[JMJ333]

Good morning, steve. =)

And know, it really isn't an answer. I listed the scripture passages, old and new testament, and nowhere does it explain the Trinity as we teach it today.

The answer to the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit is in the Church's teaching that in God there are two internal divine processions. The word procession is used here to mean the origin of one from another . . . one proceeding from another. He can try and twist it otherwise, but the fact is that it simply isn't explained that way in scripture. Which brings me back to the point that sola scriptura is unbiblical and unreliable as a source to use when debating theology, and gives little to no weight for his arguments on saints.

[drstevej]

Gotta run in a few minutes but wanted to bounce this off of you.

Given your (the RCC) position on authority, should you not restrict your comments on theological discussions to either quoting Scripture from the approved RC translation and / or quote a pronouncement by the Magisterium?

Any discussion of these by you, explaining of them or even paraphrasing them would violate your dictum against non-Magisterial interpretation. Would it not?

Or are you in bounds so long as your comments are consistent with Scripture or the teaching of the Magisterium? And how do you know you are in bounds when you comment or explain either Scripture or RCC teaching?

I will grant you a dispensation to answer this post without criticism from me of your right to answer such questions with comments other than quotes. :)

Mine is an honest inquiry of the RCC doctrine of Authority and it's implications for laity.