My response to a Catholic challenge

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

kpartlet/kotton -

How does one come to make the decision to embrace the correct infallible interpreter, without using the very private interpretation you condemn?

BouleTheou

You assume that the person concludes the New Testament is inerrant prior to embracing the infallible interpreter. This is a false assumption. It is by proclamation of the infallible Church that the books contained in the New Testament are inerrant and thus worthy of attempting to interpret.

In fact, without that proclamation of the infallible Church which you deny, you do not even have the New Testament to quote from in your first post on this thread…unless you can answer my questions in Post #33, as to how you arrived at which texts are to be considered the Word of God. You keep insisting you are capable of this feat, yet you have not even attempted to explain exactly how.

How do you know that Jesus said what you quote Him saying in your initial post? Do you expect us to believe that you have personally examined all the original manuscripts of the first couple centuries and it just so happens that you arrived at the same conclusion as the Catholic Church as to the cannon for the New Testament? I think not. Rather, by the mere fact that you quote the New Testament, you admit that the Catholic Church not only made the correct decisions as to the inspiration of certain texts, but also that they correctly translated those manuscripts from the original languages into more modern languages (since the originals no longer exist). If you deny this fact, then you have no right even to assert that Jesus in fact said what you quote Him saying, because all that you can possible know of what Jesus said and did is what the Catholic Church says He said and did. At best you could claim that the texts are historically authentic and therfore believable, but you cannot say they are the Word of God without explaining how you determined which texts are and which texts are not inspired.

Taking this one step further, if then you admit the Catholic Church correctly determined the cannon, and correctly translated the original texts (as you must if you trust the New Testament), then by this admission you are acknowledging that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Catholic Church at that time. This creates yet another problem for you: If the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church then, and if Truth is unchanging, then what was true then is true now. I can therefore conclude, since the Catholic Church teaches the same things now as it did then (when you must admit the Catholic Church was being guided by the Holy Spirit) then what was true then is true now, and therefore, what the Catholic Church teaches now is true.

 

[mercygate]

BouleTheou:

mercygate -

How does one know what cases those are? For example, I believe justification by faith apart from works is one of the clearest, plainest, simplest doctrines of Scripture to understand.

BouleTheou

If it were clear, plain, and simple, we would not be having this discussion, would we?

 

[BouleTheou]

Chris W -

What does this mean:

You assume that the person concludes the New Testament is inerrant prior to embracing the infallible interpreter. This is a false assumption. It is by proclamation of the infallible Church that the books contained in the New Testament are inerrant and thus worthy of attempting to interpret.

Attempting to interpret??

You completely lost me.

BouleTheou

 

[kparlet]

BouleTheou:

kpartlet -

Neatly refuted by one passages of Scripture: Ephesians 2:19-20, “19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone”

Special revelation, written or oral, from God creates the Church, not the other way around. You sound almost as if God had to first establish a human authority before He could have called Abraham in Genesis 12. Since the Church spans both testaments, and Abraham was a justified believer (Romans 4:1-8,11 & Genesis 15:6), where was this infallible institution to give revelation to Abraham when God called him in Genesis 12?

BouleTheou

With regards to the New Testament, who do you think was responsible for determining what books were “inspired”?

 

[jpusateri]

BouleTheou:

kpartlet -

Neatly refuted by one passages of Scripture: Ephesians 2:19-20, “19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone”

Special revelation, written or oral, from God creates the Church, not the other way around. You sound almost as if God had to first establish a human authority before He could have called Abraham in Genesis 12. Since the Church spans both testaments, and Abraham was a justified believer (Romans 4:1-8,11 & Genesis 15:6), where was this infallible institution to give revelation to Abraham when God called him in Genesis 12?

BouleTheou

Wait, Jesus created a family of believers (established via the new and everlasting covenant) which is the church AND at the same time He gave special revelation. He explained it to the patriarchs of the family (the apostles who numbered 12 like the sons of Israel) and trusted it to them. He promised them the assistance of the advocate/paraclete and ascended to heaven.

There is a pretty clear relationship between the revelation and the church. The revelation was explained to them and entrusted to them. Scripture is an outgrowth of that revelation. So the Bible was indeed produced by the church.

Just as with Abraham he established a covenant AND gave special revelation. It’s not one over the other.

 

[Chris_W]

BouleTheou:

Chris W -

What does this mean:

Attempting to interpret??

You completely lost me.

BouleTheou

I mean that if a person uses a logical, intellectual approach, that person must first acknowledge the infallibility of the Church before he can claim that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and thus dedicate time and energy toward interpretation. Therefore, you cannot say I arrived at Papal infallibility via interpretation, because it has to happen the other way around.

