>>No, the fact that 9 was responded to BEFORE you commented made your comment inaccurate. <<
Let’s see the message I first cc’d Gamecock to:
>> Thank you, Sara, but isnt it interesting that debate rages on, without anyone responding to those posts? (except those with kind words to affirm them.) <<
So you see, in context, my assertion that no-one had responded to them was in the sense of rebutting them. What’s amazing is that my initial posts completely destroyed the notion of sola fides. But you don’t rebut those posts, you nitpick the semantics later comparably insignificant comments. Does that make you feel validated? Is there some sort of internal ad-hominem that you can reassure yourself with that somehow you’ve invalidated my point because you found some inane point to squabble with me over?
Hey, I’ll tell you what: I obviously admit referring to #9 and #10 was wrong, since I meant to refer to #8 and #9. Now, do you have a substantive point to discuss?
Discussion won’t get us anywhere, since we would rely on the inerrant Bible as our authority, and Catholics rely on a sinful man, or group of sinful men, as authority. So, lacking a common ground, we’d just be talking past each other.