Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM
The Coming Home Network ^ | Brian W. Harrison

Posted on 03/24/2008 3:36:37 PM PDT by annalex

LOGIC AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF PROTESTANTISM

by Brian W. Harrison

As an active Protestant in my mid-twenties I began to feel that I might have a vocation to become a minister. The trouble was that while I had quite definite convictions about the things that most Christians have traditionally held in common—the sort of thing C.S. Lewis termed "mere Christianity."

I had had some firsthand experience with several denominations (Presbyterian, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist) and was far from certain as to which of them (if any) had an overall advantage over the others. So I began to think, study, search, and pray. Was there a true Church? If so, how was one to decide which?

The more I studied, the more perplexed I became. At one stage my elder sister, a very committed evangelical with somewhat flexible denominational affiliations, chided me with becoming "obsessed" with trying to find a "true Church." "Does it really matter?" she would ask. Well, yes it did. It was all very well for a lay Protestant to relegate the denominational issue to a fairly low priority amongst religious questions: lay people can go to one Protestant Church one week and another the next week and nobody really worries too much. But an ordained minister obviously cannot do that. He must make a very serious commitment to a definite Church community, and under normal circumstances that commitment will be expected to last a lifetime. So clearly that choice had to be made with a deep sense of responsibility; and the time to make it was before, not after, ordination.

As matters turned out, my search lasted several years, and eventually led me to where I never suspected it would at first. I shall not attempt to relate the full story, but will focus on just one aspect of the question as it developed for me—an aspect which seems quite fundamental.

As I groped and prayed my way towards a decision, I came close to despair and agnosticism at times, as I contemplated the mountains of erudition, the vast labyrinth of conflicting interpretations of Christianity (not to mention other faiths) which lined the shelves of religious bookshops and libraries. If all the "experts" on Truth—the great theologians, historians, philosophers—disagreed interminably with each other, then how did God, if He was really there, expect me, an ordinary Joe Blow, to work out what was true?

The more I became enmeshed in specific questions of Biblical interpretation—of who had the right understanding of justification, of the Eucharist, Baptism, grace, Christology, Church government and discipline, and so on—the more I came to feel that this whole-line of approach was a hopeless quest, a blind alley. These were all questions that required a great deal of erudition, learning, competence in Biblical exegesis, patristics, history, metaphysics, ancient languages—in short, scholarly research. But was it really credible (I began to ask myself) that God, if He were to reveal the truth about these disputed questions at all, would make this truth so inaccessible that only a small scholarly elite had even the faintest chance of reaching it? Wasn’t that a kind of gnosticism? Where did it leave the nonscholarly bulk of the human race? It didn’t seem to make sense. If, as they say, war is too important to be left to the generals, then revealed truth seemed too important to be left to the Biblical scholars. It was no use saying that perhaps God simply expected the non-scholars to trust the scholars. How were they to know which scholars to trust, given that the scholars all contradicted each other?

Therefore, in my efforts to break out of the dense exegetical undergrowth where I could not see the wood for the trees, I shifted towards a new emphasis in my truth-seeking criteria: I tried to get beyond the bewildering mass of contingent historical and linguistic data upon which the rival exegetes and theologians constructed their doctrinal castles, in order to concentrate on those elemental, necessary principles of human thought which are accessible to all of us, learned and unlearned alike. In a word, I began to suspect that an emphasis on logic, rather than on research, might expedite an answer to my prayers for guidance.

The advantage was that you don’t need to be learned to be logical. You need not have spent years amassing mountains of information in libraries in order to apply the first principles of reason. You can apply them from the comfort of your armchair, so to speak, in order to test the claims of any body of doctrine, on any subject whatsoever, that comes claiming your acceptance. Moreover logic, like mathematics, yields firm certitude, not mere changeable opinions and provisional hypotheses. Logic is the first natural "beacon of light" with which God has provided us as intelligent beings living in a world darkened by the confusion of countless conflicting attitudes, doctrines and world-views, all telling us how to live our lives during this brief time that is given to us here on earth.

Logic of course has its limits. Pure "armchair" reasoning alone will never be able to tell you the meaning of your life and how you should live it. But as far as it goes, logic is an indispensable tool, and I even suspect that you sin against God, the first Truth, if you knowingly flout or ignore it in your thinking. "Thou shalt not contradict thyself" seems to me an important precept of the natural moral law. Be that as it may, I found that the main use of logic, in my quest for religious truth, turned out to be in deciding not what was true, but what was false. If someone presents you with a system of ideas or doctrines which logical analysis reveals to be coherent—that is, free from internal contradictions and meaningless absurdities—then you can conclude, "This set of ideas may be true. It has at least passed the first test of truth—the coherence test." To find out if it actually is true you will then have to leave your logician’s armchair and seek further information. But if it fails this most elementary test of truth, it can safely be eliminated without further ado from the ideological competition, no matter how many impressive-looking volumes of erudition may have been written in support of it, and no matter how attractive and appealing many of its features (or many of its proponents) may appear.

Some readers may wonder why I am laboring the point about logic. Isn’t all this perfectly obvious? Well, it ought to be obvious to everyone, and is indeed obvious to many, including those who have had the good fortune of receiving a classical Catholic education. Catholicism, as I came to discover, has a quite positive approach to our natural reasoning powers, and traditionally has its future priests study philosophy for years before they even begin theology. But I came from a religious milieu where this outlook was not encouraged, and was often even discouraged. The Protestant Reformers taught that original sin has so weakened the human intellect that we must be extremely cautious about the claims of "proud reason." Luther called reason the "devil’s whore"—a siren which seduced men into grievous error. "Don’t trust your reason, just bow humbly before God’s truth revealed to you in His holy Word, the Bible!"—this was pretty much the message that came through to me from the Calvinist and Lutheran circles that influenced me most in the first few years after I made my "decision for Christ" at the age of 18. The Reformers themselves were forced to employ reason even while denouncing it, in their efforts to rebut the Biblical arguments of their "Papist" foes. And that, it seemed to me, was rather illogical on their part.

 

LOGIC AND THE "SOLA SCRIPTURA" PRINCIPLE

Thus, with my awakening interest in logical analysis as a test of religious truth, I was naturally led to ask whether this illogicality in the practice of the Reformers was, perhaps, accompanied by illogicality at the more fundamental level of their theory. As a good Protestant I had been brought up to hold as sacred the basic methodological principle of the Reformation: that the Bible alone contains all the truth that God has revealed for our salvation. Churches that held to that principle were at least "respectable," one was given to understand, even though they might differ considerably from each other in regard to the interpretation of Scripture. But as for Roman Catholicism and other Churches which unashamedly added their own traditions to the Word of God—were they not self-evidently outside the pale? Were they not condemned out of their own mouths?

But when I got down to making a serious attempt to explore the implications of this rock-bottom dogma of the Reformers, I could not avoid the conclusion that it was rationally indefensible. This is demonstrated in the following eight steps, which embody nothing more than simple, commonsense logic, and a couple of indisputable, empirically observable facts about the Bible:

1. The Reformers asserted Proposition A: "All revealed truth is to be found in the inspired Scriptures." However, this is quite useless unless we know which books are meant by the "inspired Scriptures." After all, many different sects and religions have many different books, which they call "inspired Scriptures."

2. The theory we are considering, when it talks of "inspired Scriptures," means in fact those 66 books, which are bound and published in Protestant Bibles. For convenience we shall refer to them from now on simply as "the 66 books."

3. The precise statement of the theory we are examining thus becomes Proposition B: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books."

4. It is a fact that nowhere in the 66 books themselves can we find any statements telling us which books make up the entire corpus of inspired Scripture. There is no complete list of inspired books anywhere within their own pages, nor can such a list be compiled by putting isolated verses together. (This would be the case: (a) if you could find verses like "Esther is the Word of God," "This Gospel is inspired by God," "The Second Letter of Peter is inspired Scripture," etc., for all of the 66 books; and (b) if you could also find a Biblical passage stating that no books other than these 66 were to be held as inspired. Obviously, nobody could even pretend to find all this information about the canon of Scripture in the Bible itself.)

5. It follows that Proposition B—the very foundation of all Protestant Christianity—is neither found in Scripture nor can be deduced from Scripture in any way. Since the 66 books are not even identified in Scripture, much less can any further information about them (e.g., that all revealed truth is contained in them) be found there. In short, we must affirm Proposition C: "Proposition B is an addition to the 66 books. "

6. It follows immediately from the truth of Proposition C that Proposition B cannot itself be revealed truth. To assert that it is would involve a self-contradictory statement: "All revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books, but this revealed truth itself is not found there."

7. Could it be the case that Proposition B is true, but is not revealed truth? If that is the case, then it must be either something which can be deduced from revealed truth or something which natural human reason alone can discover, without any help from revelation. The first possibility is ruled out because, as we saw in steps 4 and 5, B cannot be deduced from Scripture, and to postulate some other revealed extra-Scriptural premise from which B might be deduced would contradict B itself. The second possibility involves no self-contradiction, but it is factually preposterous, and I doubt whether any Protestant has seriously tried to defend it—least of all those traditional Protestants who strongly emphasize the corruption of man’s natural intellectual powers as a result of the Fall. Human reason might well be able to conclude prudently and responsibly that an authority which itself claimed to possess the totality of revealed truth was in fact justified in making that claim, provided that this authority backed up the claim by some very striking evidence. (Catholics, in fact, believe that their Church is precisely such an authority.) But how could reason alone reach that same well-founded certitude about a collection of 66 books which do not even lay claim to what is attributed to them? (The point is reinforced when we remember that those who attribute the totality of revealed truth to the 66 books, namely Protestant Church members, are very ready to acknowledge their own fallibility—whether individually or collectively—in matters of religious doctrine. All Protestant Churches deny their own infallibility as much as they deny the Pope’s.)

8. Since Proposition B is not revealed truth, nor a truth which can be deduced from revelation, nor a naturally-knowable truth, it is not true at all. Therefore, the basic doctrine for which the Reformers fought is simply false.

CALVIN’S ATTEMPTED SOLUTION

How did the Reformers try to cope with this fundamental weakness in the logical structure of their own first principles? John Calvin, usually credited with being the most systematic and coherent thinker of the Reformation, tried to justify belief in the divine authorship of the 66 books by dogmatically postulating a direct communication of this knowledge from God to the individual believer. Calvin makes it clear that in saying Scripture is "self-authenticated," he does not mean to be taken literally and absolutely. He does not mean that some Bible text or other affirms that the 66 books, and they alone, are divinely inspired. As we observed in step 4 above, nobody ever could claim anything so patently false. Calvin simply means that no extra-Biblical human testimony, such as that of Church tradition, is needed in order for individuals to know that these books are inspired. We can summarize his view as Proposition D: "The Holy Spirit teaches Christians individually, by a direct inward testimony, that the 66 books are inspired by God. "

The trouble is that the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority as much as a Pope or Council. The third Person of the Trinity is clearly not identical with the truths He has expressed, through human authors, in the Bible. It follows that even if Calvin’s Proposition D is true, it contradicts Proposition B, for "if all revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books," then that leaves no room for the Holy Spirit to reveal directly and non-verbally one truth which cannot be found in any passage of those books, namely, the fact that each one of them is inspired.

In any case, even if Calvin could somehow show that D did not itself contradict B, he would still not have succeeded in showing that B is true. Even if we were to accept the extremely implausible view represented by Proposition D, that would not prove that no other writings are inspired, and much less would it prove that there are no revealed truths that come to us through tradition rather than through inspired writings. In short, Calvin’s defense of Biblical inspiration in no way overthrows our eight-step disproof of the sola Scriptura principle. Indeed, it does not even attempt to establish that principle as a whole, but only one aspect of it—that is, which books are to be understood by the term "Scriptura."

