Thursday, August 17, 2023

10-Point+ Biblical Refutation of RC Attempted Refutation of Sola Scriptura

 

10-Point+ Biblical Refutation of RC Attempted Refutation of Sola Scriptura (which vain  attempt was was by RC apologist Dave Armstrong, published in the National Catholic Register, December 11, 2016) 
 
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.

Plainly wrong. First, "authentic apostolic tradition" is based upon the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial veracity (EPMV) as per Rome which is nowhere seen or promised in Scripture (leading into all Truth" does not mean that). Thus EPMV itself flows from tradition, but it is another example or Catholic circularity.

Secondly, "authentic apostolic tradition" has as it corollary that of Jewish tradition, which the Orthodox also invoke today in rejecting Christ, but the Lord and His apostles never invoked tradition as being the supreme standard. And while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, and thus call souls to hold fast to their tradition, Rome does not and cannot presumes its popes and ecumenical councils speak as wholly inspired of God.

But it is abundantly evidenced that as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. And Scripture provided the epistemological doctrinal and prophetic foundation for the NT church, which it is grounded in and supports, being the support "of the Truth." Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, (Acts 17:11) and not vice versa.

For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (.44,45; ; 18:28, etc.)

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

[1b] 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.

SS actually includes the materially sense as regards sufficiency, but not as in Catholicism, (esp. RC) in which "The Church" asserts that written and oral tradition teach ensured perpetual magisterial veracity in formal teaching on faith and morals uniquely for their church, thus effectively validating its own claim, and thus if they claim the Assumption is a fact, then all are to believe it. But SS does teach material sufficiency in the sense that "what is "necessary for God's own glory, man's salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added [as public express revelation], whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men."

To which it adds that souls by "a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them" (necessary things). And that,

.".we acknowledge...that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature , and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.” http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

Thus while Scripture itself does not provide a full table of contents, yet since it is manifest that souls did discern both men and writings as being of God (as seen by John the baptizer being judged as a prophet and the establishment of what the Lord referred to as "all the Scripture" (; ) before there was a church, then thus by logical (Scripture also materially evidences, affirms, provides for the use of reason) "good and necessary consequence" then the development of a canon is found to be Scriptural.

meaning that whatever a thus it affirms that "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)

Thus the issue is that of sola prima,

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., , ). The oral “word” had equal authority. This was also true of apostolic preaching ().

As said, this argument and its polemical premise is invalid, since while men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby, and thus call souls to hold fast to their tradition, Rome does not and cannot presumes its popes and ecumenical councils speak as wholly inspired of God.

3. Tradition is Not a Dirty Word
The Bible condemns corrupt traditions of men (e.g., , , ). 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., ; ; ; ; 2:2; ).

What binding tradition and Church authority means is that As said, what authentic apostolic traditions consist of rests upon the premise of the tradition of ensured magisterial veracity, thus being circular logic. For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching on faith and morals. 

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 , 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.

Wrong. First, if the RCs cared to search, though should fined that the idea - as a principle - of supreme - but not of ensured perpetual infallibility - magisterial authority can be found in the Old Testament, as can that of civil authority and the supreme court, () as well as successors in Judaism ; ; )

Secondly, the fact that something found in a source called "tradition" is cited in Scripture does not mean that whatever is in that tradition is of God, any more than Paul citing a truth expressed by a pagan () means that whatever else is in that tradition is of God. And SS affirms the principle of more Scripture being added to the OT and discerned as it.

The issue thus becomes the authority of the entity that states that something is of God, and in the cited examples it is wholly God-inspired sources, Christ and Paul, who affirm such, while as for Rome, she does not speaks as wholly God-inspired voice, and her claim of EPMV is one that rests upon itself.

[4b] In , St. Paul refers to a rock which “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement, i

More ignorance: "And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ" () is indeed spoken of, the literal event of water out of a rock (Exo. 17:6; ; , , ) which represented spiritual drink and the spiritual Rock which was Christ. And who followed them. (, ) Whatever tradition says does not negate the Biblical basis for this statement.

Paul refers in : to “Jannes and Jambres” who “opposed Moses”. These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage ( ff.), or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

Again, the fact that something found in a source called "tradition" is cited in Scripture does not mean that whatever is in that tradition is of God, any more than Paul citing a truth expressed by a pagan () means that whatever else is in that tradition is of God. The issue thus becomes the authority of the entity that states that something is of God, and in the cited examples it is wholly God-inspired sources, Christ and Paul, who affirm such, while as for Rome, she does not speaks as wholly God-inspired voice, and her claim of EPMV is one that rests upon itself.

5. Jerusalem Council
The Jerusalem Council () made an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) which was binding on all Christians ().

Indeed, and again SS affirms "It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerinially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions" if Scriptural, and James provided Scriptural substantiation in the concluding judgment on this matter of discipline.

But while we know that this was of God since it is recorded in Scripture, neither this or any other event examples or teaches ensured perpetual magisterial veracity as per Rome, and Peter did not decree anything here. 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 (; ), so neither the (orthodox) Old Testament Jews nor the early Church were guided by the principle of sola Scriptura.

Non-sensical leaps of illogic. Scripture provided the epistemological doctrinal and prophetic foundation for the NT church, which church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (; cf. ) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, () as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (, ; 17:4,7,8; ; Lv. 10:11; ; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; , , ; )

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and which the Messiah reproved, based upon Scripture as being supreme, () and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (; , ; , ; ; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; , etc.)

The fact that the church flowed from the OT and thus elements of Pharisaical authority simply does not affirm or equate to adoption of all their modus operandi and premise of veracity, and instead of affirmation of all their tradition they are are reproved for being contrary to Scripture. ()

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura / Necessity of Interpretation
Ezra read the law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem (). Thirteen Levites assisted him and “helped the people to understand the law” (8:7)

SS strawman. Sad that an professional RC apologist engages in this, as if Westminster all the SS commentaries and teachers were the ones who did not understand SS.

[7b] St. Peter states that “no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation” (), and [he] refers to parts of Paul's epistles being “hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction,

Which in context, refers to how written prophecy was given, (cf. ) and not to understanding it. Thus in his driven defense of his church-god, Armstrong actually examples false ignorant understanding of Scripture while telling us we need Catholicism to understand it.

8. : The Protestant “Proof Text” This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency.

It does not need to. SS includes material sufficiency as defined above, and Godliness is also said to be "profitable," (- same word) and any source that is able to provide the man of God so that he "may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" is teaching a sufficiency Rome arrogates to herself.

Paul makes reference to oral tradition three times (1:13-14, 2:2, 3:14).

Paul is referring to himself and wholly God-inspired teaching, not the elitist presumptions of a church whose distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Also, a very similar passage, , would prove (using Protestant reasoning) the sufficiency of “pastors” and “teachers” for the attainment of Christian perfection.

Yes, but as instruments using the instrument which provides the man of God so that he "may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" - not the arrogant claims of Rome, which can even claim an event occurred which history failed to record when it would have been.

9. Paul Casually Assumes that His Passed-Down Tradition is Infallible and Binding

Same failed argument of arrogant presumption as above.

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).

Actually, the Radically Circular Position is that of Rome. Bible Christians are the ones who most strongly work to establish the authority of the Bible, and not just invoke it, while the RCC teaches that one must have faith in her to know what the contents of Scripture are. (...no matter what be done the believer cannot believe in the Bible nor find in it the object of his faith until he has previously made an act of faith in the intermediary authorities..." - Catholic Encyclopedia>Tradition and Living Magisterium; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm; ...when we appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the Church's infallible authority we appeal to them merely as reliable historical sources... - Catholic Encyclopedia>Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

The issue is the basis for veracity. While the veracity of the claims of a Bible Christian must rest upon the weighty of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, while for a faithful RC, assurance is based upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, who has infallibly declared she is conditionally perpetually incapable of error, at least in salvific matters. Thus Scripture, tradition and history can only assuredly consist of and mean what Rome may say they do.

Thus no less than Cardinal Manning stated, • "It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine....The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour." — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, pp. 227,28

That Armstrong's Radically Circular Position assertion supremely applies to Rome.

Thus Rome can even declare something to be a matter of binding belief that was so lacking in testimony from early tradition that her own scholars disallowed it as being part of apostolic tradition.

• As Ratzinger states,

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner , the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C ; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [meaning having actual substance in history]…But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously we could still not grasp (cf. ), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. , for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of [even bcz there was nothing to see] previously and was already handed down [invisibly, without evidence] in the original Word,” — J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 (words in [brackets] are mine). 

Which relates to the Catholic presumptuous  premise that since men such as the apostles (who could speak as wholly inspired of God and provide new public revelation thereby) could enjoin obedience to what they orally taught (citing ; ; ; ) and which a SS preacher can only do under the premise that what is taught is in Scripture)  somehow validates binding Catholic oral tradition - regardless of whether it is taught in Scripture or not, even though Rome does not and cannot claim its popes and ecumenical councils speak as wholly inspired of God.

Which means that as seen above,  Rome can claim to "remember" what history failed to record for hundreds of years, citing . , for support.

And from which comes the belief that Mary is crowned as the Queen of Heaven, and prayed to, which contradicts the Biblical teaching that believers are not given crowns until after His return, while the Queen of Heaven in Scripture is only that of pagans, and that only they prayed to someone else in Heaven (as over 200 recorded prayers by believers attest).

Which means that, as the pompous assertion by Manning exemplifies,  the word of God is whatever Rome (or EO as they have conflicts over what tradition teaches) says it is, and far more could be asserted to be the word of God, even Mary parting the Red Sea, if not for those pesky Bible Christians acting like noble Bereans.     


Thus I have my own here are questions for those who argue for the alternative of sola scriptura, which is that of sola ecclesia: 1. What is God's manifest most reliable permanent means of preserving the word of God: oral transmission or writing?
2. What became the established supreme substantive authoritative source for testing Truth claims: oral transmission or  Scripture?
3. Which came first: an authoritative body of the written word of God, or the NT church, and what provided the transcendent prophetic, doctrinal and moral foundation for the NT church?
4. Did the establishment of a body of wholly inspired authoritative writings by the first century require an infallible magisterium?
5. Which transcendent sure, substantive source was so abundantly invoked by the Lord Jesus and NT church in substantiating Truth claims to a nation which was the historical instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation: oral transmission or writing?
6. Was the veracity of Scripture ever subject to testing by the oral words of men, or vice versa?
7. Do Catholic popes and councils speak or write as wholly inspired of God in giving His word like as men such as apostles did, and also provide new public revelation thereby?
8. In the light of the above, do you deny that only Scripture is the transcendent, supreme, wholly inspired-of-God substantive and authoritative word of God, and the most reliable record and supreme source for what the NT church believed?
9. Do you think sola scriptura must mean that only the Bible is to be used in understanding what God says, and means that all believers will correctly understand what is necessary, and that it replaces the magisterial office (and ideally a centralized one)  as the  formal  judicial earthly authority on matters of dispute (though it appeals to Scripture as the only infallible and supreme source of Truth)?
10. Do you think the sufficiency aspect of sola scripture must mean that the Bible explicitly and formally provides everything needed for salvation and growth in grace, including reason, writing, ability to discern, teachers, synods, etc. or that this sufficiency refers to Scripture as regards it being express Divine public revelation, and which formally and materially (combined) provides what is necessary for salvation and growth in grace, as the sole sure, supreme, standard of express Divine public revelation?
11. What infallible oral magisterial source has spoken to man as the wholly God-inspired public word of God outside Scripture since the last book was penned?
12. Where in Scripture is a magisterium of men promised ensured perpetual infallibility of office whenever it defines as a body a matter of faith or morals for the whole church?
13. Does being the historical instruments, discerners and stewards of express Divine revelation mean that such possess that magisterial infallibility?
14. What is the basis for your assurance that your church is the one true apostolic church? The weight of evidence for it or because the church who declared it asserts she it cannot err in such a matter?
73 posted on 8/16/2023, 8:40:40 PM by daniel1212 (As a damned+destitute sinner turn 2 the Lord Jesus who saves souls on His acct + b baptized 2 obey) 

Finally, the Catholic premise that  the Sola Scriptura has a fatal flaw  in that it lacks a supreme central magisterium to define and interpret Scripture  (as is argued by a "Casey Chalk"), while ignoring the conflicts between Rome and the Eastern Orthodox over what tradition teaches, is a    a smoke screen. 

Who interprets the Interpreter? Since this is a issue (except in strong mind-control cults) then there are divisions among the anti-divsionists. Yet TradCaths of various sects attack classic evangelical Bible Christians as they are to examine what is taught by examination of its conflation with valid church teaching,  which TradCaths also do, and with divisions among both.

Thus, by subjecting the veracity of modern RC teaching to their judgment of what valid RC teaching consists of and means, then TradCaths are essentially acting as Bible Christians are supposed to, 

But the difference btwn traditional evangelical Bible Christians and TradCaths is that the latter look to what they selectively choose as being past RC, pre-V2  teaching, while the former are to look to the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) in which distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest.

