Plan "B"

#1. You don't live in the house yet.
 

#2. The house is my salvation. By faith, I am the owner of the house already. By faith, I have left all my worldly and fleshly outside the city walls. By faith, I am responsible for the upkeep of my house. The only difference is that right now my house is is mine by faith. Later, my house will be mine by sight.

"But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven (present tense), where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal" Mt 6:20
 

#3. You are comparing salvation (which means eternal life in Heaven) to a house. Once you move into this house, the devil can't peek through the window or your tv or your computer. Because in Heaven, there is no tv. All of these things are earthly things. You can't live as though you are already IN Heaven. Salvation is granted or not granted on the day of your judgement.

It's like this: If you were the hare and you were waaaaay ahead of the tortoise, you still can't say that you've won the race (or lost the race for that matter.) You can only say you've won or lost after you cross the finish line. Let's say that salvation is the trophey. If you are going very fast and you are going to win for sure, you still don't have that trophey. No one gives you a trophey for being a guy who looks like he's going to win and then takes it back when it looks like you might lose. You only get (or don't get) your trophey if you have crossed the finish line.
 

Thank you for missing the point entirely. From #3, are you stating that once you're saved, the devil can't poke his nose into my life?

"Once you move into this house, the devil can't peek through the window".
 

#5. The devil can't get to you if you are IN Heaven! The devil can only get to you while you are still on Earth. Put it this way: You know your mansion is being built in Heaven, right? For your "retirement", let's say. You are not retired yet. You still have work to do in order to "afford" your house. ("Afford" for lack of a better word here.) What the devil can do if you let him is tempt you into playing hooky from work so you don't earn your paycheck. Or he can tempt you into sitting at your desk and pretending you're working while you're really just sitting there doing nothing. Or he can tempt you into doing things within the office that cause harm to the company. Or he can tempt you into spending your paycheck on other things besides building your mansion.

And some people think that if they went to the company party and made a toast to the boss, they don't have to show up at work because they feel like they are "in with the boss."

Part of the job is public relations, right? What if someone went around telling everyone in the office how good the company is without ever providing services to people who don't know about the company? I'm not saying delivering flyers about the business. That's the same as telemarketing. The "law of averages" says that some will stay on the phone, but most will hang up right away. Telemarketing is not the way to get people interested in what your company does.

All these things are what the devil can make you think if you let him. But if you just ignore him and go on about your business within the company and be productive, brick by brick you can build your mansion. And when you "retire" you can move in with NO STRINGS ATTACHED. Because you will have "earned" it already. (Again, "earned" for lack of a better word here.) You can't move into a house that you are still building. After it's built, you can move in and the devil can't touch it. Because your mansion is not here, it's in Heaven. The hard part is keeping the devil out of the apartment we are in now.
 

"You still have work to do in order to 'afford' your house."

Not according to the Bible. There is NOTHING I can do to afford a house in Heaven. "There is none righteous, no not one." Romans 3:10 "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3:23

"So we can just do whatever we want?" (per our phone call just now)

Not according to the Bible. "What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?" Romans 6:1-2 "What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid." Romans 6:15.

You know what Josh? Read Romans. Then, read Romans again. Then, read Romans again.

Our salvation is a gift. Since you are so fond of word pictures, if I told you that I had a gift for you, but I wanted a hundred bucks in order for you to get this gift - well, that's no gift at all. It's a sale. If I said that I have a gift for you, but I want you to do something for me - well, that's no gift at all. It's a trade.

"For the wages of sin is death; but the [______] of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom 6:23+/- Period. Not through Jesus Christ and other stuff because there is simply nothing good enough that we can do in order to "earn" our way to Heaven.

Regarding repentance, Luke 3 tells about how John the Baptist would baptise people for the remission of sins. This is different from the Baptism that occurs after Christ (Acts 19:3-5 The Catholic Bible may not have these passages since it would clearly be against their doctrine). Now (that is after what Christ did for us), our sins are blotted out by understanding that Jesus paid the price in full, and full repentance will result in a change of lifestyle (Acts 3:19).

