Well then i am glad you agree with me that these came to be saved by hearing the Scriptures or Scriptural truth, versus the premise of their own veracity. But which which certainly is contrary to people weren't converted to Christianity by reading/hearing the Scriptures which is what i refuted.
Did they (the Apostles, or even Jesus) simply stand on a street corner and start reading the OT aloud? Is this what you believe initially drew people to conversion?
More straw men. I think you must know my argument was never that assurance of Truth was simply by simply hearing texts being read, but in contrast to the claim of assured ecclesiastical veracity, it as on the basis of Scriptural substantiation, and which includes "And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures," (Acts 17:2)
The more you resort to misrepresentations then the more you will be marginalized.
Why? Why did some who had the unique privilege of being with Jesus while he walked the earth in his own body leave him? Or reject him initially? Why?
Scripture once again provides the answer:
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:19-21)
And which source is wholly Divinely inspired of God which teaches what is light versus darkness?
"The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." (Psalms 19:7-8)
Ask yourself these questions honestly and you may see that what I'm talking about is not "subjectivism" in the least. After all, what truly makes something "objective" anyway? What truly is a "fact"?...They are simply things that happen to a person, outside themselves. Given by another. Which is where the term "datum" comes from by the way. It is something given.
I see. So essentially this "datum," 'the objective fact of every man's heart," is determinative of what "Fact" and Truth is, and a soul believes something is of God not by judging it in the light of evidence. Thus the appeal to evidence in Scripture is superfluous.
"Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes." (Deuteronomy 12:8)
The initial, inspiring *thing* that leads one to God is not Scripture, but rather the objective fact of every man's heart, when not encumbered by the things of this world the values of this world.
But what defines what is "encumbered by the things of this world the values of this world," and makes such a heart a source of Fact? Even when Gentiles obeyed light it was because the law in essence was written in their heart, and was judged as being so by the written law of God.
I do not even think other RCs would concur with your doctrinally unreferenced esoterically basis for Truth.
You're probably half-right, sadly. Most Catholics probably wouldn't agree with what I've said to you recently. But that hardly makes it any less real or valid, necessarily speaking.
I may not be a theologian, and may have spoken things out of turn or not exactly, theologically correct, according to people on the Internet or elsewhere. But they are words from the heart, spoken (written?) in an attempt of one human being to correspond with another. In an effort to truly help that other human being, not try to "prove" him "wrong" and "win a debate".
I'll let God be my judge on these matters and claims.
The last word is yours.
Addendum/. We are all called to be ready to give a reason for our faith. Not a scripture, but a reason. Which necessitates something real.