Sola Scriptura

[bogeydogg]

Substantially this will be a post maybe thread about sola scriptura. I realize of course that there are like ten million threads about this so far but most of them devolve into discussions about the veracity of Scripture etc. and I wanted to throw something onto the ring.

Yes the idea of sola scriptura is that Sacred Scripture is the final word on all truth in that it is inerrant, infallible, and inspired and as such is the final arbiter of truth fundamental or otherwise. However I think it is fair to point out that while of course all Church Doctrine should be conformed to the Scriptures, a teaching I am sure any Christian Catholic and otherwise would agree with, however it is because the Bible is not an exhaustive book of propositional truths that this doctrine should be taken with the very limitations imposed upon it by the fact that bible is limited in it’s own scope.

There is no reason to jump up and down and yell that sola scriptura is not found in the Bible, any protestant who believes should be able to tell you that, rather what should be said is, “What does this doctrine mean?”

In the subject matter which is covered by the Bible the Bible is the final authority and is the ultimate and final word on such matters. When the Bible does not comment on a question, God saw fit to give us an extraordinarily powerful super-computer between our ears and as such we are at least a little bit obligated to use it. The great irony of protestant believer’s obscurantist views about tradition is that they have substituted the traditions of Saints Thomas, Augustine, Jerome, Ignatius, Iranneus, etc. for the traditions of Luther, calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, etc. They do this without a backward glance or the least abashment because to them they are right and have the right sort of tradition.

It is upon this fundamental separation that a great gulf is dug between Catholic and non-Catholic and it is unfortunate because we all should be worshipping the same God and in doing so be brotherly toward each other.

As a man who considers himself more orthodox/Catholic than protestant, but having been raised non-Christian and then coming to faith in a protestant context, it saddens me terribly that with the real Enemy out there we are so busy buzz-word baiting each other and pretending that the signs in front of our buildings are the things about which we should be most concerned, when at this very moment there are many who will never darken the door of any Church because when they see us they see a bunch of petty nasty backbiters fighting constantly with each other rather than baptizing and evangelizing which is what we are commissioned to do by God Himself.

Just a thought.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Substantially this will be a post maybe thread about sola scriptura. I realize of course that there are like ten million threads about this so far but most of them devolve into discussions about the veracity of Scripture etc. and I wanted to throw something onto the ring.

Yes the idea of sola scriptura is that Sacred Scripture is the final word on all truth in that it is inerrant, infallible, and inspired and as such is the final arbiter of truth fundamental or otherwise. However I think it is fair to point out that while of course all Church Doctrine should be conformed to the Scriptures, a teaching I am sure any Christian Catholic and otherwise would agree with, however it is because the Bible is not an exhaustive book of propositional truths that this doctrine should be taken with the very limitations imposed upon it by the fact that bible is limited in it’s own scope.

There is no reason to jump up and down and yell that sola scriptura is not found in the Bible, any protestant who believes should be able to tell you that, rather what should be said is, “What does this doctrine mean?”

In the subject matter which is covered by the Bible the Bible is the final authority and is the ultimate and final word on such matters. When the Bible does not comment on a question, God saw fit to give us an extraordinarily powerful super-computer between our ears and as such we are at least a little bit obligated to use it. The great irony of protestant believer’s obscurantist views about tradition is that they have substituted the traditions of Saints Thomas, Augustine, Jerome, Ignatius, Iranneus, etc. for the traditions of Luther, calvin, Zwingli, Edwards, etc. They do this without a backward glance or the least abashment because to them they are right and have the right sort of tradition.

It is upon this fundamental separation that a great gulf is dug between Catholic and non-Catholic and it is unfortunate because we all should be worshipping the same God and in doing so be brotherly toward each other.

As a man who considers himself more orthodox/Catholic than protestant, but having been raised non-Christian and then coming to faith in a protestant context, it saddens me terribly that with the real Enemy out there we are so busy buzz-word baiting each other and pretending that the signs in front of our buildings are the things about which we should be most concerned, when at this very moment there are many who will never darken the door of any Church because when they see us they see a bunch of petty nasty backbiters fighting constantly with each other rather than baptizing and evangelizing which is what we are commissioned to do by God Himself.

