Sola Scriptura Revisited

[KathleenGee]

Your culture has a particular view in looking at Scripture and I have attended Protestant services and Bible Study and we do draw on the same Spirit.

Catholics approach Scripture on a variety of levels and contexts. We look at Scripture from its whole, not in parts. Every Word in Scripture is sacred, and it is not divorced from other parts. There are passages that are puzzling but through understanding people’s times and how it pertained to Salvation History, the meaning and purpose can come to light.

Fundamentalists are raised to look at Scripture in a certain way. But they do not know how Catholics relate to Scripture. And so it is very hard to even consider us as being Biblically oriented, of which we are very much. There are others who think we are unduly burdened by the Church, and project alot of misunderstandings on us.

So the first hurdle is to find a reference point. I have the Holy Spirit. You have the Holy Spirit. All priests have a great preparation from the seminary and to bring the Word of God to life for us in the context in the life we live, from the position that we are centered in God and balance. Catholic instruction of Scripture helps us understand the Word of God, ever alive and waiting to guide us…to bring us to harmony and peace in God and connection to the world around us…as nothing can exist without God willing it.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh!

 

[KathleenGee]

The other point to draw on is that the Bible is also the history of salvation. It is meant for all people.

We cannot separate the Bible from the reality of other human beings, as each person is created by God and has a specific purpose to contribute by life experience one’s giftedness to bring us closer to Him.

So, you can’t separate the Bible from the people who have drawn on it for 1,500 years before Sola Scriptura. There are great testimonies of faith. In Catholicism, instead of just hearing about the heroes and heroines of the Old Testament – we know their testimonies of faith very well, we also draw on the heroic lives of those who have lived after Christ – the saints.

We have Biblical Studies where one can draw on one’s own personal interpretation and these can be done in groups and associations. But then there is the study of Scripture that is of the Apostolic tradition and this interpretation is what we adhere to both publicly and privately. So we do have alot of freedom in our approach and work with the Bible that includes a personal level that is shared by those in the Sola Scriptura persuasion. We have a Catholic woman who loves reading Scripture and has spent time as well with her Protestant sisters with their studies. We all recognize the one Lord in Scripture. We recognize personal application and personal studies and we also recognize the context and perspective of Scripture according to the Apostolic Tradition. Hope you can see difference here.

 

[Beth_Martin]

If succession isn’t important then why did the same Catholic episcopate who played such a foundational role in canonizing the NT appeal to historical succession as justification for their interpretation vs interpretations by those who based the validity of their interpretation solely on the scriptures? What norm do you think the Catholic Church used during the canonization process. To my understanding the rule of faith passed on in the church via historical or apostolic succession and church tradition has always been the lens through which the NT docs were interpreted. As a protestant i would think it would be comforting to you to know this historical succession existed. If it had ever been lost like some like to claim then why trust the decisions made approximately 400 years later with the establishment of the canon? Do you realize that the same people who are responsible for your cherished NT canon are the ones who have been claiming apostolic succession from the early second century onward. Do you think the church made a good decision with the canon but was simultaneously deluded in or knowingly falsified their belief about historical succession? Does it make sense to say that the 4th century church was making good decisions about the Bible but mostly poor ones about everything else? The Bible that you hold as being the only trustworthy guide for Christians was shaped from within the church. The canon historically never functioned as the sole standard which to measure everything. Before there was scripture there was faith in the early church. They used confessions, Creeds etc. IMO placing the Bible in its proper context which is the church’s tradition does not negate or diminish the authority of the Bible in the early church, i just think that authority is inadequate when displaced from the context of the community (church) and placed at the discretion of the individual.

Do you have any idea how many “works or letters or writings” that had to be sifted? It was a multitude in the hundreds if not thousands; therefore the only conclusion one can arrive at is the true conclusion which is the hand of God!! If you believe the authority of the Bible is inadequate; why not just say the what God said is inadequate and cut to the chase? May the Gospel of God penetrate your heart; my prayer to God the Father.

There is always a sucession of both the true and the false, but the question is who speaks for God? Well to answer that we must go to the Scripture and see who tells the Gospel of God and who teaches another gospel; just as Paul instructed Timothy and Titus.

