Christ did not promise the church an “evolving Gospel”. One that was to be expanded as time went on.

Christ did not promise the church an “evolving Gospel”. One that was to be expanded as time went on.

Jesus promised, ALL Truth, ALL means: whole, every single one, FULLNESS…not one or two or three “essential doctrines” but ALL and still are to COME.

If He promised that, then why do have differing doctrines amongst us? There should only be one True Church from the begining who has a living Authority from Him. There has to be, if indeed Christian doctrine is a divine revelation in which men must believe under the pain of eternal lost, then the promised (gift) of infalliability to the Church is necessary because if she could err at all, she could err in ANY POINT, the flock would have no guarantee to the ALL Truth.

Do you think it is very logical?

God Bless.

To every true Christian who sincerely try to follow the ways of Christ and His Teachings considerered EVERY word in the Scripture as ALL important, because it is God’s Word.

Now;
Who is to say which is important and not? Who is to say we only need to have the “essentials” and rest are not important in the Scriptures? By claiming and declaring which “one is or not important” is already an affirmation of Authority with which the protestants hated the Catholic Church for.

Minor differences in protestants?

Take for example baptism… the Church has decided that the references to Baptism in Scripture must be interpreted as teaching baptismal regeneration, no exceptions. In fact, the Council of Trent bases this teaching on John 3:5 where Jesus said: “Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven.”

Now, granted, you may have a different interpretation of that verse. In fact, yours may even sound better than ours. It's easy to believe that the water is merely symbolic. The Bible uses symbols all the time.

But the $64,000 question is: is the Bible using symbols in John 3:5? How would we know for sure?

We seem to have at least two possibilities. In fact, there are other possibilities. Some Protestants believe the water refers to the word of God, and base that interpretation on Ephesians 5:26. Others believe the water refers to the amniotic fluid in the mother's womb. Others believe the water is more than just a symbol but still doesn't save anyone.

So, in effect, we have five different interpretations of John 3:5, and they all sound very good, but there can only be one correct interpretation and the others are devilish imposters. The context of John 2-4 doesn't help too much in settling on one meaning. So what do we do? Well, the good Catholic will ask: what did John mean when he wrote the words of John 3:5?

Well, we need to ask John what he meant. But, of course, John is dead. Fortunately, however, we know what John meant because he told his fellow apostles, and they told the disciples, and they told the churches. When we examine the record of the churches (and we know them be reading the documents of those times) it is a fact that every church, every Father, every council, and every other body with any semblance of ecclesiastical authority said that the interpretation which holds that the water is the miraculous means of grace and actually procures justification is the only correct answer, and all the others are pious frauds.

I would just add as an illustration of the basis for Protestant doctrinal decisions: When Jesus said, “unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you,” Catholics believe that Jesus meant what he said.

Protestants believe that whatever Jesus meant, he certainly did not mean what he said.

And why? Because Jesus statement is not logical or easily understood. It is difficult, too difficult to believe by faith alone.

Blessings!