Is there any debate where a Protestant wins over a catholic andis there a debate where a Catholic wins ocer a...

Where's the straw man? It's called reductio ad absurdum and it's a legitimate logical argument because I demonstrated how absurd the postion of personal interpretation of the scriptures is. It's relativistic in nature and relativism, too, is absurd.

Nice false equivalency on your part. That's a movement, not a sect. It's not tens of thousands of denominations having contradictory interpretations on fundementals of faith.

Do you really think Christ wanted to have a church that sold indulgences, tortured other Christians in the most vile ways, and has people that pretend to speak for Him while raping children and supporting heresy?

Oh heeeere we go, it's the indulgences man, say hi to him kids.
lel
No I'm sure Christ wanted you and your Bible study assembly to speak for Him and bring to the world the true meaning of the Bible.

Here's the protestant view of Apostolic succession:

Catholic had to destroy the thread ofc.

Prolly gonna get banned too now because i didn't blame baptists

I asked legitimate questions and have gotten nothing but petty whining. You're not here to 'get a centrist view', you're here to get support for your own theories.

And why do you want so only a priest can read the Bible then? Are you afraid or something?

Making out with satanic books and telling atheists they can go to heaven isn't heresy now?

Pretty sure actual protestants don't have a guy in a dress LARPing as the Vicar of Christ.

And I'm here to get videos of debates. Not to hear autists debate each other

But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie—just as it has taught you, abide in him. (1 John 2:27)

Attached: d9251e5f8b108f8dfabc2d1c5c7600b70f5451e83328fa63cfe6c8a537f479bc.png (648x478, 305.14K)

You mean like an Anglican??Saging because dumb thread

I’m not even Catholic, but I wish this meme would die out.
Please read this article: newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm

Attached: it’s a meme you dip.JPG (546x577, 31.6K)

If baptists were started in 1609 then why was Ulrich Zwingli writing a treatise to them in 1527? And even more importantly, why does the Scripture line up with Baptism? Truth is that Protestants are just another spinoff of pedobaptist sacerdotalism, and that Cath/Prots have uncountably many schisms despite claiming there is only one church. What you're presenting is a false dichotomy as all pedobaptists have always been wrong and corrupted doctrine. It only gets worse over time, leading to more and more splintering and disproving your claims. Meanwhile, the word of God never changes, that is the rock on which the church of God is built.

I don't consider it a church if it's not.

Attached: anabaptist.PNG (1459x434 208.03 KB, 24.58K)

Christ didn't want the church split in 1054 either because the Vatican wanted to be in charge

It's the "Roman Catholics church can do no wrong man"

Why did later popes have to condemn priests that were doing it if it's just a meme?

That “disputed” line is the trail of blood

Attached: 342A47D0-BBC7-405A-9299-41BF52E0CC76.jpeg (1242x1382, 546.18K)

Yeah because the line should go from the early church straight to us, and the RCC should be a later spinoff which came after that. Their innovation was sacerdotalism and pedo-baptism, and later papism, none of which is anywhere in Scripture. It comes purely from politics. And that's why their doctrine changes every time a new political power comes in. Confessional baptists like John Smyth, Mennonites, SBC and others like that are more spinoffs of Christianity, with similar issues of political leaders.

the churches founded by Jesus Christ are the churches of Christ

there never was more than one congregation in the Bible

There are seven churches mentioned in revelations actually, and Paul even says CHURCHES of Christ in Romans 16:16

…it's all considered one congregation, hence why St. Paul spends much of his time visiting each Church to check on them. This is basic church hierarchy here.

If Christ intended multiple churches, why did He pray that His church would not schism?

Attached: farage.jpg (1024x681, 170.23K)

Christ prayed there would be no schism of faith, not that there wouldn't be multiple churches, which is why the bible literally uses the word churches.

Here's a start.

Watch James White get spanked in a debate by a Catholic.

Debates aren't the best source for a "centrist view." Debate is not just about laying out positions in the most neutral way possible. Debate is a game. It's about posturing, quick thinking and playing to the audience. Someone can win a debate even if they're position is objectively wrong.

there was no independent church, they were all interconnected by apostolic authority, hence why the apostles spend a good majority of their time visiting each and every community

if your church has no apostolic succession, it's not a church of Christ. a church about Christ is not the same as one being owned by Him.

I would tend to agree with this. Often times, but not always, the kind of people who want to win debates or find out what wins debates are just trying to find the best way to pull the wool over people's eyes and how to persuade and effectively suggest things to a crowd, they're not really interested in finding or expounding the truth accurately, more interested in just being able to sound right to an average audience.

Yep. Although sometimes, in successful debates a pitfall of one ideology or the other can be revealed, that's what I like about them. It's just sad that most people see them as a sort of fistfight, and if you've ever seen a comments section on one everyone's sticking to their own fighter and holding them up as a winner. Just ignore all the actual discussion, say "Opponent x got SMACKED!"

There's a word the Bible uses to describe that, it is called smooth things and wisdom of words see isaiah 30:8-10
1 corinthians 1:17-31