# Was Jesus deliberately ambiguous? #

[Socrates4Jesus]

But the finding out of ones imperfections is a continuous journey. Saints actually became more convicted of their sins as they grew in holiness-or realized they were sinning in a way they never recognized earlier. So to come to know ones imperfections, from a Christ-oriented perspective-is to grow in holiness/perfection. Maybe that’s too much qualification-or reading too much into it- but this has always been my understanding of this quote. Because sanctification is part of justification in Catholic theology, being convicted of sin -and dealing with it- is an intricate and necessary, if often arduous, part of the process.

Yes, i see. Paul might agree, for he wrote:Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.

(1 Timothy 1:15)
Then would you say that when Augustine wrote this,“This is the very perfection of a man–to find out his own imperfections.”
what he really meant was this?“This is the very** [process of the perfecting]** of a man–to find out his own imperfections.”

In other words, the early Church Father was speaking of *becoming *perfect, NOT being in a current state of sinless perfection. If this is the case, then Augustine is not offering an explanation of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5:48. For such an explanation, i must either believe the Protestant view of *imputed *perfect righteousness (where one is positionally sinless, but in actually still sinful), or the Thomism view of achieving perfect righteousness (where one is actually sinless and no longer sins). These are the only possible ways i see of correctly interpreting Jesus’ words,Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

(Matthew 5:48)

So if i am to become a Catholic, i should either doubt that Matthew quoted Christ correctly, or i should become a Thomist and say that it is possible to become sinless this side of eternity.

 

[paul_c]

Yes, i understand. So then, the Catholic Thomist must believe that once one reaches a state of sinless moral perfection in this life, the Sacrament of Confession is no longer necessary.

Do you see, PC, what this means? There still are, after nearly 2,000 years, things that Jesus said that are ambiguous even to the Catholic Church! If there were not, then the teaching of Catholic Thomists (and that of their Father Thomas Aquinas) would have been condemned as heresy long before now.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomist

Sure, but what is ambiguous here? If you sin, you need to go to confession. If you don’t, you don’t.

 

[Philthy]

… This just proves to further make the case that the Bible is unclear on this and other important doctrines. It’s unclear whether the baptism that saves us is the water baptism, or the baptism of the Holy Spirit, or both. That’s why i’m trying to find the authority outside Sacred Scripture that will help me see; you see?

You can start by eliminating all the churches that adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura then, no? Then pick from the very short list of churches which remain. It isnt as difficult as you are making it…

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Sure, but what is ambiguous here? If you sin, you need to go to confession. If you don’t, you don’t.

Perhaps there is no ambiguity at all. Perhaps it’s perfectly clear that Jesus commands you and i to be perfectly sinless. Since He commands it, it must be possible. Would you now say, then, that you were wrong in thinking the modern proverb,
Nobody is perfect.
is true? It cannot be true, if the Thomists are correct in saying sinless perfection is indeed attainable in this life.

 

[pneuma07]

The reply is always the same, though the Scriptural support for the reply varies:The leadership of the Catholic Church is deceived. It is a fulfillment of Paul’s prophecy:

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

(1 Timothy 4:1-2)

As for me, i have no doubt the prophecy is true and might even find fulfillment today. I just don’t know whether Catholic Carl or Evangelical Ed is the deceived!

:

Dear Soc,

         first I take note that Ed simply  does not answer us.  No reason whatsoever is given in his reply  about how and why he is to be considered a better interpreter of Revelation than the Catholic Church.  I guess you agree.

About the content of his reply I’d like to offer a reason, among others, to exclude the prophecy is about catholics.

The general derailment that according to evangelicals took place before 325 does not fit the prophecy, because the latter is about some going astray. And If I have to believe Ed’s own teaching, almost all went astray … with the essential exception of the faithful remnants.

 

[pneuma07]

My thought is that this might be another case of a lack of clarity, but of a different sort. The passage is not so much ambiguous as it is vague. Both Catholics and Evangelicals believe the purpose of baptism is not to bathe the body, but to bathe the soul (to use a figure of speech). So i wonder whether the water of baptism is the means by which one receives the Holy Spirit or merely an outward symbol of an inward reality.

I mean, does the Spirit require the chemical properties H2O to conduct Himself to the soul? Does the lack of physical water prevent Him from making the change to one’s non-physical self?

