The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm.

The devil wants Christians to focus on anything but evangelizing the lost.

1 Like you pointed out not all scripture was written down by then. Many people couldn't read and scripture were expensive and rare. So sharing God's word by mouth was common. 2 Same as 1. burden of proof that this is beyond what is written is on you.

Try learning history next time before you open your mouth

Why are there so few Black bishops in America? “The short answer is racism.” America’s youngest bishop, Robert Boxie (@WashArchdiocese), speaks candidly about a Confederate flag in seminary, tokenism, DEI, what white Catholics often miss ... and why the Church cannot be afraid of hard conversations about race. Full episode in reply.

Romanist florilegium. Ok, one more time for those slower among us: real presence is NOT transubstantiation. Say it again. My faith is based off Scripture, not the interpretations of men, but I can do quotation tennis too: -Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215). Clement often interpreted Scripture allegorically and described Christ’s flesh and blood spiritually. He was known to treat the Eucharist in symbolic and mystical terms rather than any physical change in the elements. Example: “The Scripture has named wine a mystical symbol of the holy blood.” (The Instructor, Book 2, ch. 2.) Clement’s writings are not memorialist in the later Protestant sense, but they darn sure weren’t transubstantial either. -Origen (c. 184–253). Everyone’s favorite heretic. Example: “For even the nourishing word is able to be called flesh, as also the true meat… and the word becoming flesh says, ‘My flesh is true meat, and my blood is true drink.’ … These things are figures, and therefore they are to be understood spiritually and not carnally.” (His commentary on Matthew 11:14). He was right here. -Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260–339). Eusebius used symbolic language about the Eucharist and spoke of Christ giving “symbols” of His body and blood. Some Protestants rightly cite him as evidence of a non-literal Eucharistic theology. Transubstantiation is nothing that anyone can pull from his writings. And he’s often considered the father of church history. One commonly referenced passage of his use of symbols comes from his (Demonstratio Evangelica (Proof of the Gospel), Book 1, chapter 10). -Augustine (354–430). He called much in John 6 “figurative” and frequently used sign-language (signum) about sacraments. Ex 1: “If sacraments had not some resemblance to those things of which they are sacraments, they would not be sacraments at all.” (Letter 98, commonly known as Letter to Boniface). Of course, in John 6:35 Jesus tells us exactly what it means to spiritually and metaphorically “eat” him and “drink” him; it is to “come” and to “believe”. biblecia.com/media/4nvy6hx/e…. Augustine called the Eucharist Christ’s body and blood, as we should, but it ain’t. See founders.org/library/chapter…, para 5. Ex 2: Augustine also said: “Why do you prepare your teeth and stomach? Believe, and you have eaten.” (Tractates on the Gospel of John, 25.12). Ex 3: Again from Augustine: “‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man’, says the Savior, ‘and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you’. Christ seems to be commanding a shameful crime [the crime of cannibalism]. Therefore it is a symbol, requiring that we should have a share in the Lord‘s suffering, and that we should faithfully remember that his flesh was crucified and wounded for us.” (On Christian Doctrine, book 3, ch. 16). -John Scotus Erigena. (d. 877). Carolingian Renaissance era Irishman. Coined the phrase that the believer eats Christ’s flesh “Mentally not dentally.” He lived in the era where this discussion first rose to any real level of prominence at all. -Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393–458). Theodoret strongly distinguished the symbols from the reality they signify. Example: “The mystical symbols do not depart from their own nature after the consecration.” (Dialogues (Eranistes), specifically Dialogue II “The Unconfused”). Real presence? Sure, maybe. He was using the table as a metaphor against the Eutychians on the incarnation here, and people have of course interpreted his words differently. Transubstantiation? Negative. -Berengar of Tours (c. 999–1088). Berengar is probably the clearest pre-Reformation figure to reject a substantial change in the elements. He lived in a day when terrible views on the ordinances really begin to germinate in some places. He argued rightly that the bread and wine remain materially what they are and that Christ is present in a more spiritual sense. Ratramnus of Corbie (c. 800-868). The right one. He was on the right side. Out of space.

Yes, Words DO matter. “Apostle” doesn’t somehow disqualify someone from being a father of the Church. Paul explicitly told the Corinthians, “in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:15).

A Christian Zionist is a Christian who has read and understands the book of Romans and believes Israel had a right to exist. Saying you aren’t one is not the flex you think it is lol.

Excuse me? Did God not love those men? Did God not build his church through such men? Do you not know our history? Do you not know about the great awakening? Do you not know about the American Revolution? God has been using Calvinists for His glory for a very long time.

Reformed theology doesn’t supersede Scripture. It is the correct interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the Westminster Confession accurately summarizes Biblical truth.

Calvinism is the Gospel.

Dinesh, you seem like a nice guy. I appreciate your political commentary. But you have a caricatured understanding of the doctrine of election. It is clear you have not really studied this through. If you would like to rightly understand it, please reach out to me and/or read Chosen By God by RC Sproul.

The Vice President is making fat jokes. That's how far America has fallen.

The King James Bible is Jesus.

Many people in the pews of the Catholic church think the way to heaven is through works. Why is that?