Replies

Then you rise to the challenge and bring up something in the scripture that could be interpreted your way. I explain that it also can be explained the Catholic way, and back it up with other scripture and linguistics. Then you say "-- But I read it the natural way". At this point the purpose of the exercise is forgotten and we argue about what is the natural reading. But this is not the issue, and in fact what is the natural reading to the 21 century American quite often is not the natural reading to a 1 century Jew anyway. The issue is, -- Is the Catholic reading possible, not -- Is it natural.

But you're not arguing that the Catholic view is possible, you are arguing that it is correct, the same as I do for my view. I believe that the plain meaning strongly supports my views over Catholic interpretation, so of course I use that in my argument. Who wouldn't in my shoes?

And, when you say that today's plain meaning is quite often different from the plain meaning to a 1st century Jew, that could be true in some cases. However, remember that I am agreeing with people not only from just 500 years ago, but also with the writings of some early Church Fathers. Some of the writings of these Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Tertullian) were thrown out by the Church as heresy, but which support what I believe today on some subjects. They certainly knew what was plain to a 1st century Jew.

you're not arguing that the Catholic view is possible, you are arguing that it is correct, the same as I do for my view.

Because my view is also the faith of the fathers for 2000 years; yours isn't.

I am agreeing with people not only from just 500 years ago, but also with the writings of some early Church Fathers. Some of the writings of these Fathers (e.g., Augustine, Tertullian) were thrown out by the Church as heresy, but which support what I believe today on some subjects

The cornerstone of Protestant or Baptist beliefs - Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide or predestination of the reprobates were not taught by anyone prior to the Reformation. At best you have some writings of St. Augustine that can be bent the predestinationalist way despite his own clarifications to the contrary. There is nothing in the Reformed belief system that conforms with the consensus of the fathers at any time.