But a succession in the way you ascribe; that is fallacy and arragant to begin with. For if your type of “successors” followed the Scripture and the discipline of those as overseers and deacons as the pastoral letters indicate, then you would not have the same blemished history that continues because the commands of those letters is ignored. We can go back to Paul and his dealings with those who were in authority and the problems he had and examples of how he dealt with them. It is not just the Roman Catholic Church that has this history, but other great religions as well. Viva Sola Sciptura!!

 

[Texasgringo70]

I agree with the first part of your statement but this last part is where I think that you err. There is nothing in scripture that the CC contradicts. Our Traditions are all based on scripture, and yes including the Marian doctrines which many (not all) non-catholics have trouble with.

Pssttt… notice I haven’t replied to Beth’s statements? (except in my own kitchen ) Through the grace of God and the admonishment of “viewers” I’m working on it

Weather I err or we just disagree depends on your beliefs. Obviously Luther disagreed with the belief that the Church did not contradict scripture. That is one of the things that started this whole mess. I understand the fact that the Church believes Luther was wrong about his assertions. However, even though the Church disregards Luther it does acknowledge now that there were abuses in the sale of indulgences.

The concept that forms my belief is that if it is theoretically possible for the Church (or more to the point a minister of the Church) to err then it is probable that it (or he) will err as some time or another. The Apostle Paul was very adamant that we should guard against false teaching. Most of the false teaching that he combated was from within the Church, not from without. He even rebuked Peter at one point.

What I find very comforting in the Bible is that its heroes had faults and God was able to use them in spite of their faults. It sounds a lot to me that the Church is teaching that its ministers are infallible. Correct me if I am wrong about this, but if that is what is taught it doesn’t seem to square with the portrayal of the men of God found in the Bible or of human nature in general.

I congratulate you in biting your tongue regarding Beth. You are most likely a better person than I am. If I get too wound up here I might have to excuse myself as well. Like Mama used to say, if you don’t have anything good to say, shut-up.

 

[Beth_Martin]

And that is the problem we have with Sola Scriptura. It is a man made interpretation of the Word of God that only leads to more fractures, divisions, and self-righteousness…which is not about God but about one’s sense of worthiness.

Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.----R.C. Sproul Source

 

[KathleenGee]

Beth, I don’t think you get what we are saying…again, your orientation is so very different.

We are not errant like your indoctrination teaches you…

We have one, great, big massive gap here.

I have to get out today…Then I have to get back and clean this house up, get dinner ready, do other things, and there are alot of people from the 1,500 year thing that still believe in the Apostolic tradition as well as are active in private devotion to Scripture.

CAF has a forum that covers Scripture. You have alot of highly referenced people but until you understand our reference – I can understand yours – it is a long, long road to Tipperary.

God bless you!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
LOL! And are you joking to believe over 40,000 thousand different denominations do not contradict scripture? If they did not then there would not exist thousands of different churches. LOL

As opposed to the infallible and contradictive teachings of various councils and Popes??

Apparently you do not read my reply to your other posts where I asked you to provide historical proof were St.Ignatius taught and defended Sola Scripture. All you did was throw a sucker punch. All you do is ASSUME what the early church taught and what the RCC teaches. First of all,learn WHEN infallibility comes into play. Here I’ll give you some hints: Trinity,Incarnation,canon of Scripture,etc,etc. Second, if the councils and popes have contradictive teachings,then I guess EVERY orthodox doctrine (Trinity,Incarnation,etc,etc) are also up for questioning-eh? Third, you seem to have a problem comprehending the difference between infallibility and impeccability not uncommon among the thousands of different churches.

Glad you find joy in your scoffing for if you believe in Jesus you will remember His commands.

Scoffing? Show me the command from Jesus for any mere mortal to start their own church based on his/her private interpretation of scripture? Show me where Jesus gave anyone the authority to start their own church,so I too can start my own church. I did not know Jesus was into competition,since He alone already founded ONE church 2,000 years ago.

While your pride is excited you it is best to remember that the question was asked to the Lord; “Lord are only a few being saved?” ---- I hope you are part of the few!!

Pride? I’ll tell you what pride consist of: 40,000 + different churches and not end in sight!

I am not the one who belongs or follows some "Johnny-come-lately’ church founded centuries later.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Your culture has a particular view in looking at Scripture and I have attended Protestant services and Bible Study and we do draw on the same Spirit.