My how we are touching on so many topics, here! It’s a wonder the moderator has not split the discussion thread many times over. Rather than diving deep into the mystical water of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, let’s suffice it to say one can understand why Protestants might become confused. It’s another example of the literal-figurative debate. How can one know whether the New Testament authors are speaking literally or figuratively when they speak of baptism, or any number of important subjects?

Any question starting with Does God need this ? implies a negative answer, as we know. We believe the Spirit chose to be ordinarily received by new members of the Church through baptism, an element of which is water, or better a washing with water.

Your more general observation is remarkably in line with what I had quoted for you from John Newman.
His conclusion was to postulate the existence of a divinely settled living authority, which he came to identify with the Catholic Church.

 

[pneuma07]

Yes, P7, that’s a correct understanding of their understanding.



Yes, yes, and yes–these are all what they believe, i believe. At least it was what i believed and was taught and thought was the true meaning of the Scriptures you cited.

Yes, i see what you mean. I do think these words of Peter are the strongest Scriptural evidence for the Catholic understanding. Protestants have devised this workaround: In Acts 2:38, Peter was speaking of repenting as being the cause of one being forgiven, Ed tells me. Only after one is forgiven, the a natural act of obedience is become baptized.

Yes, i believe Evangelicals believe both to be the case. Water is not necessary to receive the Holy Spirit and eternal life as a present possession or change within the essence of one’s soul. The water of baptism, like the bread and wine of the Eucharist, is merely a physical symbol of the metaphysical reality. That’s what the Evangelical Eds and Evangelical Evelyns tell me.

To be fair to them, they do not pull this idea out of thin air. They are consistent in not believing anything they cannot find supported by the Bible. This is the Scriptural precedent they often cite, and one i first heard from D.L. Moody:
The circumcised believers who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles. For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God.
Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.

(Acts 10:45-48)

Here we see the gift of the Holy Spirit was received PRIOR to baptism, and reason tells me that a cause can never precede its effect. Therefore, water baptism (at least in this case) cannot be the cause of receiving the Holy Spirit.

Thank you for that quote by Justin, P7. It seems, i’m afraid, that he’s not so clear as to the cause of one’s spiritual rebirth. He says water is used, but he does not explicitly say that the water is the cause of one being born again. Evangelical Ed would have no disagreement with what Justin wrote, i suppose.

Very briefly, since I fully agree with you this is not our focus.

The position of the words and be baptized is extremely problematic for an evangelical reading of Acts 2:38, so as the whole construction.

D.L. Moody gives for sure an example of the Spirit coming before water baptism.
Since the Church teaches about water baptism as ordinary means, and the quoted event
does look as extraordinary, there is no disagreement in this particular case between D.L. Moody and the Church, which, we are to suppose, had meditated on that passage, as on any other, centuries and centuries before D.L. Moody.

If Ed is comfortoble with Justin and these words of his

Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

I can only tell him .

 

[pneuma07]

P7:

The upshot is that the lack of clarity of Sacred Scripture proves to me that either Evangelical Ed or Catholic Carl might be correct. I’m still looking for the authority i should trust to tell me which view is true. Should we return to the task of attempting to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is that authority?

Let’s forget for a while our good Ed.

What do you tell me Soc

• is it plausible that the authority you’re looking for is an individual human being ?
• is it plausible that it is one of the many modern religious bodies ?
• what other possibilities should we consider ?

In Christ
P7

 

[pneuma07]

1. At this point, once we have accepted  that there really were  specific successors of the Apostles, ie the bishops, an evangelical  reading of the Great Commission becomes really problematic IMHO.

and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world.

“ Your successors, the bishops, will eventually fall into heresy. All of them. “( some would add at this point, “ but outside your successors there will always remain a scattered forgotten few faithful to my word“). And the time comes, when the Spirit shall call many, who, saving a large part of my sheep from your successors, shall restore the original Church, and all the teachings handed down by you to your immediate successors“.

If apostolic succession is a reality, if this is the continuation of the original model, and ultimately the prolongation of Incarnation, shall we believe this fits with an *en masse *derailment of the successors of the Apostles ?

Is there a more direct and stricter possible sense of the “ You“ addressed by the Lord to the Apostles, to last unto the end of the world, than their legitimate successors ?