Just a thought.

For your information, the early church fathers, in their writings, all supported *Sola Scriptura *and said that if tradition could not be backed up by Scripture, then it should be discarded. That is the very early church fathers in the first two or three centuries.

It was after that that people began to change the Scriptures and other books began to be written that deviated from Scripture and when Constantine introduced pagan rites into Christianity, then the heretics had a field day.

Irenæus was one of the first to combat heresies and he always appealed to Scripture in order to combat heresy. So did the other early writers. The church was much different then. Read the writings of those early fathers and see for yourself. It was later that the writers began to change things and invent new doctrine that could not be substantiated by Scripture. That is what the Roman Catholic Church has become today. And remember it did not become the Roman Catholic Church until the 5th and 6th centuries. Before that it was an apostolic church that taught Scripture only.

 

[teachccd]

For your information, the early church fathers, in their writings, all supported *Sola Scriptura *and said that if tradition could not be backed up by Scripture, then it should be discarded. That is the very early church fathers in the first two or three centuries.

It was after that that people began to change the Scriptures and other books began to be written that deviated from Scripture and when Constantine introduced pagan rites into Christianity, then the heretics had a field day.

Irenæus was one of the first to combat heresies and he always appealed to Scripture in order to combat heresy. So did the other early writers. The church was much different then. Read the writings of those early fathers and see for yourself. It was later that the writers began to change things and invent new doctrine that could not be substantiated by Scripture. That is what the Roman Catholic Church has become today. And remember it did not become the Roman Catholic Church until the 5th and 6th centuries. Before that it was an apostolic church that taught Scripture only.

Where in the world did you get all of that nonsense??

Irenaeus believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Do you?? I could go on for pages but to say that the Catholic Church did not exist before the 6th century is simple ignorance of Church history. Saint Ignatius of Antioch identified the Christian Church as Catholic in the year 107 A.D. in his Apology letter.The Early Church fathers all supported Sola Scriptura? You have got to be kidding. The Early Church Fathers represent the Sacred Tradition that Catholicism holds to and they were the ones who, in the councils of Hippo and Carthage, acknowledged Sacred Scripture in light of the Christian community and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve read many letters written by the Early Church Fathers and that is why I am the strong Catholic that I am today. How could you ever make them into Protestants?? Where in the world did you come up with your unsubstantiated propaganda?? Of course Tradition must align with Scripture since Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture all flow from the same wellspring, the revelation of God…You can sell your post to someone unfamiliar with the writings of the ECF’s but not to me, my friend…God Bless…teachccd

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Where in the world did you get all of that nonsense??

Irenaeus believed in the Real Presence of the Eucharist. Do you?? I could go on for pages but to say that the Catholic Church did not exist before the 6th century is simple ignorance of Church history. Saint Ignatius of Antioch identified the Christian Church as Catholic in the year 107 A.D. in his Apology letter.The Early Church fathers all supported Sola Scriptura? You have got to be kidding. The Early Church Fathers represent the Sacred Tradition that Catholicism holds to and they were the ones who, in the councils of Hippo and Carthage, acknowledged Sacred Scripture in light of the Christian community and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

I’ve read many letters written by the Early Church Fathers and that is why I am the strong Catholic that I am today. How could you ever make them into Protestants?? Where in the world did you come up with your unsubstantiated propaganda?? Of course Tradition must align with Scripture since Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture all flow from the same wellspring, the revelation of God…You can sell your post to someone unfamiliar with the writings of the ECF’s but not to me, my friend…God Bless…teachccd

LOL, the REAL scandal with a Protestant claiming the Early Church Fathers believe in Sola Scriptura is the fact that it means using Sola Scriptura the ECFs came up with many of the same damable heresies Catholics accept and Protestants condemn/reject as unBiblical.

 

[DarkMark]

For your information, the early church fathers, in their writings, all supported *Sola Scriptura *and said that if tradition could not be backed up by Scripture, then it should be discarded. That is the very early church fathers in the first two or three centuries.