For example, a person must start with the Bible being merely an authentic historical document. He is then inclined by faith to believe what the documents say, and that it is God breathed. Then he must realize that document exists only because the Catholic Church says they are what they are (since the originals no longer exists). From this point, if one wishes to accept the Bible as the Word of God, he must accept that the Church had the ability to determine the cannon and had to have translated the texts correctly.

It is only at this point that the person can say the Bible is the inspired Word of God and without error. And it is at that point we start interpreting, still realizing the authority of the Church that provided the Word to us (obvoiusly I am not meaning to the Church wrote the Bible).

So my point is, what justification do you have to quote the Bible as the Word of God, wihtout acknowleging that you depend entirely upon the Holy Spirit guided Catholic Church for the accuracy and even the existance of the texts you have in your Bible?

 

[Fidelis]

BouleTheou:

Neatly refuted by one passages of Scripture: Ephesians 2:19-20, “19 Now, therefore, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone” Special revelation, written or oral, from God creates the Church, not the other way around.

Sorry, but this neatly disproves your point. It affirms the fact that first Christ appointed the Apostles (the Church) and from those Apostles came the New Testament in particular and (by the guidance of the Holy Spirit), the decision on the canon in general. If you follow your line of reasoning the Church didn’t come into being until after the NT was completed and canonized!

Remember: Jesus establishes Church; Church writes Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit; same Holy Spirit guides Church to establish canon and infallibly interpret Bible.

You sound almost as if God had to first establish a human authority before He could have called Abraham in Genesis 12. Since the Church spans both testaments, and Abraham was a justified believer (Romans 4:1-8,11 & Genesis 15:6), where was this infallible institution to give revelation to Abraham when God called him in Genesis 12?

Which brings up the question: Where was the infallible writings in Abraham’s time to be interpreted infallibly? There weren’t any yet, so that question is moot. It’s pretty obvious that Abraham, as the father of all believers, had a unique privilige of recieving direct revelation from God. There have been a select few in salvation history who shared this privilige (Noah, Moses, etc), but it does not follow that individual believers (especially if you believe the Church spans both Testaments) all have this gift of direct revelation, let alone the ability to infallibly interpret Scripture on their own (remember what happened to Aaron and Miriam in Numbers 12?). And, as I never tire of saying, the Bible nowhere says or implies they could.

I challenge you to prove to me that each individual reader of the Bible has the authority, from God, to interpret the Bible for himself so as to come to an understanding of what is true and what is false on all matters of faith and morals.

 

[Chris_W]

Boule Theou,

Suppose I respond to you saying, “Haven’t you read where the Bible says we are to live by every Word of God (Matt 4, 4)? Jesus spent forty days after His Passion teaching the Apostles, and we have no record of what He said or did (Acts1, 3). Therefore, the Bible does not contain all we need to know.”

I present this info not to debate it, but to make a point:

Would you assume, that because of what I said and the way I said it, I therefore must think you, as an individual, should have complete knowledge of scripture and be able to properly interpret it?" I can tell you that I certainly do not think that. Yet you are insisting that Jesus, who answered the Jews in just the same way, does think that.

Your logic does not justifiably lead to your conclusion.

 

[Exporter]

Boule Theou,Protestant.

You were challanged by a Catholic for you to prove the authority of the Bible.

Are you going to use the Bible to prove that the Bible is true?
If you do then you are using a false method of reasoning - it’s called circular resoning. That will not work.

Yet , you as a Protestant want to use the Bible only theory, Sola Scriptura. All you have is the Bible. You have no writtings of the early Fathers, you have no record of who put the Bible together. How do you justify your belief that the Bible is true?

**If you insist on Sola Scriptura you cannot prove that the Bible is true! **

 

[JPrejean]

Indeed, that is exactly correct. They had the ability to interpret it correctly, but they were misinterpreting it. And Jesus is angry with them because there is no excuse for it… The words of Scripture should have been plain enough in themselves. This is why Jesus cites Scripture and simply says, “haven’ you read this?”

You repeated the same assertion again. You haven’t proved why Jesus made the statement in the way that He did; you simply asserted it. Again, state the premises from which you make your conclusion, and form a syllogistic argument. In fact, ISTM that your statement “the words of Scripture should have been plain enough in themselves” is highly improbable in context.