1. I guess we should carefully scrutinize the view of the faithful remnants, in its different variants. Do you suppose it could pass a serious examination ….a la Socrates4Jesus ? Should it fail, the different protestant buildings could face IMHO a collapse.
2. I subscribe this sentence I had previously quoted.

A revelation is not given, if there be no authority to decide what it is that is given.

And I cannot see any better candidate to this task than the Catholic Church.

Because I am wholeheartedly with our protestant brothers when they tell me we must not acknowledge any religious authority but God, and I know no other than the Apostles and their Chief, and their successors and co-workers, who received legitimate delegation of authority by the Incarnated Logos.

Any visible effects on our oak ?

In Christ
P7

Then we can consider your insights on these three points. And on post # 810 .

Bless you
P7

 

[joe370]

Soc, you said:

If you mean a collective of people who follow Christ and have a common set of essential beliefs, then i think this, perhaps, might be what the Apostles understood the Church to be.

**Yup that is what I meant. Of course Jesus’ church has established leadership, as do all churches, otherwise, why would the bible tell us to obey them?
**

Just as there were many churches mentioned in the New Testament, but one universal (or catholic) Church, so too there might be many denominations in the modern world, but one universal Church.

**The many churches in the N.T. whether established by Peter, Paul, John or their successors, made up the one C.C.! They were not different churches in the way the Lutheran church differs from the Baptist church; they were united and one, as per all
Protestant/Catholic scholars and historians! Regardless if you went to the church in Ephesus or the church in Rome, the members of these churches were a a collective of people who followed Christ and had a common set of beliefs, and they obeyed their church leaders. The bible as we know it today didn’t even exist for these N.T. churches.

For the first 1000 years of Christianity, whether you went to the church in England or the church in Spain, you were going to the Catholic Church. Big C. Then there was a split between the Catholic church in the east and the Catholic church in the west, however they continued to share the same beliefs ( including sacred tradition and sacred scripture) - with the exception of the Filioque, and finally, 500 years later, Jesus’ one church which became 2 churches with basically the same belief system, utterly fractured into the hundreds and hundreds of non-Catholic churches, to which we see today, following the departure of the reformers, from Jesus’ one established church. There were no denominations prior to the reformation. Just the C.C. and the E.O.C. I will concede that there were plenty of heretical movements in almost every century, declaring things like: Jesus was only man, not God, etc etc. - but they were quashed by the C.C.

Are we in agreement that there were no denominations prior to the reformation - just 2 churches? Certainly the church built by Jesus on Pentecost is the only church that is truly universal, (as far as time and space are concerned) - for she has spanned the centuries from Pentecost to the present. I personally believe that the EOC can rightfully call herself the Catholic church, for she can trace her lineage all the way back to the Apostles, just as the C.C. can. However, even though the EOC can be considered universal (in time) - in the sense that she too has spanned the centuries from Pentecost to the present day, she falls shy of being universal in space. The Catholic church is found in almost every place on the planet.

**

The truth is you are asking me what i don’t know.

**Perhaps we can figure it out together!

**

I don’t know if the Catholic Church is the universal Church, so how can i answer (1)?

**The first question was:

1. Did Jesus Christ build all the protestant churches that we see in the world today.

And the answer is no. Give me the name of the protestant (or catholic, with a “small c”) - church and I will provide you with the name of the man who established that church and when he established that church!
**

**The answer to (2) is yes, but i’m not sure what the definition of Church is, as explained in the previous paragraph.

The second question was:

1. Do you believe that Jesus built just one church?

To which you replied - yes. Now we are getting some where. I think we both agree that a church, be it built by Jesus, on Pentecost or someone else, is simply an assembly of brothers and sisters in Christ, with established leadership, who come together to worship. Are we in agreement?

If we are, then what we can safely conclude is: all the Non-Catholic or catholic (small c) - churches in the world today, can only trace their origins back to men such as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, knox - etc etc, who spearheaded the reformation, and couldn’t even agree with one another, ergo the immediate disorders that Luther spoke of below. If that is the case, and it is, then we are down to 2 candidates: the C.C. and the E.O.C. --right?