Today you have basically 3 types of RC's, with formal and informal divisions among them. One is a liberal dissident, and the other is a traditional one, and the other one just passively submits to the living magisterium. 

These may be  considered the most faithful RC by their church today, but  tend to see the first two classes mentioned as essentially being as Protestants, and in turn, they are considered to be conservative by the liberal, and a liberal by the traditional.

The liberal dissidents are the  Ted Kennedy  type Catholics, but whom Rome manifestly considers to be members in life and in death, if not the most faithful.

The traditional RCs selectively dissent from the modern living magisterium or reject it outright, ranging from selective reformers to those who, as on ttps://freerepublic.com/, refer to Francis as

"Bergoglio the Heretic;" who

"preaches and authors heresy;" being a

"material and formal heretic;"

a fraud of a pope;

“an apostate,”

"not a Catholic;"

"Pope Frank..protestant;"

And that "The Ecumenical Mass of Bergoglio is straight out of Hell;"

 And that The Catholic Church has  shut itself up since VCII.

And no longer proclaims, "Christ, the Sovereign King, to all nations;"

A web site popular among “RadTrad” RCs who reject Vatican Two is https://novusordowatch.org with some detail, while we have a more charitable description by a novus ordo priest:

It is certainly possible to discern three tribes within American Catholicism. However, using the Jewish terminology is confusing. “Orthodox,” “Conservative,” and “Reform” do not translate well into American Catholicism. Clearer titles for the three tribes might be “Traditionalist” which correlates with the Jewish “Orthodox.” “Magisterial” because “conservative” Catholics adhere to papal teachings and the magisterium, while “Progressive” reflects the “Reformed” group in Judaism....

Broadly speaking, “Traditionalists” adhere to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, the Baltimore Catechism, and Church teachings from before the Second Vatican Council...

“Magisterial” Catholics put loyalty to the authority of the pope and magisterial teaching first and foremost. They are happy with the principles of the Second Vatican Council, but want to “Reform the Reform.” They want to celebrate the Novus Ordo Mass with solemnity, reverence, and fine music. ..They uphold traditional Catholic teaching in faith and morals, but wish to communicate and live these truths in an up-to-date and relevant way...

The “Progressives” are vitally interested in peace and justice issues. They’re enthusiastic about serving the marginalized and working for institutional change. They are likely to embrace freer forms of worship, dabble in alternative spiritualities, and be eager to make the Catholic faith relevant and practical. Progressives believe the Church should adapt to the modern age... Maguire sums up their attitude pretty well: Progressives “don’t need the Vatican. Their conscience is their Vatican.” - Is Catholicism about to break into three? Crux Catholic Media Inc. ^ | Oct 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker; http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3778496/posts

And thus you have  articles as,

Is Catholicism about to break into three?

Archbishop Viganò: We Are Witnessing Creation of a ‘New Church ’

The SSPX's Relationship with Francis: Is it Traditional? post #6

Is the Catholic Church in De Facto Schism?

The Impossibility of Judging or Deposing a True Pope...If Francis is a true Pope … Unlike the TradCath, 

Yet, while considered to be liberal compromisers by TradCaths, the passive obedient RC basically subscribes to past papal teaching such as states,

'the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority, " for "obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces," and not set up "some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them," "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent." (Sources https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2019/10/required-catholic-submission.html

The means by which a TradCath absolves themselves from such required submission is to reject the validity of the popes and Vatican Two with which they disagree. 

But which illustrates the reality that sola ecclesia also results in division since interpretation at some level cannot be avoided, except via strong suppression. 

And while the NT has its unity in heart and in the basic faith under manifestly very true men of God ( 2 Co. 4:1-2; 6:4-10)   with Scriptural substantiation in word and in power and which is needed   today, yet  those who most strongly esteem Scripture as the accurate and wholly God-inspired supreme authority testify to being far more unified in basic beliefs than those who Rome manifestly considers members in life and in death. But under the vast umbrella called Protestantism then perhaps only about half actually believe in the Bible.

  

Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

If I see notifications of comments then I will try to respond to comments within one or two days, however, I may not see notifications (I hardly ever get comments) and this has not been where I usually engage in dialogue.
Please try to be reasonable, willing to examine things prayerfully and objectively, and refrain from "rants" and profane language, especially regarding God and the Christian faith. The latter type are subject to removal on this Christian blog, but I do try to help people no matter who they are. May all know the grace of God in truth.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)