Catholics approach Scripture on a variety of levels and contexts. We look at Scripture from its whole, not in parts. Every Word in Scripture is sacred, and it is not divorced from other parts. There are passages that are puzzling but through understanding people’s times and how it pertained to Salvation History, the meaning and purpose can come to light.

Fundamentalists are raised to look at Scripture in a certain way. But they do not know how Catholics relate to Scripture. And so it is very hard to even consider us as being Biblically oriented, of which we are very much. There are others who think we are unduly burdened by the Church, and project alot of misunderstandings on us.

So the first hurdle is to find a reference point. I have the Holy Spirit. You have the Holy Spirit. All priests have a great preparation from the seminary and to bring the Word of God to life for us in the context in the life we live, from the position that we are centered in God and balance. Catholic instruction of Scripture helps us understand the Word of God, ever alive and waiting to guide us…to bring us to harmony and peace in God and connection to the world around us…as nothing can exist without God willing it.

Jesus Christ is the Word of God made flesh!

Most Catholics do know how they relate to Scripture in relation to their own tradition. The Priest as you know it doesn’t exist in Scripture. So what do we do with that? The only harmony that brings man to God is what? The Gospel of God!! How far do you need to go to find the gospel of God? The Scripture!! Viva Sola Scriptura. I have a feeling you believe you can do certain acts and God owes you saving faith based on your own meritorious acts of religion. God owes you nothing and you cannot earn His favor. i hear of this charity in the “Sacraments” and it is just the opposite. By performing and preparig for a Sacrament, like confirmation for example; you expect to receive something “saving” (i.e. some saving grace") in return. Charity is no longer charity it is now become wages of what you have earned. This is what the Pharasees and the Jewish leaders completely missed; that it is by His grace; that is it, nothing more. Your justification is by His grace, your sanctification is by His grace, and your final redemption into your final glorification is all of HIs grace - that is the “Good News” God has come to seek the lost sinner and by faith and repentance we come and we receive by His doing and His doing alone.

 

[Nicea325]

Most Catholics do know how they relate to Scripture in relation to their own tradition. The Priest as you know it doesn’t exist in Scripture. So what do we do with that? The only harmony that brings man to God is what? The Gospel of God!! How far do you need to go to find the gospel of God? The Scripture!! Viva Sola Scriptura. I have a feeling you believe you can do certain acts and God owes you saving faith based on your own meritorious acts of religion. God owes you nothing and you cannot earn His favor. i hear of this charity in the “Sacraments” and it is just the opposite. By performing and preparig for a Sacrament, like confirmation for example; you expect to receive something “saving” (i.e. some saving grace") in return. Charity is no longer charity it is now become wages of what you have earned. This is what the Pharasees and the Jewish leaders completely missed; that it is by His grace; that is it, nothing more. Your justification is by His grace, your sanctification is by His grace, and your final redemption into your final glorification is all of HIs grace - that is the “Good News” God has come to seek the lost sinner and by faith and repentance we come and we receive by His doing and His doing alone.

Beth Martin…stop! Please! You are not going to come here and try to re-write 2,000 years of history.The church has been around a lot longer you and your own interpretations. People like you have come and gone and no one gives it a second thought what they ranted and raved against the RCC. You are 2,000 years separate from Jesus,so you better come to grips with reality and facts. We do not care…save it for the birds!

 

[Loboto-Me]

Nicea my friend,

Even the birds got the right interpretation of scripture… through St Francis So even the birds (through saintly succession LOL) have the proper interpretation

 

[Texasgringo70]

Hi Tex,
If inspiration was the sole criteria used for canonization (I dont think it was) by the church and the NT docs were clearly divinely inspired why do you think it took the Church so long to form a closed canon? How do you think the early church viewed inspiration? If the bible grew in the cradle of the church and the church existed before the bible then the centrality of the church cant be overly simplified by claiming that the canon was simply a matter of the church recognizing “clearly divinely inspired” documents. The acknowledgment that the Catholic episcopate had a significant role in forming the NT canon is IMO undeniable. I think its misleading to claim “the church didnt give us the bible” just because these are inspired texts. The theological heritage and importance of the church is too often IMO neglected in the foundational role the church played in formation of the NT canon.