It was after that that people began to change the Scriptures and other books began to be written that deviated from Scripture and when Constantine introduced pagan rites into Christianity, then the heretics had a field day.
s
Irenæus was one of the first to combat heresies and he always appealed to Scripture in order to combat heresy. So did the other early writers. The church was much different then. Read the writings of those early fathers and see for yourself. It was later that the writers began to change things and invent new doctrine that could not be substantiated by Scripture. That is what the Roman Catholic Church has become today. And remember it did not become the Roman Catholic Church until the 5th and 6th centuries. Before that it was an apostolic church that taught Scripture only.

That is nonsense! No Church Father believed in Sola-Scriptural, it was invention by Martin Luther. You will not be able to find one solid Church Father who believed in Sola-Scripture. Even St, Irenaeus wrote, “The Universal Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles” (Against the Heresies). And again He wrote, ‘For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us their writings? Would it not be necessary to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those whom they did commit the Churches?’
(AH 3,4:1)

“Heretics assent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition”
(AH 3,2,1)

Tertullian, Ambrose, St. Basil, St Jerome, St John Chrusostom, St. Augustine, Athanasius, Ignatius of Antioch, and all the Early Church Fathers believed in Sacred Traditions and Sacred Scriptures.

Do you also believe in the Real Presence of The Holy Eucharist? In the Apostolic Succession? In the Authority of Bishops? Especially the Bishop of Rome? All this was taught by the same guy you talked about in your post: St Irenaeus. Why are you not Catholic? Have you even Read the Early Church Fathers writings? If you have you would have converted to the Catholic Church, for they all taught what we Catholic believed today!

Sacred Traditions and Sacred Scriptures all flowed from the same fountain! The Early Church Fathers believed in the Authority of Scriptures, and they use it heavily. But that does not negate the fact that they all believed in Apostolic Traditions, that were on the same authority as Scriptures.

And, the Catholic Church was founded by Jesus In Matthew 16:18 “Upon this Rock [Peter] I shall build my Church…”

The reason why I am Catholic today is because I read what the Early Church believed. And to my surprise, they all agree with what the Catholic Church teaches.

You can sell your post to those who are ignorant to the early Church Fathers writings, but not me.

 

[epostle]

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. “That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We’ve got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner’s Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow’s closing communion service . . .”

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I’m not making this up. The article, “What Really Happened at Nicea?” actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical “scholarship,” whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon “archaeology,” or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly “researched,” and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn’t let it stand without response.
“Ancient Baptists” and Other Myths
By Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.

 

[bogeydogg]

Wow. It’s really great how folks take an appeal for peace and fight over it. Lovely. Really.

 

[bogeydogg]

For your information, the early church fathers, in their writings, all supported *Sola Scriptura *and said that if tradition could not be backed up by Scripture, then it should be discarded. That is the very early church fathers in the first two or three centuries.

It was after that that people began to change the Scriptures and other books began to be written that deviated from Scripture and when Constantine introduced pagan rites into Christianity, then the heretics had a field day.

Irenæus was one of the first to combat heresies and he always appealed to Scripture in order to combat heresy. So did the other early writers. The church was much different then. Read the writings of those early fathers and see for yourself. It was later that the writers began to change things and invent new doctrine that could not be substantiated by Scripture. That is what the Roman Catholic Church has become today. And remember it did not become the Roman Catholic Church until the 5th and 6th centuries. Before that it was an apostolic church that taught Scripture only.

Sorry to disappoint but I’m not a Catholic. I have read a great deal of the ECF’s even if the spelling of St. Iraneaus did completely vacate my brain last night. I think you missed the point. A great many of the ECF did emphasize the need for teaching to be conformed to Scripture, of course they did. It is this very evidence from which the Church gets the argument that NT writings are not manufactured and were in circulation and accepted by the saints long before there was a compiled Canon.

Your dates however are wrong. The Church existed long before Constantine and a tertiary reading of history will plainly reveal this. The Bishop of Rome was considered the Premier Bishop long before there was ever a Papacy. The Council of Bishops served as a Council long before Constantine. The need to conform to a Catholic (that is universal) Doctrine appeared in the ECF writings long before Constantine. The acceptance of many rites and schools was accepted before Constantine, it was not a post-Constantinian split in the Body.