I want you to notice a few things here. The references above in Acts and Romans are all after Christ died for our sins. You can certainly find scripture to back up other "things" that you need to do like animal sacrifice, etc.. But chronologically speaking, our sins have been paid for by the blood of The Lamb. The lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Not most sins. Not part of sins. The sins. Period, end of Bible.
 

#7.(Strawman arguement allert!)
"The Catholic Bible may not have these passages since it would clearly be..."
(Although I will grant that you said "may not" instead of "does not.")

#8. Also, what is [______]?
 

"Ten Thousand Chickens for One Thousand Bibles
"Some Practical Problems of Sola Scriptura
By James Akin

Simply stated, the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura ("Scripture alone") holds that every point of Christian theology-everything pertaining to "faith and practice"-must be verifiable from the Bible alone. This is expressed by the old Protestant slogan Quod non est biblicum, non est theologicum ("What is not biblical is not theological").

An essential part of this doctrine, as it has been historically articulated by Protestants, is that theology must be done without allowing Tradition or a Magisterium (teaching authority) to have binding authority in how Scripture is to be interpreted. If Tradition or a Magisterium could bind the conscience of the believer as to what he was to believe, then the believer would not be looking to Scripture alone as his authority.

A necessarily corollary of the doctrine of sola scriptura is an absolute right of private judgment in the interpretation of the Scriptures. Each individual has the final prerogative to decide for himself what the correct interpretation of a given passage of Scripture is, regardless of what anyone or everyone else says. Thus, according to sola scriptura, any role that Tradition, a Magisterium, Bible commentaries, or anything else may play in theology should do no more than suggest interpretations and evidence to the believer as he makes his decision. Each individual is put in the position of being his own theologian.

Of course, the average Christian does not exercise this role in any consistent way. (There are many godly grannies who are very devout in their faith in Jesus, but who are in no way inclined to become theologians.) Not only is the average Christian disinclined to fulfill the role of theologian, if he tries to do so and arrives at conclusions different than those of his church's leadership, he will quickly discover that his right to private judgment amounts to a right to shut up or leave the congregation.

Protestant pastors from the time of Luther and Calvin have realized that, although they must preach the doctrine of private judgment to ensure their own right to interpret Scripture, they must prohibit the exercise of this right to others, lest their group be torn apart by strife. It is the failure to prohibit the right of private judgment that has resulted in the over twenty thousand Christian Protestant denominations listed in the Oxford University Press World Christian Encyclopedia.

These churches are divided over questions like: What kind of faith saves? Is baptism necessary? Is it needed? Is it for infants? Can one lose salvation? How? Can it be gotten back? How? Is the Real Presence true? Are spiritual gifts like tongues and healing for today? For everyone? What about predestination? What about free will? What about church government?

The disintegration of Protestantism into so many competing factions, each teaching different doctrines on key theological issues, is itself an important indicator of the practical failure of the doctrine of sola scriptura. But even beyond this, there is a set of practical presuppositions that sola scriptura makes, every one of which provides not just an argument against the doctrine but a fatal blow to it.

If God had intended the average Christian to use sola scriptura as an operating principle, then it would have to be something the average Christian could implement. If it turns out that the average Christian in world history could not have implemented it, then it must not be God's plan.

In fact, the average Christian in each age of Church history would have to be able to use sola scriptura, since Jesus promised that his Church would never pass out of existence but would be present throughout the rest of history (Matt. 16:18, 28:20).

If each Christian is to make a thorough study of the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean-even taking into consideration the interpretations of others-then it follows that he must have a copy of the Scriptures to use in making his thorough study. A non-thorough study is a dangerous thing, as any Protestant apologist warning one against cults and their Bible study tactics will tell you. The universal application of sola scriptura therefore presupposes the printing press and the mass manufacturing of books and of the Bible in particular.

Without mankind's ability to mass-produce copies of the Scriptures for individual Christians to interpret, the doctrine of sola scriptura could not have functioned. Christians in the days before the printing press had only limited access to the texts via the Scripture readings at Mass and the costly, hand-made copies of the Bible kept on public display in parishes. But these did not allow the average believer the lengthy, detailed access to Scripture that he needed to serve as his own theologian.

It is often noted, even by Protestant historians, that the Reformation could not have blossomed as it did in the early 1500s if the printing press had not been invented in the mid-1400s. It took a couple of generations for the idea of printing to make its mark on the European imagination. It was in this heady atmosphere, the first time in human history when dozens of ancient works were being mass produced and sold, that people suddenly thought, "Hey! We could give copies of the Bible to everyone! Everyone could read the Scriptures for themselves!"

Moreover, the printing press not only allowed the early Protestants to mass-produce the Bible, it meant they had a means to disseminate their own works about what the Bible meant. In the minds of those who wished to oppose historic Christian theology, this prospect led very quickly to the idea sola scriptura, as it provided a justification for their own desire to depart from orthodoxy.

Besides the printing press, sola scriptura also presupposes a universal distribution system of books and of the Bible in particular. It is no good for enough copies of the Bible to exist if they can't be gotten into the hands of the average believer. There must be a distribution network capable of delivering affordable copies of the Bible to the average Christian.

Throughout the great majority of Christian history, the universal distribution of books would have been impossible even in what is now the developed world. During most of Church history, the "developed world" was undeveloped. The political systems, economies, and travel infrastructure that make the mass distribution of Bibles possible today simply did not exist for three-quarters or more of Church history. And even now we cannot get enough Bibles into many lands due to economic and political restraints, as the fund-raising appeals of Bible societies and their stories of Bible-smuggling show us.

Just as there was no way to get the books to the peasants, there was no way the peasants could have afforded them in the first place. This would have required a cash-based economy, and there just wasn't enough cash in circulation.

A barter-based economy would never work with mass-produced and distributed goods. Imagine a medieval peasant giving a printer ten thousand chickens for one thousand Bibles. Even if the printer agreed to the deal, the peasant would have the daunting task of keeping the chickens alive and fed and transported from the time he relinquished them to the time the printer received them.

Sola scriptura also presupposes universal literacy. If the average Christian is going to read the Scriptures and decide for himself what they mean, then obviously he must be able to read. Having someone read the Bible to him is not sufficient. Not only would the reader be able to do it only occasionally (since there would be many illiterates to read to), the person who wishes to be his own theologian needs to go over the passage multiple times, looking at its exact wording and grammatical structure. He needs to be able to quickly flip to other passages bearing on the topic, and he needs to be able to record his insights so he doesn't forget them and so he can keep the evidence straight in his mind.

Anyone who is to make a study Scripture and decide what it teaches must possess adequate scholarly reference works, or else he must be able to read the texts in the original languages. For example, does the Greek word for "baptize" mean "immerse" or does it have a broader meaning? Does the biblical term for "justify" mean to make righteous in only a legal sense or sometimes in a broader one?

He must also have commentaries to suggest to him possible alternate interpretations. No one person is going to be able to think of every possible interpretation of every Scripture passage that is relevant to every major Christian doctrine.

No Protestant pastor (or at least no pastors who are not extreme anti-intellectuals) would dream of formulating his views without such support materials, and he thus cannot expect the average Christian to do so either. Indeed, the average Christian is going to need such support materials even more than a trained pastor.

If the average Christian is to do a thorough study of the Bible for himself, he must have adequate leisure time. If he is working in the fields or a home (or, later, in the factory) for ten, twelve, fifteen, or eighteen hours a day, he doesn't have time to do this, especially in addition to the care and raising of his family and his own need to eat, sleep, and recreate.

Not even a Sunday rest will provide him with the adequate time; nobody becomes adept in the Scripture by reading the Bible only on Sundays. Protestants stress this to their own members when encouraging daily Bible reading. Thus sola scriptura presupposes the universal possession of adequate leisure time in which to make a thorough study the Bible for oneself.

If the average Christian is going to evaluate competing interpretations for himself then he must have a significant amount of critical thinking skills in evaluating arguments. He must be able to recognize what is a good argument and what is not, what is a fallacy and what is not, what counts as evidence and what does not.

As anyone who has ever tried to teach basic logic to college students or read and grade their persuasive essays can tell you, that level of critical thinking does not exist in the average, literate, modern college senior, much less the average, illiterate, medieval peasant. This is especially true when it comes to the abstract concepts and truth claims involved in philosophy and theology. Thus sola scriptura also presupposes a high level of universal education in critical thinking skills-in fact, it presupposes a level of critical thinking skill that does not exist in the average college student today.