**

**Martin Luther reminds us that this break away from the authority of Jesus’ established church, was a bust from the word go. In a 1545 letter to his wife Martin Luther writes about the Reform…

"Let us get out of this Sodom. I prefer to wander about homeless and to beg my bread from door to door than to poison my poor last days by the spectacle of all these disorders. We experience it daily that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemperate, more dishonest… [John Laux, CHURCH HISTORY, p.431]
**

There might be one universal Church but many denominations with different forms of government.

I agree; that is the case today! But prior to the reformation there were only 2 Christian churches in the world -right? :thumbsup:

The answer to (3) is unknown to me.

**The third question was:

1. If just one church, then which one, and when?

Have we at least narrowed it down to 2 churches?
**

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Remember, Jesus only built one assembly, and prayed that His established assembly would be one just as He and His Father are one…and she was one until the protestant reformation which supplanted Jesus’ church authority for the authority of the bible via individual interpretation - sola scriptura, and the authority of man-made churches.

Perhaps Jesus doesn’t mind if I go to one of the Lutheran churches in the world today. If that were the case, then, hypothetically speaking, which one? I can point out one Lutheran church that believes as does the C.C. regarding the Eucharist, and another that calls that Lutheran church an apostate church because of their belief in the true presence, and both base their conclusions on the authority of the bible via individual interpretation.

The key to finding truth is to find Jesus’ established church, guided by the holy spirit since pentecost, with both leaders and pupils, which was/is commanded to teach all that Jesus commanded. Am I right or wrong?

But Joe, how do you know? How do you know the Catholic Church, which had once been God-made, is not now man-made? That’s what Protestants tell me–the Catholic Church dropped the ball, the Protestant Church picked up the ball and continued to run down field. And God put the Catholic Church on the bench until they were ready to play the game by his rules. The Protestant team is the one He now has on the world’s field.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

You can start by eliminating all the churches that adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura then, no? Then pick from the very short list of churches which remain. It isnt as difficult as you are making it…

Hey, Philthy, good to see ya’! Chuck is here, too.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Well, even those who say the Bible has all they need to discern the truth also rely on the Holy Spirit and reason. Do you think the Scripture, the **Spirit **and **sound reason **is NOT enough to sort the truth from the lies? If so, then i’m in a stinky situation, Pig Pen. For if these three will not tell me whether i can trust the Catholic Church, then what will?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Dear Soc,

         first I take note that Ed simply  does not answer us.  No reason whatsoever is given in his reply  about how and why he is to be considered a better interpreter of Revelation than the Catholic Church.  I guess you agree.

Sorry for being unclear. Ed’s reply is that the Catholic Church is deceived. My response to Ed is that he is correct. That is, he is *only *if he himself is NOT deceived.

Carl agrees with me and adds that Ed is obviously the one falling for lies. So i ask Carl how he knows it’s Ed, rather than himself, who has been duped. For anyone who is deceived does not know that he is in the state he is in. After all, Socrates said:
I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to look fore and aft… .

(Cratylus, 428)
Both Ed and Carl then turn on me (and it’s ironic that they now both agree!) saying i’m the deceived one for NOT accepting the obvious truth when i see it! No, i respond, i’m *not *deceived, i’m just ignorant. Admitting one does not know what is true is never the same as believing a lie to be true. I don’t believe either of you, at least not yet. I’m withholding belief, and keeping myself from deception, until one of you convinces me of the truth you see but the other does not. Then they both say in unison, “I’ve given you all you need to know the truth, so make a decision and let’s be done with it!” So i quote Socrates:You’re treating me as if I’m maintaining that I know what I’m asking about, and as if I’ll agree with you if I really want to. But it’s not like that. In fact, I’m going along with you in investigating whatever proposition is made, because I myself am in ignorance. So, when I’ve considered it, I’m prepared to tell you whether or not I agree with out. Only, wait until I’ve considered it.

(Charmides, 165)

About the content of his reply I’d like to offer a reason, among others, to exclude the prophecy is about catholics.

The general derailment that according to evangelicals took place before 325 does not fit the prophecy, because the latter is about some going astray. And If I have to believe Ed’s own teaching, almost all went astray … with the essential exception of the faithful remnants.

Yes, i think that’s what Ed might say, though Fundamentalist Fred might make the argument that “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” originally meant the Holy Spirit. Let’s stick with responding to Ed, for the moment. Do you think i should respond this way?
SOC: But Ed, what you are suggesting is the Christian Church, as a unified religion, all but disappeared.

ED: Yes, that’s exactly what i’m suggesting. Satan could not destroy the Church from without, so he destroyed Her from within. His lies spread like cancer, and the Catholic Church became apostate–the Whore of Babylon prophesied by John.

SOC: But the true believers remained faithful until the Protestant Reformation, but stayed undercover?

ED: What else could they do? It was a crime to have a different religion. But God worked all things for the good of those who loved Him. Just as He ended the persecutions and worked the miracle of making Christianity the one religion of the Roman Empire, so too He worked the miracle of bringing about the Reformation. It’s spiritual warfare, you see. Satan moves, God counter moves.

SOC: And what if Satan were to deceive those who succeeded the ones who started the Reformation?

ED: Then God would counter that move with a revival, perhaps, or even a second Reformation. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against His one true Church, which has many denominations.

SOC: But Ed, what you suggest is that the Gates of Hades did prevail. For from around 325 to after 1500 AD Satan–not God–prevailed! If what you suggest is true, then he had won the war for more than a thousand years. Is this what Christ meant when He said the Gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church?

What do you think, P7? Is this the logical argument i should use to counter Ed’s claims?

 

[paul_c]

But Joe, how do you know? How do you know the Catholic Church, which had once been God-made, is not now man-made? That’s what Protestants tell me–the Catholic Church dropped the ball, the Protestant Church picked up the ball and continued to run down field. And God put the Catholic Church on the bench until they were ready to play the game by his rules. The Protestant team is the one He now has on the world’s field.

How can you say the Protestant team in the one that he now has on the world’s field? First of all, all the Protestant’s together represent roughly half of the Catholic population. and if you look at them by denomination, none is even 10% as big as the Catholic Church.
After all, in less than 300 years, despite brutal persecution, the Catholic church came to dominate the known world’s religion. The Protestant reformation was 500 years ago. If itwas of God, why isn’t it the dominant force today?

Secondly, when did the Catholic’s drop the ball and get replaced? What was the event or signal for that happening? And why would Jesus and the Holy Spirit abandon the church he founded? I don’t see you questioning your protestant breathren on this. What is their explanation and where are their proopoints? I hear these empty statements often, but never, ever have I seen any statement that even tried to substantiate them. Where is the proof of this great apostacy. It woudl have to be momentus, don’t you think? Afterall, it would change the world.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Any question starting with Does God need this ? implies a negative answer, as we know. We believe the Spirit chose to be ordinarily received by new members of the Church through baptism, an element of which is water, or better a washing with water.

Your more general observation is remarkably in line with what I had quoted for you from John Newman.
His conclusion was to postulate the existence of a divinely settled living authority, which he came to identify with the Catholic Church.

Fair enough. If water baptism is a necessity for us, it’s not a necessity for God. For Him it’s a choice.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Very briefly, since I fully agree with you this is not our focus.

The position of the words and be baptized is extremely problematic for an evangelical reading of Acts 2:38, so as the whole construction.

D.L. Moody gives for sure an example of the Spirit coming before water baptism.
Since the Church teaches about water baptism as ordinary means, and the quoted event
does look as extraordinary, there is no disagreement in this particular case between D.L. Moody and the Church, which, we are to suppose, had meditated on that passage, as on any other, centuries and centuries before D.L. Moody.

If Ed is comfortoble with Justin and these words of his

*Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated *in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.

I can only tell him .

I think what might convince me–if not Ed–is a statement from a respected early Church Father saying something to this effect:
The water of baptism, and not just the Holy Spirit, is the means by which we are forgiven.

Is there any early Church Father who spoke as clearly as that on the matter of water baptism?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Let’s forget for a while our good Ed.

What do you tell me Soc

• is it plausible that the authority you’re looking for is an individual human being ?
• is it plausible that it is one of the many modern religious bodies ?
• what other possibilities should we consider ?

In Christ
P7

Yes, those are possibilities. It’s possible that it’s

• Christ Himself
• the Holy Spirit
• the Bible
• supernatural revelation
• sound reason

In short, it’s possible i’ve missed something that the words of Christ, the Holy Spirit, or the Bible might reveal to me through you, someone else, or my own reason. I can only hope there is a way out of this maze of dismay.

http://glasscityjungle.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/2007maze.jpg

 

[paul_c]

Sorry for being unclear. Ed’s reply is that the Catholic Church is deceived. My response to Ed is that he is correct. That is, he is *only *if he himself is NOT deceived.

Carl agrees with me and adds that Ed is obviously the one falling for lies. So i ask Carl how he knows it’s Ed, rather than himself, who has been duped. For anyone who is deceived does not know that he is in the state he is in. After all, Socrates said:
I have long been wondering at my own wisdom, finding it beyond belief, and I think that I ought to stop and ask myself, “What am I saying?” For, there is nothing worse than self-deception, where the deceiver is always at home and always with you. It is quite terrible, and therefore I ought often to retrace my steps and endeavor to look fore and aft… .

(Cratylus, 428)
Both Ed and Carl then turn on me (and it’s ironic that they now both agree!) saying i’m the deceived one for NOT accepting the obvious truth when i see it! No, i respond, i’m *not *deceived, i’m just ignorant. Admitting one does not know what is true is never the same as believing a lie to be true. I don’t believe either of you, at least not yet. I’m withholding belief, and keeping myself from deception, until one of you convinces me of the truth you see but the other does not. Then they both say in unison, “I’ve given you all you need to know the truth, so make a decision and let’s be done with it!” So i quote Socrates:You’re treating me as if I’m maintaining that I know what I’m asking about, and as if I’ll agree with you if I really want to. But it’s not like that. In fact, I’m going along with you in investigating whatever proposition is made, because I myself am in ignorance. So, when I’ve considered it, I’m prepared to tell you whether or not I agree with out. Only, wait until I’ve considered it.

(Charmides, 165)

Yes, i think that’s what Ed might say, though Fundamentalist Fred might make the argument that “baptism for the forgiveness of sins” originally meant the Holy Spirit. Let’s stick with responding to Ed, for the moment. Do you think i should respond this way?
SOC: But Ed, what you are suggesting is the Christian Church, as a unified religion, all but disappeared.

ED: Yes, that’s exactly what i’m suggesting. Satan could not destroy the Church from without, so he destroyed Her from within. His lies spread like cancer, and the Catholic Church became apostate–the Whore of Babylon prophesied by John.

SOC: But the true believers remained faithful until the Protestant Reformation, but stayed undercover?

ED: What else could they do? It was a crime to have a different religion. But God worked all things for the good of those who loved Him. Just as He ended the persecutions and worked the miracle of making Christianity the one religion of the Roman Empire, so too He worked the miracle of bringing about the Reformation. It’s spiritual warfare, you see. Satan moves, God counter moves.

SOC: And what if Satan were to deceive those who succeeded the ones who started the Reformation?

ED: Then God would counter that move with a revival, perhaps, or even a second Reformation. The Gates of Hell will not prevail against His one true Church, which has many denominations.

SOC: But Ed, what you suggest is that the Gates of Hades did prevail. For from around 325 to after 1500 AD Satan–not God–prevailed! If what you suggest is true, then he had won the war for more than a thousand years. Is this what Christ meant when He said the Gates of Hades would not prevail against His Church?

What do you think, P7? Is this the logical argument i should use to counter Ed’s claims?

If I may jump in here, Why isn’t the question to Ed, "Can you show me changes in the Catholic Church’s doctrine that would demonstrate this great apostacy and when they occurred? And what is the proof that God changed churches?

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

Then we can consider your insights on these three points. And on post # 810 .

Bless you
P7

Yes, i agree. I need an authority to resolve the ambiguity of Christ’s words. Trying do figure out who that should be.

 

[paul_c]

I think what might convince me–if not Ed–is a statement from a respected early Church Father saying something to this effect:
The water of baptism, and not just the Holy Spirit, is the means by which we are forgiven.

Is there any early Church Father who spoke as clearly as that on the matter of water baptism?

The water of baptism and the Holy spirit are not acting independently here. The Holy spirit is acting because the candidate is being baptized by water. It is not the water alone that is the cause of our forgiveness, it is the fact that we are partaking of the sacrament. It is the water, withing the sacrament that cleanses the soul… Water, outside of the sacrament has no such cleansing power.