I pointed out that I thought one of the great failings of the Reformation was that it complained that the RCC had come to depend to heavily upon tradition and that in doing so had lost the Bible, but that within a few generations the followers of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, etc. had raised up the writings of those men to an identical position and were willing to kill over them, just ask the Anabapstists. In our world today, among Protestant Denoms., there is great and severe disagreement about issues which are not Biblical at all, for example, is it Scriptural to Baptize infants? Some will say yes and some no and both will quote various Scriptures to back their claims, however, neither can truthfully say that the Bible Specifies clearly one way or the other because it doesn’t. The Bible commands Baptism but not when or by which method. Also, Baptists will proclaim, loudly, that the drinking of any alcohol is a sin, in spite of the fact that is plainly unbiblical, and yet it is a point of Doctrine about which they are so rigid that there is no flexibility in the thinking on the subject whatsoever.

The point is, there are plenty of things about plenty of different Churches which could be pointed out and thought silly by some and serious by others. However, the one thing we should all take seriously is the Cross of Christ, and because we fight so vigorously about all the other stuff we don’t spend very much time talking about what we should.

Make the main things the plain things, and the plain things the main things.

God Bless.

 

[teachccd]

That is nonsense! No Church Father believed in Sola-Scriptural,
The reason why I am Catholic today is because I read what the Early Church believed. And to my surprise, they all agree with what the Catholic Church teaches.

You can sell your post to those who are ignorant to the early Church Fathers writings, but not me.

Sounds familiar!!

 

[teachccd]

for example, is it Scriptural to Baptize infants? Some will say yes and some no and both will quote various Scriptures to back their claims, however, neither can truthfully say that the Bible Specifies clearly one way or the other because it doesn’t. The Bible commands Baptism but not when or by which method.
God Bless.

And there are the many “Bible Only” Christians that will debate you on that.They will say that baptism is an outward sign of faith and is not necessary. You say that the Bible commands Baptism, And I wholeheartedly agree, but I have spoken with Christians who have told me otherwise. Without the Church and Apostolic Tradition there can be no proper interpretation of Scripture. Personal interpretation gets you what you posted above. There is no confused Holy Spirit, just a confused group that broke away from the true Church of Jesus. Don’t mistake me here. There is abundant truth in all of Christianity just not the wholeness of truth. It’s too obvious…there can’t be two or more “truths”…

thank you for pointing that out and God Bless…teachccd

 

[bogeydogg]

And there are the many “Bible Only” Christians that will debate you on that.They will say that baptism is an outward sign of faith and is not necessary. You say that the Bible commands Baptism, And I wholeheartedly agree, but I have spoken with Christians who have told me otherwise. Without the Church and Apostolic Tradition there can be no proper interpretation of Scripture. Personal interpretation gets you what you posted above. There is no confused Holy Spirit, just a confused group that broke away from the true Church of Jesus. Don’t mistake me here. There is abundant truth in all of Christianity just not the wholeness of truth. It’s too obvious…there can’t be two or more “truths”…

thank you for pointing that out and God Bless…teachccd

Actually in Matt. when giving the Great Commission Jesus explicitly commands His Disciples to “go into all the world… preach the gospel… baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

It’s pretty plain. Those who would say otherwise and yet claim to be “Bible only” Christians have some pretty serious ‘splainin’ to do.

 

[EphelDuath]

The Church Fathers taught Sola scriptura, eh?

“Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters, not taking into consideration of how much greater consequence is a religious man, even in a private station, than a blasphemous and impudent sophist. Now, such are all the heretics, and those who imagine that they have hit upon something more beyond the truth, so that by following those things already mentioned, proceeding on their way variously, in harmoniously, and foolishly, not keeping always to the same opinions with regard to the same things, as blind men are led by the blind, they shall deservedly fall into the ditch of ignorance lying in their path, ever seeking and never finding out the truth. It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5,20:2 (A.D. 180).

Sounds like he’s saying to interpret scripture in light of Church tradition. Doesn’t sound like Sola scriptura at all. But does the Bible support “scripture alone?”

One, the apostles commanded the early church to keep both scriptural and oral traditions (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Two, Christ established a church on Earth; if the only authority is the Bible, why did he give Peter the authority of Heaven (cf. Matthew 16:19/Isaiah 22:22)? Paul says that the Church, NOT the scriptures, are the pillar of truth (1 Timothy 3:15); that’s not possible by Protestant standards. If the Church is capable of error but the Bible is not, then the Bible would be the pillar of truth.

 

[Fidelis]

Make the main things the plain things, and the plain things the main things.

But that is the whole point: Who decides which things are the “main things”? Is it 20 year old Bubba Jones with his inspired translation of the KJV? Is it 93 year old Gladys Ormfey with her Watchtower and NWT? Is it 50 year old me with twelve different Bible translations, lexicons, concordances and commentaries, but with my sinful nature and hidden agendas and self-deception and other human limitations?

Or is it the 2000 year old Church established by Jesus Christ himself, who gave us both the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition?

Who decides?

Tough choice.

 

[teachccd]

Actually in Matt. when giving the Great Commission Jesus explicitly commands His Disciples to “go into all the world… preach the gospel… baptizing in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.”

It’s pretty plain. Those who would say otherwise and yet claim to be “Bible only” Christians have some pretty serious ‘splainin’ to do.

Yes, like when Jesus says “This is my Body”. How more plain can that get??

 

[teachccd]

But that is the whole point: Who decides which things are the “main things”? Is it 20 year old Bubba Jones with his inspired translation of the KJV? Is it 93 year old Gladys Ormfey with her Watchtower and NWT? Is it 50 year old me with twelve different Bible translations, lexicons, concordances and commentaries, but with my sinful nature and hidden agendas and self-deception and other human limitations?

Or is it the 2000 year old Church established by Jesus Christ himself, who gave us both the Sacred Scriptures and Sacred Tradition?

Who decides?

Tough choice.

Sorry, but I’m going with Gladys Ormfey. Ninety three years is a pretty long time…Who knows?? She might have had coffee with Charles Taze Russell???

Great post, BTW

 

[DarkMark]

The point is, there are plenty of things about plenty of different Churches which could be pointed out and thought silly by some and serious by others. However, the one thing we should all take seriously is the Cross of Christ, and because we fight so vigorously about all the other stuff we don’t spend very much time talking about what we should.

Make the main things the plain things, and the plain things the main things.

God Bless.

The point is: Which Church can trace their History backed to the Apostles and which Church did Jesus gave authority to and which Church did the Bible promise to never to fall into error?

Saying “Make the main things the plain things, and the plain things the main things” doesn’t work because we still need to answer “Who” have the authority to do this.

Martin Luther put the authority on Scriptures alone and left every individual to find the truth. But did that help? No, it just cause division in the Church of Christ. Even his own people started to revolt and separated because, based on their own understanding of Scriptures, He was wrong.

You can go to sleep at night and tried to convince yourself that nothing matters as long we all take the Cross of Christ seriously, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth. The Apostle, in many of his letters, spoke agaisnt false teachers. If he thought as you did, he wouldn’t have done that.

God Bless.

 

[bogeydogg]

The point is: Which Church can trace their History backed to the Apostles and which Church did Jesus gave authority to and which Church did the Bible promise to never to fall into error?

Saying “Make the main things the plain things, and the plain things the main things” doesn’t work because we still need to answer “Who” have the authority to do this.

Martin Luther put the authority on Scriptures alone and left every individual to find the truth. But did that help? No, it just cause division in the Church of Christ. Even his own people started to revolt and separated because, based on their own understanding of Scriptures, He was wrong.

You can go to sleep at night and tried to convince yourself that nothing matters as long we all take the Cross of Christ seriously, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the Catholic Church has the fullness of the truth. The Apostle, in many of his letters, spoke agaisnt false teachers. If he thought as you did, he wouldn’t have done that.

God Bless.

Whoops, now I did it.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a single post on this or any discussion I’ve been a part of where I besmirch the authority of the Church or indicate that any sort of personal interpretation is valid so please don’t put words in my mouth.