No, I don’t think inspiration was the sole criterion used for canonization, but I do believe inspiration was a requirement for those that were included. Most likely it took so long to finalize the canon because the inspired and useful texts were so intuitively obvious to the early church that they did not consider a canon necessary. Also, when I read the epistles I get the impression that the early church fully expected Christ to come again in their lifetimes. After a couple of generations they began to realize that God was going to wait a while and they should settle in for the long haul. I do not deny the Churches involvement in the canon. I was mostly reacting to the idea that the Catholic Church gave us the whole Bible, including the OT. The OT part is probably what set me off. The OT was very well established long before the advent of our Lord and the formation of the Church. To be sure the Church did play a very significant roll. My point was that God is the origin of the scriptures via inspiration of the authors and those who accurately transcribed and protected the original texts. He did so with the OT before the Church and He did so with the NT using the Church. The Church was just the tool, not the origin. I’m just trying to keep it real.

 

[Loboto-Me]

I knew what you were trying to say, thus my agreement with you earlier. And also you’re right about the Church thinking that the second coming was imminent as well. Also, I agree with the Church being the tool to assemble the Holy Book, but then that’s exactly the point. The Church is the only tool that Jesus forged to spread the faith,and to protect the faith. Tool is a multi-purpose tool which included the Tradition and the Sacraments… there was no need to forge any other tools because it is a complete tool.

 

[KathleenGee]

I am taking a break…part of the problem is language…a human being deemed ‘infallible’.

Secondly, Beth, just in the reference you made to my pastor and not witnessing a single homily that includes the perspective of the Old Testament is the very issue that causes me to pursue any debate. He is already condemned. And this is where I have to bite my tongue.

It took the Church many years and many people to prayerfully discern what books to use for the universal church. The other books are out there and free to you to read and reflect on them. Christ gave the church through Peter the ministry to construct and institute His church.

So our culture is communal, not individualistic. Have you ever been to a Catholic Mass? My girlfriend is Baptist and we have known each other since grade school…she was shocked to find out…in college, that Catholics have the bible at Mass.

Yes, I agree with you that we privately can ponder and be guided by the Holy Spirit with Scripture. And likewise, the Holy Spirit works through the administrators of the Church and the ministers of the sacraments.

And I am saying, that not only do we have great people of faith in the Old Testament but in reference to Christ and His ability to renew and restore us there is also a great history of saints and martyrs who pondered the Word of God in the Catholic church and all throughout its different rites, including here the Orthodox and other eastern churches.

Rome wasn’t built overnight. The primary church exists in our belief in the Creed, our faith in doctrines that profess: I believe in One God, and Jesus Christ His only Son, True God and True Man Who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered, died and was buried and rose from the dead. We believe in the apostolic Catholic church, the communion of saints, and the forgiveness of sin, and the resurrection of the dead. Now what is wrong with that and making it into a creed that we can all profess together?? Infallibility through the Holy Spirit, not man, was what insured our faith was properly formed through the Apostles and their successors.

Isn’t it a fact that what is so inspirational to people of faith is to see how a former sinner is transformed into a new person through faith in Christ? And those who are chosen to serve Christ in spirit and truth are likewise forgiven and redeemed? I mean, Christ has forgiven those in the Catholic Church who sought repentance…but some protestants refuse to forgive those Catholics of the past. We are then labelled with the same brush.

Our liturgies have developed and also branched out into various regions with their own rites. We have the liturgical year where the seasons and cycle of life are celebrated and acknowledged, saint and martyrs on the special feast days.

I would say our worship is very different from a Protestant service and you would have to study it before coming in to observe.

We have canon law, we have morality and teachings through our universal catechism, the communion of saints. We have a great history of helping the poor, and educating and healing the common people. Ours includes another great history of scholars, artists, musicians. I found out recently that much of our Sunday collection goes into the basket to serve and help non-Catholics in our area including some other denominations. We are ghetto Catholics no more.

All is derived from the Word Made Flesh…and what has come to us through faith in Christ as a church is the great benefit as well as having a culture of people.

We cannot limit the Word of God. I am sure that in person you are a great and spiritual person, alive with faith. Please note you will find many Catholics like yourself who are just as committed to the Word of God as you are.

 

[simspt]

Do you have any idea how many “works or letters or writings” that had to be sifted? It was a multitude in the hundreds if not thousands; therefore the only conclusion one can arrive at is the true conclusion which is the hand of God!! If you believe the authority of the Bible is inadequate; why not just say the what God said is inadequate and cut to the chase? May the Gospel of God penetrate your heart; my prayer to God the Father.

