quotes seem to be absolutely arrogant.
"to be deep in history is to cease to be protestant"
"if everybody lived a thousand years everybody would be catholic"
OK. You want to say you're deep in history and you have the wisdom of a thousand years lived. That's not arrogant?
The fake humbleness is just painful.

Zachary Evans
Par for the course my friend. They all sit in their little mahogany clad man-dens sucking their tobacco aparatuses pontificating about protestants while true Christ followers like John Lennox, William Lane Craig, Frank Turek, Dr. James Tour, and Cliffe Knechtle do all the heavy lifting. Bunch of phonies these RCC apologists. They should aspire to be more like Dr Stephen Meyer (a Catholic I believe) and less like cult leaders trying to groom new followers into "the one true church".

I never understood the "deep in history" quote. The RCC was a tyrant for hundreds of years. They soiled the bed during ww2 and tried to restore their subscription numbers with their newest expansion pack "Ascension of the Mother" which didn't work in the long run. Clearly. Europe is a secular wasteland.

I say: "to be deep in scripture is to cease to be Catholic."

The moment you Catholics stop yapping about your Catholicity and start loving your identity as a CHRISTIAN will I stop with my scathing witness of you. Same goes for Protestants.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@zacharyevans8152 I can explain one part of "deep in history" with a quote from you, though perhaps not to you:

"The RCC was a tyrant for hundreds of years."

That quote makes you totally shallow in history. Is Disneyland your best source for Blackbeard Teach, the pirate? Is your best source for Hitler's character Chaplin's Dictator? Those two examples would not be quite as disastrous as your real life one.

"They soiled the bed during ww2"

Not really. And absolutely not as much as some Protestants did. A famous picture of men in bishops' cassocks raising a Hitler salute is widely supposed to be of Catholic bishops. Not so, they are Lutheran-Evangelisch and Calvinist-Evangelisch clergy, Protestants of Germany. I have seen a supposed nun receive a signature of Hitler. Her attire is more a Lutheran deaconness.

So, your source for Catholic Church history, is it at least Cornwell, or did you sink as low as Avro Manhattan, a fraud about other things too?

"true Christ followers like John Lennox, William Lane Craig,"

Those two are Deep Time Compromisers!

"do all the heavy lifting"

Because they do it in pulpits rather than living rooms where they pod-cast from? You are shallow about more than history.

If you mean they confront aggressive atheism, so do Pints with Aquinas and so did Chesterton. He even fought against atheist bad habits like Eugenics. Which I am afraid CSL forgot to do.

Hans Georg Lundahl
"You want to say you're deep in history and you have the wisdom of a thousand years lived."

Being deep in history occurs if you are that kind of geek. I am, Newman was.

Chesterton did not claim to have lived for 1000 years, but when they did, prior to the Flood (ok, not for all of 1000, but often past 900), no one was a heretic or pagan. They were pious or they were consciously nihilist and even Satanist, as in Devil Worshipping.

"absolutely arrogant."

Your fake standards of humbleness are painful. I'm not claiming you fake your adhesion to that standard, though!


E. M.
I don't know of any other Christian denomination that comes across as elitist as many Catholics do. I don't see this from Baptists, Lutherans, etc. I don't understand it whatsoever. 🤷

David The Good
It's the O.G. — there's no real way not to sound elitist if you believe it's truly the original Church.

Hans Georg Lundahl
When you say on another thread it's heretical you need to be Catholic to be saved, do you have that from Pius XII's condemnation of Feeney or from John Wesley's dream?

E. M.
@hglundahl I said you "DON'T" have to be Catholic. It was in response to a poster who claimed you do.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 yes, in response to me.

So, where does it say it's heresy to say you do have to be it?

1) Pius XII condemning Feeney?
2) dream of John Wesley?
3) ...?

E. M.
@hglundahl Let's just go straight to the source itself (because that's what really matters anyways): What does THE BIBLE say about how one obtains salvation/eternal life with God? I have yet to see ANY translation that says "You must be of the Roman Catholic persuasion". If you feel there is chapter and verse that makes this claim, please cite the scripture.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 Acts 2:47 Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord increased daily together such as should be saved.

It does not say He increased them in separate and rival groups or as individuals at home. Such as should be saved.

If you pretend the Church described in Acts and the Epistles is another one than the Roman Catholic, feel free to tell me which one.

E. M.
@hglundahl First off, the "Roman Catholic" Church wasn't even established when Luke wrote the book of Acts. Secondly, that is not the gospel message of salvation. Whether Protestant or Catholic, we are saved by trusting in the death and Resurrection of Jesus as the sacrifice for our sins. Our faith is evident by this trust, and a changed life of repentance. Irregardless of our denomination, let us hold fast our profession and lead lives of dedication to Him until that glorious day! 🙌

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 You have made lots of claims that are not in the Bible.

And you have refused to answer my challenge:

"if it wasn't the Catholic Church, which one was it?"
"the Catholic Church wasn't established then"

Well, that was not my challenge. If it was not the Catholic Church, which other Church was it?

N o w ... in fact you missed a proof text.

Such was were going to be saved were gathered T O G E T H E R ... and that means into O N E Church. So, instead of strawmanning my argument by pretending to a gratuitous identification of that one Church with the Catholic, how about answering my reply question to that : which are the alternatives? Chapter 2 and verse 47 makes it clear a purely individual process of salvation is NOT the answer.

By the way, when we ask which ones are the alternatives, how about noticing, the Catholic Church at least makes the claim, and your "Church" doesn't, making it automatically non-identical to the one of Acts. And any Catholic will tell you "Roman Catholic" a) is not the Catholic name of our Church though we accept it, b) our Church began in Jerusalem, and Peter was Pope in Jerusalem, we watch him as such in Acts 1 and Acts 2, before he went to Antioch and after Antioch to Rome, which is where he died. Just to save you the strawman of a Church agreeing to have been founded in Rome pretending to be identic to the one founded in Jerusalem.

E. M.
@hglundahl All who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach, repent from sin, and trust in His redemptive work are saved and part of the "Bride of Christ" (aka: The Church). NECESSITATING a particular name/denomination for believers seems (in my opinion) a bit cult-like. (1 Corinthians 1:10-17)

In my 25+ years of following Jesus and dedicated Bible study, I have yet to hear a theological stance like yours.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@e.m.8094 "NECESSITATING a particular name/denomination for believers seems (in my opinion) a bit cult-like."

It was not so much a particular name, even Christians was what we were called only in Antioch (it was Chair of St. Peter in Antioch, yesterday), and Catholics too, in very early post-Apostolic times, it was about a particular community.

"All who believe in Yeshua Hamashiach, repent from sin, and trust in His redemptive work are saved"

You have still not backed that up by the Bible. Automatically becoming part of the Church, rather than openly and socially taking steps to join it and ask Her for baptism is not how Acts 2:47 tells us it works.

"I have yet to hear a theological stance like yours."

Perhaps you haven't interacted with well instructed Catholics before, or perhaps you didn't chose to stay around for sufficiently long after being put off by some other doctrine Jesus revealed to us, we find sufficiently clearly recalled in the Bible, and you find insufficiently proven in the Bible (like a Jew who doesn't find Jesus in the OT).

No comments: