Sola Scriptura Silence

[fhansen]

If salvation comes about through baptism, then all of Israel has perished. But we know that’s not true.

**Baptism is an expression of faith-an act of obedience of Christs command for those who’ve heard it-like Abraham being willing to follow Gods command to sacrifice Isaac. Fortunately God didn’t require him to follow through but He wants our faith demonstrated -which Abraham did-because talk is cheap and faith without works is dead.

Let me remind you that your church is another who sincerely believes that it’s interpreted Scripture correctly.

Yes, it’s the only one that has any logical right to make the claim among any church or person who may feel they have that right or ability.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And there’s only one authentic teaching in SS as well. All of the other views of what scripture teaches are varying degrees of acceptance, or rejection of the truth.

You seem to want to make a syllogysm there where none exists. Are you trying to say there’s only one authentic teaching about SS or one authentic teaching of the truth? The views of what Scripture teaches have nothing to do with SS. They are interpretations.

There is only one authentic teaching about SS and that is all truth can be found only in Scripture. After that, which one of the 40,000 teaches the truth? You’ve never answered that one.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Well you know, the one to whom that post is directed, and that’s not you, he understands what I’ve said.

It’s always you who doesn’t understand.

You’re confused again, Howie. Seems to be a permanent state of being with you. This is a public forum. If you want your messages to between you and your addressee, use private mail.

It doesn’t matter if he understands what you said. You didn’t say what you said you said and I corrected you after reading your snide remark that he go back and read your message. Now what is it I don’t understand?

 

[Howie01]

Ferde Rombola:

You seem to want to make a syllogysm there where none exists. Are you trying to say there’s only one authentic teaching about SS or one authentic teaching of the truth? The views of what Scripture teaches have nothing to do with SS. They are interpretations.

I’m saying both, Ferde. SS is the overarching position that scripture contains within itself everything that is needed to come to the knowledge of salvation in Christ through faith, and all that is needed with respect to faith and morals.
Ferde Rombola:

There is only one authentic teaching about SS and that is all truth can be found only in Scripture.

Actually, Ferde, that’s not what SS teaches, and your statement that it does again gives testimony to the fact that you’re not paying attention. Had you read the article by Godfrey that I linked, you would read high up in the article what SS is not.
Ferde Rombola:

After that, which one of the 40,000 teaches the truth? You’ve never answered that one.

As I said to fhansen, common sense should tell you the answer to that, Ferde, as common sense tells me that you’re a Catholic because you believe the RC to be the teacher of truth.
Ferde Rombola:

You’re confused again, Howie. Seems to be a permanent state of being with you.

Ferde, you continue to engage in projecting upon me, the mental state in which you exist. ISTM, the axiom that “misery loves company,” is alive and well.
Ferde Rombola:

This is a public forum. If you want your messages to between you and your addressee, use private mail.

I’m not complaining that you respond to things I’ve posted to others, Ferde, but that, ISTM, you are consistently unable to understand what I’m saying.
Ferde Rombola:

It doesn’t matter if he understands what you said. You didn’t say what you said you said and I corrected you after reading your snide remark that he go back and read your message.

It wasn’t a snide remark, Ferde, again, you project your practice onto me.

 

[Howie01]

fhansen:

Baptism is an expression of faith-an act of obedience of Christs command for those who’ve heard it-like Abraham being willing to follow Gods command to sacrifice Isaac. Fortunately God didn’t require him to follow through but He wants our faith demonstrated -which Abraham did-because talk is cheap and faith without works is dead.

You’re brushing aside what I’ve stated and asked:

If salvation comes about through baptism, then all of Israel has perished. But we know that’s not true.

But what is true is that salvation comes about by grace through faith (Eph 2:8). That’s not a NT truth only, but an eternal truth. That’s clearly taught by God with Abraham, who transcends the covenants. Was Abraham saved by circumcision? Was he saved by baptism? Or, was Abraham saved by faith?

fhansen:

Yes, it’s the only one that has any logical right to make the claim among any church or person who may feel they have that right or ability.

Well, you’re not the first to make that argument. In a post on another thread, one of your fellows, when continually pressed concerning the fallibility of us both, made the following statement concerning my belief of truth as based upon my understanding of scripture, and his belief of the truth as based upon the historicity of the RCC:But both Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong.Basically, he’s just “playing the odds.”

He further stated that his decision had nothing to do with what scripture says because, as a Catholic, he has no opinion on that, but only follows the church’s teaching.

ISTM his decision to be Catholic has to do with personal preference, rather than having a firm theological foundation.

 

[SHW]

If salvation comes about through baptism, then all of Israel has perished. But we know that’s not true.

No; the Israelites were under a different covenant. They were not required to be baptized. But, in Jesus’ New Covenant Church, He commands baptism is order for persons to become His disciples:

Matthew 28:19-20 "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

We become His disciples through baptism. How does a person remain His disciple? Continue with the next verse in order to find out:

Matthew 28:20 "teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen."

We must “do” the things that are commanded. Observe: to adhere to, follow, keep, or abide by (a law, custom, duty, rule, etc.)

John 8:31 “Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed.”
**
Abide: to remain, continue, endure, go on being, stand fast.**

We must do what is commanded of us if we desire to abide/remain in His Word, and it is by obeying His Church who speaks for Him, that we actually continue to be His disciples. (Luke 10:16)

Salvation is a life-long process. It is not a one-time event.

Pax,
SHW

 

[fhansen]

You’re brushing aside what I’ve stated and asked:

**Israel lives or dies the same way we all do-in reference to obedience to Gods will which is to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength and our neighbor as ourselves. Baptism is one expression of that love and that love always implies faith while faith doesn’t necessarily imply love. **

Well, you’re not the first to make that argument. In a post on another thread, one of your fellows, when continually pressed concerning the fallibility of us both, made the following statement concerning my belief of truth as based upon my understanding of scripture, and his belief of the truth as based upon the historicity of the RCC:But both Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong.Basically, he’s just “playing the odds.”

He further stated that his decision had nothing to do with what scripture says because, as a Catholic, he has no opinion on that, but only follows the church’s teaching.

ISTM his decision to be Catholic has to do with personal preference, rather than having a firm theological foundation.

My argument’s not based on probability-at least as far as SS is concerned. The history of the Church combined with the logical fallacy of SS which has been demonstrated adequately in this thread make the Catholic and Orthodox Churches the only serious contenders for those who can rightly divide the word of truth. From a glimpse of understanding of that assertion of the Churchs’ role, God can lead us into agreement with her as we recognize His voice there in much the same manner as we hear His voice in the written Word-believe it or not. So becoming a Catholic-if one really is converted –may mean having personal experience rather than preference but in any case God doesn’t require theology degrees in order to know the truth-my uneducated Italian grandmother from a basically peasant background lived her faith all her life-the CCs’ message fitting the bill just fine regarding Gods’ nature and will.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m saying both, Ferde. SS is the overarching position that scripture contains within itself everything that is needed to come to the knowledge of salvation in Christ through faith, and all that is needed with respect to faith and morals.

Well, what does ‘everything’ consist of if not the truth? Faith doesn’t impart knowledge and, to be worth anything, knowledge must contain the truth, so how is my definition not correct?

Actually, Ferde, that’s not what SS teaches, and your statement that it does again gives testimony to the fact that you’re not paying attention.

That’s about the tenth time you’ve said that, but you have yet to prove it. I’m paying attention, Howie. Believe me, I understand everything you say except when you post an incoherent message. If SS doesn’t tell you the truth, what good is it to you?

Had you read the article by Godfrey that I linked, you would read high up in the article what SS is not.

I’m sorry, but I have no interest in what Godfrey has to say. He’s a protestant and will tell me what protestants believe. I think protestants are wrong from a to z, so what’s the point? As I said, I can get the same thing from you.

As I said to fhansen, common sense should tell you the answer to that, Ferde, as common sense tells me that you’re a Catholic because you believe the RC to be the teacher of truth.

Okay, common sense tells me none of the 40,000 sects of protstantism could possibly contain the truth. I don’t follow the connection between my beliefs and my question (which of the 40,000 has the truth?). I didn’t ask you why you’re a protestant. I merely said you haven’t answered the question, and you haven’t.

Yes, I’m Catholic because I believe the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the Christian Faith. The difference between Catholics and protestants is, we can prove it. From Scripture, your denials notwithstanding.

I’m not complaining that you respond to things I’ve posted to others, Ferde, but that, ISTM, you are consistently unable to understand what I’m saying.

Your constant repetition of that doesn’t make it true, does it? I asked you what it is I don’t understand and you haven’t answered that, either.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You’ve done that, Randy.

Here, look:
544 Apeitheo; from the neg. a (1), without, and peitho (3982), to persuade. Not to believe, to disbelieve implying disobedience also (John 3:36; Acts 14:2; Rom 10:21; Heb 3:18); to disobey as through unbelief
That’s what I said, and the authority you cite, cites the verse under consideration, Jn 3:36, as an example of the usage: “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who refuses to believe in the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” All unbelievers are presently under the wrath of God.

Again, Randy, in context, the disobedience being described by John is refusal to believe in Christ.

One who refuses to believe doesn’t have salvation.

Wait a second. Are you saying that believing in Christ is an act of obedience? Obeying someone is something that you DO. Therefore, justification is not by faith alone; it requires a work - obedience, also. I don’t think you want to go down that trail.

I don’t recall anyone ever saying, “For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten son that whoever should obey Him will have eternal life.”

So, the translation that I provided seems to capture the true meaning of the verse more completely: “he who does not obey the Son will not see life…” Believe AND obey. Faith AND Works. See how this comes together just as the Church has been proclaiming for 2,000 years?

One who believes but disobeys loses his salvation. OSAS is a lie that is causing many souls to be lost.

Right, it’s the OT:
Acts 17:2

And according to Paul’s custom, he went to them, and…reasoned with them from the Scriptures, explaining and giving evidence that the Christ had to suffer and rise again from the dead, and saying, “This Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you is the Christ.”
Jesus also used the OT Scriptures, which are able to bring one to the knowledge of salvation by faith, to explain the same:
Luke 24:27

Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.
And I’ll tie that back into the 2 Tim 3 passage, the early church had the sacred writings which are able to give the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus, and they’re able to equip God’s people for every good work. Well, that was easy. You agree that Paul referred Timothy to the OT since the NT did not yet exist. Do you also acknowledge that Paul, Timothy and Jesus would have used the Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew OT?

In light of the fact that Timothy was only familiar with the OT, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot possibly be an exhortation that the Bible should act as the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer since the NT did not even exist at the time. But I cannot help but notice that you have failed to interact with Paul’s point that Timothy knew those from whom he had heard the gospel. What do you suppose that means in terms of the leadership of the early Church?

Akin has spoken, the case is closed?

Unless you have a more compelling argument, I think Akin has boxed you in on this point. If you feel otherwise, then by all means, make your case.

And there’s only one authentic teaching in SS as well. All of the other views of what scripture teaches are varying degrees of acceptance, or rejection of the truth.

Protestants can’t even agree of the definition of *sola scriptura *itself, so to say that there is a single Protestant interpretation of scripture regarding many (if not most) doctrinal matters is simply untrue.

However, how can I find that Protestant denomination which teaches that authentic teaching? One group teaches that baptism regenerates; another denies this. One denomination teaches that infant baptism is biblical; another rejects this belief. I could go on, but you get the point.

Since all of you claim to be led by the Spirit and to be following the Bible as your sole rule of faith and to be studying to show yourselves approved, how am I to understand the conflicting and contradictory doctrinal positions that seem to have arisen since the onset of the Protestant Reformation? I mean, if there’s only ONE “authentic teaching in SS” as you claim, why do so many denominations struggle to find it?

Are you suggesting that your group’s interpretations are the correct ones while all others are in varying degrees of acceptance or rejection of the truth?

Are your denominations doctrinal positions inerrant?

 

[Randy_Carson]

“Kittel [Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the NewTestament Eerdmans, 1968] states, "pisteuo means ‘to trust’ (also ‘to obey’)." Vines [W. E. Vines, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984)] says, “[R]eliance upon, not mere credence.” This is confirmed further by John the Baptist’s statement in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” The word “apeitheo” is understood by all good translators and commentators to mean obedience. The opposite (antonym) of believe is disobey. The verse in the RSV says, “He who believes in the Son . . . he who disobeys the Son . . .” The NASB translates the verse as, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Kittel, a Protestant reference work, clearly defines apeitheo to mean “to be disobedient.” The word belief has the element of obedience wrapped in its arms and the opposite of biblical belief is disobedience.”

from
John 3:16 and eternal security
By Steve Ray
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9509fea2.asp

Bottom line? If you can disobey, you can lose your salvation.

 

[Howie01]

Ferde Rombola:

Well, what does ‘everything’ consist of if not the truth?..so how is my definition not correct?

I’m saying both, Ferde. SS is the overarching position that scripture contains within itself everything that is needed to come to the knowledge of salvation in Christ through faith, and all that is needed with respect to faith and morals.

My statement is in “blue,” your statement is in “black.” Notice how you’ve edited my definition of SS from “everything that is needed to come to the knowledge of salvation in Christ through faith, and all that is needed with respect to faith and morals,” down to one word: “everything?”

Therein is the answer to your question, “so how is my definition not correct?”

It’s not correct, Ferde, because you’re not responding to me, but to your edit.

IOW, you’re erecting a straw man, IMO.
Ferde Rombola:

That’s about the tenth time you’ve said that, but you have yet to prove it. I’m paying attention, Howie. Believe me, I understand everything you say except when you post an incoherent message. If SS doesn’t tell you the truth, what good is it to you?

You’re prove it Ferde, by editing my statements, and arguing with your edit.

Again, SS does not state that all of truth is contained in Scripture, and you would know that had you carefully read Godfrey’s essay in which he states near the beginning what SS is not..

(I actually think you know what he said, but you don’t care; you’re more enamored with your straw man.)
Ferde Rombola:

I’m sorry, but I have no interest in what Godfrey has to say.

Obviously.

You make it quite clear that you don’t care how those who adhere to SS define it. You’re more interested in defining it yourself.

I’m about to leave the argument as I feel like a third-wheel in this self-love affair in which, ISTM, your true interest is focused.
Ferde Rombola:

Okay, common sense tells me none of the 40,000 sects of protstantism could possibly contain the truth.

You again completely ignore the context of my statement, and use your out-of-context understanding to answer a question other than the question I asked.
Ferde Rombola:

Yes, I’m Catholic because I believe the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the Christian Faith.

I’ve gathered that by common sense, Ferde.
Ferde Rombola:

The difference between Catholics and protestants is, we can prove it.

I’ve also gathered, by common sense, that you believe that.
Ferde Rombola:

Your constant repetition of that doesn’t make it true, does it?

Absolutely not; it’s your actions that make it true.
Ferde Rombola:

I asked you what it is I don’t understand and you haven’t answered that, either.

That the pillar and foundation—the church—upholds the truth, and that truth is found in scripture.

 

[Jerry_Marino]

it has been my pleasure in communicating with you all and my hope is that all repent and trust Christ for their salvation.

God bless

 

[Howie01]

Randy Carson:

Wait a second. Are you saying that believing in Christ is an act of obedience? Obeying someone is something that you DO. Therefore, justification is not by faith alone; it requires a work - obedience, also. I don’t think you want to go down that trail.

I have no problem going “down that trail” with you, Randy.

The difference between you and me on faith as a “work,” is that scripture clearly states that salvation is not by works, but by grace through faith (Eph 2:8ff). Therefore, although believing is something the believer must “do,” that exercise of faith in the gospel is not considered a meritorious work for which God gives salvation as a reward, or pay. It is rather, the personal reception of God’s gracious offer of His forgiveness of sins and of His gift of spiritual life in Christ. Furthermore, the believer can’t receive any credit for believing the gospel, because salvational faith is God’s gift, even though the faith seems to be one’s own (2 Pet 1:1; Acts 3:16); 11:18).
Randy Carson:

OSAS is a lie that is causing many souls to be lost.

Here again in your confusion, you blame a doctrine for lost souls, rather than the lost souls themselves for their refusal to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.
Randy Carson:

Well, that was easy. You agree that Paul referred Timothy to the OT since the NT did not yet exist.

Yep.
Randy Carson:

Do you also acknowledge that Paul, Timothy and Jesus would have used the Septuagint as opposed to the Hebrew OT?

Most agree that it was the Septuagint because so many of the Jews were “Hellenized,” and didn’t speak Hebrew.
Randy Carson:

In light of the fact that Timothy was only familiar with the OT, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 cannot possibly be an exhortation that the Bible should act as the sole infallible rule of faith for the believer since the NT did not even exist at the time. But I cannot help but notice that you have failed to interact with Paul’s point that Timothy knew those from whom he had heard the gospel. What do you suppose that means in terms of the leadership of the early Church?

That we should listen to Paul, and if we have a mother and grandmother who possess sincere faith, we should listen to them as well (cf 2 Tim 1:5).
Randy Carson:

Unless you have a more compelling argument, I think Akin has boxed you in on this point.

And yet, I feel so “unboxed in,” by his argument. However, I do understand your commitment to it.
Randy Carson:

Protestants can’t even agree of the definition of sola scriptura itself, so to say that there is a single Protestant interpretation of scripture regarding many (if not most) doctrinal matters is simply untrue.

I don’t recall saying there is a single “protestant interpretation” of scripture. But, if I gave you that impression, let me clarify—there is only one truth, and that God’s truth, and the portion that He’s revealed to His people is found in the scriptures (cf Dt 29:29).
Randy Carson:

However, how can I find that Protestant denomination which teaches that authentic teaching?

ISTM you don’t you believe that any protestant denomination has the truth, Randy; so why do you ask the question?
Randy Carson:

Since all of you claim to be led by the Spirit and to be following the Bible as your sole rule of faith and to be studying to show yourselves approved, how am I to understand the conflicting and contradictory doctrinal positions that seem to have arisen since the onset of the Protestant Reformation?

Well, I don’t why you’re asking me that question. But, ISTM that you understand the conflicting and contradictory doctrinal positions in Protestantism to mean that no protestant denomination since the Reformation has the truth.

Hope that helps. :tiphat:
Randy Carson:

Are you suggesting that your group’s interpretations are the correct ones while all others are in varying degrees of acceptance or rejection of the truth?

I think common sense dictates that would be my position.
Randy Carson:

Are your denominations doctrinal positions inerrant?

There’s always that possibility, as every human is fallible. The difference between you and me in that is, it’s no threat for me to admit my fallibility, but I think it is a threat for you to admit yours.

 

[SteveGC]

it has been my pleasure in communicating with you all and my hope is that all repent and trust Christ for their salvation.

God bless

We do, Jerry.

And we, likewise, hope that you do as well.

 

[SHW]

it has been my pleasure in communicating with you all and my hope is that all repent and trust Christ for their salvation.

God bless

Hi Jerry,

We actually trust Jesus for our salvation by being participating members in His Church and His Sacraments which He authorized in order to bring salvation to all peoples. It does not state in the Bible that you can just “accept Jesus as your personal Savior and then you are automatically saved forever.” Your beliefs are what Paul calls “fables.” (2 Timothy 4:3-5)

Pax,
SHW

 

[Howie01]

“Kittel [Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the NewTestament Eerdmans, 1968]
states, “pisteuo means ‘to trust’ (also ‘to obey’).” Vines [W. E. Vines, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984)] says, “[R]eliance upon, not mere credence.” This is confirmed further by John the Baptist’s statement in John 3:36, “He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not (apeitheo) the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.” The word “apeitheo” is understood by all good translators and commentators to mean obedience. The opposite (antonym) of believe is disobey. The verse in the RSV says, “He who believes in the Son . . . he who disobeys the Son . . .” The NASB translates the verse as, “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.” Kittel, a Protestant reference work, clearly defines apeitheo to mean “to be disobedient.” The word belief has the element of obedience wrapped in its arms and the opposite of biblical belief is disobedience.”

from
John 3:16 and eternal security
By Steve Ray
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9509fea2.asp

Bottom line? If you can disobey, you can lose your salvation.

You’re wasting your time in flitting between authorities, Randy. (But I’m getting into your desperation in doing so.) Also, Vines lists apeitheo as a “refusal to belief,” consistent with the first lexical authority you cited, but that was not mentioned by the writer you linked, even though he quoted Vine’s.

Again, in context, the disobedience being described by John is refusal to believe in Christ.

One who refuses to believe doesn’t have salvation.

 

[Howie01]

SHW:

No; the Israelites were under a different covenant. They were not required to be baptized. But, in Jesus’ New Covenant Church, He commands baptism is order for persons to become His disciples:

Abraham transcends the covenants. We learn through Abraham that all men who will be saved, will be saved by grace through faith (cf Eph 2:8ff).

 

[Howie01]

inkaneer:

But where in the scriptures does it say that the truth upheld by the church is found only in the scriptures? You tell me. Because if you can’t find where the scriptures say that all truth is found in the scriptures then it’s something you added to the scriptures to support your failed belief system.

As a Catholic, you have little difficulty submitting to things not found in Scripture. You refer to them as, Tradition.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

As a Catholic, you have little difficulty submitting to things not found in Scripture. You refer to them as, Tradition.

Not all of God’s revelations are to be found in Scripture, nor does Scripture say such a thing. The fullness of God’s revelations are to be found in the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church. That Church depends on its Tradition (as handed down from the Apostles, as a Deposit of Faith, inviolate, and incorrupt) and the Holy Scripture. Tradition upholds the Scriptures, and Scriptures uphold the Traditions. This has been God’s plan since the days when he accepted and molded a Holy People; from the time of Abraham, as a family, then from Moses as a nation, then from the Apostles as His Kingdom and Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I have no problem going “down that trail” with you, Randy.

The difference between you and me on faith as a “work,” is that scripture clearly states that salvation is not by works, but by grace through faith (Eph 2:8ff). Therefore, although believing is something the believer must “do,” that exercise of faith in the gospel is not considered a meritorious work for which God gives salvation as a reward, or pay. It is rather, the personal reception of God’s gracious offer of His forgiveness of sins and of His gift of spiritual life in Christ. Furthermore, the believer can’t receive any credit for believing the gospel, because salvational faith is God’s gift, even though the faith seems to be one’s own (2 Pet 1:1; Acts 3:16); 11:18).

Before we waste too much bandwidth on this, let me ask you for clarification: is it your belief that Catholics belive that they are saved by works? Or are you aware that Catholics believe we are saved by Grace?

Here again in your confusion, you blame a doctrine for lost souls, rather than the lost souls themselves for their refusal to believe the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Actually, what I am referring to is the souls who believe that they are OSAS, and thus, although they may have believed earnestly enough, they live as though salvation could not be lost. Now, to be clear, there are those believe that it is not possible for someone to lose his or her salvation. Period. It appears that you are in that camp, but I want to be sure. What is your view?

Most agree that it was the Septuagint because so many of the Jews were “Hellenized,” and didn’t speak Hebrew.

Okay. And you are aware also that the Septuagint that Jesus, Paul, and Timothy would have used contained seven books which you would call the Apocrypha, correct?

That we should listen to Paul, and if we have a mother and grandmother who possess sincere faith, we should listen to them as well (cf 2 Tim 1:5).

Good advice. However, in the case of Paul (and the other apostles), do you not see that Paul is advocating that there are those who can be trusted and, by implication, those who should not be trusted? The Apostles and their hand-picked successors, the bishops, priests and deacons, form the Magisterium of the Church - though that word did not come into use until later. Paul is not advocating just picking up your Bible and working it out all on your own. The formula Paul provides in his second letter to Timothy is Scripture + Tradition (oral teaching) + Magisterium (teaching authority of trustworthy leaders). There is no advocacy of sola scriptura in this passage.

And yet, I feel so “unboxed in,” by his argument. However, I do understand your commitment to it.

And I understand that you are completely oblivious of the fact that your argument using the “divisions” within Catholicism is without merit. Even if we were to agree that Catholicism is HIGHLY FRACTURED, how would that help you to justify the fact that your own house is not in order? Sola scriptura has left Protestantism in shambles.

I don’t recall saying there is a single “protestant interpretation” of scripture. But, if I gave you that impression, let me clarify—there is only one truth, and that God’s truth, and the portion that He’s revealed to His people is found in the scriptures (cf Dt 29:29).

Thanks for this. So, why are so many Protestants at odds with one another about what this single truth is? Is Jesus really and truly present in the bread and wine of the Lord’s Supper as some Protestants claim or is it just a symbolic memorial as others claim? I keep pointing out the contradictory positions that Bible Only Christians hold, and you keep ignoring my questions. Little wonder why, of course.

ISTM you don’t you believe that any protestant denomination has the truth, Randy; so why do you ask the question?

To get you to think about it, of course. Have YOU found the one denomination that has all the doctrines figured out correctly? If so, please share it with us…

Well, I don’t why you’re asking me that question. But, ISTM that you understand the conflicting and contradictory doctrinal positions in Protestantism to mean that no protestant denomination since the Reformation has the truth.

Protestants claim to be led by the Spirit and to go by the Bible Alone. Yet, they cannot agree with one another on basic doctrinal issues. Therefore, SOMEONE has to be teaching false doctrine, but they all CLAIM to be “approved workmen”. This doesn’t strike you as a problem?

I think common sense dictates that would be my position.

Naturally. Lucky you’ve found the one true church though, right?

There’s always that possibility, as every human is fallible. The difference between you and me in that is, it’s no threat for me to admit my fallibility, but I think it is a threat for you to admit yours.

The truth is the exact opposite. I KNOW with certainty that I am fallible. That is why I am blessed to be part of the ONLY Church that Jesus promised to lead into all truth. I am not dependent on my personal interpretation of the Bible; the promises of Christ were made to the original leaders of the Catholic Church, the Apostles, and that Church has not been overcome in 2,000 years. On the other hand, it seems that non-Catholics all give lip-service to the idea that they are fallible, but at the end of the day, they ACT as if each one of them is as infallible as the Pope. Common sense dictates that would be their position.