There is always a sucession of both the true and the false, but the question is who speaks for God? Well to answer that we must go to the Scripture and see who tells the Gospel of God and who teaches another gospel; just as Paul instructed Timothy and Titus.

But a succession in the way you ascribe; that is fallacy and arragant to begin with. For if your type of “successors” followed the Scripture and the discipline of those as overseers and deacons as the pastoral letters indicate, then you would not have the same blemished history that continues because the commands of those letters is ignored. We can go back to Paul and his dealings with those who were in authority and the problems he had and examples of how he dealt with them. It is not just the Roman Catholic Church that has this history, but other great religions as well. Viva Sola Sciptura!!

i am not denying the providence of God in the canon process. IMO God led his people by the Spirit in the practical road to canonization. I’m not denying this important divine guidance the Church received. Learning about the history of how our primary source documents came to be collected in the NT IMO should be foundational to anyone who considers those writings to be the final authority. If you affirm the Bible you should consider its formation within the life of the Church.

 

[simspt]

No, I don’t think inspiration was the sole criterion used for canonization, but I do believe inspiration was a requirement for those that were included. Most likely it took so long to finalize the canon because the inspired and useful texts were so intuitively obvious to the early church that they did not consider a canon necessary. Also, when I read the epistles I get the impression that the early church fully expected Christ to come again in their lifetimes. After a couple of generations they began to realize that God was going to wait a while and they should settle in for the long haul. I do not deny the Churches involvement in the canon. I was mostly reacting to the idea that the Catholic Church gave us the whole Bible, including the OT. The OT part is probably what set me off. The OT was very well established long before the advent of our Lord and the formation of the Church. To be sure the Church did play a very significant roll. My point was that God is the origin of the scriptures via inspiration of the authors and those who accurately transcribed and protected the original texts. He did so with the OT before the Church and He did so with the NT using the Church. The Church was just the tool, not the origin. I’m just trying to keep it real.

I can see both the church and NT being God’s “tools”. I think the testimony of the NT itself shows the importance of the community (church) that produced those writings.

 

[Texasgringo70]

Actually, it is not “smarts” but the revelation of God. God worked through the Church, just as He promised, to lead them into all Truth. He guided the persons to write, preserve, promulgate, and canonize His Holy Word.

Agreed. God used the Church. The origin is God, not the Church. Like I learned from the story of Balaam, God can use any old *** to get his message out.

If this were true, there would not be so much disunity in the Body.

What you call disunity others might call diversity. I have worshiped in and studied the beliefs of many protestant denominations. There is a great deal of unity in the core beliefs. There is absolutely nothing in the Nicene Creed that 99% or more of the protestant denominations do not agree on. I don’t really know what disunity you are talking about.

I have heard it said that the errant doctrine of Sola Scriptura presupposes a canon. I have always found that rather convenient.

I don’t quite follow you on this one. Are you saying the Church teaches that the books of the Bible were not considered scripture until they were canonized? If so, didn’t the Lord quote from the Law and the Prophets and wasn’t that considered scripture at the time?

No. There is nothing in the teaching of the Church that contradicts the Scripture in any way. It cannot, for both emanate from the same Source, in whom there is no contradiction.

What does contradict is the modern innovations of interpretation that have been made by those that have been separated from the Apostolic Succession.

OK. I addressed this one already, but not in response to you. This is the key issue with sola scriptura. Protestants do not have as much faith in mans ability to faithfully represent God for 2000 years as you do. The canon predates the changes in the Church that protestants have problems with, so we cling to the the words of the Bible as our standard by which all men and doctrines are to be measured. Obviously you are not going to be able to convince me that you are right and I am not going to be able to convince you that I am right. I didn’t think this forum was about changing peoples minds, but about learning about each others’ beliefs.

You’ll have to help me out on the contradictions part. I’m not sure what you are talking about. I am tempted to ask you which contradictions you are talking about, but that would take us down a road we would probably both regret.

If this were true, there would not be so much disunity in the body. Those who are in disagreement are all sincere in their “figurings”.

I disagree about all the disagreements, but I chose not to be disagreeable.

Yes, I have to agree with that.

Yes! We found something to agree on. Praise the Lord!

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
If this were true, there would not be so much disunity in the Body.

What you call disunity others might call diversity.

Diversity? Where did Jesus,Apostles or the early church promote or advocate diversity? Sounds like a mere cop out to defend the theological madness of Protestanism

I have worshiped in and studied the beliefs of many protestant denominations. There is a great deal of unity in the core beliefs

.

Which begs the question: If there is a ‘great’ deal of unity,then why go off and form entire different churches? Lots of unity,but divided by the scores? I do not see where your logic lies.

There is absolutely nothing in the Nicene Creed that 99% or more of the protestant denominations do not agree on

.

Oh really? And how many of those 99% of Protestant denominations profess the Nicene Creed every Sunday? And again,then why be dividied into thousands upon thousands of different churches?

I don’t really know what disunity you are talking about.

And I really do not know what “unity” you are talking about.

 

[Texasgringo70]

I knew what you were trying to say, thus my agreement with you earlier. And also you’re right about the Church thinking that the second coming was imminent as well. Also, I agree with the Church being the tool to assemble the Holy Book, but then that’s exactly the point. The Church is the only tool that Jesus forged to spread the faith,and to protect the faith. Tool is a multi-purpose tool which included the Tradition and the Sacraments… there was no need to forge any other tools because it is a complete tool.

Nice to know there is so much we can agree on. I started to get too excited just now, but I deleted the three paragraphs I just wrote. I didn’t want to have put myself in time out. I’ll just say that what makes us different is our opinion of where the walls of Church ere. God is bigger than any church, and I think we presume too much to say that God can only work in the way we think He will work. I hope that we are both right and that God has chosen to use both our respective churches to further His kingdom.

Blessings to you.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Beth, I don’t think you get what we are saying…again, your orientation is so very different.

Praise God and thanks for the confirmation!!

We are not errant like your indoctrination teaches you…

So you are inerrant; that makes you Goddess!! :bigyikes:

We have one, great, big massive gap here.

Hey we agreee on something in an unfortunate manner. I would love to here you teach me the Gospel of God that can save my soul according to your traditions…care to try?

CAF has a forum that covers Scripture. You have alot of highly referenced people but until you understand our reference – I can understand yours – it is a long, long road to Tipperary.

God bless you!

Going on vacation to Ireland? Have a safe trip and may God bless you on your journey.

 

[Beth_Martin]

Apparently you do not read my reply to your other posts where I asked you to provide historical proof were St.Ignatius taught and defended Sola Scripture. All you did was throw a sucker punch.

If you cared to read St. Ignatius; you would see doctrinal error mixed with truth. For example he made the claim that after the asention of Christ the first thing the Apostles did was choose a replacement for Judas Iscariot. Is that accurate? What does the Scripture or better yet, Peter say? God choose. He also mentions Paul commanding Timothy to appoint other overseers and deacons, which is true because it is written in Scripture in a letter passed around before he made the statement. He also said that Paul told Timothy to ordain overseers. Is this what is taught in Scripture? Nope; God ordains and men appoint following rules that God ordained - see the difference?. Appoint and ordain have two different uses and meanings. If you just read what these early fathers said and compare it to what is written you will see no deviations, but you must first read your Scripture and then compare it. Then count how many times Jesus said “it is written” or “so that Scripture would be fulfilled”. How many times did Paul and Peter use similar phrases?

I get back to my original statement. How could you be convinced to accept a true, correct and adequate answer that he or she is unwilling to accept much less even consider?

Scoffing? Show me the command from Jesus for any mere mortal to start their own church based on his/her private interpretation of scripture? Show me where Jesus gave anyone the authority to start their own church,so I too can start my own church. I did not know Jesus was into competition,since He alone already founded ONE church 2,000 years ago.

Scoffing even more? You must find joy in it is all I can conclude. At least you tell the truth that Jesus is building His church and not the Catholic church as Scripture teaches although I believe that was a Freudian slip on your part.

“Religion is man searching for God; Christianity is God seeking man, manifesting Himself to him, drawing Himself unto him.”

• Dr. Martyn Lloyd Jones

It is time for us to depart company; you are a very bitter and stubborn person who shows no regard for Gods Word or for Gods people. I pray you are able to deny yourself of human pride, pick up a cross and follow Him. May God bless you to that end. I will not be responding to you any longer for a variety of reasons, but the primary is for the sake of the rest that is reading our “dialogue”.