To say, for example, that it can be determined from the plain meaning of the stories of David or the priests that the disciples were guiltless for eating in the fields (Matt. 12) strikes me as implausible. Even Christ Himself notes in vv. 6-8 that it is their inability to perceive the presence of “something greater than the Temple,” the inability to see what was in front of them for what it was, to know that this circumstance was what was meant by “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,” that made them culpable. Similarly in Matthew 21, Jesus isn’t chastising the Pharisees for missing the “plain meaning” of Scripture; He challenges them for not perceiving that this was the circumstance about which the verse was speaking. Again, it is a failure of spiritual insight, not a failure of discerning the plain meaning of the passage. Ditto the failure of the Saduccees to recognize that “I am the God of Abraham, etc.” referred to the Resurrection; they didn’t know the Scriptures because they couldn’t see their spiritual significance. Hence, they were astonished by the teaching, even though Christ’s rhetorical question “Have you never read…?” implies that they had read the passage. If anything, the people Christ chastises probably knew the plain meaning of the passages up and down (viz., they interpreted the Scripture correctly), but that didn’t help them to recognize the spiritual significance of the passages. I just don’t see where that remotely supports textual perspicuity of Scripture.

 

[Greg_McPherran]

Hello,

BouleTheou:

kpartlet/kotton -

How does one come to make the decision to embrace the correct infallible interpreter, without using the very private interpretation you condemn?

BouleTheou

2 Timothy 3:14 But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it,

1 Corinthians 11:2 I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

remain faithful to what you have learned and believed

hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you

stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught

Greg

 

[MarkInOregon]

I apologize that I do not know how to cut, paste and put nice little symbols in yet so please bear with me.

Boule,
First I don’t see how Ephesians 2:19-20 refutes that the Bible comes from the Church. The passage you cite says nothing about the Bible (as well it couldn’t as the “Bible” did not yet exist) and it doesn’t even say anything about scripture. Could you please clarify? Thanks.

Second you also say that “special revelation, written or oral, I thought you didn’t believe in oral tradition?] from God creates the church”
Would you show me this from the Bible as I don’t see this in Ephesians 2:19-20 either.

It seems to me that in the NT we see Christ clearly creating and founding His Church on Peter and the Apostles and not on scripture or oral tradition. The revelation given by Christ to his Apostles did not create the Church but rather the command, the statement of Christ created the Church. Christ founded His Church and commissioned his Apostles to make disciples out of all nations. He said nothing about writing a text book for converts to follow. Now as a part of their witness some Apostles and some of their disciples wrote some things down as they addressed various problems that arose in the various Church communities they had established. And it was the early Church that determined which of these writings were inspired and could be read at mass. It did not “give” (and when you say give it sounds like you are implying create) the revelation–it simply passed it on the revelation orally and it determined which of the early writing we inspired. Those texts approved by the early Church are the texts that make up the NT canon. Clearly those writings and the revelation contained in them could not have created the Church.

Finally, when you ask “where was teh infallible institution to give revelation…” you mistate the Catholic position in two ways:

1. The institution is not infallible–it is made up of men, men who can sin and fall short or the tenants of their faith and so the institution will at times not act in accordance with its own teachings–it is only the teaching authority of the Church that is safe guarded by the Holy Spirit and thus it is only the Churches teachings on faith and morals that is infallible.
2. The Church does not “give” the revelation nor does it claim to. It holds, safe guards and helps us to understand the revelation, the deposit of faith, given to us by God–so that we do not distort it or bend it to suit our own needs and desires.

Mark

 

[MarkInOregon]

Boule,

This is in response to your post 46 where you again ask “Why did Jesus assume…” as if this question has not been answered.

Do you not really read the other posts? This question has been clearly answered. Post 39 presents a pretty clear answer and an alternative that makes far more sense than your assumption. I would also look at post 54.

I have to ask are you interested in a serious discussion? You keep asking this same question claiming that it has not been answered even though an answer has been given–an answer which you have made no attempt to address or to refute.

I’d also be currious to see your response to post 37 as I don’t think you addressed this yet either. (If you have I missed it and if you would be so kind as to direct me to the post I’d be thankful.

God Bless

 

[Sherlock]

I’d like to see Boule Theou answer post # 34, wherein Carol Marie gives an account of how the confusion of doctrines within sola scriptura Protestantism were mirrored in her own life.

 

[twf]

The following posts were originally intended for another forum, so ingore references to “Whistler” and pronouns.

Your position depends upon the doctrine that all of God’s divine revelation is contained in Scripture (sola scriptura), yet can you prove this crucial doctrine from Scripture? The Catholic Church completely agrees that Scripture is God-breathed, inspired, without error, the Word of God, etc…but we do not believe that all of Divine Revelation was written down (the apostles both preached and wrote).