What I am trying to say is that because the ECF’s were so imminent;y concerned with getting it right they regularly did argue for the superiority of Scripture and in cases where disputes arose did make every effort to indoctrinate what the Scripture plainly taught. However I have never once said that they subscribed to anything like Sola Scriptura much less have I made the assertion that the writings of Luther et al supersede those of the ECF’s. In fact I have derided our more protestant brothers for deriding tradition while cleaving to traditions created during the Reformation.

I have never once called into suspicion the Authority of the Church and neither have I at any point called into doubt its teachings. I would not do so. No I am not Catholic, but that is more happenstance of time and place than will on my part and I find myself longing more and more each day for the fullness of the Catholic faith, I can see it is true. I recognize its authority. However it bothers me that, in my experience away from the boards, that protestants of all ilk can be really nasty and rude to my Catholic friends when in theory we all worship the same God, and it is troubling therefore to come here and find the Catholics (sometimes not all and not with as much frequency) being just as nasty as the protestants and many time going blow for blow. Its troubling.

That is why wish there was some semblance of cordiality here that we may find common ground, after all that is the purpose of the eccumenical movement is it not? And for us to bicker and complain toward each other is off putting to any who come here seeking truth. I think we can make our points without sniping at each other, and yes I say this as one who does fire off a shot on occasion I know its true, but I just think that brothers these things should not be.

So that is why I say plain things main things because I believe it is God who sovereign above all and that is why I am thoroughly persuaded that it is to Him we owe allegiance and ultimate attention. And if anything we say here to one another damages one who is seeking then we are all the lesser for it.

Clear enough?

 

[DarkMark]

Whoops, now I did it.

I think you would be hard pressed to find a single post on this or any discussion I’ve been a part of where I besmirch the authority of the Church or indicate that any sort of personal interpretation is valid so please don’t put words in my mouth.

What I am trying to say is that because the ECF’s were so imminent;y concerned with getting it right they regularly did argue for the superiority of Scripture and in cases where disputes arose did make every effort to indoctrinate what the Scripture plainly taught. However I have never once said that they subscribed to anything like Sola Scriptura much less have I made the assertion that the writings of Luther et al supersede those of the ECF’s. In fact I have derided our more protestant brothers for deriding tradition while cleaving to traditions created during the Reformation.

I have never once called into suspicion the Authority of the Church and neither have I at any point called into doubt its teachings. I would not do so. No I am not Catholic, but that is more happenstance of time and place than will on my part and I find myself longing more and more each day for the fullness of the Catholic faith, I can see it is true. I recognize its authority. However it bothers me that, in my experience away from the boards, that protestants of all ilk can be really nasty and rude to my Catholic friends when in theory we all worship the same God, and it is troubling therefore to come here and find the Catholics (sometimes not all and not with as much frequency) being just as nasty as the protestants and many time going blow for blow. Its troubling.

That is why wish there was some semblance of cordiality here that we may find common ground, after all that is the purpose of the eccumenical movement is it not? And for us to bicker and complain toward each other is off putting to any who come here seeking truth. I think we can make our points without sniping at each other, and yes I say this as one who does fire off a shot on occasion I know its true, but I just think that brothers these things should not be.

So that is why I say plain things main things because I believe it is God who sovereign above all and that is why I am thoroughly persuaded that it is to Him we owe allegiance and ultimate attention. And if anything we say here to one another damages one who is seeking then we are all the lesser for it.

Clear enough?

First, I am not putting words in your month. I do not know you nor do I know what you wrote in this site a while back, I am just going by you posted here and now. I am sorry if you felt I was putting words in your month.

Second, I mostly agree with you. But I strongly defend the truth, and while I agree we must all be one family, I want to expose errors, just like St. Paul.

 

[bogeydogg]

See there. We agree.

 

[teachccd]

Sorry, but I’m going with Gladys Ormfey. Ninety three years is a pretty long time…Who knows?? She might have had coffee with Charles Taze Russell???

Great post, BTW

So, was I right?? Was it Gladys Ormfey??