The schizoid history of Protestantism itself bears witness to the original inner contradiction which marked its conception and birth. Conservative Protestants have maintained the original insistence on the Bible as the unique infallible source of revealed truth, at the price of logical incoherence. Liberals on the other hand have escaped the incoherence while maintaining the claim to "private interpretation" over against that of Popes and Councils, but at the price of abandoning the Reformers’ insistence on an infallible Bible. They thereby effectively replace revealed truth by human opinion, and faith by an autonomous reason. Thus, in the liberal/evangelical split within Protestantism since the 18th century, we see both sides teaching radically opposed doctrines, even while each claims to be the authentic heir of the Reformation. The irony is that both sides are right: their conflicting beliefs are simply the two horns of a dilemma, which has been tearing at the inner fabric of Protestantism ever since its turbulent beginnings.

Reflections such as these from a Catholic onlooker may seem a little hard or unyielding to some—ill-suited, perhaps, to a climate of ecumenical dialogue in which gentle suggestion, rather than blunt affirmation, is the preferred mode of discourse. But logic is of its very nature hard and unyielding; and insofar as truth and honesty are to be the hallmarks of true ecumenism, the claims of logic will have to be squarely faced, not politely avoided.

 

Fr. Brian Harrison is currently teaching at the Pontifical University of Puerto Rico in Ponce.


TOPICS: Catholic; Ecumenism
KEYWORDS: fallacy; harrison
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-613 next last
To: Petronski

Your response speaks volumes.


101 posted on 03/25/2008 7:05:49 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Fascinating . . .

I agree. This post points back to one I sent to you, yet it's not addressed to me.

One might think you were avoiding me.

instead of apology, more insult.

Why would you expect apology for something conjured from your own imagination? As I recall, you made no attempt to get clarification from me, but rather preferred performing a Sharpton-esque soliloquy.

from the marvelously mangled Mother Earth magicsterical, no doubt.

Would you prefer a more, ehem, extraterrestrial source ;o)

102 posted on 03/25/2008 7:06:45 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: annalex
We are not saying that the books in Luther’s OT canon are not inspired, just that the canon was truncated by him

Actually Luther did not truncate them, but that was done by Jews. Luther included those books in an appendix, and that was later dropped in the 1800's. But the Bible is not the gospel. The gospel is simply the good news of Christ. And I think we can all agree on what the good new of Christ means to us all.

103 posted on 03/25/2008 7:12:36 AM PDT by Always Right (Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

As does yours. Those “early church fathers” you mention are the Popes and Bishops of the Catholic Church, Christ’s own. Your Traditions of Men do not permit you to acknowledge that.

You cannot even acknowledge the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding them to select the truly inspired Word of God for inclusion in the Canon, for that might mean you had to acknowledge that the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church.

Instead, you are stuck with the convoluted arguments of a despotic French lawyer, and his Traditions, the very arguments so artfully dismembered by the author of this piece.


104 posted on 03/25/2008 7:14:29 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Would you prefer a more, ehem, extraterrestrial source?

LOL

105 posted on 03/25/2008 7:16:14 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; papertyger
The only reason they believe in Christianity is because of the word of God. That is how the word of God is self-authenicating.
    I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so. - St. Augustine

106 posted on 03/25/2008 7:27:28 AM PDT by Titanites
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
The summary of this argument is that no matter what reasoning man may try to propose, it is the word of God that convicts a man's heart of sin, righteousness and of judgment.

That is not an "argument." It is a gratuitous assertion, and one at variance with Romans 2:15.

Are you sure you understand what Calvin was saying?

107 posted on 03/25/2008 7:28:16 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

Comment #108 Removed by Moderator

To: Petronski
Fascinating . . . instead of actual response, more insult.

Ask him about bible codes. Go on, ask him ;o)

109 posted on 03/25/2008 7:31:31 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
It's called "fulfilled prophecy" and is part of the reason why, like the Bereans, we believe that the scriptures are the self-authenticating word of God.

So where's the prophesy of Lk 2:29?

110 posted on 03/25/2008 7:36:40 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I have heard this argument many times from many sources.

And successfully ignored them all. Go Team! 10 and 0!

111 posted on 03/25/2008 7:46:07 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: vladimir998
I will ignore your blatant denial of my own experience (and the fact that you are implicitly calling me a liar).

Dei Verbum is of no use because it can be interpreted any way the reader wishes to interpret it (just as Protestants interpret the Bible). Inerrantists insist it teaches total inerrancy; anti-inerrantists insist it teaches partial inerrancy ("those truths for the sake of our salvation"). Anti-inerrantists invoke Dei Verbum the same as inerrantists do.

112 posted on 03/25/2008 7:48:15 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum, 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Of course the Old Testament is older, but the Christian Canon of it is set forth by the Church, while the New Testament, the tool that unlocks the Old Testament for us, is a direct product of the Church.

If you're going to insist the Jews "got it wrong" for the thousand years after Sinai, don't complain that Martin Luther was silly to believe the Church got it wrong for the first 1500 years of chr*stianity.

Assuming the truth of chr*stianity is no different than assuming the truth of Protestantism. If Protestants should open themselves up to critique by the prior tradition then so should chr*stianity itself.

113 posted on 03/25/2008 7:50:36 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum, 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Speaking of hoopla...was there anything in your prattle about prophesy that authorized using a wrench for a hammer?


114 posted on 03/25/2008 7:50:56 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Ahhh, there's the switch. The Hebrew Bible is not the entire Bible, merely the Old Testament of the Bible.

And since you refuse to question this and consider the claims of Judaism--since you basically claim the Jews "got it wrong" for the thousand years after Sinai--what right do you have to demand that Protestants question their own assumptions and open themselves up to prior chr*stian tradition?

115 posted on 03/25/2008 7:57:40 AM PDT by Zionist Conspirator ( . . . veyiqchu 'eleykha farah 'adummah temimah, 'asher 'ein-bah mum, 'asher lo'-`alah `aleyha `ol.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
The early church fathers never had a problem understanding what the core sets of inspirational scriptures were.

Then why would Paul warn against letter supposedly from him?

Since you feel that I'm "obfuscating" the issue, can you explain to me and our readers precisely the difference between the inspired scriptures and the writings of the fathers?

Translation: You caught me so let's change subjects.

116 posted on 03/25/2008 7:58:37 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
...since you basically claim the Jews "got it wrong" for the thousand years after Sinai...

I do? Really?

117 posted on 03/25/2008 8:01:39 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
...what right do you have to demand that Protestants question their own assumptions and open themselves up to prior Christian tradition?

When did I make such demands?

118 posted on 03/25/2008 8:02:32 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Specifically it would be beneficial to know how the inspired scriptures and traditional writings are used to formulate doctrine such as Mary's ascension into heaven or purgatory.

"Knowing how" which I believe you already do, and "persuading you to accept" are not the same thing.

Kindly refrain from wasteing peoples efforts by pretending they are.

119 posted on 03/25/2008 8:08:59 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg; Alex Murphy; Gamecock; Ottofire; Quix; Alamo-Girl; blue-duncan
These articles are all the same...."the Bible is the inspired word of God, but we don't really know what is inspired...except that we do know what was inspired...but what we mean is the Church knows what was inspired...except the Church didn't know what was inspired until we confirmed what was inspired at Trent then everyone knew what was inspired although what we were quoting from as inspired was inspired until the Church officially said that stuff wasn't inspired..."

ROTFLOL!

What a great way to start the day.

With a little research, any Christian will find the NT was pretty well established way before any synods, or councils. One thing we owe our Christian ancestors is gratitude because they were so serious about recognizing forgeries and non inspired books.

120 posted on 03/25/2008 8:14:08 AM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Quix

It’s all good, brother.


121 posted on 03/25/2008 8:17:41 AM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

“So where’s the prophesy of Lk 2:29?”

Luke 2:26, “And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ.”


122 posted on 03/25/2008 8:18:09 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
Why would you expect apology for something conjured from your own imagination?

Written AS THOUGH

some things were NOT BRAZENLY

self-evident!


123 posted on 03/25/2008 8:22:03 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
The early church fathers never had a problem understanding what the core sets of inspirational scriptures were.

That's why they never held an ecumenical council to establish the canon. They already knew what it was.

124 posted on 03/25/2008 8:22:44 AM PDT by wmfights (Believe - THE GOSPEL - and be saved)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I’ll thank you again not to post images from my server space. If you want to post the laughing dog, put it on your own server.


125 posted on 03/25/2008 8:23:18 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
Assuming the truth of chr*stianity is no different than assuming the truth of Protestantism.

Inncorrect. Protestantism can be refuted by it's own doctrines.

126 posted on 03/25/2008 8:26:58 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

My error.

Dear me! What a faux pas! LOL.

Apologies. Sure.

Seems to me I’ve seen it elsewhere.

LOL.


127 posted on 03/25/2008 8:29:41 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I did not say not to post the image.

I said do not “post images from my server space.”

You do understand the difference?


128 posted on 03/25/2008 8:32:39 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
Instead, you are stuck with the convoluted arguments of a despotic French lawyer, and his Traditions, the very arguments so artfully dismembered by the author of this piece.

No, I don't rely upon a "despotic" French lawyer.

As far as the "very arguments so artfully dismembered by the author", I would agree that the author is arguing against scripture-the very scripture he purports to be "inspired".
129 posted on 03/25/2008 8:32:57 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
When did I make such demands?

I wondered if I had missed something...

So this isn't your straw man monsieur ;o)

130 posted on 03/25/2008 8:33:05 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
No, I don't rely upon a "despotic" French lawyer.

Forgive me. I thought you were a Calvinist.

131 posted on 03/25/2008 8:33:28 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
I would agree that the author is arguing against scripture...

Then you would bear false witness against the author.

132 posted on 03/25/2008 8:35:01 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: blue-duncan
Luke 2:26, "And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ."

So Simeon was quoting a prophesy of Scripture before it was written? :oD

133 posted on 03/25/2008 8:40:47 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

How puzzling . . .

a seeming

assumption that I didn’t know the difference! LOL.


134 posted on 03/25/2008 8:42:13 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Quix; Petronski
Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

Photobucket

135 posted on 03/25/2008 8:43:26 AM PDT by Gamecock (Viva La Reformacion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Quix

“a seeming assumption?”

Oh no. Your first reply indicated you did not know the difference, so I explained it.


136 posted on 03/25/2008 8:48:08 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Quix
I did not say not to post the image. I said do not “post images from my server space.” You do understand the difference?

You didn't have a problem when Lineage player "Ferine" posted the "attention wh***" graphic that you keep on your server space on the Lineage Guru board. And that's a far more, shall we say, interesting graphic than the laughing dog one. I didn't see a complaint from you towards "Ferine" then, so why complain against Quix now? Unless "Ferine" is you, that is.

In either case, here's a graphical response to your complaint against Quix. Apply liberally:


137 posted on 03/25/2008 8:48:16 AM PDT by Alex Murphy ("Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?" -- Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Precisely done. Perhaps QUIX still needs some help with the concept. I’ll leave it to you.


138 posted on 03/25/2008 8:48:44 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Ahhhh. I see.

Thanks much.

Appreciated.


139 posted on 03/25/2008 8:49:36 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Quix

If it was so “BRAZENLY self-evident,” why did your “housemate” (whatever that means) have to explain what they thought it meant to you?

Ah, the romance of the theater....


140 posted on 03/25/2008 8:49:55 AM PDT by papertyger (changing words quickly metastasizes into changing facts -- Ann Coulter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: papertyger
“So Simeon was quoting a prophesy of Scripture before it was written?”

