In 'answer' to A Christian

[A-Christian]

A-Christian, I am going to try today to begin a "debate" on Sola Scriptura - I trust that you will be the "opponent"?

Sorry RAD but I have nothing to debate. I'm just waiting for someone to point to chapter and verse that says that the bible is the sole authority of Christianity. My position is that the bible is the book of the Church, not the other way around, and that the Church holds the oral teachings of the apostles as the other half of the deposit of faith and the the Church has the authority to interpret and define dogma and doctrine as she sees fit, guided by the Holy Spirit. You say the bible alone is the authority. Just show me where the bible says that, that's all.

Peace

 

[A-Christian]

Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for evey human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff - Unam Sanctam promulgated November 18, 1302 by Pope Boniface

I think it was Francis who touched on this recently in the Universal Church thread. You may have missed it.

 

[RadicalReformer]

A-Christian, I am going to try today to begin a "debate" on Sola Scriptura - I trust that you will be the "opponent"?

Sorry RAD but I have nothing to debate. I'm just waiting for someone to point to chapter and verse that says that the bible is the sole authority of Christianity. My position is that the bible is the book of the Church, not the other way around, and that the Church holds the oral teachings of the apostles as the other half of the deposit of faith and the the Church has the authority to interpret and define dogma and doctrine as she sees fit, guided by the Holy Spirit. You say the bible alone is the authority. Just show me where the bible says that, that's all.

Peace

Surely you should be held to the same standard then correct? Perhaps you would like to start a topic entitled Sola ecclesia that would defend your position.

I am currently in the middle of the home repair job - I will work on my definition of and defense of Sola Scriptura after lunch.

 

[RadicalReformer]

Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for evey human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff - Unam Sanctam promulgated November 18, 1302 by Pope Boniface

I think it was Francis who touched on this recently in the Universal Church thread. You may have missed it.

Isn't that merely Francis' interpretation of that Bull? I mean it seems to be very clear what Boniface was saying.

 

[dadof10]

Surely you should be held to the same standard then correct? Perhaps you would like to start a topic entitled Sola ecclesia that would defend your position.

You seem to be trying to contrast SS and Sola-Ecclesia, where you err is that Scripture is contained within the Church. It is the Catholic Church's Book and had been translated, guarded, transmitted, etc. for the 1500 years before Luther ripped it away from it's proper place and started interpreting it his own way. You wouldn't even have Scriptura if not for the Catholic Church. When you say "sola-Ecclesia", to us, it includes Scripture.

If you insist upon contrasting the two, I submit there is far more Biblical evidence even for your view of Sola-Ecclesia (i.e. no Scripture at all) than there is for SS.

(1TM 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."

Here Paul calls the Church the pillar and foundation (bulwark) of the Truth. What would you say is the pillar of Truth? Would you say the church or Scripture?

(MT 16:18) "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Here Jesus calls the Church His (therefore it is not a "man-made institution") and promises to keep it from the "powers of death".

(Acts 9:3-4) "Now as he journeyed he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed about him. 4 And he fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

We read in Chapter 8 that Saul was persecuting the "church", yet Jesus asks Saul why he is persecuting Jesus. He is joining Himself to his Church, like the Catholic teaching on the mystical Body.

That's enough for now.

Again I'll ask for the verses that teach SS.

 

[A-Christian]

Isn't that merely Francis' interpretation of that Bull? I mean it seems to be very clear what Boniface was saying.

Off topic again.

Peace

 

[Vic C.]

No offense people, but I may as well move this back to Apologetics if we somehow can't construct a meaningful debate in this thread. What you all say? 8-)

 

[A-Christian]

No offense people, but I may as well move this back to Apologetics if we somehow can't construct a meaningful debate in this thread. What you all say?

That's ok with me Vic.
I have stated my position and have nothing to add. But the opposing side seems to dodge the issue at hand.

Peace

 

[dadof10]

No offense people, but I may as well move this back to Apologetics if we somehow can't construct a meaningful debate in this thread. What you all say? 8-)

OK

 

[Imagican]

MEC,

I guess I misunderstood the nature of this thread. I thought this was the thread that you were going to prove Sola Scriptura. Am I mistaken? You have touch on quite a bit of things but not Sola Scriptura.

I would like to be clear on one thing concerning your last post. You make it sound like the Catholic Church thinks that our Christ-believing-seperated-brethren, such as yourself I assume, have no salvation. That is very innaccurate wouldn't you say?