Concerning ‘sola scriptura’, let’s consider several verses (these verses were all referenced on Catholic Answers---catholic.com):

“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written” (John 21:25).

“I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you” (1 Cor. 11:2).
Oral teachings are very important…can you demonstrate that this has changed after the end of apostolic era?

“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us” (2 Tim. 1:13-14).

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15, emphasis added)
Both oral and written teachings are important, the NT gives no indication that Christianity is a religion of the book (alone).

“You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
If after the apostolic era, the Bible alone would suffice, why did Paul believe that the continuation of sound doctrine required special teachers entrusted with the deposit of faith?

“First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

 

[twf]

“‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete” (2 John 12).
The written word was not enough, John wanted to teach them more orally.

“…and came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth; that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophets, that he should be called a Nazarene.” (Matt. 2:23, ASV).
It’s interesting that this prophecy can not be found in Scripture…Matthew must have been relying upon the oral teachings of the apostles that was passed down. Also on this note…obviously the prophets spoke for God, but do you think that all the words of every prophet God sent is recorded in the OT? Were the words that are not recorded unauthoritative?

“…but if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how men ought to behave themselves in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15, ASV).
The Church, not the Bible alone, the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth…but how can it remain so if the church can not agree what truth is (on many issues)? Look how splintered Christendom becomes when apostolic succession is rejected. (I.e. Protestantism).

The Council of Jerusalem shows an authoritative church (in Acts 15) making a decision relevant to that time binding on all the faithful…can you demonstrate that this authority vanished with the death of the apostles? Why do you assume that Christianity’s sole authority became the Bible after the apostles died? How can you know this for sure?

There are other reasons to reject the doctrine of sola scriptura, especially for the Old Covenant. I highly recommend that you listen to ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/resolve.asp?rafile=iq_496.ra, which is an audio file where Tim Staples, a former Protestant, discusses the doctrine of sola scriptura. He makes some generalizations about Protestants, so I apologize for that, but it makes a good case anyway.

Please take a look at these articles as well:
catholic.com/library/What_Your_Authority.asp
catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp

God bless,

Tyler

Whistler, I remind you again that the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim. 3:15)…the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, tells us what traditions are apostolic in nature. I ask you again to listen to that audio file I linked to, and to look at a few of those articles. Also remember the verses I posted…Paul and Peter both knew that sound doctrine can not be maintained (completely) without Spirit-inspired guidance…

 

[twf]

Here’s another verse to add to those above:
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all the truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak: and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come. (Jn. 16:13, ASV).
I agree that the Spirit leads us all…but we do not all hear Him clearly, as Protestantism proves (so many varying doctrinal views)…it is the Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, that is guided infallibly by the Spirit—this was true in the apostolic era, I again challenge you to demonstrate that this ceased to be after the apostles died. (Why, in the verses I used in the last post, did Paul see it necessary for certain men to be appointed that would ensure that sound doctrine was passed down? The Bible, by itself, is not enough to discern all sound doctrine. The Church Fathers also knew that apostolic succession was the true test of canonicity of a Christian community. Please, in addition to those referenced in the earlier post, see for some Biblical evidence for apostolic succession, or authority transferred through the laying on of hands:
scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html#apostolic-II and ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ262.HTM)

Consider also 2 Peter 1:15 (ASV)
“Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance.”
Again we see that Peter’s letters are not enough by themselves (though they are wonderful inspired writings)…if sound doctrine is to be passed down, Spirit-guided leadership with apostolic sucession is required.

(more to come later tonight, on how the OT DID NOT have sola scriptura).

 

[mark1270]

Boule Theou,

Reading this thread reminded me of the conversion story of Scott Hahn. Dr. Hahn was a Protestent minister, a strict Calvinsist who longed for a return to the days the church he belonged (Presbyterian I believe) refered to the Catholic church as the anti-christ. It is hard to be further from the Catholic church than that.

Dr. Hahn was (is) a scholor and in his study’s, particularly in the study of how the New Testimate did not replace the Old, but is more accurately the completion of the Old. The New is the flower to the Old’s stem. Time and time again, through his study of the scripture and of ancient cultures and languages he woudl become excited that he had discovered some new revelation, only to find the Catholic church had taught the same revelation centuries in advance. Over time he became convinced of the truth of the teachings of the Catholic church. I would encourage you to listen to his story. It’s available from the Mary Foundation for a requested minimal donation.

