The Sola Scriptura Contradiction

[thomat65]

Everything has already been defined my brother.

I hope this doesn’t sound snippy, but I’m asking what you mean by those things. I can look up what other people have said they mean but once I start defending myself against their definitions you’ll stop listening because at that point it’ll be as though I’m talking with them and not you.

Would you like me to reply based on what I think you meant by those things?

 

[Nicky777]

Everything base pn faith and morality. The infallible teachings of the one true church that Christ Himself founded. But continue to study with a humble and contrite heart. Read the history of the Church fathers. I assuming that you are protestant. The Church is one and if you are protestant, you are outside of the fold. Come on home and receive the truth as God has ordained it from the foundation of the earth. God bless.

 

[catholicray]

Let’s go through this point by point carefully.

If doctrine depends on an interpretation of scripture, then how can scripture be doctrine?

That’s actually my point. Do you understand that I summarized the logical facts concerning Sola Scriptura and then I shared the truth. Scripture is itself is doctrinal in the sense that we have received a closed canon. Your question reveals a contradiction and I would simply ask you the same question?

Why must doctrine always be a summary claim of what scripture says unless you’re still using your definition and not mine ?

Doctrine is always a summary claim of what Scripture says. That’s just what doctrine is. Doctrine is not Scripture. Doctrine may be accurate but it is not Scripture.

A strain ? Surely you meant to use another word in reference to the infallible scriptures upon which the whole world and all our thoughts could be stacked without threat of collapse?

I certainly meant what I said.

How am I saying that all doctrine is found in scripture?

“the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.”

Importantly, this no longer means “all doctrine must be supported or found in scripture” (your definition which was torn down) but “all doctrine contained in scripture is the final authority”.

In particular:

“Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.”
“all doctrine contained in scripture is the final authority”

What is this imaginary doctrine you seem to be suggesting, exists outside of the scope of what the Scriptures are the final judge on? If you suggest Sola Scriptura can fall within this particular category then you have just suggested that Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation based on your own words. I also think you’re conflating doctrine and discipline. Doctrine concerns salvation discipline is practice and though it can concern salvation it may not.

So what concise orderly sequence of logic would you construct?

“The Faith” is accurate when it is built on a top down model. The final judge is God Himself.

 

[catholicray]

Ok… You are Roman Catholic because you fallibly used some logic and fallibly interpreted some historical writings, some of which were fallible themselves. So how does that make me very wrong to say this about you:

Not all information is fallible. Please tell me how I fallibly used logic. If my logic is in error then show it.

Because given the same documents and facts it is quite possible for one to use their fallible faculties a different way and not be Roman Catholic. And many are Roman Catholic in spite of not seeing all the facts and documents you saw. Therefore the primary cause is your personal reasoning and personal interpretation not facts and documents. That the RCC ever holds infallible authority is your opinion based on your personal interpretation of a collection of true and false things independent of the actual truth or falseness of the matter. You believe your opinion is quite justified, but you could be wrong, no?

I am not wrong it is not possible. I’ve done my homework on the matter and I am a direct witness of our Lord. The matter is settled. Much of my reasoning on this which is factual is outside of the scope of this thread.

At the risk of sounding like a troll: actual full participation in Christ’s death and life, body and blood. Not participation in his divinity… sorry I can’t promise that you’ll become a god, but you could receive by proxy all the benefits of Christ being God. The actuality of these things is what we both believe is at stake and what we should be saying is up for the taking.

I have no reason to doubt that I already actually participate in Christ intimately. You’d end up going on a long journey to convince me otherwise. Remember, I’ve already shared in what you now have and now I have much more. It is only loss to me and I do not mean to offend you but this root runs deep.

 

[thomat65]

you have just suggested that Sola Scriptura is not necessary for salvation based on your own words.

Yes, I believe one who is mistaken about the role that scripture plays in judging tradition may still enter heaven.

I also think you’re conflating doctrine and discipline. Doctrine concerns salvation discipline is practice and though it can concern salvation it may not.

Ahh, thank you. I think this is why we both felt like the other was talking past him. Perhaps this is why some others got the impression I was just arguing aimlessly. We’re operating with different definitions. Many of your statements are now much more clear.

I consider “doctrine” to be something like “a set of beliefs”, but stronger. Not as strong as “required for salvation”. Maybe “a correct set of beliefs”. Feel free to ask me why I believe “the most correct set of beliefs” is not necessary for salvation.

It’s just a word, so let’s try again with the ideas behind the word now that we understand each other. Please allow me to start over:

There’s an idea called “Wegitilaxatill” that means: “the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Wegitilaxatill means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.”

Importantly, this no longer means “all ideas must be supported or found in scripture” but “all ideas in scripture have scripture as the final authority” (…aaand now I see my failure of communication when I said “all doctrine is the final authority”)

Now: is finding the correct table of contents a problem for Wegitilaxatill?

 

[thomat65]

Please tell me how I fallibly used logic. If my logic is in error then show it.

My turn to define something. Fallible means “capable of making mistakes or being erroneous”, not “actually making mistakes or being erroneous”. I do not need to demonstrate an error to prove my point. All I have to do is demonstrate that you personally are capable of error. Are you claiming personal infallibility?

Even though there do exist facts (which are infallible by definition), when a fallible individual such as you or me synthesizes even infallible information we necessarily do so fallibly, even if our logic happily happens to be correct.

I’ll take this opportunity to remind you of what I said previously:

the Magisterium does not lift one from the possibility of error: Catholics also fallibly believe they have something infallible.

Note the full colon. The meaning is clarified by what comes after it. I’m not saying “the Magisterium does not prevent one from always being wrong” which means “the Magisterium is always wrong”. I’m saying “invoking the Magisterium does not make one infallible”.

There should be no controversy here! But you keep denying these things. And I hear many Catholics pretend like it’s a big deal when they level a charge of fallible personal interpretations, as though they themselves aren’t doing this when they fallibly personally read and interpret the CCC or query a live bishop in person and fallibly personally interpret his response. So I’ll keep pressing…

I am not wrong it is not possible.

So you yourself are infallible in this matter? In that case let me know the sequence you follow until you discover this isn’t true. Start with X=“rightly being Catholic”:

1. Do you believe you are infallible in X?
2. If so, then find a reason Y, substitute “believing Y” for X and proceed to step #1
3. Since you do not believe you are infallible about X, either you are X truly or mistakenly
4. If you are X mistakenly then rewind as necessary. If you rewind all the way then you do not believe you are infallible in being Catholic
5. If you are X truly, then find a reason Y, substitute “believing Y is the reason for X” for X, and proceed to step #1

Notice that the only finite escape is by rewinding all the way via #4, meaning you do not believe you are infallible in being Catholic. One non-finite alternative is circular reasoning. The last alternative is infinite non-circular reasons. Why would you think you have infinite non-circular reasons for infallibly being Catholic?

Look, let’s put a swift end to this craziness. CCC 239 says “human parents are fallible”. Therefore if you are a parent and a Catholic then you are in error to claim infallibility.

So how is this not true of you?

“I am Roman Catholic because of a fallible personal interpretation of something”

 

[thomat65]

I am a direct witness of our Lord.

Are you talking about your fallible personal belief in the Eucharist? Or are you talking about seeing a vision?

Assuming a vision, are you incapable of being wrong about that? Is it not possible that it was Satan disguised as an angel of light, as he is prone to do? How did you test this spirit?

Did you have Isaiah’s, or John’s, or Peter’s, or Paul’s reaction? Or were you instead filled with pleasant feelings?

Why do you cite personal experience instead of the scriptures which are more sure and more fully confirmed than seeing the Lord? Check out 2 Peter 1:16-21.

Remember, I’ve already shared in what you now have and now I have much more. It is only loss to me and I do not mean to offend you but this root runs deep.

I was born and raised Catholic leaving at age 20 about 9 years ago. Until I left I was an active Catholic, not just someone who went to Mass at Christmas or Easter. I have only ever had pleasant experiences with the RCC. I often felt like I was close to God, especially through some of the songs which I now miss, or while participating in evening Mass in a particular church building close to campus that had awesome ambiance. There is some really cool imagery and symbolism in the Mass that many people take for granted or don’t even recognize. The vast majority of my family is Catholic. I continue to see (now from the outside) the deep community and ties that exist within the RCC and I long for that. My family loves me and I love my family and I’m sad to be divided with them in this way. Several people in this thread have appealed to me with open arms, not realizing that it does pull on my heart strings.

I can imagine what one might mean about a deep-running root.

Yet I cannot imagine how my fellowship with God would be improved by going back. What I see now does not exist in Roman Catholicism and is far better. I have tasted and seen that the Lord is good! I see Christ’s glory in the true and better gospel. Christ became sin for me and I became the righteousness of God merely through trusting in the incredible unmerited favor of God in Christ–an awesome double imputation that speaks volumes of the most gracious and loving One. And now I’m free! Blissfully confident in my right standing with God knowing it was won with the precious blood of Christ maintained in no way by my good works. And God has made his home inside of me!

Are you sure you shared in what I now have?

 

[catholicray]

There’s an idea called “Wegitilaxatill” that means: “the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Wegitilaxatill means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.”

Ephesians 2:20-22 - RSVCE

“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.”

1 Corinthians 3:10-11 - RSVCE

“According to the commission of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and another man is building upon it. Let each man take care how he builds upon it. For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Note: What Scripture is saying above, if we allow the Spirit to speak, is that the foundation of our foundation is Christ. The sum total foundation is the The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit, and the Church. That is the foundation which men are called to build upon. The Church is our Christian temple.

John Chapter 16:12-15 RSVCE

“I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

 

[catholicray]

Matthew Chapter 28:16-20

"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

Scripture tells us that all authority has been rendered to Christ. Scripture tells us that Christ the Son of God is where the authority of God resides. Scripture tells us that the teaching and speech of the Holy Spirit is not of His own authority but he speaks what He has heard from the Son of God. Scripture is the teaching and speech of the Holy Spirit except perhaps the first five books of Moses.

Let me be clear, there is not a tension of submission between Christ and the Holy Spirit, likewise there is not a tension of submission between Christ and Scripture. This also tells us that Scripture is a part of the foundation but the cornerstone, (the foundation of the foundation) is Christ. The Church therefore is submissive to Christ at it’s apex not Scripture. What is the Church’s final authority? Christ our Lord!

Matthew Chapter 28:16-20

"Now the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had directed them. And when they saw him they worshiped him; but some doubted. And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”

I wanted to review this verse especially where it says to teach them to observe all that I have commanded you. What did our authority say? He said to teach them to observe all that I Jesus Christ your Lord have commanded you. Notice our Lord did not say to teach them to observe all that the Holy Spirit commands. If he had I might agree with you but Christ establishes His command.

 

[catholicray]

“the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Wegitilaxatill means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.”

Now that we have the proper foundation let us review and address what you have shared appropriately.

2 Timothy 3:16 RSVCE

“All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

1 Timothy 3:14-15

“I hope to come to you soon, but I am writing these instructions to you so that, if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

John 14:5-6

Thomas said to him, “Lord, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?” Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.

It’s quite simple. Scripture, the speech of the Holy Spirit directs us to burden ourselves with the yoke of Christ’s command. The point is that, contained in the depths of the Holy Spirit’s speech, is guidance towards Christ not toward Himself. That is to say that if you read 2 Timothy 3:16 in communion with the

 

[catholicray]

rest of Scripture, then this verse does not reinforce Scripture alone it also reinforces Christ and His authority.

2 Timothy 3:16 the speech of God the Holy Spirit tells us that His speech is profitable for teaching, while in 1 Timothy 3:15 the Holy Spirit teaches us that the Church is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth. Then I can confidently say that Scripture teaches us that the Church holds up Christ, that is her function. The fact that the Church acknowledges Scripture as the speech of God is a product of the Church’s function, which is to uphold Christ. Scripture is not the primary authority of the Church, Christ is. It is the function of Scripture and the Church to bring us into communion with Christ. Submission of the Church to Scripture can not be established by the speech of the Holy Spirit. Communion of Scripture and the Church is what Scripture teaches. The household of Scripture is the Church. Authentic doctrine is therefore the product of communion between Scripture and the Church it is not a product of the submission of the Church to Scripture. That’s according to Scripture.

I have to get to work I’ll end there for now.

 

[knightfall]

Hello Matt

I hope you will forgive me for not having the time to scroll through this rather lengthy thread to pick up specific quotes.

I have two questions for now.

1. Could you please repost your definition of Sola Scriptura and explain why yours is the correct definition thereof?
2. You have thus far carefully avoided the question of how we determine which interpretation of scripture is correct. Would you mind starting a new thread to address this?

Yours in Christ

 

[thomat65]

1. Could you please repost your definition of Sola Scriptura and explain why yours is the correct definition thereof?

Sure. I define “Sola Scriptura” as:

the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation and proper living before God. Sola Scriptura means that the Scriptures–the Old and New Testaments (excluding the Catholic Apocrypha)–are the final authority in all that they address (1 Cor. 4:6) and that tradition, even so-called Sacred Tradition, is judged by Scriptures.

I hesitate asserting this is the correct definition. That’s much more difficult than simply saying this is what I believe and asking what’s wrong with it. It might even be impossible to determine which definition most correctly represents the ideas that have rattled around many different people’s heads for centuries.

That aside, Catholicray did successfully demonstrate that an alternate definition was internally inconsistent.

1. You have thus far carefully avoided the question of how we determine which interpretation of scripture is correct. Would you mind starting a new thread to address this?

I don’t mind at all: Correct interpretations

 

[thomat65]

Scripture is the teaching and speech of the Holy Spirit except perhaps the first five books of Moses.

I’m curious why you exclude the Pentateuch, if explaining that won’t distract us too much.

Scripture tells us that all authority has been rendered to Christ.

There’s a little more to this story. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 clarifies that it’s all authority except God the Father, saying it’s clear that God the Father is excepted from being put in authority under Christ.

What is the Church’s final authority? Christ our Lord!

And the Father is Christ’s authority. So the Church’s final final authority is God the Father. But I don’t think this affects your train of thought. There’s similarly no tension between the Father and Christ.

I’m tracking with you so far.

He said to teach them to observe all that I Jesus Christ your Lord have commanded you. Notice our Lord did not say to teach them to observe all that the Holy Spirit commands. If he had I might agree with you but Christ establishes His command.

I have a question for you: is observing all that Jesus commanded necessary for salvation?

It sounds like you’re assuming the affirmative and saying something like this:

1. Pretend that the scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation
2. All that Jesus commanded is necessary for salvation
3. The scriptures do not contain all that Jesus commanded
4. Therefore, it can not be the case that the scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation

[2 Timothy 3:16] does not reinforce Scripture alone

2 Timothy 3:15-16 says scripture is able to make one wise for salvation. So if you have an owners manual which is able to make idiots like me wise, then why must anything else be necessary for gaining wisdom?

It also says scripture is profitable for bringing the man of God to completion. So if you have a paint brush that is profitable for bringing murals to completion, then why must anything else be necessary for completing murals?

 

[thomat65]

the pillar and bulwark of the Truth

Why did you capitalize “Truth” here, yet you probably don’t capitalize “Way” in Matthew 7:13 or “Life” in Luke 16:25? To capitalize “Truth” here is unjustified (even false).

the Church holds up Christ

How is the Lord supposed to be kept from falling by the Church who is inferior to him?

Scripture is not the primary authority of the Church, Christ is.

Hmm.

If a king infallible in every way writes an infallible letter and seals it with the Royal Seal and sends it out across his kingdom on the legion of Royal Horses that are only used for distributing infallible letters, then which has more authority: the king, or the letter?

Well, the letter cannot possibly go against the king’s will and desire and be right, since the king is infallible in every way. So the king must surely be in authority over the letter.

But wait, the king cannot possibly go against the letter, since the letter is infallible. So the letter must surely be in authority over the king.

But wait, the letter cannot possibly go against the king, since to go against the king is wrong and the letter is right. So the king must surely be in authority over the letter.

But wait, the king cannot possibly alter the letter, since to change what’s right is wrong and the king cannot do what’s wrong. So the letter must surely be in authority over the king.

Whatever the case, the Church remains under the authority of scripture, especially since there is no tension between the Father, the Holy Spirit, Christ, and the scripture.

Note: the king and the letter is real. Notice how God’s own oath (which is itself only a subset of scripture) is binding on God in Hebrews 6:13-18.

Submission of the Church to Scripture can not be established by the speech of the Holy Spirit.

You yourself said the writings you call scripture are the speech of the Holy Spirit. And 1 Timothy 3:15 is in your scripture. And it says that the Church ought to conduct itself in accord with Paul’s letter. And Paul’s letter is in your scripture.

Therefore submission of the Church to scripture is established by the speech of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Michael_Anthony]

Sola Scriptura is self refuting on many levels, in the one since St. Paul at one point says to hold fast to his teachings, both those given in writing (scripture) and spoken to them (oral tradition), another spot in the bible states that the interpretation of scripture is not up to any individual man, indicating that there must be an authoritative body/person invested with the authority to do so. Further, one may have an infallible book and interpret it fallibly (give me almost any position, and I can probably find a bible verse to support it), which means there must be an infallible interpreter. Finally the Holy Spirit is clearly not the only thing necessary because otherwise all would believe the same things (for instance, my grandmother was baptized Catholic at one point, and before that Church of Chris (the validity of which I am unsure, probably not given the later Catholic baptism) and she is now Methodist, given this information, and the argument that the Holy Spirit is enough, she should not be able be Methodist, or else the Methodists must be right, but since we who are not Methodist believe them to be wrong, this argument fails).

 

[catholicray]

There’s a little more to this story. 1 Corinthians 15:27-28 clarifies that it’s all authority except God the Father, saying it’s clear that God the Father is excepted from being put in authority under Christ.

I can agree with you on that. I actually thought about this because Christ continually says He is submissive to the will of the Father. That’s a solid catch on my error there. It doesn’t really change what I said though as you noted.

• Pretend that the scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation
• All that Jesus commanded is necessary for salvation
• The scriptures do not contain all that Jesus commanded
• Therefore, it can not be the case that the scriptures contain all that is necessary for salvation

This is the major difference between you and I. I believe as you do that Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation but I don’t understand that to mean what you try to make it mean.

Example:
You have an instruction manual that explains how to build a computer. The manual contains everything you need to equip yourself to build a computer. Even so it does not contain the parts you’ll need for your build and it doesn’t contain the actions you took to follow the steps to build that computer. While the manual makes you “wise” unto building a computer system it doesn’t build it for you.

Likewise Scripture contains everything necessary for salvation because it tells you what to do. If you do as Scripture teaches then you will end up with salvation and if you don’t Scripture is a dead letter. It would be little more than a manual that you never took action on. The major difference here is that the instruction Scripture gives has far more depth in an answers. It’s like saying, do A, and A equips you even further toward Z.

It also says scripture is profitable for bringing the man of God to completion. So if you have a paint brush that is profitable for bringing murals to completion, then why must anything else be necessary for completing murals?

Because a paint brush alone no matter how much it equips you to paint a mural will not paint it by itself.

Why did you capitalize “Truth” here, yet you probably don’t capitalize “Way” in Matthew 7:13 or “Life” in Luke 16:25? To capitalize “Truth” here is unjustified (even false).

Scripture is deep. There are surface level understandings that work in union with the sum total of Scripture and then there are deeper understandings that also fit. It’s like Hip Hop, you listen to the surface of what they are saying and it’s cool but when you get underneath the surface it just boggles the mind. Truth and truth are warranted here. That’s meat.

 

[catholicray]

How is the Lord supposed to be kept from falling by the Church who is inferior to him?

You’re failing to dig into the meaning because you choose to be blind for the sake of your own argument. There are multiple things that Church references in Scripture. In this case you have to understand that this is a further description of the structure metaphor being used concerning foundation. Cornerstone (Jesus Christ) is a masonic term that refers to the first stone laid in the foundation. So the reference to pillar is a reference back to the foundation. A head is held up physically by it’s body as well and of course the body is commanded by the head to do so. Again an understanding of communion rather than submission. A body divided against itself can not stand. “You are no longer servants but friends”. The relationship between the Church and God is communion not submission. You can’t actually support it.

Well, the letter cannot possibly go against the king’s will and desire and be right, since the king is infallible in every way. So the king must surely be in authority over the letter.

But wait, the king cannot possibly go against the letter, since the letter is infallible. So the letter must surely be in authority over the king.

This is the kind of nonsense that I’m opposed to concerning Sola Scriptura. This is precisely what it does to the relationship between the Holy Spirit and Christ.

You yourself said the writings you call scripture are the speech of the Holy Spirit. And 1 Timothy 3:15 is in your scripture. And it says that the Church ought to conduct itself in accord with Paul’s letter. And Paul’s letter is in your scripture.

That verse does not say that at all. It talks about the people subjecting themselves to Scripture in order that they know how to behave in the household of God. This is saying individual Christians are to subject themselves to Scripture in order that they know how to behave in the household of God (The Church). You are factually wrong here.

 

[De_Maria]

Scripture is not the primary authority of the Church, Christ is.

Hmm.

If a king infallible in every way writes an infallible letter and seals it with the Royal Seal and sends it out across his kingdom on the legion of Royal Horses that are only used for distributing infallible letters, then which has more authority: the king, or the letter?

That’s not what happened. Christ recruited some men. Organized them into a Church. Taught them all that He wanted them to know. And commanded them to pass on His Teachings to as many people as they could. And, to continue Teaching until the end of time. This last requirement forces them to perpetually organize the Church so that it remains active even past the end of their own lives.

Jesus Christ never wrote even one word of Scripture. He never commanded anyone to pass on Scripture. So, your characterization is eminently flawed.

 

[catholicray]

@thomat65

Haven’t heard from you in a few days. Have you found the passage in Scripture that supports your position yet?