In summary, sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) a cash-based economy, (4) universal literacy, (5) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (6) the universal possession of adequate time for study, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills.

Needless to say, this group of conditions was not met in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not met through the main course of Church history, and is not met even today. The non-existence of the printing press alone means sola scriptura was totally unthinkable for almost three-quarters of Christian history.

It is thus hard to think of sola scriptura as anything but the theory spawned by a group of Renaissance-era dilettantes-people who had an interest in being their own theologians, who had a classical education in critical thinking skills, who had plenty of leisure time for study, who had plenty of scholarly support materials, who had good reading skills, who had access to Bible-sellers, and most importantly, who had printed Bibles.

The average Christian today-even the average Christian in the developed world-does not fit that profile. Much less did the average Christian in the early centuries. What this means, since God does not ask a person to do what they are incapable of doing, is that God does not expect the average Christian of world history to use sola scriptura. He expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain his knowledge of theology in some other way.

But if God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using sola scriptura, then sola scriptura is not God's plan."

[James Akin is a senior apologist at Catholic Answers and a contributing editor of This Rock.]

...or try this...

"1. Sola Scriptura Is Not Taught in the Bible

Catholics agree with Protestants that Scripture is a "standard of truth"—even the preeminent one—but not in a sense that rules out the binding authority of authentic apostolic Tradition and the Church. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Catholics agree that Scripture is materially sufficient. In other words, on this view, 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 formal authority or rule of faith in isolation from the Church and Tradition. Sola scriptura can’t even be deduced from implicit passages.

2. The "Word of God" Refers to Oral Teaching Also

"Word" in Holy Scripture often refers to a proclaimed, oral teaching of prophets or apostles. What the prophets spoke was the word of God regardless of whether or not their utterances were recorded later as written Scripture. So for example, we read in Jeremiah:

"For twenty-three years . . . the word of the Lord has come to me and I have spoken to you again and again . . . ‘But you did not listen to me,’ declares the Lord. . . . Therefore the Lord Almighty says this: ‘Because you have not listened to my words. . . .’" (Jer. 25:3, 7-8 [NIV]).

This was the word of God even though some of it was not recorded in writing. It had equal authority as writing or proclamation-never-reduced-to-writing. This was true also of apostolic preaching. When the phrases "word of God" or "word of the Lord" appear in Acts and the epistles, they almost always refer to oral preaching, not to Scripture. For example:

"When you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).

If we compare this passage with another, written to the same church, Paul appears to regard oral teaching and the word of God as synonymous:

"Keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).

3. Tradition Is Not a Dirty Word

Protestants often quote the verses in the Bible where corrupt traditions of men are condemned (e.g., Matt. 15:2–6; Mark 7:8–13; Col. 2:8). Of course, Catholics agree with this. But it’s not the whole truth. True, apostolic Tradition also is endorsed positively. This Tradition is in total harmony with and consistent with Scripture.

4. Jesus and Paul Accepted Non-Biblical Oral and Written Traditions

Protestants defending sola scriptura will claim that Jesus and Paul accepted the authority of the Old Testament. This is true, but they also appealed to other authority outside of written revelation. For example:

a. The reference to "He shall be called a Nazarene" cannot be found in the Old Testament, yet it was "spoken by the prophets" (Matt. 2:23). Therefore, this prophecy, which is considered to be "God’s word," was passed down orally rather than through Scripture.

b. In Matthew 23:2–3, Jesus teaches that the scribes and Pharisees have a legitimate, binding authority based "on Moses’ seat," but this phrase or idea cannot be found anywhere in the Old Testament. It is found in the (originally oral) Mishnah, which teaches a sort of "teaching succession" from Moses on down.

c. In 1 Corinthians 10:4, Paul refers to a rock that "followed" the Jews through the Sinai wilderness. The Old Testament says nothing about such miraculous movement. But rabbinic tradition does.

d. "As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses" (2 Tim. 3:8). These two men cannot be found in the related Old Testament passage (Ex. 7:8ff.) or anywhere else in the Old Testament.

5. The Apostles Exercised Authority at the Council of Jerusalem

In the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:6–30), we see Peter and James speaking with authority. This Council makes an authoritative pronouncement (citing the Holy Spirit) that was binding on all Christians:

"For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity" (Acts 15:28–29).

In the next chapter, we read that Paul, Timothy, and Silas were traveling around "through the cities," and Scripture says that "they 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, Sadducees, and Oral, Extrabiblical Tradition

Christianity was derived in many ways from the Pharisaical tradition of Judaism. The Sadducees, on the other hand, rejected the future resurrection of the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. The Sadducees also rejected all authoritative oral teaching and essentially believed in sola scriptura. They were the theological liberals of that time. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but the Bible never mentions Christian Sadducees.

The Pharisees, despite their corruptions and excesses, were the mainstream Jewish tradition, and both Jesus and Paul acknowledge this. So neither the orthodox Old Testament Jews nor the early Church was guided by the principle of sola scriptura.

7. Old Testament Jews Did Not Believe in Sola Scriptura

To give two examples from the Old Testament itself:

a. Ezra, a priest and scribe, studied the Jewish law and taught it to Israel, and his authority was binding under pain of imprisonment, banishment, loss of goods, and even death (cf. Ezra 7:26).

b. In Nehemiah 8:3, Ezra reads the Law of Moses to the people in Jerusalem. In verse 7 we find thirteen Levites who assisted Ezra and helped the people to understand the law. Much earlier, we find Levites exercising the same function (cf. 2 Chr. 17:8–9).

So the people did indeed understand the law (cf. Neh. 8:8, 12), but not without much assistance—not merely upon hearing. Likewise, the Bible is not altogether clear in and of itself but requires the aid of teachers who are more familiar with biblical styles and Hebrew idiom, background, context, exegesis and cross-reference, hermeneutical principles, original languages, etc. The Old Testament, then, teaches about a binding Tradition and need for authoritative interpreters, as does the New Testament (cf. Mark 4:33–34; Acts 8:30–31; 2 Pet. 1:20; 3:16).

8. Ephesians 4 Refutes 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" (2 Tim. 3:16–17).

This passage doesn’t teach formal sufficiency, which excludes a binding, authoritative role for Tradition and Church. Protestants extrapolate onto the text what isn’t there. If we look at the overall context of this passage, we can see that Paul makes reference to oral Tradition three times (cf. 2 Tim. 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14). And to use an analogy, let’s examine a similar passage:

"And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ" (Eph. 4:11–15).

If 2 Timothy 3 proves the sole sufficiency of Scripture, then, by analogy, Ephesians 4 would likewise prove the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture.

So if all non-scriptural elements are excluded in 2 Timothy, then, by analogy, Scripture would logically have to be excluded in Ephesians. It is far more reasonable to recognize that the absence of one or more elements in one passage does not mean that they are nonexistent. The Church and Scripture are both equally necessary and important for teaching.

9. Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding

If Paul wasn’t assuming that, he would have been commanding his followers to adhere to a mistaken doctrine. He writes:

"If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed" (2 Thess. 3:14).

"Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them" (Rom. 16:17).

He didn’t write about "the pretty-much, mostly, largely true but not infallible doctrine which you have been taught."

10. Sola Scriptura Is a Circular Position

When all is said and done, Protestants who accept sola scriptura as their rule of faith appeal to the Bible. If they are asked why one should believe in their particular denominational teaching rather than another, each will appeal to "the Bible’s clear teaching." Often they act as if they have no tradition that guides their own interpretation.

This is similar to people on two sides of a constitutional debate both saying, "Well, we go by what the Constitution says, whereas you guys don’t." The U.S. Constitution, like the Bible, is not sufficient in and of itself to resolve differing interpretations. Judges and courts are necessary, and their decrees are legally binding. Supreme Court rulings cannot be overturned except by a future ruling or constitutional amendment. In any event, there is always a final appeal that settles the matter.

But Protestantism lacks this because it appeals to a logically self-defeating principle and a book that must be interpreted by human beings. Obviously, given the divisions in Protestantism, simply "going to the Bible" hasn’t worked. In the end, a person has no assurance or certainty in the Protestant system. They can only "go to the Bible" themselves and perhaps come up with another doctrinal version of some disputed doctrine to add to the list. One either believes there is one truth in any given theological dispute (whatever it is) or adopts a relativist or indifferentist position, where contradictions are fine or the doctrine is so "minor" that differences "don’t matter."

But the Bible doesn’t teach that whole categories of doctrines are "minor" and that Christians freely and joyfully can disagree in such a fashion. Denominationalism and divisions are vigorously condemned. The only conclusion we can reach from the Bible is what we call the "three-legged stool": Bible, Church, and Tradition are all necessary to arrive at truth. If you knock out any leg of a three-legged stool, it collapses."

[Dave Armstrong, webmaster of Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (www.biblicalcatholic.com), is the author of A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003). He writes from Detroit, Michigan, where he lives with his wife, Judy, and their four children.]
 

Thank you for missing the point entirely. If I wanted a parrot, I'd go buy one. Please have some thoughts on your own.
 

It will take me a while to read all that you've so thoughtfully copied and pasted. What part of what I've said in prior comments addresses anything that you've pasted?
 

1. First, I'm not a protestant (i.e. Lutheran - if you know your history). I'm an Independant, Fundamental, Bible-believing Christian; a follower of Christ as the only one who can save my soul. You can call me Protestant, but then I have the liberty to call you Apostate.

2. Nothing in the comments for this thread has anything to do with extra-Biblical texts (Catechism, Book of Mormon, Watchtower Bible, The Message, etc.).

3. Everything pertaining to faith and practice must co-exist with Biblical text and cannot contradict. The strawman says that what is not found in the Bible is not theological. There are plenty of good theological writings out there that do not contradict the Bible. There are plenty which do however.

4. As a Christian, my Magisterium is the Bible - period. I carry nothing of tradition for the sake of tradition, but hold to that which is perscribed by the Bible - period. Traditions as exampled in the Bible = good. Traditions as created by men = bad.

5. Noone can correctly decide for himself what the absolute right interpretation of the Bible is if it contradicts other areas of the Bible. Misinterpreting my own reading of the Bible and believing my own mistakes yields the exact same result as believing the misinterpretation of a counsel of men. The sum of both is exactly the same.

6. Your carefully copied and pasted disertation indicates that since some Christians are too lazy to actually read the Bible, so they need some governing body over them to tell them what it says. That's all well and fine, and could be used as a crutch, but if the governing body's statements contradict the Bible, then, they were far better off the way they were before. It states that since there are lazy Christians, it must be God's plan for them to be governed. What? Since all babies are born helpless, they will never amount to anything.

7. This entire statement is wrong: In summary, sola scriptura presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) a cash-based economy, (4) universal literacy, (5) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (6) the universal possession of adequate time for study, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills.

8. In summary, when I state that you'd better have Bible verses to back up what you're saying in a Biblical discussion, I mean that you must be able to point to the Bible for the principles of what you believe. Stating, "I think this" or "I believe that" is burned away, and you are left with a heaping pile of dung for an argument.
 

Why are you so angry?
 

I'm not angry. I'm disappointed. At one time, you knew the truth - or so it seemed. You were saved and baptized in believers baptism. Now, you seem to have forsaken all that pastor has taught you. For what?
 

I know we spoke in person to clear some of this up, but I just couldn't resist...

Don't think for a moment that I have forsaken all I have learned. If you learn how to multiply and divide, you don't forsake learning addition and subtraction. You just build upon it. (As long as one doesn't contradict the other, of course. I know what you're thinking...) There is nothing in the Catholic Church that says: "Hey go back and disregard all that stuff you learned in the Bible..." And believe me- all the stuff we are talking about is nothing new. People have been persecuting the Church for quite some time now. But by doing so very openly and publicly (such as on a blog), all it does is further damage the image of the Faith. And all I'm saying is that there may be a time in your life when you wish you hadn't done that. That's all.

*Of course I also realize that this is your blog and you have the right to think out loud. Anyway, I still have things to present to you that will take some time to get together. I'll do my homework. You do your homework. In the mean time, let's talk about something else for a while. So how's your trip?