The reason I thought of this is that ultimately you are correct. We do not need the magisterium to guide us to the truth of what is in the Bible. It is possible to discover them for ourselves. However, this is a task require much study. For instance as you mentioned earlier, you believe in Sola Fidelis, that man is saved by Faith alone. This is easy to see in the letters of St. Paul. However I quoted the epistle of James which states faith is active along with works and faith is completed by works. “See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” James 2:24.
“Faith without works is dead.” James 2:26. But we know that the Bible is infallible, it can not contridict itself. For if it does then it is a fallible book, and we can not believe in it and look to it for the truth. So we must look further.

The only proper way to understand the Bible is first to find all passages that relate to the concept we are studying. We also must understand, especially in the letters of the apostles, the people the letters were addressed to and the situations that caused the letters to be written. For this is (part of) the message of the Eunuch quoted in my earlier post “How can I understand, unless someone instructs me”.

In the case of Paul teaching the letters were in response to arguements among Christian Jews and Christian Gentiles over wether one must still obey Mosiac law in order to be justified by God. Paul states that we are not justified by works [of the law], but by our faith. The works described in James appear to be different, they are more actions demonstrating faith: Abraham offering his son Isaac on the alter, Rahab the harlot was justified by works when she welcomed messangers and sent them out by a different route [cf. Jos 2:1-21]. Look to your own heart. If I claim to have faith, but lie, steal, and do other evils, would you say that I am still justified? You may argue that I do not have faith, for if I did I would recognize my evil ways and repent of them. However, repentence, prayer, loving my God with all my heart and my neighboor as God loves me constitutes works. Therefore, faith apart from works is nothing, they go hand in hand. However I do not need to perform works of Mosiac law, such as circumsion, to be justified.

You may argue with my conclusions, but I would hope that you would see that I can come to the conclusions that Sola Fidelis can be disproved from a Sola Scriptura standpoint.

 

[mark1270]

If we study further we can see that even Sola Scriptura can be questioned from a Sola Scriputura standpoint. Remember the bible itself teaches that the Church is the pillar of truth, not scripture.

I encourage you to continue to study scripture, and do so with and open heart and an open mind. I truly believe that you will find the Catholic church as been teaching the truth for 2,000 years.
Study scripture, but do so with the Cathecism of the Catholic church. Do so with the writings of the church fathers (who were taught by the apostles).

I wasn’t raised Catholic, I was raised Methodist. I have a tendance to be very skeptical and very logical. (This is probably true of most members of Mensa (though my writing may not reflect that)),

I’ve come to embrace Catholism because of the completeness of the teachings of the Church, because of the logic of the teachings. I believe that someday you will too.

God bless

 

[CatholicMatthew]

BouleTheou:

I’ll just keep asking.

Maybe you should have asked a question the first time instead of just throwing a bunch of stuff in the air.

BouleTheou:

Why did Jesus assume his hearers knew the canon and its proper interpretation apart from the existence of an infallible body of teachers?

Hmmm, lets see. Jesus grew up in that society and he knew what they did or did not believe and what they knew in the canon being omnipotent. So, he tailored his response to what the hearers believed in a way that would speak directly to what they were thinking. So, Jesus did not assume anything about the hearers knowledge of the canon and its interpretation. Jesus, instead infallibly was able to determine (being GOD) what was in the minds of the people He was talking to and to make the appropriate response.

BouleTheou:

Do you find that consistent or inconsistent with the Roman Catholic position on the canon and its proper interpretation.

Utterly consistent with what a Catholic position on the abilities of Christ as true God and True man. Jesus simply did not make assumptions about those He was talking too no matter what the hearer believed. You premise is inherently flawed.

Now, since you are trying to sideswipe the issue of authority. Is it not obvious why Christianity needs an infallible authority on matters of faith and morals alone?
In the OT several people were given direct revelation and it was preservered in the OT. However, the Jewish people split and divided over what the correct interpretation of scripture was.

Jesus grew up in this divided environment. (just an observation)

Jesus created this Church on earth of the NT. A regular old human created the OT “Church” (do you know who did it?).

Is not what God creates the best way possible? Many scriptures talk about special authority of the Church given by Christ. Why was this needed? Look at how many people have fallen away from True Christian teachnig without it. Look at how many conflicting opinions there are from the same text. The earth groans for the authority and God responded to the prayer in the fullness of time.

If you would like to debate the issue of authority of the Church ead on and not try to side swipe it when you are supposed to be doing something else. You have never shown that the individual has the authority to interp scriptures.

The first pope spoke to this, 2 Peter 1:20 “Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation.”

The thing you fail to realize is that when Christ was speaking to the hearers, as you call them, He is the infallible authority speaking. His answers so pierced their hearts that they either converted or harden them. They either loved truth or grew to hate it.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew