jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Doc110 in an effort to attack the Christian faith, while exalting his pagan faith weaves false information and lies.

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture. Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice. This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be “God-breathed” (theopnuestos) and thus by it believers are “competent, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura. This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient. And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not. Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal. This they often did by the introductory phrase, “It is written,” which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10). Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today. For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers. This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today. What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition. He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, “And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?…You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition” (Matt. 15:3, 6). It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures. There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century. Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy. Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us “not to go beyond what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).11 This kind of exhortation is found throughout Scripture. Moses was told, “You shall not add to what I command you nor subtract from it” (Deut. 4:2). Solomon reaffirmed this in Proverbs, saying, “Every word of God is tested….Add nothing to his words, lest he reprove you, and you be exposed as a deceiver” (Prov. 30:5-6). Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: “I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life…” (Rev. 22:18-19). Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically. Of course, none of these are a prohibition on future revelations. But they do apply to the point of difference between Protestants and Catholics, namely, whether there are any authoritative normative revelations outside those revealed to apostles and prophets and inscripturated in the Bible. And this is precisely what these texts say. Indeed, even the prophet himself was not to add to the revelation God gave him. For prophets were not infallible in everything they said, but only when giving God’s revelation to which they were not to add or from which they were not to subtract a word. Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura. For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation. Roman Catholics admit that the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching we have from the first century. However, they do not seem to appreciate the significance of this fact as it bears on the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. For even many early fathers testified to the fact that all apostolic teaching was put in the New Testament. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that “admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament.” Indeed, many early fathers, including Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Chrysostom, and Augustine, believed that the Bible was the only infallible basis for all Christian doctrine.12 Further, if the New Testament is the only infallible record of apostolic teaching, then every other record from the first century is fallible. It matters not that Catholics believe that the teaching Magisterium later claims to pronounce some extrabiblical tradition as infallibly true. The fact is that they do not have an infallible record from the first century on which to base such a decision.

Sola Scriptura: All Apostolic “Traditions” Are in the Bible

It is true that the New Testament speaks of following the “traditions” (=teachings) of the apostles, whether oral or written. This is because they were living authorities set up by Christ (Matt. 18:18; Acts 2:42; Eph. 2:20). When they died, however, there was no longer a living apostolic authority since only those who were eyewitnesses of the resurrected Christ could have apostolic authority (Acts 1:22; 1 Cor. 9:1). Because the New Testament is the only inspired (infallible) record of what the apostles taught, it follows that since the death of the apostles the only apostolic authority we have is the inspired record of their teaching in the New Testament. That is, all apostolic tradition (teaching) on faith and practice is in the New Testament. This does not necessarily mean that everything the apostles ever taught is in the New Testament, any more than everything Jesus said is there (cf. John 20:30; 21:25). What it does mean is that all apostolic teaching that God deemed necessary for the faith and practice (morals) of the church was preserved (2 Tim. 3:15-17). It is only reasonable to infer that God would preserve what He inspired. The fact that apostles sometimes referred to “traditions” they gave orally as authoritative in no way diminishes the Protestant argument for sola Scriptura. First, it is not necessary to claim that these oral teachings were inspired or infallible, only that they were authoritative. The believers were asked to “maintain” them (1 Cor. 11:2) and “stand fast in them” (2 Thess. 2:15). But oral teachings of the apostles were not called “inspired” or “unbreakable” or the equivalent, unless they were recorded as Scripture. The apostles were living authorities, but not everything they said was infallible. Catholics understand the difference between authoritative and infallible, since they make the same distinction with regard to noninfallible statements made by the Pope and infallible ex cathedra (“from the seat” of Peter) ones. Second, the traditions (teachings) of the apostles that were revelations were written down and are inspired and infallible. They comprise the New Testament. What the Catholic must prove, and cannot, is that the God who deemed it so important for the faith and morals of the faithful to inspire the inscripturation of 27 books of apostolic teaching would have left out some important revelation in these books. Indeed, it is not plausible that He would have allowed succeeding generations to struggle and even fight over precisely where this alleged extrabiblical revelation is to be found. So, however authoritative the apostles were by their office, only their inscripturated words are inspired and infallible (2 Tim. 3:16-17; cf. John 10:35). There is not a shred of evidence that any of the revelation God gave them to express was not inscripturated by them in the only books — the inspired books of the New Testament — that they left for the church. This leads to another important point. The Bible makes it clear that God, from the very beginning, desired that His normative revelations be written down and preserved for succeeding generations. “Moses then wrote down all the words of the Lord” (Exod. 24:4), and his book was preserved in the Ark (Deut. 31:26). Furthermore, “Joshua made a covenant with the people that day and made statutes and ordinances for them… which he recorded in the book of the law of God” (Josh. 24:25-26) along with Moses’ (cf. Josh. 1:7). Likewise, “Samuel next explained to the people the law of royalty and wrote it in a book, which he placed in the presence of the Lord” (1 Sam. 10:25). Isaiah was commanded by the Lord to “take a large cylinder-seal, and inscribe on it in ordinary letters” (Isa. 8:1) and to “inscribe it in a record; that it may be in future days an eternal witness” (30:8). Daniel had a collection of “the books” of Moses and the prophets right down to his contemporary Jeremiah (Dan. 9:2). Jesus and New Testament writers used the phrase “It is written” (cf. Matt. 4:4, 7, 10) over 90 times, stressing the importance of the written word of God. When Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders it was not because they did not follow the traditions but because they did not “understand the Scriptures” (Matt. 22:29). All of this makes it clear that God intended from the very beginning that His revelation be preserved in Scripture, not in extrabiblical tradition. To claim that the apostles did not write down all God’s revelation to them is to claim that they were not obedient to their prophetic commission not to subtract a word from what God revealed to them.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible Does Not State a Preference for Oral Tradition

The Catholic use of 3 John to prove the superiority of oral tradition is a classic example of taking a text out of context. John is not comparing oral and written tradition about the past but a written, as opposed to a personal, communication in the present. Notice carefully what he said: “I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon when we can talk face to face” (3 John 13). Who would not prefer a face-to-face talk with a living apostle over a letter from him? But that is not what oral tradition gives. Rather, it provides an unreliable oral tradition as opposed to an infallible written one. Sola Scriptura contends the latter is preferable.

Sola Scriptura: The Bible Is Clear Apart from Tradition

The Bible has perspicuity apart from any traditions to help us understand it. As stated above, and contrary to a rather wide misunderstanding by Catholics, perspicuity does not mean that everything in the Bible is absolutely clear but that the main message is clear. That is, all doctrines essential for salvation and living according to the will of God are sufficiently clear. Indeed, to assume that oral traditions of the apostles, not written in the Bible, are necessary to interpret what is written in the Bible under inspiration is to argue that the uninspired is more clear than the inspired. But it is utterly presumptuous to assert that what fallible human beings pronounce is clearer than what the infallible Word of God declares. Further, it is unreasonable to insist that words of the apostles that were not written down are more clear than the ones they did write. We all know from experience that this is not so.

Sola Scriptura: Tradition and Scripture Are Not Inseparable

Kreeft’s claim that Scripture and apostolic tradition are inseparable is unconvincing. Even his illustration of the horse (Scripture) and the rider (tradition) would suggest that Scripture and apostolic tradition are separable. Further, even if it is granted that tradition is necessary, the Catholic inference that it has to be infallible tradition — indeed, the infallible tradition of the church of Rome — is unfounded. Protestants, who believe in sola Scriptura, accept genuine tradition; they simply do not believe it is infallible. Finally, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that the Bible was produced by the Roman Catholic church. As we will see in the next point, this is not the case.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Sola Scriptura: The Principle of Causality Is Not Violated

Kreeft’s argument that sola Scriptura violates the principle of causality is invalid for one fundamental reason: it is based on a false assumption. He wrongly assumes, unwittingly in contrast to what Vatican II and even Vatican I say about the canon,13 that the church determined the canon. In fact, God determined the canon by inspiring these books and no others. The church merely discovered which books God had determined (inspired) to be in the canon. This being the case, Kreeft’s argument that the cause must be equal to its effect (or greater) fails.

Sola Scriptura: Rejection of Tradition Does Not Necessitate Scandal

Kreeft’s claim that the rejection of the Roman Catholic view on infallible tradition leads to the scandal of denominationalism does not follow for many reasons. First, this wrongly implies that all denominationalism is scandalous. Not necessarily so, as long as the denominations do not deny the essential doctrines of the Christian church and true spiritual unity with other believers in contrast to mere external organizational uniformity. Nor can one argue successfully that unbelievers are unable to see spiritual unity. For Jesus declared: “This is how all [men] will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35). Second, as orthodox Catholics know well, the scandal of liberalism is as great inside the Catholic church as it is outside of it. When Catholic apologists claim there is significantly more doctrinal agreement among Catholics than Protestants, they must mean between orthodox Catholics and all Protestants (orthodox and unorthodox) — which, of course, is not a fair comparison. Only when one chooses to compare things like the mode and candidate for baptism, church government, views on the Eucharist, and other less essential doctrines are there greater differences among orthodox Protestants. When, however, we compare the differences with orthodox Catholics and orthodox Protestants or with all Catholics and all Protestants on the more essential doctrines, there is no significant edge for Catholicism. This fact negates the value of the alleged infallible teaching Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church. In point of fact, Protestants seem to do about as well as Catholics on unanimity of essential doctrines with only an infallible Bible and no infallible interpreters of it! Third, orthodox Protestant “denominations,” though there be many, have not historically differed much more significantly than have the various “orders” of the Roman Catholic church. Orthodox Protestants’ differences are largely over secondary issues, not primary (fundamental) doctrines. So this Catholic argument against Protestantism is self-condemning. Fourth, as J. I. Packer noted, “the real deep divisions have been caused not by those who maintained sola Scriptura, but by those, Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, who reject it.” Further, “when adherents of sola Scriptura have split from each other the cause has been sin rather than Protestant biblicism….”14 Certainly this is often the case. A bad hermeneutic (method of interpreting Scripture) is more crucial to deviation from orthodoxy than is the rejection of an infallible tradition in the Roman Catholic church.

Sola Scriptura: First Century Christians Had Scripture and Living Apostles

Kreeft’s argument that the first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the church to teach them, overlooks several basic facts. First, the essential Bible of the early first century Christians was the Old Testament, as the New Testament itself declares (cf. 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Rom. 15:4; 1 Cor. 10:6). Second, early New Testament believers did not need further revelation through the apostles in written form for one very simple reason: they still had the living apostles to teach them. As soon as the apostles died, however, it became imperative for the written record of their infallible teaching to be available. And it was — in the apostolic writings known as the New Testament. Third, Kreeft’s argument wrongly assumes that there was apostolic succession (see Part Four, next issue). The only infallible authority that succeeded the apostles was their infallible apostolic writings, that is, the New Testament.

TexaCan Loc: Homeward Bound!

Thank you for taking the time to defend the Bible and the words of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Radiance3

===================

10-Point Biblical Refutation of Sola Scriptura
The Bible teaches that a “three-legged stool” (Bible, Church and Tradition) is necessary to arrive at the truth.

Dave Armstrong
1. It's Not Taught in the Bible
Scripture certainly is a “standard of truth”, but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic tradition and the Church. Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is materially sufficient: i.e., every true doctrine can be found in the Bible, if only implicitly and indirectly by deduction. But no biblical passage teaches that Scripture is the sole rule of faith for the Christian (formal sufficiency). Nor can sola Scriptura be deduced from implicit passages.

2. “Word of God”
“Word” in Holy Scripture quite often refers to a proclaimed, oral word of prophets or apostles. They spoke the word of God, whether or not their utterances were later recorded in Scripture (see, e.g., Jer 25:3, 7-8). The oral “word” had equal authority. This was also true of apostolic preaching (1 Thess 2:13).

3. Tradition is Not a Dirty Word
The Bible condemns corrupt traditions of men (e.g., Matt 15:2-6, Mk 7:8-13, Col 2:8). Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic traditions are also positively endorsed. These traditions are in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture. In that sense, Scripture is the “final judge” of tradition, but not in the sense that it rules out all binding tradition and Church authority (see, e.g., Acts 2:42; 1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 1:13-14; 2:2; Jude 3).

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions
Jesus and St. Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament, but they also appealed to other authority, outside of written revelation. For example, in Matthew 23:2-3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority, based on a teaching succession from Moses’ seat, which phrase (or idea) cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishna.

