Replies

[paladinan]
I fully agree. So... perhaps you might dispense with the [straw men] you laid out, here?

[HossB86]
None were. Sorry you seem too blind to see that.

:) Oh, FRiend! Irritable and combative words don't take the place of proofs...

[paladinan]
Secondly: all snarky, raw opinions about "cults" aside,

[HossB86]
Can't help it if the opinion fits...

To the man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail. To the man with an agenda, every agreeable opinion looks like a fact.

I don't disagree -- it's not about "feeling" empowered, it's about BEING completely sure of the totality of the scripture's content, infallibility and authority regarding spiritual things.

Ah. And how do you arrive at this surety, personally?

Plainly and simply, the Roman Catholic Cult ADDS requirements to salvation... faith AND works.

Jesus did that, actually... unless one doesn't mind being a goat. (Matthew 25:31-46) St. James repeats that idea rather explicitly, as well (James 2:24)... unless one doesn't mind having dead faith which does not save.

Praying to Mary (who is supposedly a mediator, in direct opposition scripture),

"Mediator" is anyone who intercedes ("bridges the middle") on behalf of someone else, yes? Every time you pray for someone, you're a mediator. Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)... in the sense that, without Him, none of our prayers would matter at all, and we could do nothign good (and we wouldn't exist, anyway). But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word.

indulgences,

How are these problematic? (And I mean the actual indulgences, not any abuses of them--one judges things based on their intended purpose and condition, not on cases where they're misused; one doesn't judge a hammer faulty because it didn't cut wire properly.)

Purgatory....

Ditto... you'll have to explain your problem with this. It's plainly indicated in 2 Maccabees 12:39-45, and there's an allusion to it in 1 Corinthians 3:12-15... and even beyond that, how is this against anything in the Faith?

And I'm ALL for dismissing anything regarding spiritual things that are not supported by scripture. Note the items above for a start.

But don't you realize that you're "going beyond what is written" (cf. 1 Corinthians 4:6) in order to implement that idea (which is nowhere to be found in Scripture)?

[HossB86]
It does NOT mean that everything that was ever written is contained expressly therein.

[paladinan]
Perhaps you might quote where I said any such thing?

[HossB86]
Perhaps you should not read into that post something that is not there. Perhaps you should show me where I SAID that you said that.

Well... it was addressed to me, and I have a quirky habit of assuming that people address comments to me only if they have some relevance to me. Since you seemed to be chastising me for allegedly constructing a straw man (re: "sola Scriptura"), and since this comment of yours was apparently in the context of explaining the "real" definition of "sola Scriptura", I naively assumed that you thought the "it does NOT mean[...]" bit was somehow applicable to me! If it was mere errata and a non-sequitur (something like the typing version of "Tourette's Syndrome"), with no bearing on my position or on the debate, then please pardon me.

:) Yes, I'm teasing you, a bit... and pardon me, for that. But why DID you direct that comment to me, if you weren't trying to correct what you might have seen as an error on MY part, specifically?

My post was (ready for this?)

:) I wait with baited breath.

my statement of the definition of Sola Scriptura. It had nothing to do with anything you said.

I didn't say anything relating to sola Scriptura? Your comment certainly makes it sound as if I did, and that you disagreed with what I said... and comments #127 and #135 certainly seem to have text from me which was addressing the idea of "sola Scriptura". Care to elaborate?

[paladinan]
Just a few specific points about your quote from John MacArthur:

[HossB86]
You'll need to take that up with him. Not me.

Oh, I only mentioned that because you quoted him, leading me to presume that you found his quote relevant and compelling, and that you'd be interested in the flaws in his argument. If you don't care about his comments, one way or the other, I'll be happy to let it be. I would, however, be left wondering why you quoted from him in the first place...

:) Oh, FRiend! Irritable and combative words don't take the place of proofs...

Oh, now.... I'm not irritable! And the proofs are there -- it's Rome that twists it. And in a few lines, you fall prey to Rome's mistake by alleging that James indicates faith AND works. He doesn't. No proofs necessary. Those are facts. And facts are hard things sometimes. You just need to deal with it and READ the Bible for yourself!

Ahhh -- and now the tired old canard is parroted again:

"Mediator" is anyone who intercedes ("bridges the middle") on behalf of someone else, yes? Every time you pray for someone, you're a mediator. Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)... in the sense that, without Him, none of our prayers would matter at all, and we could do nothign good (and we wouldn't exist, anyway). But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word.

Mary cannot and does not intercede for anyone. She is not omniscient. She was a sinner in need of a Savior, as are we all.

Now then. You need to provide a little clarification because in one fell swoop, you've contradicted yourself. You just said:

"Yes, Jesus is the Sole Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5)...." and actually managed to quote the correct scripture that supports that fact. Yet, you say:

"But for anyone to assume that this excludes all SUBORDINATE mediators is to fail to understand the meaning of the word."

I think you actually have failed to understand the meaning of one particular word -- "Sole" in Sole Mediator. You cannot have a "sole" anything with subordinate somethings underneath it. It's either sole, or it's not sole. You said Jesus is the "sole" mediator. So does scripture. Yet, you said then in the next sentence that he isn't the sole mediator. Which is it?

As for indulgences, I think it's pretty obvious though the history of Rome that indulgences were sold to build St. Peter's basilica, no? But wait -- weren't they supposed to buy down the time souls spent in Purgatory?

There is no purgatory. If there were, why didn't Christ tell the thief on the cross, "Today, I'll be in Paradise. I'll see you when you've burned a bit."

There is Heaven. There is Hell. There is no purgatory.

1 Corinthians 3:12-15 -- another misquoted/misrepresented/misinterpreted canard -- this is referring to a person's works. Not their soul. It even says so.... so, no, this is not a proof text.

2 Maccabees 12:39-45 - looked it up and saw nothing about "Purgatory" - not even an allusion to it. I can find Heaven, Hell, Sheol, Paradise -- all plainly stated in scripture. Can't find Purgatory. Again, nothing there.

No problem on the teasing. In the Religion Forum, one must have a thick skin. No sweat.

I am interested though in your explanation of being able to be the sole mediator and still have subordinate mediators. Very interested indeed.

Hoss