Logically refuting Protestantism?

[Count_Chocula]

Is it possible to refute Pstantism by simply stating that in order for Pstantism to be true we have to assume that Christ either could not or did not establish an organization free from error?

To assume either or these points is to deny Christ’s divinity.

Now one could make the case that it was us Humans who simply screwed it up. This also denies the scripture proof (proof which a large majority of Pstants ascribe to) that Christ is with the church. If Christ is with the church how could it screw up?

Why would Christ develop a church doomed to screw itself up and cost many countless thousands their souls? Christ came here to save people, not turn salvation into a ****-shoot.

To claim apostasy is IMO a grevious insult to Christ’s capabilities as a divine leader.

 

[metal1633]

Count Chocula:

Is it possible to refute Pstantism by simply stating that in order for Pstantism to be true we have to assume that Christ either could not or did not establish an organization free from error?

To assume either or these points is to deny Christ’s divinity.

Now one could make the case that it was us Humans who simply screwed it up. This also denies the scripture proof (proof which a large majority of Pstants ascribe to) that Christ is with the church. If Christ is with the church how could it screw up?

Why would Christ develop a church doomed to screw itself up and cost many countless thousands their souls? Christ came here to save people, not turn salvation into a ****-shoot.

To claim apostasy is IMO a grevious insult to Christ’s capabilities as a divine leader.

They answer this by saying that He did not establish a visible organization. That the Church is Invisible. The Church is simply all TRUE believers, whoever they are. Usually those whom they agree with.

 

[RobedWithLight]

metal1633:

They answer this by saying that He did not establish a visible organization. That the Church is Invisible. The Church is simply all TRUE believers, whoever they are. Usually those whom they agree with.

Good point. Protestants indeed have developed this curious(though false) teaching (unknown to the early Christians) about an “invisible church” (despite their divisions), made up only of true believers, bonded together by an unseen mystical unity, that is those who have come to accept Jesus as their “personal Lord and Saviour” is the Church, not a visible organization of people.

Gerry

 

[SocaliCatholic]

Count Chocula:

Is it possible to refute Pstantism by simply stating that in order for Pstantism to be true we have to assume that Christ either could not or did not establish an organization free from error?

To assume either or these points is to deny Christ’s divinity.

Now one could make the case that it was us Humans who simply screwed it up. This also denies the scripture proof (proof which a large majority of Pstants ascribe to) that Christ is with the church. If Christ is with the church how could it screw up?

Why would Christ develop a church doomed to screw itself up and cost many countless thousands their souls? Christ came here to save people, not turn salvation into a ****-shoot.

To claim apostasy is IMO a grevious insult to Christ’s capabilities as a divine leader.

Yes you are correct.

If you always argue for the logical necessity of a papal authority and you can never loose an arguement with a protestant. No papal authority = 35,000 different denominations with conflicting beliefs.

 

[bcoger]

Count Chocula:

Is it possible to refute Pstantism by simply stating that in order for Pstantism to be true we have to assume that Christ either could not or did not establish an organization free from error?

What about the NT churches, were they free from error? Wasn’t much of the apostle Paul’s NT writings devoted to correcting errors (both doctrinal and practical) in the NT churches? Jesus Himself had much to say about the errors of the churches. The apostle John records what Jesus had to say in the book of Revelation.

 

[Michael_Howard]

bcoger:

Count Chocula:

Is it possible to refute Pstantism by simply stating that in order for Pstantism to be true we have to assume that Christ either could not or did not establish an organization free from error?

What about the NT churches, were they free from error? Wasn’t much of the apostle Paul’s NT writings devoted to correcting errors (both doctrinal and practical) in the NT churches? Jesus Himself had much to say about the errors of the churches. The apostle John records what Jesus had to say in the book of Revelation.

Good point. We can also look at the Davidic Kingdom. God promised there would always be a King on the chair of David right up to the coming of Messiah. But, a majority of those kings in the Old Tetsament turned out to be evil scoundrals. God is patient with our wickedness amen?

 

[Matt16_18]

Count Chocula:

If Christ is with the church how could it screw up?

Good question!Indefectibility
Imperishable duration of the Church and her immutability until the end of time. The First Vatican Council declared that the Church possesses “an unconquered stability” and that, “built on a rock, she will continue until the end of time”. (Denzinger 3013, 3056). The Church’s indefectibility, therefore, means that she will always remain the institution of salvation, founded by Christ. This affirms that the Church is essentially unchangeable in her teaching, her constitution, and her liturgy. It does not exclude modifications that do not affect her substance, nor does it exclude the decay of individual churches or even whole dioceses.

Pocket Catholic Dictionary, John A. Hardon, S.J.

 

[Matt16_18]

SocaliCatholic:

If you always argue for the logical necessity of a papal authority and you can never loose an arguement with a protestant. No papal authority = 35,000 different denominations with conflicting beliefs.

The greatest argument against the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura is the reality of what this doctrine has actually produced – thousands of divided and bickering Protestant denominations that cannot all agree on one single article of faith.