In 1 Corinthians 10:4, St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, in the related passages about Moses striking the rock to produce water (Exodus 17:1-7; Numbers 20:2-13). But rabbinic tradition does. Paul refers in 2 Timothy 3:8: to “Jannes and Jambres” who “opposed Moses”. These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Exodus 7:8 ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

5. Jerusalem Council
The Jerusalem Council (Acts 15:6-30) made an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians (Acts 15:28-29). In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas, traveling around, “delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem” (Acts 16:4).

6. Pharisees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition
Christianity was derived in many ways from the pharisaical tradition of Judaism (which accepted oral tradition). Christian Pharisees are referred to (Acts 15:5; Phil 3:5), so neither the (orthodox) Old Testament Jews nor the early Church were guided by the principle of sola Scriptura. The Pharisees (despite their corruptions and excesses) were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul (who called himself a Pharisee three times: Acts 23:6; 26:5; Phil 3:5) acknowledge this.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura / Necessity of Interpretation
Ezra read the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (Neh 8:3). Thirteen Levites assisted him and “helped the people to understand the law” (8:7) and “gave the sense, so that the people understood the reading” (8:8; cf. Ezra 7:6, 10, 25-26; 2 Chr 17:8-9). The New Testament concurs. Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And the eunuch replied, “How can I, unless some one guides me?” (see Acts 8:27-31). St. Peter states that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (2 Pet 1:20), and refers to parts of Paul's epistles being “hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Pet 3:15-16). Likewise, Jesus “explained everything” about the parables to His disciples (Mk 4:33-34).

8. 2 Timothy 3:16-17: The Protestant “Proof Text”
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.
This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency. In 2 Timothy alone (in context), Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14). Also, a very similar passage, Ephesians 4:11-15, would prove (using Protestant reasoning) the sufficiency of “pastors” and “teachers” for the attainment of Christian perfection. The Christian believer is “equipped, built up,” brought into “unity” and “mature manhood, knowledge” of Jesus, the “fulness of Christ,” and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. Yet this Pauline passage doesn’t even mention Scripture.

9. Paul Casually Assumes that His Passed-Down Tradition is Infallible and Binding
Paul says that Christians should “have nothing to do with” (2 Thess 3:14) and “avoid” (Rom 16:17) those who refuse to follow his authoritative (and not yet formally scriptural) instructions.

10. Sola Scriptura is a Radically Circular Position
When Protestants are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to the “Bible’s clear teaching”. This is similar to people on two sides of a legal, constitutional debate both saying, “well, we go by what is constitutional, whereas you guys don’t.” But judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are binding. Protestantism lacks this element because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book (which must always be interpreted by human beings). In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned in Scripture. The Bible teaches that a “three-legged stool”: Bible + Church + tradition, is necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg, it collapses.

bahmer

Amen and Amen I concur with TexaCan as well.

Radiance3

==========================
Jack, you've posted again a bunch of lies and fake accusations of the Catholic Church as Pagan. Your Protestant Church created during 1517, was a revision of the Church of Christ built in 33 A.D.

Matthew 6:13-20.
“And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

This Church of Christ built on 33 A.D. has the continuity of the Catholic Universal Church in Jerusalem, Judea, and Rome in 312-326. All historical perspectives from Jesus, to the Apostles, St. Peter, and all Saints, have been carried forward by the Catholic Universal Church.

Your Protestant Church revisions during the 16th century, left out so many Scriptures in the Old and New Testament. For example: the practices of the old traditions from Jesus Christ, to the Apostles, to Saint Peter and all Saints, and down to the line, were ignored and left out by your Church.
Example: Catholic Church carried these:
**Is our faith based on Scripture and Tradition? Both
(2 Thes 2:15).

**Are we justified by faith or works? Both
(Gal 2:15; Jas 2:24).

The Catholic Church carried them from the historical perspectives, from beginning to the end. Because Jesus said on Matthew 6:13-20. “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” That means continuity.

Your misconceptions and arrogant attempts to destroy the Catholic Church with your revised gospel during the 16th century, you labeled my Catholic Church as a CULT and PAGAN. You’ve also said that few days ago on your OPP reply.

That was a direct assault on me. It hit me like a brick, and then repeatedly, you did the same today. I cried a lot for that, and you’ve made me cry and suffer again because of your arrogance. When you hit my Catholic Church, you also hit me, Doc110, and all the Catholic faithful all over the world. I stand with them.

The other day on your reply to me, you’ve said, “Radiance, I love you as my sister in Christ”. No, you don’t. I think you are a hypocrite, a narcissist and arrogant.
You hit me repeatedly, is that love as your sister in Christ?

Now, I prayed and pondered again, cried to God, how to reply to you.
As I’ve mentioned on my reply to you the other day, I said, “I don’t want to hurt you.” And I asked your forgiveness if I hurt you. For Jesus said:

Matthew 18:21-22
Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.

But you continue hitting me back. Now, I conclude that you do not belong to God. Did your Protestant Church ask you to do that?

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Jack,

Here is what I found in Gods truth and majesty which is Love.

Here is 26 facts of Salvation and fundamental truths of Salvation.


A. The Gift of God's Salvation.

B. In justification we receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

C. The grace of Christ and the gift of the Spirit received through faith.

D. Faith.

E. Baptism.

F. Baptism into Death.

G. Law of love in obedience to Jesus Christ.

H. Sanctification. Scripture calls this the life of holiness.

I. Purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit.

J. Perfecting holiness out of reverence for God.

K. Sanctification, is progressively furthered as we struggle, with God’s grace and help, against adversity and temptation.

M. In humble repentance and confidently ask for, and receive, his forgiveness.

N. God heals our Suffering.

O. Faith we dare not presume, promise of God and about our eternal future, our firm hope, to encourage one another, in such hope we rejoice.

P. Believers, the coming of the salvation to be revealed as justified sinners we have been saved, this is the gift of God. Bearers of the good news, to serve one another, to evangelize.

Q. Evangelicals, and Catholics, speaking the truth in love with unity of the Holy Spirit in the bond of peace, that the body of Christ may be built up and we defend religious freedom.

R. Baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist, and sacramental grace.

S. Language of justification and transformative righteousness.

T. Justification is by faith alone, the faith that receives salvation is never alone.

U. Understandings of works, merit, reward, purgatory, and indulgences.

V. Marian devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation.

W. Bearing witness together to God’s gift of salvation in Christ.

X. Jesus said, No divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.

Y. Affirm our unity in the Gospel that we have here professed, unity in the truth, pleasing to the Lord and Savior whom we together serve.

Z. For he is "The way, the truth, and the life.

Doc110

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Radiance,

I genuinely Love you in Christ. You to often display the love of Christ unlike many claiming to be Christian or Catholic Christian.
You once said you believe the same as Doc yet often much of your post pass the test of scripture and very different from Doc. As a very generalized example, should we focus a conversation on salvation it would be narrowed down to a few points of discussion scripturally, with much shared terminology, Doc's posted salvation of pages and pages, links opens up many contradictions to scripture, a great deal of terminology contradictions.

I am traveling and won't be settled in our (south for the winter) spot for a few days so need to be brief for now. I would very much like to have a Christ centered exchange with you, your option and scripturally based not a Protestant VS Catholic exchange. I'm not about "winning" a point rather discussing a point.
Until later, take care
God Bless

Radiance3

==============
Jack, thank you. But I must let you understand that I am not an expert in the Christian theology, though I have my faith deeply rooted since I was born.

Doc110 is an expert. He writes all the historical events that happened in the Bible, from the beginning to end. We could not shorten that, for they are essential to understanding the true Church of Christ.

I trust Doc, and I am glad, he opened my eyes, mind, and heart wider for the love of God. I trust all what he stands for, and I am going to listen and follow him in this journey on earth until we reach the Lord's forever loving home.

I hope you too, and we must not fight. Because every time we insult each other, Jesus is hurting.
Have a good trip.

jack sequim wa Loc: Blanchard, Idaho

Doc,
Thank you for taking me off the ignore list and greatly appreciate your post.
Forgive me for not replying sooner, as I explained to another poster I'm traveling south for the winter and will have better time management for discussion in a few days.
Don't expect more "Doc110" post from me, my hope is a open conversation not a you against me and a point at a time if that's OK with you. I hope you will agree posting counter post covering twenty topics is not in our best interest in having an honest heartfelt exchange.
Again I truly appreciate your post and genuinely desire a Christ centered exchange void of insults of any degree. I can be caddy and don't deny on my part, for that I apologize and clearly understand my exchange should always be for the Glory of our God, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

Until later
May the peace and joy in Jesus the Christ be with you.
Jack