Replies

Let me see if I can make this clearer, if "sola scriptura" was valid, these Catechisms and other interpretations would not be necessary.

Nope. But if one misconstrues the doctrine into a silly acronym then that person only begins with a false premise to try and justify a false conclusion.

So, you reject "sola scriptura"?

Absolutely not. I reject false premises.

Why are these unnecessary parts in there?

Unnecessary for what?

Oh? Which parts can we omit?

I'm not a remedial reading teacher. If one can't tie a sentence to it's referent they should seek a professional who can teach them to do so.

So you believe that 16th century man-made tradition is valid, but Apostolic tradition is invalid?

I believe the Reformation returned the Church to it's apostolic roots. Those roots which the Romanist Church had systematically destroyed through speculative philosophies.

But if one misconstrues the doctrine into a silly acronym then that person only begins with a false premise to try and justify a false conclusion.

So, it's fine to use words like "Romanist" and "Papist" but one can't make acronyms for 16th century inventions?

Absolutely not. I reject false premises.

If you reject false premises, sola scriptura would be the place to start. Even Martin Luther expressed grave reservations about it toward the end.

Unnecessary for what?

In post 1369 you wrote:

Not all things in the Bible are clear and need interpretation but what is necessary for salvation is clear without needing an interpreter.

So, I am simply asking about the "unnecessary" parts; the use of the word necessary typically presumes that there are also portions which are not necessary.

I'm not a remedial reading teacher. If one can't tie a sentence to it's referent they should seek a professional who can teach them to do so.

Perhaps the problem is with your comprehension and not what I wrote. Here is what you said in post 1369:

It's not all or nothing.

If a person says "it's not all or nothing," it typically means that some parts are optional.

I believe the Reformation returned the Church to it's apostolic roots.

Can you show where the Apostles taught sola scriptura? Can you explain how sola scriptura was even possible prior to the invention of the printing press?

Wag: So, you reject "sola scriptura"?
tc: Absolutely not. I reject false premises.

Do you reject infant baptism? Do you reject the episcopality? Do you reject the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Do you believe that the Sabbath should be observed on the seventh day of the week, specifically, from Friday sunset to Saturday sunset? Do you believe that Humans are an indivisible unity of body, mind and spirit. They do not possess an immortal soul, and death is an unconscious sleep ?

I believe the Reformation returned the Church to it's apostolic roots

Which roots? The one that had bishops and priests or the one that didn't?

Which roots? The one that had infant baptism or the one that rejected it?

Which roots? The one that said that humans possess an immortal soul or the one that doesn't and are an indivisible unity of body, mind and spirit

Which one? The one that says Justification cannot be lost or the one that says that Justification can be lost via loss of faith?

Which one? The one that says Justification is separate from and prior to sanctification or the one that doesn't?

Which one?