[small voice in the wilderness]

THANK YOU Reggie, for that. It seems the Scripture’s PLAIN wording isn’t enough. How hard can it be to read what the word says? Unless you don’t LIKE what it says. Then what to do? I guess one can always start a religion, based not on what God’s Word says but traditions that say something very different...

[Natural Law]

"It seems the Scripture’s PLAIN wording isn’t enough."

Of course it isn't or God would not have added to the revealed Word of God through Apostolic tradition and subsequent revelation.

To attempt to comprehend the entire revealed Word of God from Scripture alone is like trying to play solitaire with an incomplete deck.

[Jvette]

A laughable declaration considering that the Catholic church predates the written New Testament. Also, considering that the “plain language” of John’s discourse on the Bread of Life are rejected by protestants.

No where in Scripture is God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit referred to as the Holy Trinity and yet Truth as defined by that very Church founded before the canon of Scripture.

[Quix]

THANK YOU Reggie, for that. It seems the Scripture’s PLAIN wording isn’t enough. How hard can it be to read what the word says? Unless you don’t LIKE what it says. Then what to do? I guess one can always start a religion, based not on what God’s Word says but traditions that say something very different...

---

INDEED.

SOP—STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE

FOR ALL

HIERARCHICAL, BUREAUCRATIC, POLITICAL, MAGICSTERICAL, ELITE POWER-MONGERING LED RELIGIOUIS HUMAN organizations.

[Deo volente]

It seems the Scripture’s PLAIN wording isn’t enough. How hard can it be to read what the word says? Unless you don’t LIKE what it says. Then what to do? I guess one can always start a religion, based not on what God’s Word says but traditions that say something very different...

Wow, you just described Protestants' rejection of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist to a tee!

[26] And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. [27] And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. [28] For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins.

http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47026.htm

The "reformers" did not like what the plain wording of the text said, so they started a new religion and made their own tradition which held something very different than what had been believed by Christians for 1500 years.

[Mad Dawg]

It seems the Scripture’s PLAIN wording isn’t enough.

So, EITHER dispensationalism is not important, OR ALL adherents of Sola Scriptura are dispensationalists.

FOR
if
Sola Scriptura comes down to no one should be required to believe anything that cannot be proved by Scripture,
then either
a) dispensationalism is required to be believed and therefore can be proved by Scripture,
or
b) it cannot be proved and therefore is not required to be saved.

If (a), and Scripture's plain wording is enough, then how do you account for the sola Scriptura people who disdain dispensationalism?

If (b), then what's the big deal?

If my analysis is wrong, how is it wrong?