Again though, is this the Sola Scripture Proof thread or not?

Peace

Firstly, I have NEVER claimed Sola Scriptura, nor do I NOW. That was YOUR argument not mine.

What I claimed is that scripture IS 'enough' to bring one to Christ. And scripture along with a 'true guide', (The Spirit), is ALL that one "NEEDS" in order to understand what God has in store for us.

Since you have admitted that you ARE a Catholic, I have also attepted to point out that by following this organization, you have chosen to place 'blinders' on your eyes. I have attempted to 'remove them'.

So, if you want to argue MORE 'man-made' philosophical 'mumbo jumbo', I can't help you. But if you would like to discuss WHAT God has offered us and HOW, then I would most certainly entertain such a discussion.

NO, scripture has NEVER been nor will it EVER BE an ALL IN ALL aproach to FOLLOWING Christ. It is ENOUGH to FIND Christ though and enough to allow those who follow in Spirit to discern that which IS pleasing to God and that which is NOT.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

A-Christian, I am going to try today to begin a "debate" on Sola Scriptura - I trust that you will be the "opponent"?

Sorry RAD but I have nothing to debate. I'm just waiting for someone to point to chapter and verse that says that the bible is the sole authority of Christianity. My position is that the bible is the book of the Church, not the other way around, and that the Church holds the oral teachings of the apostles as the other half of the deposit of faith and the the Church has the authority to interpret and define dogma and doctrine as she sees fit, guided by the Holy Spirit. You say the bible alone is the authority. Just show me where the bible says that, that's all.

Peace

This CANNOT be offered in the respect of what you claim to be looking for. The SOLE authority of Christianity IS CHRIST. The Bible is NOT the 'sole' authority of ANYTHING. It is NOTHING but a written record. And has most CERTAINLY been 'tainted' by those that translated and compiled it, (we KNOW that the CC had much influence on much of what is contained with the words offered). But that does NOT 'take away' from the FACT that it could not exist if not for the WILL OF GOD.

A, do you not realize that there are those that have Salvation REGARDLESS of the CC? And HOW do you suppose that these would 'receive' said Salvation?

The Bible is FAR from being ABLE to DO anything. Only through the 'same' Spirit that you mention is one even able to understand ANYTHING written in it. Now, do you propose that the CC has a monopoly on The Spirit?

What I stated previous that you misunderstood is that the Bible ALONG with The Spirit IS 'enough', PERIOD. I have NEVER stated Sola Scriptura. And previous to my introduction to this forum, had never even dealt with the phrase. Sounds like a bit more Romanish philosophical 'mumbo jumbo' to me. For IT IS The Spirit that MUST offer truth. Regardless of words written by men, without The Spirit they are simply that; WORDS.

What I offered is that Christ and ALL His apostles that have offered us written words have stated IN THESE words that these words ARE ALL it takes to KNOW what we NEED to know in order to 'come to Christ'. Simple as that. And that these have also stated that there is NO NEED for a 'religious ORGANIZATION' to TEACH us what has ALREADY been offered.

And what YOU have yet to show is that you acknowledge that the CC WITHHELD this 'Word' for WELL over a thousand years. Choosing to simply offer BITS AND PIECES in order to FORCE their followers to 'come back again and again' in the HOPES of obtaining a 'bit more'. Controlling the masses by feeding them the bare minimum to the point of spiritual starvation. And for ONE PURPOSE. Not to 'help' their brothers and sisters, but to make MERCHANDISE of them.

So, you can tell who you will that the CC was there to LEAD their flock to Salvation. But the truth is that the CC has NO ability at ALL to do such a thing. For Salvation was a 'gift' to ALL mankind. And NO religious organization has a monopoly on a gift that is NOT THEIRS to offer. Only in the minds and hearts of those that have fallen prey to their teachings.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

MEC,

I guess I misunderstood the nature of this thread. I thought this was the thread that you were going to prove Sola Scriptura. Am I mistaken? You have touch on quite a bit of things but not Sola Scriptura.

I would like to be clear on one thing concerning your last post. You make it sound like the Catholic Church thinks that our Christ-believing-seperated-brethren, such as yourself I assume, have no salvation. That is very innaccurate wouldn't you say?

Again though, is this the Sola Scripture Proof thread or not?

Peace

A-Christian, you might want to read up on the teachings of the Roman Catholic church then, especially their Papal Bulls:

Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for evey human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff - Unam Sanctam promulgated November 18, 1302 by Pope Boniface

A-Christian, I am going to try today to begin a "debate" on Sola Scriptura - I trust that you will be the "opponent"?

Now THAT'S what I'm talking about. That the CC has attempted to FORCE everyone under it's control to 'believe' that THEY ARE The Word. Rediculous. And THIS was the 'argument'. That NO ONE 'needs' the CC to TEACH them ANYTHING. For one CANNOT TEACH Salvation. It is a 'gift' offered from above, get it, ABOVE that which man, (or men), is capable of.

Our testimony does NOT 'bring' ANY to Salvation. The MOST that it can DO is allow others to be MOVED towards The Spirit. The CC has done NOTHING. God has done ALL through His Son. And ANY teaching that teaches 'against' this FACT is 'false teaching'.

MEC

 

[Imagican]

A-Christian, I am going to try today to begin a "debate" on Sola Scriptura - I trust that you will be the "opponent"?

Sorry RAD but I have nothing to debate. I'm just waiting for someone to point to chapter and verse that says that the bible is the sole authority of Christianity. My position is that the bible is the book of the Church, not the other way around, and that the Church holds the oral teachings of the apostles as the other half of the deposit of faith and the the Church has the authority to interpret and define dogma and doctrine as she sees fit, guided by the Holy Spirit. You say the bible alone is the authority. Just show me where the bible says that, that's all.

Peace

And you will not find that in a 'debate' from me. I have never, nor WILL I, offer that the Bible is the 'sole authority' of Christianity. For CHRIST IS the SOLE AUTHORITY. Christ IS The Head of HIS Church. Not some 'man' wearing an 'HOLY UNIFORM'? Not 'some man' that insist that I bow to him and kiss his hand. You've GOT to be kidding.

And the 'claim' of oral tradition is as bogus as teaching that Mary is the Queen of Heaven. Woman was created FOR man. And Mary was USED for a PURPOSE. And that purpose was NOT to BE WORSHIPED as a 'godess' but simply to BARE the Son of God. She was a 'human being' like ANY OTHER. A mortal piece of flesh. Special ONLY in that she was chosen by God to bear His Son.

You would dismiss my claims as those of a mere mortal. That they have NO power because I am simply a 'man'. Yet A, my oral offerings are JUST as valid as the oral tradition that you 'claim' the CC has a 'monopoly on'. Yet what I offer DOES conform to The Word. I don't offer what I am able for the sake of filthy lucre. I offer my words in sincerity and they are GIVEN without one having to PAY for them. And I insist NOT that one follow ME, (please DON'T, for I have lived a life of UTTER sin),but follow The Son through Spirit so that you may KNOW The Father.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

I have never, nor WILL I, offer that the Bible is the 'sole authority' of Christianity

Thank you MEC

Peace

 

[dadof10]

What I stated previous that you misunderstood is that the Bible ALONG with The Spirit IS 'enough', PERIOD.


What I offered is that Christ and ALL His apostles that have offered us written words have stated IN THESE words that these words ARE ALL it takes to KNOW what we NEED to know in order to 'come to Christ'. Simple as that. And that these have also stated that there is NO NEED for a 'religious ORGANIZATION' to TEACH us what has ALREADY been offered.

Did you just make this up? Did you get it from the "spirit"? From Scripture? If the latter, please provide the verses.

The Fundamentalist view of recieving Truth directly from the Spirit through Scripture ALONE sounds really good in theory, but folds under scrutiny.

Suppose one person "accepts Jesus as Lord and savior", prays for the Holy Spirits guidance, reads Scripture and comes to the conclusion that a person can never lose his salvation. Suppose another person also honestly does all of the above and comes to the conclusion that we CAN lose our salvation. Which "Holy Spirit" guided "born-again" believer is right? And why?

The many Protestant denominations all teaching different combinations of doctrines should show beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jesus never intended Christian Truth to be handed on like this. He founded a Church, guides it to "all Truth" and keeps it from teaching error. Your way is simply your opinion and everyone has one of those.

 

[Imagican]

dadof10,

There ARE those that WILL receive Salvation and there ARE those that won't. I am NOT the 'judge' that will MAKE this determination.

But, I will offer this AGAIN:

Do you propose to tell me and TEACH that one that DOESN'T have a 'man-made' CHURCH to TEACH them of Salvation that Salvation is NOT possible?

If I were ALONE with NOTHING other than the Bible, (let's say I new NOTHING about God or His Son and was placed in SOLITARY confinement. Unable to SPEAK to ANYONE concerning God), is it YOUR contension that I COULD NOT BE SAVED?

I take it ONE step further:

MY God has PROMISED me that IF I knock It WILL be opened, that if I SEEK I SHALL find. If your God does NOT offer the SAME, then I propose that YOUR God and MY God are TWO seperate Gods.

My God has instructed ME that MY sole purpose on this planet is to LOVE HIM ABOVE ALL ELSE and to LOVE MY neighbor AS MYSELF. If your God has taught you ANYTHING different than this, then I again propose that YOUR God is a DIFFERENT God than MY God.

And I have been TOLD by the APOSTLES of Christ NOT to FOLLOW ANY MAN. That through the annointing offered me, REGARDLESS of any 'man-made institution', I AM able to understand and BECOME PERFECT in this understanding.

Please do NOT begrudge me of the FREEDOM that Christ died to offer. For I, anymore than you, did NOT deserve such a 'gift'. But if you would TEACH that God and His Son are NOT ENOUGH, you are most certainly NOT following the 'same' God that I am.

And in answer to your direct question: I cannot 'show' you ANYTHING that you CHOOSE NOT to 'see'. And YES, there WILL be those that choose to 'follow' their OWN will and reading the Word will NOT change this in the least. Nor will someone 'telling them' what THEY 'think' that the other should KNOW. For knowledge, (truth), can only be 'accepted', it CANNOT be 'created'.

MOST of the WORLD as we know it will NEVER 'choose' Christ. That is NOT something that I NEED to 'make up'. That IS FACT as offered THROUGH The Word. And THAT, my friend, is evidence ENOUGH of what I offer in statement.

As there were those FOLLOWING Christ that TURNED away when confronted with the TRUTH, so too NOW are there EVEN more. Offering a semblance of 'belief' but NOTHING in their 'walk' emulating that which has been offered. Offering in words their 'beliefs' but showing NO semblance of the LOVE of which they have been COMMANDED.

So, words debating whether God ALONE has offered us LIFE. Or that Christ DIED so that we may PARTAKE of that LIFE are moot to me to say the least. Someone offering that it takes MORE than what has been offered by MY God and My Savior just goes to meet out what we were WARNED would come to be, 'that there WOULD come those that WOULD worship the 'creature' MORE than the Creator.

MEC

 

[A-Christian]

Do you propose to tell me and TEACH that one that DOESN'T have a 'man-made' CHURCH to TEACH them of Salvation that Salvation is NOT possible?

Luckily, if a person has a bible, they at least have some of the deposit-of-faith provided by the CAtholic Church. If that person accepts Christ as his savior and lives a christian life, he shall be saved by his faith in Christ and the life he lives because of his faith, thanks due to of the book of the Catholic Church. Even though he is saved, he still will not have the fullness of the faith, and therefore will be subject to being mis-led by those that also do not know the fullness of the Christian. So yes MEC, your claim of "the bible alone is enough", has some validity but it was nice to see that you realize that the bible is non-authoritive. Without the authority and apostolic teaching of the Catholic Church, chaos ensues in the faith, as witnessed by the contrary teachings of tens of thousands of protestant denominations including the Anabaptist. Like it or not, because you endeavor to follow the book of the Catholic Church, you are the brethren of the Catholic Church even though you are separated, by your choice usually, from the completeness of Christianity. Because of your faith in the Church's book, you fall under the cape of the Catholic Church to some degree even if you don't think so.

Now when you call the Catholic Church man-made, you deny the words of Christ.

And I have been TOLD by the APOSTLES of Christ NOT to FOLLOW ANY MAN.

Did it ever occur to you that you are not to follow any man that is not in communion with the visible Church founded by Christ? It seems to me that the apostles were teaching Christians to follow them in their teaching. You see, this a perfect example of what happens when the bible-only folks try to interpret the book of the Church without listening to what the Church says about her book.

I do want to say "good job" to you MEC for admitting that the bible is not the authority of Christianity. Yes, the visible authority on earth is the holy and apostolic Catholic Church, instituted by Christ, with authority given to imperfect men, guided by the Holy Spirit and withstanding the gates of hell forever.

Instead of working against the Holy Spirit in that manner, why don't you forget everything you ever learned from anti-Catholic books, anti-Catholic websites, and anti-Catholic people, and investigate the Church from the Church's side, using a fresh set of eyes and ears? I'm telling you as a former anti-Catholic protestant, you simply don't understand that which you criticize.

Peace

 

[dadof10]

Do you propose to tell me and TEACH that one that DOESN'T have a 'man-made' CHURCH to TEACH them of Salvation that Salvation is NOT possible?

If I were ALONE with NOTHING other than the Bible, (let's say I new NOTHING about God or His Son and was placed in SOLITARY confinement. Unable to SPEAK to ANYONE concerning God), is it YOUR contension that I COULD NOT BE SAVED?

First of all, the Catholic Church is not "man-made" like Protestant churches are. Historically, the Catholic Church is the one founded by Christ, who said "I will build MY Church", and joined by Paul who wrote "...the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth". It was not founded by a mere man. If the church is simply the "community of believers", how can it be the pillar of truth when there are so many different "communities" all teaching different "truths" which directly contradict each other?

Secondly, I was not talking about salvation specifically. My point is, how is Truth transmitted to us, by Scripture alone, or by the Church, which includes Scripture?

Lastly, your example is a very extraordinary case. You are confusing ordinary and extraordinary means of salvation. One way of illustrating the difference is to contrast the "rich, young man" and the thief on the cross. The man came to Jesus, presumably, healthy with years ahead of him. He asked "what must I do to inherit eternal life"? Jesus told him to keep the commandments and, if he wanted to be perfect, sell everything and follow Him. This is the ordinary means of applying the merits of Christ to the believer. The thief, on the other hand, was hours from death, hanging on a cross. He couldn't keep the commandments or "follow him, yet he was saved because he did all he could when the Grace of God moved him. This is an extraordinary circumstance. God wants us to give EVERYTHING to Him, however and whenever we are called. In answer to your direct question: Yes, you could be saved.

And I have been TOLD by the APOSTLES of Christ NOT to FOLLOW ANY MAN. That through the annointing offered me, REGARDLESS of any 'man-made institution', I AM able to understand and BECOME PERFECT in this understanding.

I don't understand. Are you saying you get this from Scripture, or private revelation?

And in answer to your direct question: I cannot 'show' you ANYTHING that you CHOOSE NOT to 'see'. And YES, there WILL be those that choose to 'follow' their OWN will and reading the Word will NOT change this in the least. Nor will someone 'telling them' what THEY 'think' that the other should KNOW. For knowledge, (truth), can only be 'accepted', it CANNOT be 'created'.

MOST of the WORLD as we know it will NEVER 'choose' Christ. That is NOT something that I NEED to 'make up'. That IS FACT as offered THROUGH The Word. And THAT, my friend, is evidence ENOUGH of what I offer in statement.

Hummm...In answer to the question "Suppose one person "accepts Jesus as Lord and savior", prays for the Holy Spirits guidance, reads Scripture and comes to the conclusion that a person can never lose his salvation. Suppose another person also honestly does all of the above and comes to the conclusion that we CAN lose our salvation. Which "Holy Spirit" guided "born-again" believer is right? And why?" Your answer is the above?...I'm sorry I don't see an answer there. Could you please elaborate? Which "bible-believer" is right and why?

Someone offering that it takes MORE than what has been offered by MY God and My Savior just goes to meet out what we were WARNED would come to be, 'that there WOULD come those that WOULD worship the 'creature' MORE than the Creator.

Something more than what has been offered? Please show where Scripture teaches any SEMBLENCE of SS, any way you want to define it. It was not taught in historic Christianity for 1500 years, nor is it taught in Scripture. So, is SS "MORE than what has been offered by MY God and My Savior"? Are you worshipping "the 'creature' MORE than the Creator"?

 

[A-Christian]

You last post was excellent Dadof10.

 

[Imagican]

dad,

If SS is an abreviation of Sola Scriptura then I agree with what you offer. I have NEVER adhered to this teaching. For the words offered in the Bible have NO specific meaning to those that are LOST. It is JUST a book WITHOUT the guidance of The Spirit. Sola Scriptura is just another philosophical 'making' of man.

I will offer again: Whether it be the CC that leads or the Bible that one follows through, (or not), the Spirit, one's salvation will NOT be determined by EITHER. One's salvation is an issue that revolves around the circumcision of one's heart that can ONLY take place by one accepting Christ into their HEARTS. NOTHING 'outside' is able to 'save' one's soul. Whether this be a 'church', a 'priest', a book or WHATEVER.

All I have attempted to offer is that the Bible IS able to bring one to truth through the written record of Jesus Christ. Whether those that read it accept it or deny it is NOT determinable by a 'church'. It IS the individual that either allows Christ INTO their hearts, or denies Him access.
The Book CANNOT 'make' this determination, nor can a 'church'.

From the perspective that you have offered, one that is unable to 'join' the CC is LOST. Christ came to offer salvation to ALL men. Not JUST 'some' men that are members of the CC. But all that become members of HIS Body REGARDLESS of affiliation to some 'man-made' organization.

I DO understand your perspective. You 'believe' that the CC IS this 'body'. But what you 'fail' to see is that the CC is an 'organization' that was formed NOT NECESARRILY by the Holy Spirit, but by MEN. Were these Spirit filled? I CAN'T answer that question. All I can do is study the history of the CC and make a determination as to HOW CLOSELY these followed the example offered by MY Savior, Jesus Christ. And dad, we ARE told to discern the spirit of those that would LEAD us to determine WHAT spirit these follow. Whether it be The Spirit, or simply of 'a spirit'. For there ARE spirits MANY. What we are to do is follow The Spirit of God.

I really don't wish to dwell on the CC. I find that each time that I attempt to offer my understanding that those that adhere to this denomination take offense no matter what I state unless it COMPLETELY agrees with their 'view' of the church that they follow. Any mention of the TRUTH concerning it's history is immediately attacked and accuses of being 'made up', or conforming to 'some other source' of information.

I would like to state for the record here: I have NOT contained by education to subversive documents written by those that have 'an agenda'. I have certainly 'seen' such documentation and have no 'use' for it. I attempt to seek valid sources REGARDLESS of 'my view'. No other way that I could come to a 'reasonable conclusion' to ANYTHING if I were to simply 'look' for those things that agree with MY ideas.

I do NOT look for nor do I take to myself the information that I am so often accused of. That my understanding may be similar to 'anti' articles or writtings, does NOTHING to even indicate that 'these places' or 'people' is where ANY of my understanding 'comes FROM'.

I have read the CC's propoganda concerning their history. And I have read the history that has been maintained from independant sources, (you DO realize that that members of the CC were NOT the ONLY individuals throughout history that were ABLE to write, right?), and even the history kept by the CC itself confims MUCH of what I offer in understanding.

I was not LEAD in one direction or another, (unless you want to include The Spirit), concerning the NATURE of the CC. My understanding is an accumilation of knowledge from MANY MANY different sources, INCLUDING the history offered by the CC itself.

And NOT ONLY ANCIENT HISTORY my friends. For the CC continues to MAKE history day by day. There is modern history that plainly shows the 'same' attitude of that of the past. They are certainly attempting to 'become' more 'mainstream' in their 'outward views, but it is obvious that this is nothing other than an illusion created for the 'sake' of the ATTEMPT to gain more of a congregation. Otherwise, they PLAINLY show that their views of the past were WRONG for WHAT
'other reasons'?

This thread was really JUST meant to BE an answer to what I though AChristian was in 'disagreement' with concerning HOW we are ABLE to come to the TRUTH. If it is simply to be turned into another thread arguing for or against Catholocism I have NO problem with this. But usually the mods DO and we can CERTAINLY only discuss such matter so long as we KEEP the discussion confined to the ISSUES and NOT entertain personal attacks against each other. For I have NO desire to pass insults back and forth. I have NO animosity towards ANY man over HIS or her beliefs. NO PERSONAL feelings other than pain when I see those that I 'believe' are NOT following in Spirit.

My point above and the reason for this answer is NOT to 'start something' again. It is simply in answser to the accusations made against me in indication that I am still in ignorance. ONCE MORE: I do NOT teach NOR do I endorse SOLA SCIPTURA. Only in the minds and hearts of those UNWILLING to accept MY DEFINITION of WHO I am and WHAT I believe could they place this label on me. I believe in Sola Scriptura NO MORE than I believe in 'trinity'.

MEC