You believe Catholics are categorically hellbound. That in and of itself is an example of bashing of persons.
That's been done. His claims of heresy and not truly being reformed have been posted, and to date, unsubstantiated. His bashing of persons is thereby established.
At least you attempt to cite support for your position, albeit flawed (that a caltholic is categorically hellbound).
I knew this is what it boiled down to..it was just a matter of time, and I told you before you said it. lol
I knew this would eventually boil down to any who thinks that Roman Catholics who truly adhere to ROman Catholic doctrines are in danger of hell would be bashers. Whatever.
The last pope committed the eternal destiny of his soul into the hands of Mary. I think he is in hell. I have no reason to believe otherwise.
Now, I have challenged you on your accusations of me and you have showed nothing. Your own posts were confusing to me. Are you or are you not part of an emergent church ?
I never found out, but that is not the subject of this thread. And I really dont care. You have said you hold to the 1689 London Baptist Confession so I will use that as your statement of what you believe.
My conclusion is that you dont have an argument so you went off on these litte whiney tangents.
No, it boils down to a handful of holier-than-thou folks who don't know how to engage in civil and respectful discussion on the topic, taking issue with anyone who attempts to engage ehtm in said discussion.
I showed you clearly where you made false accusations about me.
No. I believe what I said was my church has some customs on Sunday mornings that Emergent churches use.
Translation: Reformed Baptis doesn't think he needs to have evidence when accusing someone, nor does he need to retract his position when it's discovered he made them in error.
The topic is the incessent need for some folks to be preoccupied with bashing catholics, and crying foul when anyone calls them on it.
I never accused you of anything. You are the one who said your church was emergent. Now it comes out that you have customs that the emergent heretic churches use.
Impossible. You couldn't have addressed what did nto exist.
That wasn't my response to his word. It was the response to your preconcieved notion that a person must adhere to your application of doctrine before being cosidered saved.
There are a lot of people who, at times of dispair, cried out to Jesus to save them, and who accepted him as Savior, long before they ever cracked open a bible. You'd have us believe they weren't saved, because they didn't know doctrine yet.
Translation:
"Yes, I know I accused you of something falsely, but I'm not going to man up and acknowlege it".
And that you don't believe one must affirm the doctrines the
Bible says one must affirm to be saved is one of the many things you have said here that calls your claim to be a Christian into question.
And, second, you know very well that I never said anything about anyone adhering to "my application of doctrine". You have made this claim repeatedly and for you to still falsely accuse me of this is further proof that your conscience is seared and that you feel free to continue sinning.
I have explained several times now that we're not talking about knowing doctrine, but knowing what the Bible says and rejecting it.
I worship Christ, not scripture.
I never said it's not necessary to affirm the doctrines of scripture.
You, however, continue to show your lack of understanding on the matter, given the fact that you were shown the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, which reads, "Through Christ alone are we justified...", and you continue to misapply your own reasoning, as though it were scripture itself.
Well, you believe your application to be the same as scripture.
You've failed to discern between the two.
Nice try, but the fact is you've been shown the Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification by the Lutheran World Federation and the Catholic Church, where it says expressly that both bodies accept justification through Christ alone.
The reason you refuse to accept it is because it causes your entire argument to fall apart.
Whew! After wading through about 50 posts, none of which dealt with the OP, I'd like to make a request.
Billwald linked the RCC Catechism, but I couldn't find with a quick search what it said about justification.
So, to save time, will someone who knows please post the RCC doctrine on justification.
I don't know exactly what it is, so i can't comment one way or the other.
Also, one other request.
Rather than stating what the RCC teaches about justification, would it be possible to quote the RCC stating for itself what it believes?
That way, nothing gets lost in translation.