co-authors are other participants quoted. I haven't changed content of thr replies, but quoted it part by part in my replies, interspersing each reply after relevant part. Sometimes I have also changed the order of replies with my retorts, so as to prioritate logical/topical over temporal/chronological connexions. That has also involved conflating more than one message. I have also left out mere insults.
Pages
- Home
- Other blogs, same writer
- A thread from Catholic.com (more may be added)
- Answering Steve Rudd
- Have these dialogues taken place? Yes.
- Copyright issues on blogposts with shared copyright
- I think I wrote a mistaken word somewhere on youtube - or perhaps not
- What is Expertise? Some Things It is Not.
- It Seems Apocalypse is Explained in a Very Relevant Part
- Dialoguing Mainly with Adversaries
- Why do my Posts Right Here Not Answer YOUR Questio...
Saturday, October 17, 2026
She underdoes [understates] the case for Catholicism
Was the Reformation a Return to Biblical Christianity?
Humbled Catholic | 14 Oct. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUl9uK6-lNw
Before I hear your answer, no.
Matthew 28:16—20.
The passage means Jesus built his Church on Apostles (verse 16 tells us whom He's talking to), what their mission is (all truth and all justice), what their help is and for how long (Jesus Himself and every single day to the end of time), what His power is (all power in Heaven and on Earth) ...
This being so, there can be no "return to Biblical Christianity" ever, except individually or regionally or otherwise less than universally. Because it can never be universally lost.
The only Protestants who get this right are those supporting Baptist Continuity, and they don't claim the Reformation was a "return to Biblical Christianity" but rather an attempted and botched return to it under influence of Baptists who had never left it.
What these guys get wrong is Matthew 5:14—15. The continuing Church cannot be a hidden secret society.
1:53 Calvin actually was somewhat insincere (or very obtuse) about Matthew 28:20.
In his commentary, he states that the promise doesn't mean Jesus ties Himself like a mercenary to all supposed successors who might change His doctrine, but he doesn't even adress the question where (if not in the Catholic Church) the doctrine hadn't been misrepresented.
2:08 "the Church is always in need of purification and reform"
The Church Universal?
2:16 not every action of every Catholic
No, but every doctrine held by the Church Universal. I don't defend (at least not actively) the expulsion of Jews from Spain, but I do defend the expulsion of Jews with exceptions by St. Pius V, or the expulsion of Jewish usurers by St. Lewis IX of France.
7:01 Actually, some shall we say "thoughtful" Protestants actually agree with you about Tradition in the First Century, they just say that past then, the only remaining infallible authority is Scripture.
Obviously, this contradicts Matthew 28:16—20.
But at least it admits that Jesus didn't establish Sola Scriptura as such.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment