A Quick Ten-Step Refutation of Sola Scriptura

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.

"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).

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.

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.

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).

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.

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).

"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."

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.

Bluntly, The Church does NOT teach that Salvation is by Faith and Works, that is an incorrect statement.

Salvation as taught by the Church comes from Christ's sacrifice.

God's Grace saves us, we cannot save ourselves. THAT is Church teaching.

456 For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man

Then here is the Redemptoris Missal by Pope John Pail II in 1990 4. In my first encyclical, in which I set forth the program of my Pontificate, I said that "the Church's fundamental function in every age, and particularly in ours, is to direct man's gaze, to point the awareness and experience of the whole of humanity toward the mystery of Christ."4

The Church's universal mission is born of faith in Jesus Christ, as is stated in our Trinitarian profession of faith: "I believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father.... For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven: by the power of the Holy spirit he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary, and was made man."5 The redemption event brings salvation to all, "for each one is included in the mystery of the redemption and with each one Christ has united himself forever through this mystery."6 It is only in faith that the Church's mission can be understood and only in faith that it finds its basis.

5. If we go back to the beginnings of the Church, we find a clear affirmation that Christ is the one Savior of all, the only one able to reveal God and lead to God. In reply to the Jewish religious authorities who question the apostles about the healing of the lame man, Peter says: "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by him this man is standing before you well.... And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:10, 12). This statement, which was made to the Sanhedrin, has a universal value, since for all people-Jews and Gentiles alike - salvation can only come from Jesus Christ.

I made an error earlier. Correcting it here

In the Old Testament, "son of God" is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings (Ex 4:22 "And thou shalt say to him: Thus saith the Lord: Israel is my son, my firstborn.", Hoss 11:1 “When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son. ", 2 SAm 7:14 "I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with a rod wielded by men, with floggings inflicted by human hands. "Ps 82:6 "I said, ‘You are “gods”; you are all sons of the Most High."

This signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called "son of God", it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus "son of God", as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.

Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God", for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."

Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles..."

"And in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'" From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship will be the center of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation.

Well before this, Jesus referred to himself as "the Son" who knows the Father, as distinct from the "servants" God had earlier sent to his people; he is superior even to the angels (Mt 11:27 "“All things have been committed to me by my Father. No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him. ", Mt 21:34-38, 24:36 "But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father" .

He distinguished his sonship from that of his disciples by never saying "our Father", except to command them: "You, then, pray like this: 'Our Father'", and he emphasized this distinction, saying "my Father and your Father". (Mt 5:48;"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.", Mt 6:8-9 "Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.", 7:21 "“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.", Lk 11:13 "If you then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” Jn 20:17 "Jesus said, “Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”

Jesus calls himself the "only Son of God", and by this title affirms his eternal pre-existence (Jn 3:16 ""For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. ", 10"36 "what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?").

Jn 3:18. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son

After his Resurrection, Jesus' divine sonship becomes manifest in the power of his glorified humanity. He was "designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his Resurrection from the dead". The apostles can confess: "We have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament, the ineffable Hebrew name YHWH, by which God revealed himself to Moses is rendered as Kyrios, "Lord". From then on, "Lord"becomes the more usual name by which to indicate the divinity of Israel's God. The New Testament uses this full sense of the title "Lord" both for the Father and - what is new - for Jesus, who is thereby recognized as God Himself.

Jesus ascribes this title to himself in a veiled way when he disputes with the Pharisees about the meaning of Psalm 110, but also in an explicit way when he addresses his apostles.

Very often in the Gospels people address Jesus as "Lord". This title testifies to the respect and trust of those who approach him for help and healing

In the encounter with the risen Jesus, this title becomes adoration: "My Lord and my God!" It thus takes on a connotation of love and affection that remains proper to the Christian tradition: "It is the Lord!"