Luke 2:29, “Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word”. “According to thy word” was a prophecy to him and it fulfilled the Isaiah prophecies to Israel.

141 posted on 03/25/2008 8:52:25 AM PDT by blue-duncan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy
You didn't have a problem when Lineage player "Ferine" posted the "attention wh***" graphic that you keep on your server space on the Lineage Guru board. And that's a far more, shall we say, interesting graphic than the laughing dog one. I didn't see a complaint from you towards "Ferine" then, so why complain against Quix now? Unless "Ferine" is you, that is.

I thank you for calling my attention to this. I had never heard of "the Lineage Guru board." Ferine, like QUIX, has been using my server space without authorization.

However, since you DO know about this board, perhaps YOU are Ferine.

Enjoy the salve, you need it.

142 posted on 03/25/2008 8:52:58 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Petronski

Ahhhhh that old perceptual problem again . . .

LOL.

Indicated . . . to . . . whom! ?? LOL.


143 posted on 03/25/2008 8:53:40 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Quix

To the reader.


144 posted on 03/25/2008 8:53:58 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Alex Murphy

I had similar thoughts but . . . far better for you to articulate such . . .

You have such a masterful way with things. Am frequently in awe of your skills at such.

Humbled and honored. Thanks.

I suppose we could prepare a Dick and Jane kindergarten version for the nutty cult of the RC edifice at large but I’m sure we have better things to do.

Besides, they are used to groping along in confusion.


145 posted on 03/25/2008 8:56:51 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Petronski; Quix
Perhaps QUIX still needs some help with the concept.

If I may help you out with a "concept." It is considered poor taste around these parts to talk about someone without pinging them to the post.

Hey Quix, in a spirit of Christian love I hung the images in question on my Photobucket site for your exclusive use. Enjoy

146 posted on 03/25/2008 8:57:50 AM PDT by Gamecock (Viva La Reformacion!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Titanites; papertyger
I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so. - St. Augustine

Talk about pulling something completely out of context this is it. Augustine wrote this to confront the Mani heresy.

The greatest heresies have been built on the backs of those who feel that only a priviledge few can rightfully interpret the scriptures.
147 posted on 03/25/2008 8:58:21 AM PDT by HarleyD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Gamecock

Quix is already here.


148 posted on 03/25/2008 8:58:42 AM PDT by Petronski (Nice job, Hillary. Now go home and get your shine box.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Must be losing too many Catholics to the 'Bible' religions...Another sales pitch is required...

The trouble is that the Holy Spirit Himself is an extra-Biblical authority as much as a Pope or Council. The third Person of the Trinity is clearly not identical with the truths He has expressed, through human authors, in the Bible. It follows that even if Calvin’s Proposition D is true, it contradicts Proposition B, for "if all revealed truth is to be found in the 66 books," then that leaves no room for the Holy Spirit to reveal directly and non-verbally one truth which cannot be found in any passage of those books, namely, the fact that each one of them is inspired.

Two problems with this diatribe...

The first is that your church ignores the very scripture that warns us to stay away from people who try to understand the scripture with an intellectual, philosophical view...

Col 2:8 Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

The second is that the bible is a Spiritual book...It's a Holy Spirit book...It is out of reach for intellectual philosophers...

When people say the Holy Spirit leads them to understand the scripture, you just don't get it...Spiritual and logical just don't jive...

Luk 24:45 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures,

Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

149 posted on 03/25/2008 8:59:11 AM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

Because I wasn’t aware of what the pic was of.

If one is aware of what the pic is of . . .

THEN

It’s BRAZENLY OBVIOUS.

BTW, a number of folks clued me in.

So the evil deed was well known by many from the beginning. I was the slow one because I didn’t know what the pic was of.

It did, however, feel a bit dirty in my spirit when I first viewed it.

But I should be thankful.

It was a screaming declaration of the values of the nutty cult of the RC edifice.


150 posted on 03/25/2008 8:59:51 AM PDT by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 601-613 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson