Uncommon Problem with RCC

[adf417]

I asked this up-thread; In your opinion, how does someone from an Islamic background come to the truth of Christianity? If we can get that answered from your POV, it may help further the conversation.

Indeed you did ask and I will always assume this question to be rhetorical for a few reasons. 1) I believe only God can know the answer to this as He alone is who truly converts the hearts. 2) What is and is not Christianity? - which is, in a sense, what we have been discussing so I can clearly direct them. 3) If this question is posed prior to the reformation I simply would say follow the teachings of the one true church Jesus established. Now, with the rhetoric that Protestantism delivers, Muslims are surely confused as to what, where, who, this church is. This confusion within Christianity is a big reason why most of my family members left Christianity and,quite frankly,it is the best one I can think of. If confusion from within creates doubt it will always be a good tool for the opposition.

Does it matter if a person is a practicing or non-practicing catholic? How about if someone either has studied or has not studied the catechism or the Bible? There is indeed one Truth, and it is a Person. There is one proper object of faith. How close or far away from that a person is will be dependent on a lot of things. As I’m sure you are aware just because someone labels themselves a catholic that doesn’t actually mean as much as it maybe should.

The practicing of ones faith and the teaching of the truth are two different things. How Randy, or anyone for that matter, practices their faith should not dictate what the one truth is and no one will follow these teachings completely, perfectly and always and that does not nor should not change the teachings Christ gave us.

It is indeed! One turkey day meal down, one to go!

No turkey but gumbo for me and its time for leftovers…

 

[LaughingBoy1503]

With all the mistakes in The Churches history, The Church is still The Church. What other Church did Christ start? What about all the good things The Church has done too? We, as humans, mess things up. The Church is almost 2000 years old and it is still around. I would rather be part of a Church with some bad leaders in the past but started by Christ with the fullness of truth, than a man made ecclesiastical community. I am a protestant convert to The Church so these were things I had to think about when I was only considering converting. I don’t say it in offence to anyone. I love our non-Catholic brothers and sisters too.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Actually I have… what was your phrase “a bazillion verses which talk about faith.” But it doesn’t seem as though you want me to go there, so I won’t. As I said, that is the same tactic as the people say the Trinity is not taught in scripture because the exact word “Trinity” is not there; now who sounds more like a sola scriptura advocate; you or me?

Besides, that is again off topic of the thread.

My apologies if I was confused. I am asking for a single verse, just one, that teaches sola scriptura.

 

[Kliska]

My apologies if I was confused. I am asking for a single verse, just one, that teaches sola scriptura.

I don’t claim there is one. So, I’m the confused party here I suppose. I claim there are many, just as with the idea of the Trinity. Maybe we’re talking past each other? It’s the same with sola fide.

 

[Kliska]

Indeed you did ask and I will always assume this question to be rhetorical for a few reasons. 1) I believe only God can know the answer to this as He alone is who truly converts the hearts.

And, they have to be a willing participant in that conversion. It’s the same with the truths we are discussing. You would, I think, hope they’d study the scriptures and/or the catechism, etc… You’d hope they’d pray, and hearken to the Holy Spirit. Not all will, and not all will at the same time and in the same manner.

1. What is and is not Christianity? - which is, in a sense, what we have been discussing so I can clearly direct them.

I don’t believe in pointing to a religion, but rather a Person. Their faith in Jesus is key.

1. If this question is posed prior to the reformation I simply would say follow the teachings of the one true church Jesus established. Now, with the rhetoric that Protestantism delivers, Muslims are surely confused as to what, where, who, this church is.

Again, most protestants would say you point to Jesus. The church’s job is always to point to Christ for He is living Truth.

This confusion within Christianity is a big reason why most of my family members left Christianity and,quite frankly,it is the best one I can think of. If confusion from within creates doubt it will always be a good tool for the opposition.

I can very clearly see pros and cons to each side and the way it works; the 5 solas and the (or vs. the) magesterium. People leave the RCC, people join it. People leave protestantism, people join it. I wish I could answer as to why some of your family left the faith, but I simply can’t. But I can pray along with you for their return.

The practicing of ones faith and the teaching of the truth are two different things. How Randy, or anyone for that matter, practices their faith should not dictate what the one truth is and no one will follow these teachings completely, perfectly and always and that does not nor should not change the teachings Christ gave us.

Nor do I think that it does on fundamental ideas. Now, Paul teaches us that whatsoever is not of faith is sin, and that those things might actually differ from person to person. Take abstaining from alcohol just as an example. For someone they may be utterly convinced that imbibing any is a sin, and for them, if they did (and were still convinced it was) it would indeed be a sin for them.

But, again, the Apostle’s creed is nothing to sneeze at. We do share fundamental beliefs, and each believe that the Bible is God’s word. If a Muslim can share that understanding, is that not showing they are at the very least on their way toward Truth?

No turkey but gumbo for me and its time for leftovers…

I miss good gumbo and sweet corn bread…

 

[Randy_Carson]

I don’t claim there is one. So, I’m the confused party here I suppose. I claim there are many, just as with the idea of the Trinity. Maybe we’re talking past each other? It’s the same with sola fide.

Which verse of scripture provides the best, clearest evidence that the Bible teaches the principle of sola scriptura?

Thanks.

 

[Kliska]

Which verse of scripture provides the best, clearest evidence that the Bible teaches the principle of sola scriptura?

Thanks.

If you want to be right so badly that you are saying the words “scripture alone” are not in the Bible, it is obvious that you are right, no one has ever claimed otherwise. You win! The next time someone argues that The word Trinity is not in the Bible I’ll concede to them too.

Now, if you want to talk about all the bazillion verses that point to sola scriptura, that’s a different thread, and one that, as I read the rules, wouldn’t last very long.

 

[Randy_Carson]

If you want to be right so badly that you are saying the words “scripture alone” are not in the Bible, it is obvious that you are right, no one has ever claimed otherwise. You win! The next time someone argues that The word Trinity is not in the Bible I’ll concede to them too.

Now, if you want to talk about all the bazillion verses that point to sola scriptura, that’s a different thread, and one that, as I read the rules, wouldn’t last very long.

First, my argument concerning the specific words had to do with “faith alone”…you can double-check that. Sola Fide is not supported by the totality of scripture; you can only get there by ignoring contradictory verses.

But that is not what I’m asking; what I am asking is this:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura? If so, which verse is the best example?

Thanks.

 

[Kliska]

First, my argument concerning the specific words had to do with “faith alone”…you can double-check that. Sola Fide is not supported by the totality of scripture; you can only get there by ignoring contradictory verses.

Sorry, this is wrong as well, as the verses don’t contradict.

But that is not what I’m asking; what I am asking is this:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

Absolutely. I just realized I’ve neglected a fundamental part of formal argumentation and that is the definition of terms. You feel as though you understand what Luther meant by sola scriptura I assume? What do you think he meant and then we can move on to your next question.

 

[adf417]

Good morning Kliska, I hope you are well today.

And, they have to be a willing participant in that conversion. It’s the same with the truths we are discussing. You would, I think, hope they’d study the scriptures and/or the catechism, etc… You’d hope they’d pray, and hearken to the Holy Spirit. Not all will, and not all will at the same time and in the same manner.

I would hope they would read and pray over the scriptures but well before that I would hope they trust in who handed them the scriptures and showed them how to interpret them. I don’t know if you have children but I don’t think you would be willing to just give them the book of life, or even the bible, to learn about life without instruction, right? You are right, not all children will get it but you will keep trying to help them understand in anyway you can and not just leave it up to a book, right?

I don’t believe in pointing to a religion, but rather a Person. Their faith in Jesus is key.

Again, most protestants would say you point to Jesus. The church’s job is always to point to Christ for He is living Truth.

JWs love to use this point as they do believe in Jesus, just not in the way I do but then neither do you. I believe He is in the real presence, which btw some protestants do also, and I don’t think you do, so back to the same issue. If some protestants can deny the real presence then why cant they, JWs, deny the divinity? Do you not see how your paradigm is problematic in this sense?

I can very clearly see pros and cons to each side and the way it works; the 5 solas and the (or vs. the) magesterium. People leave the RCC, people join it. People leave protestantism, people join it. I wish I could answer as to why some of your family left the faith, but I simply can’t. But I can pray along with you for their return.

I am not asking you to explain why some leave and some go. My family members know exactly why they left including the protestant family members. They all left for the same reason, the reason you continue to espouse. Now based on protestant theology (if there is such a thing) not only Christianity but my family all have different beliefs including “Jesus is not God”. I know you can’t see how the JW religion can be based on protestant concept of theology, please study it and it may become clear.

But, again, the Apostle’s creed is nothing to sneeze at. We do share fundamental beliefs, and each believe that the Bible is God’s word. If a Muslim can share that understanding, is that not showing they are at the very least on their way toward Truth?

Sure but which understanding of the word? Yours, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran…? How many books make up this “word”? Is baptism regenerative or not? Is Jesus present in the bread and wine or not? Should homosexual marriage be allowed or not? Why stop with the Apostle’s creed why not use the Nicene creed and define what “OHCA” or the “filioque” means?..hence the confusion.

God’s eternal blessings!!!

 

[zz912]

I work out my own salvation with fear and trembling…

I thought you said that works were not a part of salvation?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry, this is wrong as well, as the verses don’t contradict.

Absolutely. I just realized I’ve neglected a fundamental part of formal argumentation and that is the definition of terms. You feel as though you understand what Luther meant by sola scriptura I assume? What do you think he meant and then we can move on to your next question.

Are you Lutheran? If so, I can ask JonNC, an LCMS, to join our discussion as he is extremely knowledgeable on all matters Lutheran, and sola scriptura is one topic that comes up frequently. Please advise.

One definition that is commonly accepted among non-Catholics is this:

Sola Scriptura Defined by James White

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.​

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

If not, please define it as you wish.

Either way, please provide one verse that teaches sola scriptura.

Thanks.

 

[ezeekl]

Either way, please provide one verse that teaches sola scriptura.

Thanks.

She can’t do it because there isn’t any. But there is a scripture verse that teaches scripture + Tradition and that is 2 Thess 2:15. That one verse is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire that has been sucking the life blood out of so many christians for 500 years.

 

[Church_Militant]

She can’t do it because there isn’t any. But there is a scripture verse that teaches scripture + Tradition and that is 2 Thess 2:15. That one verse is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire that has been sucking the life blood out of so many christians for 500 years.

As has been demonstrated many times over.
Examples:
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay?
It’s NOT in the Bible, okay? (Part II)
“If anyone teaches/preaches something that is not in scripture”

 

[Kliska]

Good morning Kliska, I hope you are well today.

And you.

I want to say, that I sense the frustration here with the way that I’m answering. You’ll have to forgive me, for to me, the answers I’m giving from my perspective are fulfilling from my POV, and are what I see in scripture as truth. But I realize that your perspective is different, and applying it to your family is really very personal. I join you in prayers that they come to the Truth.

I would hope they would read and pray over the scriptures but well before that I would hope they trust in who handed them the scriptures and showed them how to interpret them.

And what then are we to do with scripture that describes itself as living, as never returning void, etc…? It is the very word of God. I believe that if a person were stranded on a desert island alone, and all they had were the holy writings of the major world religions in their language and they could read, that the word of God stands apart even sans an “interpreter.” The Truth is contained in the word. That person could be saved.

The issue that I have is that the RCC apparently relies on circular logic in order back up this idea of someone else doing the interpreting. Instead of relying on yourself and God, it seems to be relying on man. You ask how I can interpret and know… the RCC just pushes that question back a notch, in several ways. First, how do you know the magesterium, the pope, etc… are interpreting correctly? Because they say they are based on scripture that they are interpreting and telling you the meaning of? How do you know what their rulings actually mean and how do you apply them personally to your life? That is also interpretation and application.

I don’t know if you have children but I don’t think you would be willing to just give them the book of life, or even the bible, to learn about life without instruction, right? You are right, not all children will get it but you will keep trying to help them understand in anyway you can and not just leave it up to a book, right?

There are appointed roles in the churches for sure, and in the family. It is the father’s responsibility as the head of the family to teach his children. Jesus is the head of the church and told us outright that He was sending us His Spirit for guidance, instruction, to bestow gifts, etc… It gives us all that relationship to God the Father and He is teaching His kids. A big chunk if that is His word.

JWs love to use this point as they do believe in Jesus, just not in the way I do but then neither do you. I believe He is in the real presence, which btw some protestants do also, and I don’t think you do, so back to the same issue. If some protestants can deny the real presence then why cant they, JWs, deny the divinity? Do you not see how your paradigm is problematic in this sense?

No, because this is what mankind has dealt with from the beginning. We have to test the spirits and try them, we have to study, we have to pray. Unfortunately not everyone is going to hearken to truth. Look at all the Jews that got to see and interact with Christ Himself that maintained false belief. It’s a hard answer, but narrow is the way and few there be that find it.

I am not asking you to explain why some leave and some go. My family members know exactly why they left including the protestant family members. They all left for the same reason, the reason you continue to espouse. Now based on protestant theology (if there is such a thing) not only Christianity but my family all have different beliefs including “Jesus is not God”. I know you can’t see how the JW religion can be based on protestant concept of theology, please study it and it may become clear.

I’m an apologist, I’ve studied it. They have faulty interpretation of scripture. You see it in the RCC as well, those members who don’t interpret things the same as what they are told, yet they are still practicing Catholics (so for example those who support homosexual marriage). What you see as an issue is human nature regardless of hierarchical structures over them.

Sure but which understanding of the word? Yours, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran…? How many books make up this “word”? Is baptism regenerative or not? Is Jesus present in the bread and wine or not? Should homosexual marriage be allowed or not? Why stop with the Apostle’s creed why not use the Nicene creed and define what “OHCA” or the “filioque” means?..hence the confusion.

But you are the one moving the bar, not God. There is simplicity in the gospel message, mankind is the one that has made it hard. Remember, to get it right we have to become in faith as little children. Children flat out don’t understand or care about the filioque controversy. God makes His word easy to understand and His yoke is easy and His burden is light. We (humans) are the ones making it difficult by arguing about issues that are personal matters.

God’s eternal blessings!!!

Grace and peace! Forgive me for not being able to explain properly, it is sometimes harder to explain our own perspectives than the perspectives of others.

 

[Brendan_64]

She can’t do it because there isn’t any. But there is a scripture verse that teaches scripture + Tradition and that is 2 Thess 2:15. That one verse is the wooden stake in the heart of the sola scriptura vampire that has been sucking the life blood out of so many christians for 500 years.

It’s also useful when dealing with ‘Spirit of Vatican II’ types who want to clear away traditional devotional practices etc. and replace them with something more ‘progressive’.

 

[UbiCaritas15]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

And what then are we to do with scripture that describes itself as living, as never returning void, etc…? It is the very word of God. I believe that if a person were stranded on a desert island alone, and all they had were the holy writings of the major world religions in their language and they could read, that the word of God stands apart even sans an “interpreter.” The Truth is contained in the word. That person could be saved.

As a cradle Catholic who was inspired (by constant attacks from Protestant inlaws) to read, read and deeply reread the bible, any deep study of the bible would absolutely lead that person to Rome. So, look, we agree!!!

 

[Kliska]

Are you Lutheran? If so, I can ask JonNC, an LCMS, to join our discussion as he is extremely knowledgeable on all matters Lutheran, and sola scriptura is one topic that comes up frequently. Please advise.

Not a Lutheran, I’m non-denominational.

One definition that is commonly accepted among non-Catholics is this:

Sola Scriptura Defined by James White

Let me begin by defining what the doctrine of sola scriptura does not say.

First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church.
All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:

The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
​

Sola scriptura is both a positive and a negative statement.

Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.

+++

Is this an accurate definition of sola scriptura?

If not, please define it as you wish.

Either way, please provide one verse that teaches sola scriptura.

Thanks.

If you are telling me I can only give you one verse that teaches all that, then, no I cannot. You win! Now, I can give you a whole slew of verses that teaches that, but you say that doesn’t count.

2 Timothy 3:15-17 is one fav, from John I like John 20:30 and of course these, Matthew 22:29, Matthew 4:4-10, Mark 12:24, Luke 24:27, John 5:39, John 7:38, Acts 8:35, Acts 17:2, Acts 17:11, Acts 18:28, Romans 4:3, Romans 15:4, Galatians 3:22, Romans 10:17, etc… I could write a whole dissertation on it and add in more verses, but it still would not be enough to “prove” it to people who disagree.

But of course, let me just hazard a guess as none of these being what you personally want, or that you think supports the idea of sola scriptura. As that particular definition states, sola scriptura does not neglect or leave aside tradition, but that if tradition contradicts the written word of God, that the tradition is faulty, not the word.

I know when I’m done beating a dead horse, so I’ll leave it to y’all to pick apart and disagree with and give counters to the scriptures provided as I’m sure you will, and may even have pages bookmarked or arguments written up to do so (such as Jimmy Akin’s take on the passages in Timothy). I’ve read apologists putting forth the view of the RCC on all these scriptures, but surprise, I don’t agree. I’ll leave it to the readers to decide.

I still see nothing edifying about this toward the OP’s original struggle.

 

[Randy_Carson]

2 Timothy 3:15-17 is one fav

Yes, it is, but before I take it apart, let me say that was one of the best concession speeches ever.

Now to your verse (and you guys ALWAYS skip v. 14…understandably).

2 Timothy 3:14-17 – Tradition + Scripture + Magisterium

When non-Catholics are asked to provide biblical support or their belief that the Bible Alone is the sole rule of faith for the believer, they usually cite 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which states that “all scripture is God-breathed and is useful”. However, they somehow miss the fact that the two verses immediately prior stress the importance of oral teaching and the teaching authority of the Church. Here is the entire passage with context added:

2 Timothy 3:14-17
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of (Timothy had learned the Gospel and become convinced that it was true by Paul’s ORAL preaching and teaching. This oral preaching and teaching is known to Catholics as Sacred Tradition.), because you know those from whom you learned it **(Timothy had learned the gospel from Paul, an Apostle (and Bishop) of the Church, and possibly from other Church leaders whom Timothy had heard preaching and teaching. The teaching authority of the Church is known to Catholics as the Magisterium.) **, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures (Timothy would have known only the Old Testament scriptures from his infancy since the New Testament had not been written or completed at the time Paul’s letter to Timothy was composed. However, the New Testament is recognized as part of the Bible, the written Word of God. This is known to Catholics as Sacred Scripture.), which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. (Only after commending the Tradition “handed on” from the Magisterium does Paul go on to discuss the nature of Sacred Scripture in the following verses.) 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Viewed this way, we can see that 2 Timothy 3:14-17 does not support the doctrine of sola scriptura at all. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

[adf417]

I want to say, that I sense the frustration here with the way that I’m answering. You’ll have to forgive me, for to me, the answers I’m giving from my perspective are fulfilling from my POV, and are what I see in scripture as truth. But I realize that your perspective is different, and applying it to your family is really very personal. I join you in prayers that they come to the Truth.

Forgiven! and I ask for forgiveness as well as your answers compound my confusion :hypno:

And what then are we to do with scripture that describes itself as living, as never returning void, etc…? It is the very word of God. I believe that if a person were stranded on a desert island alone, and all they had were the holy writings of the major world religions in their language and they could read, that the word of God stands apart even sans an “interpreter.” The Truth is contained in the word. That person could be saved.

Another quote JWs use. Sorry, but the proliferation of protestantism itself proves aginst this.

The issue that I have is that the RCC apparently relies on circular logic in order back up this idea of someone else doing the interpreting. Instead of relying on yourself and God, it seems to be relying on man. You ask how I can interpret and know… the RCC just pushes that question back a notch, in several ways. First, how do you know the magesterium, the pope, etc… are interpreting correctly? Because they say they are based on scripture that they are interpreting and telling you the meaning of? How do you know what their rulings actually mean and how do you apply them personally to your life? That is also interpretation and application.

I know they are interpreting correctly because Jesus left us the church and if it were only an invisible church then it is obvious your bible would most probably look much different than it does. Now where does that logic take your argument? How does your argument hold up in the year say, 250AD when the canon was very fluid at best and no apostles around to clarify a teaching?

There are appointed roles in the churches for sure, and in the family. It is the father’s responsibility as the head of the family to teach his children. Jesus is the head of the church and told us outright that He was sending us His Spirit for guidance, instruction, to bestow gifts, etc… It gives us all that relationship to God the Father and He is teaching His kids. A big chunk if that is His word.

No, because this is what mankind has dealt with from the beginning. We have to test the spirits and try them, we have to study, we have to pray. Unfortunately not everyone is going to hearken to truth. Look at all the Jews that got to see and interact with Christ Himself that maintained false belief. It’s a hard answer, but narrow is the way and few there be that find it.

This study part…are you not putting a lot of pressure on those who can’t quite grasp theology at the level of say, yourself, your pastor, St. Augustine, or even someone as simple as myself? I know many people that fall into this level of intelligence that will never be able to grasp what the spirit is seeming to be telling all of the different protestant denomination, much less other religions, and then make a reasonable conscience decision that will somehow fulfill unity in John 17. Someone once said “there is simplicity in the gospel message”. What about the ones not hearken to the truth, is this because they didn’t study quite enough? Could it be determined they did not test the spirits enough?

I’m an apologist, I’ve studied it. They have faulty interpretation of scripture. You see it in the RCC as well, those members who don’t interpret things the same as what they are told, yet they are still practicing Catholics (so for example those who support homosexual marriage). What you see as an issue is human nature regardless of hierarchical structures over them.

The difference is former is a structure made from man and humans bound to it will sin. The later is a structure from God and the humans bound to it will also sin but the truth in its teaching remains from God.

BTW how do you know they, JWs, have faulty interpretation of scripture? Yes, we keep ending up here and seem to get nowhere.

But you are the one moving the bar, not God. There is simplicity in the gospel message, mankind is the one that has made it hard. Remember, to get it right we have to become in faith as little children. Children flat out don’t understand or care about the filioque controversy. God makes His word easy to understand and His yoke is easy and His burden is light. We (humans) are the ones making it difficult by arguing about issues that are personal matters.

See above.

Grace and peace! Forgive me for not being able to explain properly, it is sometimes harder to explain our own perspectives than the perspectives of others.

I do understand and think much of my frustration comes from my not understanding not your explaining.

Peace!!!