"Alone" or not?
I had the day off due to a holiday today, so I did something I have not done in a very long time, I browsed the internet blog world. I played catch up on some blogs I usually read more regularly but have not been able to do so lately, and I went to a few blogs that I have not visited in many months (almost years).
One such blog that I had not visited in almost a year (maybe more) had a post that really set me off. Now, I should preface all this by declaring that this particular blog is a very staunch fundamentalist blog, and one that thinks the Roman Catholic Church is false from start to finish. That being said, this particular post was, of course, about the false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding salvation/justification.
While I will not detail the entire post, you can go to the link provided and read the post if you like, I did want to comment on the first few sentences of the post; these sentences read as follows,
“Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. The Roman Church does teach that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ. What is missing, however, is the word alone. By omitting this word the Roman Church redefines grace, faith and justification in a way that undermines and invalidates the teaching of Scripture.”
Hmmm. What I can't help but notice is how this author makes a declaration about Scripture that simply does not exist. While I agree that the Roman Catholic Church does not put forth a doctrine of justification that matches the Reformers (well, certain Reformers anyway), what I find quite strange is the idea that the word alone, as used by this author, is elevated to a definitive "keyword" from Scripture that seems to hinge any and every doctrine of salvation/justification as being the "proof" of whether that doctrine is correct.
This is simply not the case. In fact, the term alone is never used in the same context with salvation or justification anywhere in Scripture except one place, and that is James 2:24; "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." That is the only time the term alone is used in the context of "justification." It comes across in the text so strongly that Martin Luther wanted the Epistle of James removed from the canon of Scripture. And yet, time and again, I read later Reformers (new Reformers is what I tend to call them), from the 17th century to the present, who make comments that salvation or justification pivots on one term, alone, or else the doctrine is false.
While I am not Roman Catholic, and for other reasons besides the solas of the Reformation, I can't help but chuckle whenever I read something like this post. And what I find more intersting is the fact that the author of this post actually agrees that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, "that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ." What other kind of justification is there? This is where the Scriptures are the most replete with regard to justification or salvation. That being the case, to add the term alone would seem to run more contrary to Scripture than simply declaring "we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ" would it not?
One such blog that I had not visited in almost a year (maybe more) had a post that really set me off. Now, I should preface all this by declaring that this particular blog is a very staunch fundamentalist blog, and one that thinks the Roman Catholic Church is false from start to finish. That being said, this particular post was, of course, about the false teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding salvation/justification.
While I will not detail the entire post, you can go to the link provided and read the post if you like, I did want to comment on the first few sentences of the post; these sentences read as follows,
“Roman Catholic theology does not embrace the interpretation of salvation and justification as that presented by Scripture and the Protestant Reformers. The Roman Church does teach that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ. What is missing, however, is the word alone. By omitting this word the Roman Church redefines grace, faith and justification in a way that undermines and invalidates the teaching of Scripture.”
Hmmm. What I can't help but notice is how this author makes a declaration about Scripture that simply does not exist. While I agree that the Roman Catholic Church does not put forth a doctrine of justification that matches the Reformers (well, certain Reformers anyway), what I find quite strange is the idea that the word alone, as used by this author, is elevated to a definitive "keyword" from Scripture that seems to hinge any and every doctrine of salvation/justification as being the "proof" of whether that doctrine is correct.
This is simply not the case. In fact, the term alone is never used in the same context with salvation or justification anywhere in Scripture except one place, and that is James 2:24; "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." That is the only time the term alone is used in the context of "justification." It comes across in the text so strongly that Martin Luther wanted the Epistle of James removed from the canon of Scripture. And yet, time and again, I read later Reformers (new Reformers is what I tend to call them), from the 17th century to the present, who make comments that salvation or justification pivots on one term, alone, or else the doctrine is false.
While I am not Roman Catholic, and for other reasons besides the solas of the Reformation, I can't help but chuckle whenever I read something like this post. And what I find more intersting is the fact that the author of this post actually agrees that the Roman Catholic Church teaches, "that we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ." What other kind of justification is there? This is where the Scriptures are the most replete with regard to justification or salvation. That being the case, to add the term alone would seem to run more contrary to Scripture than simply declaring "we are justified by grace through faith on account of Christ" would it not?
