To @DoorDashThomist: This is not the *reformation doctrine* of the invisible church lol. That was the original…
This is not the *reformation doctrine* of the invisible church lol. That was the original dispute- not whether the Church has an invisible dimension to it. The definition via Westminster Confession is what Rome condemns in the condemnation of Wyclif / You guys are actually ignorant of the classical reformation teaching and committing a basic word/concept fallacy. The having an invisible component is not the same thing as the reformation/ calvinist doctrine of the invisible church lol cholocheater said it wasnt true and now is - even dumber than your basic mistake / I do. / correct / magisteri…
Chain 4 of 4 · 1 replies
- Jay Dyer
Critiques a misunderstanding of the Church's invisible aspects.
“This is not the *reformation doctrine* of the invisible church lol. That was the original dispute- not whether the Church has an invisible dimension to it.”
- Jay Dyer
Defends his position about the concept of invisible and visible Church.
“When did I say ott is infallible? why lie?”
- Jay Dyer
Affirms a point made earlier in the thread.
“bingo”