The Catholic Church has always allowed married priests. Let me repeat that. The Catholic Church has ALWAYS allowed married priests. However, it has at times restricted the priesthood to unmarried celibate men, and this is the case for the general Roman Rite. The Roman Rite priesthood was restricted to celibate men in 1123 AD, but this only pertained to the Roman Rite. The Eastern Rites were excluded from this, and in fact, married men are continually ordained in Eastern Catholic churches to this very day. In recent times, Rome has also made an exception for married Protestant clergy who wish to convert and be ordained priests, as well as those of the Anglican tradition. Clerical celibacy is not a Church doctrine. It is merely a discipline of the Church, which Rome can amend or rescind at any time. For now, Rome has seen fit to keep celibacy in the general Roman Rite, however Rome reserves the right to make exceptions, and the Anglican ordinariate is one such exception.

rried men can become priests within the Anglican ordinariates, and it has been made clear that this provision is perpetual. When asked "how long" the Anglican Catholics will be permitted to retain married priests, one Vatican CDF official responded "we'll let you know in a couple hundred years."

I hope I have made it quite clear that from The Church point of view, Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross was super-sufficient for our salvation. Salvation comes from Christ’s sacrifice. We cannot save ourselves — our works cannot provide us salvation, not one bit, not a little bit — and that is Church teaching.

You appear to believe that works spured by grace, done for the attainment of eternal life is NOT the merit of the believer?

It appears that Roman unity is somewhat divided on wether it is Faith and Grace or Faith and Works. Many Roman Catholics believe its Faith and Works. How does the often repeated "co-operation" figure into the mix?

CANON 20.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

Canon 24: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema."

CANON 32.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

Bob,
My apologies for not responding sooner. Tied up on other threads and missed your response:

“As Christians, we should try to lead a life as much like Jesus as we can. If he is God, that would be impossible unless we were a god as well.”

... I disagree. As Christians, we are to allow Him to let His life flow through us, producing fruit. We do not have to also be God to do so. His life equals fruit. Apple trees do not have to strain to produce fruit.

“I believe He is a pre sin nature man empowered by the Spirit of God as He claims all through His earthly ministry. If that is the case, it would be possible for a believer born again into God’s family to allowed that same Spirit to guide their life as did the Christians all thru Acts.”

... I believe that is a heresy.

“I contend it was soon after the enemy took all the power from the Church by convincing them to make Jesus God.”

... I disagree.

Still, thanks for your civility and authenticity. 30 years ago, I had studied less, had fewer convictions and had “issues” God had to deal with over time. He is maturing us. Our understanding develops into conformity with Him, if we are truly His. Even the Apostles didn’t understand everything - especially at first.

I wish you every blessing.

The Book of Revelations does not say that it contains all the rest of what Jesus promised to tell the Apostles through the Holy Spirit.

You will note that I said those doctrines came to fruition, meaning that because so many heresies arose, even from the very beginning, it became necessary for the Church to formally declare them to be so.

Had it all been instantly understood, those heresies would never have arose.

The Trinity.
Jesus as fully God and fully human.
Jesus’ death upon the cross and bodily resurrected.
Baptism for the forgiveness of sins, including Original Sin
The Real Presence in the Eucharist.

Just to name a few. All doctrines disputed and denied which were declared as truth by the Church under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

To accept these things as proof, one must accept that Jesus founded one Church, that He leads that Church through the Holy Spirit and that that Church is Catholic.

Wrong again. It was in verse 58 when He told them He existed before Abraham. That is what got their panties in a wad. Jesus needed a way to have Himself executed while still being without sin. This was the way He chose or God chose for Him. He could make that truthful claim and their hearts were to hard to understand it.

On the contrary, the collective "panties" of the religious leaders had been wadded against Jesus from the very minute he stepped into their world. They prided themselves on their lineage, saying they were true children of Abraham. Jesus said in verse 51 that if anyone kept his sayings, believed his words, that man would not see death. They then accused him of being possessed of the devil saying, "Abraham and all the prophets are dead so how can you say no man will taste death?". They concluded that Jesus was saying he was greater than Abraham. Jesus then told them that Abraham rejoiced to see him come and he saw it and was glad. "You're not even 50 years old so how can you say you saw Abraham?", they shouted back. That is what led up to them then taking up stones because Jesus' next answer was, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, before Abraham was, I am.". Just what do you think he meant if not that he was God?

Your next sentence is a real doozy. Jesus needed a way to have Himself executed while still being without sin. So are you implying that Jesus was just intentionally saying things to get them mad enough at him to kill him? How do you explain the OT Messianic prophecies that say this was going to happen? That say EXACTLY how he would be slain - not stoned - but crucified? You say "while he was still without sin" like at any moment he would get ticked off enough and blow it?

You have some strange theories about Christ and you could not have gotten them from a serious study of Scripture. It sounds curiously like Mormonism or Jehovah's Witnesses. Care to make your source known?

OK, I’m back for a bit. I have limited pc time during the work days.

**John 5:19 —> this indicates unity of purpose.**

I’ll give ya this: It’s not disunity. lol
Jesus Christ was continually doing his Father’s will, as the passages I’ve pointed out make quite clear, as does Heb. 10:7-9, “..I am come to do thy will, O God..”.

**John 5:26 —> God does not have “life” in the human sense, so “as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath he GIVEN to the SON” must indicate something different than the life that God gave Adam.**

That’s for sure. God the Father didn’t live in Adam, but he lives in the body of Jesus Christ, as the scriptures make quite clear.

**John 5:27 -> God gives it to Christ who is God, the One God. Yes, it’s confusing I agree.**

Cunfusing; yes I agree.

**John 14:28 does NOT show dual nature — you can say it shows subordination, but not duality.**

That verse, taken by itself, could be ‘interpreted’ that way, but when harmonized with all the others does show the Father being greater than the Son, in every divine way.

Now, rather than continue on the theme of all the divine powerful attributes flowing from the Father to the Son, who apparently needed them “to do thy will, O God”, I ask this:

What divine powerful attribute did the Son give to the Father?

**created by him and in him — now this is not possible as Jesus was born just 33 years before.**
and
**Note — if you take the point that the Father is in Jesus, how can Jesus too be in the Father unless both are One? Also, the quote “the words” differs from “in the Beginning was The Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God”**

I believe the Son existed ‘in the beginning’ in magnificent plan only.

Red letter bibles show ‘the words of Christ’ in red, but don’t differentiate when he speaks as a man, or when he speaks as the Almighty God. For example, as mortal man: “ I thirst”, “I of mine own self do nothing..”, and think on this one a moment, “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the ‘2nd and 3rd persons’ don’t know??); but as God the Father: “ I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”.

**In John 20:28, Thomas falls at Jesus’ feet, exclaiming, “My Lord and my God!”**

That’s another example of taking one verse and ‘interpreting’ it, without harmonizing it with others. Thomas, along with the other disciples, were enlightened 6 chapters earlier; thoroughly taught that the Father was in him and he in the Father, and that they were one.

**I am the First and the Last’**

The Father and the Son are fused. Also, after the resurrection, there are no mortal man comments (”take this cup from me”, a cry indicating the limits of the flesh). Christ’s will of the flesh died and did not ‘resurrect’.

**Also, about the Holy Spirit we have John 14:26:**

Love that verse, and how it says “..the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in MY NAME..”.

We also have 15:26, “..the Comforter..which PROCEEDETH FROM the Father..”.

Which leads to another question: If the Holy Ghost is a ‘separate and distinct person of God’, what divine powerful attribute can it give to the Father that the Father doesn’t already have?

**So, the short-winded answer to your question is the we DO have the phrase as in “go and baptise the nations in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy SPirit” — God the Father, God the SOn and GOd the Holy SPirit — a triune God.

Where I work there is a founder, president, and supervisor; and they’re all the same guy, who has quite a variety of skills. They’re titles, not names (’Son’ a NAME??).

My wife demands I get off here and pay attention to her.
So goodnight and God bless.

you incorrectly stated that we believe (incorrectly stated by you) that salvation is from faith and works. That is incorrect. Church teaching is clear. Salvation comes from Christ’s sacrifice. We cannot save ourselves — our works cannot provide us salvation, not one bit, not a little bit — and that is Church teaching.

Not ONE Catholic believes that Faith and works gives us salvation.

Canon 20 --> does not talk about Salvation. Salvation is from Christ's sacrifice

Canon 24 --> Does not talk about Salvation either

Canon 32 --> no talk about Salvation here either -- Salvation is from Christ's sacrifice.

No where in ANY of the canons you quoted do we read that salvation is by any means other than Christ's sacrifice. Increasing of grace, co-operation with Christ in His plan of salvation are no different than sitting in a bus while the bus-driver drives us to our destination --> Let me repeat again -- The Church teaches Salvation is from Christ alone
If we go back to the beginnings of the Church, we find a clear affirmation that Christ is the one Savior of all, the only one able to reveal God and lead to God
I hope that's clear enough to dispel any doubts that the Church teachs that Christ's sacrifice is what won us Salvation.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.