Labels: Justification, Roman Catholic, Salvation, Theology
posted by T.B. Vick | 3:10 PM
18 Comments:
TB,
I like how clearly you put this. I've been thinking the same thing of late (and some similar things, too. http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2007/05/masters-of-imputation.html)
We Protestants also tend to confuse the doctrine of justification by faith alone with the gospel, so if you don't get the doctrine straight, you've missed the gospel.
Steve,
Thanks for your kind remarks. This is a topic that has been on my mind for several years now. Thanks for the link, and I agree , I also think Protestants tend to confuse sola fide with the gospel.
With respect to James 2:24 you fail to mention the fact that when James is speaking of works he is speaking of it as a fruit of faith, in other words faith is the univesal set where works is a subset of faith. Faith produces the work not the other way around. In light of
Eph. 2:8,9 for by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works so that no one may boast.
The point is that you can do all the good works that you want but that is not what saves you, it is simply fruit from faith and in that is justification.
The Catholic Church teaches quite another gospel, if it were not so penance would be gone, the rosary would be gone all forms of works that somehow are placed in ones account towards salvation would be gone. This is the reason we are not under the law, we serve him and love his commandments not out of duress but out of love alone knowing that He has saved us according to his good will.
So every work that one does to assure salvation is for nought because all of the work was done on the cross at calvary.
gigantor,
With respect to what you are talking about in James, I don't necessarily disagree with you - James is one of the more difficult texts in Scripture - the Greek is very sophisticated. Your reply is the typical "New Reformed" translation that I mentioned in my post. While I do not think James is telling his reader that we are justified by our works, my point remains the same - this is the only reference in Scripture where the term "alone" is used in relation to justification.
With regard to your response to the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) and its teaching on justification, this is a typical caricature that many Protestants put forth against the RCC. Granted individual members of the RCC may mistakenly believe that if they perform these acts, that will save them, but the Church itself does not teach this -a simple reading of the RCC Catechism would demonstrate this.
You declare, ". . .we are not under the law, we serve him and love his commandments not out of duress but out of love alone knowing that He has saved us according to his good will." This is a point that is agreed upon by both Protestants and Roman Catholics. The RCC does not teach that we are saved by "works," in fact, they teach the contrary, they teach - by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works so that no one may boast.
I would recommed you do bit more research on the teaching of the RCC. Read their Catechism, or for a basic understanding of what the RCC teaches, I would recommend - Catholic and Christian: An Explanation of Commonly Misunderstood Catholic Beliefs by Alan Schreck.
I have to be honest with you, you have a long way to go to prove that the RCC is a institution of God! It truly is a man made institution in that it fully supports idolatry and the worship of the saints, this alone is a fruit that disqualifies it. If it is not a institution of idolatry then please explain to me all the likeneses and statues of the saints and Mary that people bow to, prostrate themselves to and pray to. The evidence is overwhelming as to what the RCC is, it is not the body of Christ!!!
gigantor,
I'm curious, what primary works have you read and researched that have caused you to come to these conclusions?
Other than personal experience and the cathechism, I have not read anything, at least in its entirety with regards to the RCC, most is personal experience. I would however question the relevance of reading any book on the subject as to what qualifies as a Godly church other than the Bible itself, since the Bible is the primary instrument of God and it holds all that we need with regards to the church and it's definition. Don't get me wrong I do read books, however they are all highly scrutinized through the lens of the scriptures! And this is my point with the RCC, it deviates from the scripture in a multitude of ways and the worship and exultation of Mary and the saints is just one way. No literature can deny what is obvious fact, unless you are somehow going to deny this.
I have asked this before and the answer seems the same from all those that I have spoken to in the RCC but here it goes;
If you can, support prayer to anyone other than Christ. Please use the Bible to do this, use contextual scriptures please! You can even use the greek text if you desire, I have some training in Greek.
Please explain to me how the abundance of statues of Mary, icons, shrines, medalions and what ever else you desire, is not idolatry, I do not think I need to read a book to make this connection. Where I live is a place that the RCC has, it is a nice little billion dollar piece of property called the groto. It is all about Mary and people are prostrating themselves before her, kneeling, burning incense or whatever other activities that are common. Also please scripturally support the doctrine of perpetual virginity when it comes to the lineage of Mary.
If you have something that would clear up the doctrinal position of the RCC on these things then recommend, I would like to hear you support these items of the RCC faith if you do not mind.
gigantor,
Well, the onus is not on me to defend any of these claims you have made, since I myself am not Roman Catholic. My initial post was in response to a claim made against the RCC which has, in my estimation, been a false claim (that dealing with sola fide). Outside of this issue, I have my own disagreements with the RCC which have kept me from converting.
I cannot speak for individual Roman Catholics performing certain "acts of worship" in which they may in fact be truly worshiping (as in the same sense of worshipping diety) Mary or any other saint for that matter, but the Catholic Church does not teach the worship as deity of Mary or any saint - albeit, do not confuse the term worship in certain contexts which is often used to mean "adoration." You can read pretty much any primary work by the RCC to gain a better understanding of the Church's stance (not the individual) on Mary, or the saints. Many of my Roman Catholic friends claim that Protestants truly misunderstand the Catholic doctrine of Mary (Mariology), etc. However, as for defending these acts, I'm not obligated to do so, I too have my doubts and questions about it all as well.
As a Christian then how can you even begin to support something that you yourself have doubts in, even if it is a particular stance on a given doctrine? If any believer or body of believers practices sin, in this case obvious idolatry, then they are not truly a representation of God or Christ! No condemnation here but a question of concern.
I have read some of the works of one of the preeminent 'saints' of modern times and she strongly holds to the exultation of Mary to the point of deity. She herself in her writings has denied the authority of Christ and claims that if it were not for the priests that we would not be able to have fellowship with him. I will add what I have here and you can read and investigate further yourself, perhaps I have missed something.
"Mother" Teresa was born Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu of Albanian parents in what is now Yugoslavia/Bosnia on August 27, 1910. She died of a heart attack on September 5, 1997. The diminutive nun arrived in India on January 6, 1929, where she started assisting the needy and eventually established the now-global "Missionaries of Charity" organization. Ultimately, more than 500 missions in 100 countries were established. Yet, "Mother" Teresa, and those who worked with her, never tried to convert to Christ the dying people for whom they cared. Instead, "Mother" Teresa declared: "If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept" (from Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work, by Desmond Doig, p. 156).
"Mother" Teresa was a thoroughgoing Catholic. She was a great worshiper of Mary; she believed the cracker of the mass is Jesus Christ; she believed all men are children of God. In her speech before the United Nations in October 1985, she said, "We gather to thank God for the 40 years of the beautiful work of the United Nations for the good of the people. No color, no religion, no nationality should come between us -- we are all children of God. ... When we destroy an unborn child, we destroy God" (11/11/85, Christian News, p. 17).
Other notable quotes from "Mother" Teresa (12/4/89, Time magazine, pp. 11,13): (All emphases added):
(a) "The dying, the crippled, the mentally ill, the unwanted, the unloved -- they are Jesus in disguise. ... [through the] poor people I have an opportunity to be 24 hours a day with Jesus." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her pantheistic religious philosophy: "Every AIDS victim is Jesus in a pitiful disguise; Jesus is in everyone.. ... [AIDS sufferers are] children of God [who] have been created for greater things" (1/13/86, Time).]
(b) "You must make them feel loved and wanted. They are Jesus for me."
(c) "I love all religions. ... If people become better Hindus, better Muslims, better Buddhists by our acts of love, then there is something else growing there." [On another occasion, she again demonstrated her false gospel that 'there are many ways to God': "All is God -- Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc., all have access to the same God."]
In her book, Life in the Spirit: Reflections, Meditations, and Prayers, "Mother" Teresa says on pp. 81-82:
"We never try to convert those who receive [aid from Missionaries of Charity] to Christianity but in our work we bear witness to the love of God's presence and if Catholics, Protestants, Buddhists, or agnostics become for this better men -- simply better -- we will be satisfied. It matters to the individual what church he belongs to. If that individual thinks and believes that this is the only way to God for her or him, this is the way God comes into their life -- his life. If he does not know any other way and if he has no doubt so that he does not need to search then this is his way to salvation."
quotes from her speech at the 10/84 Worldwide Retreat for Priests:
(a) "At the word of a priest, that little piece of bread becomes the body of Christ, the Bread of Life."
(b) "Without a priest, without Jesus going with them, our sisters couldn't go anywhere."
(c) "When the priest is there, then can we have our altar and our tabernacle and our Jesus. Only the priest put Jesus there for us. ... Jesus wants to go there, but we cannot bring him unless you first give him to us. This is why I love priests so much. We could never be what we are and do the things we do without you priests who first bring Jesus to us."
(d) "Mary ... is our patroness and our Mother, and she is always leading us to Jesus."
Sorry about all the space being taken up here!
giganto,
you are assuming a lot of things in all of these comments. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish with your tirade against Mother Teresa. What is your point with all of this?
Let me ask you one simple question, do you believe everything that every Protestant denomination teaches? And if you answer this question with "no." Then answer me this, "As a Christian how can you even begin to support something that you yourself have doubts in?"
Finally, would agree with this comment?
"The words, 'I want to be holy' mean: I will divest myself of everything that is not of God; I will divest myself and empty my heart of material things. I will renounce my own will, my fickleness; and I will become a generous slave to God's will."
Simply put I am a Christian and I am no Catholic or Protestant. I hold to the word of God alone, and I serve him alone.
The question that you ask 'do you believe everything that every protestant denomination teaches' is a non-sensical question since every denomination whether Catholic or Protestant is hung up on some opinion of man and those opinions are many and literally unknowable by their number! The only right and safe ground for the Christian is adherence to and obedience to the unadulterated word of God. Of course this is a life long task since the word of God infinitely broad in it's scope, at least if there is some finite part of it I have not been able to find it. My point is that I am not perfect but I am trying to follow Him so that I might attain to what ever it is that He wants for me in my life time.
Unfortunately in this world today some compromise has to be made for the sake of fellowship and one has to choose between essential and non-essential truth if they want to be a part of any fellowship. When it comes to those denominations that deviate from the truth on essential doctrine, such as water baptism as a means of salvation then fellowship in truth can not exist here because there is only one way to be saved and that is by heart acceptance of Christ's atoneing sacrifice upon the cross and belief in him as Christ and Lord! I see the Catholic Church as just one false church among many, it just happens that it is the giant that has spawned many of them. I would even go to the point of saying that all protestant churches spring from the Catholic church and that the Catholic church itself was a invention of Satan, via Ruling Rome at the time, that was designed to fracture the body of Christ and make in non effect, if it could and via the dark ages it had apparently done that BUT FOR GOD!!!
My point with regard to Mother Teresa was not to bash her per say, I think that she did that herself. I was simply using her as a example of a prominent member of the Catholic church, who was sainted not long after her death, that epitomized what the Catholic church believes. Now you may say wait a second here, where does the Catholic church hold to the words of Mother Teresa and the point is that they do not refute any of the diabolic statements that she has made which deviate completely from the word of God, so is the way of the RCC and this can be shown over and over again through out the RCC history to current, as a matter of fact you could find this type of attitude among protestants as well.
I apologize that I am as general as I am in my statements but if I had the time to research things out then I would bring more sepcific evidence. Unfortunately between linear algebra and vector spaces, and my failing grade in computer mathematics I have little time to more thoroughly support what I have said here. I am racking my brains trying to get a degree in mathematics in order to use it as a tool and make myself more useful. Oh well.
Dear Gigantor,
Do the Scriptures stand in need of interpretation? If so, how do you adjudicate between your interpretation and those of Protestant denominations and/or the RCC? These questions are actually more complex and substantive than they might appear at first glance, the first being somewhat rhetorical. I've rubbed shoulders with numerous Protestants from multiple denominations who all boldly affirm, just as you have, that they hold to the word of God alone, and yet this does not solve the epistemological problem of whose interpretation is the correct one. Interestingly, individuals who assert that they are not a part of denominations and merely hold to the word of God alone and nothing else, ALWAYS . . . ALWAYS, bear the marks of another interpretive tradition and ecclesiastical body. Finally, would you "unpack" what you mean by "[holding] to the word of God alone." This phrase can have multiple senses. My plea to you is twofold: [1] really consider the possibility that you might be wrong in some of the beliefs you hold, and [2] practice intellectual honesty in examining and comparing your interpretive conclusions against those of others who have come to differing conclusions through careful, thoughtful, and prayerful studies of God's Word. The nature of your responses to Todd seems to demonstrate that you have not done so fully. I submit these comments in love and humility and as someone who knows his own cognitive finitude and possibility for error, and ask that you receive them as such.
gigantor,
I'm really not trying to be rude, but I do not think you have given enough thought to your final comments and all of their underpinnings/presuppositions.
Josh
Do the scriptures stand in need of interpretation? The scriptures do not stand in need of iterpretation but when one reads them they need an interpreter in order for one to understand them!
1 Cor 2:6-16;
6 However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, 8 which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
9 But as it is written:
“Eye has not seen, nor ear heard,
Nor have entered into the heart of man
The things which God has prepared for those who love Him.”
10 But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.
13 These things we also speak, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. 16 For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ
The New King James Version. 1982 (1 Co 2:6-16). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
It is real simple, those that are true Christians have the insight, they get in on the mystery, the world does not, God does not choose to reveal it to them. So it is with all of the religous teachers and linguists that are not saved, they can write and study all that they want but it will be to no adue, without the Holy Spirit their interpretation is garbage.
I see that you have a MA in Theology T.B.. I am curious as to what you think when you read these very exclusive passages, read Mt. 13:10 also. Christ is very direct here and he is very specific about the exclusivity of the word of God, in particular parables in Mt. 13:10. So, the point is that only God's elect, his chosen are privy to this information and the rest of the world is not! Also, keep in mind that as a Christian one does not have their own private interpretation of the word, there is only one meaning.
20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.
The New King James Version. 1982 (2 Pe 1:20-21). Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
See φέρω, men were used like gloves, God moved through them to produce his scriptures. No interpretation, the Holy Spirit will provide it.
'Practice intellectual honesty in examining and comparing your interpretive conclusions against those of others who have come to differing conclusions through careful, thoughtful, and prayerful studies of God's Word. The nature of your responses to Todd seems to demonstrate that you have not done so fully.'
Ah, the nature of my responses. Could you please elaborate on this statement?
As far as I know we have one of two natures that we deal with, one is the fleshly, carnal nature and the other is that of the spirit, being guided by the Holy Spirit.
Judging by your statements and the things you say, I would have to assume that your criticism has little to do with Godliness and a lot to do with you prescribing to emergent post modern bilge, from such men as John Shelby Spong, J.P. Moreland, Brian McLaren and or a host of other folks who hold to the synctretistic world philosophies of the emergent movement. To be honest with you the things you say smack strongly of this association.
I say this out of all humility. One of the things that you would desire that I do is lower myself to the post emergent level and say that I might be wrong.
I would rather hold to God's perspicuous truth and admit that Christ knows all and that He is leading me in that truth. I am certain, and I trust Him enough, that He will show me any error that he deems nescessary to reveal to me. I have no problem with others confronting me with intelligent dialog and pertinent information, show me the truth!
Moreland, J.P. "Two Areas of Reflection and Dialogue with John Franke." Philosophia Christi 8 (2006): 305-312.
Gigantor,
To implicate Moreland with Spong is inexcusable. And with respect to postmodernism, the emergent church, and Moreland's thoughts, you really ought to look at the above reference. You will read nothing further from me on this thread.
Josh
Since my pastor just attended a IFCA Regional pastor meeting where DR. Moreland spoke and at the end said
"the leadership of the Bible church movement is white male with type A personalities who are all anal-retentive and hence don't want the church to get messy with the Spirit."
Go ahead and run if you want, but good old J.P. has a problem. Perhaps you ought to contact him and ask him what is up.
Running is not the right way to respond. You may not like what I say but, please, give me a break, running, what is that?
I have a better idea, black list me from your blog, now that would be typical!
gigantor,
Josh is one of my best friend's, he is not running. The reason he refuses to continue with this thread is that there is a strong unreasonable stance he is (as well as me) confronted with in your arguments. With all due respect, you are a very strong fundamentalist, who has a very narrow and unresearched or ill informed positioned.
I have met J.P Moreland on several different occasions, heard him speak; I have worked with men who know him quite well. You condemen him based upon the hearsay of one man, that's simply irrational. Merely because you disagree with his position on something, or because you think, better yet you assume you know his positions on certain issues, based on this you have pretty much condemned him. Not condemned him in his thinking alone (which you have), but insinuated his eternal status, along with Mother Teresa, and the entire Catholic Church for that matter.
You have been reading too much Steven Camp, too many hyper-conservative neo reformed fundamentalists, and that, I believe has caused you to assume too much. Therefore, with all this irrationality in your responses, what would be the point of Josh wasting his time corresponding with you?
Stop playing the role of God, condemning those who don't fit into your presumptuous theological box. As for me as, you may have the last word on this, but you will no longer read anything from me on this thread as well.
TB and Josh
You epitomize the arrogance of those who claim to be educated in the things of God and yet you deny the power of the scripture and the power of God. You condemn me of judging the eternal state of someones soul when all that I have done is address doctrinal issues! With respect to JP Moreland, if you would like, the recorded CD it can be produced with him saying what I have addressed, as well as some other things.
I find it interesting that you state that I am judgemental and extreme, yet you yourself make judgemental and extreme statements about me, you attack me personally; you state that I have read S Camp to much, and that I am a extreme fundamentalist. You have no idea what I read and or where I draw my base of knowledge from, other than what I have told you and that is the word of God.
In all of this, that is OK! I find it revealing, it shows who you are and that you lack substance and depth in what you believe and how you carry yourself. You say you have a masters degree but it appears that it has done you little good, you can not defend your own position in what you believe as well as, when it comes right down to it, you resort to knee jerk reactions and personal attack. All that I asked for in my address of doctrines and teachings of the RCC is the producing of the the truth, the body of evidence. You have failed to do that because you could not maintain control of your own emotions. True, the statements that I make leave little gray area, as for JP Moreland, I can produce the truth and you yourself can contact him to verify his statements if you like I am certain he will not deny them, especially since they are recorded!
I look forward to your reply to what I have said here and I hope you do not scurry off like scared little church mice, stand up and defend what you say and what you believe. We as americans have become to soft in as far as when we are faced with confrontation of what we believe we feign offense and run because our conciouses are disturbed. You need to think and in your thinking you need to stand. If the truth is important to you this is what you will do, if not then run like cowards and die like cowards. While I care for the truth and it bothers me greatly when I see those that have the capacity for it walk in error, it bothers me more to see those individuals become unwilling to expound on what they believe, even if it is error. With the internalization of what they believed due to their emotional offenses and disturbances, they eliminate all together or diminish significantly the chance of finding that which they claim to be seeking and that is the truth. I have not used foul or derogatory language or personal attack against you in any way, other than stating my opinion with regards to the weakness of your positions! With respect to the RCC and Mother Teresa, I have produced their own words and own writings and based any premise that I have on those, I have displayed some of those items here, if you refute them then produce their antithesis. To be honest with you, I even criticize myself on this because I could always do more to make my points clear and drive things home, of course in doing this I may cause you more disturbance but such is life!
So, the bottom line here is do you have it in you to stand, or will you wilt like a couple of pansies in the noon day heat. Don't take this as idle disputations but consider the challenge and produce, maybe your sword will be broken and you will die or perhaps you will be given something better, something of eternal significance.
Post a Comment
<< Home