Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 35 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:16 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:10 pm
Posts: 13536
Location: Inverted Cross domain
Since you ignore me in that post, I'll make the point here.

The problem with perspicuity of scripture is epistemological, not ontological.

You think you're smart and well read. How many such person (and there are quite a few) who come up with different exegesis when they are operating under the assumption that scripture is perspicuous?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Sat Oct 07, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 12:30 am
Posts: 7580
Location: The carrefour of ignorance is bliss & knowledge is power.
Religion: The One with All the Marks.
theJack wrote:
... To say that a clear passage isn't clear because you can't get something out of it that you don't first read into it says more about your method of reading it than it does about Scripture itself...

An so it does.

_________________
Formerly: Greg.

- I try to have a little something for everybody in my posts. If you notice a spelling, grammar, or punctuation error... well... I put that in for you.

- I remember a lot of things. (Some of which actually happened.)

- Even the best of men may be born in times unsuited to their virtues.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2017 8:36 pm 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 167
Religion: Catholic
rather than asking me how it is , you start attacking me

apologies jack, truly, if this hurt your sensibilities... I know just how this feels, but you don't get to play this card, as it is the extreme of the idiom pot calling the kettle black.

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2017 10:04 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4068
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
No apologies necessary from my perspective, but accepted regardless if you feel they are, as you didn't "hurt [my] sensibilities." No comment necessary on the remainder of your remarks.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:19 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 9:16 pm
Posts: 444
Religion: Catholic
Doom wrote:
theJack wrote:
Speaking of the perspicuity of Scripture, those of us who hold the doctrine would hold this verse up as a good example of the problem. The passage is clear. If you bothered to read it in context, you would note starting in verse 17 what the nature of the unworthiness is. To claim that "discerning the body" refers to the "real presence" of Christ in communion would be, to put it mildly, a massive subject change, introducing an idea quite literally out of nowhere. And worse, not only does it introduce the real presence out of nowhere, it does so at the expense of how Paul has previously been talking about "the body" in those same verses. So we ask, where the heck do you get the notion of "real presence"? It doesn't come from this text, because this text is about the unity of the body (insofar as Paul is condemning divisions, a major theme of the book as a whole). So from whence does it come? Your traditions, of course, as must always be the answer.

No, the text is very clear when read as its own witness. It is only unclear when you insist that it must be since, taken clearly, it doesn't support (or even contradicts) your traditions.


The sad part of this is that I honestly think you don't realize how arrogant, smug and just downright smarmy you sound when you say things like this. :nooo:

This picture is an illustration of what you sound like:



I may be going out on a limb here, but me thinks you've sounded like this on perhaps a few occasions...

_________________
One of the most amazing things about the bible is that so much of it is scriptural!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2017 9:24 am 
Offline
Citizen
Citizen
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2016 9:36 am
Posts: 167
Religion: Catholic
Quote:
 No comment necessary on the remainder of your remarks.

Of course not Jack, your “traditions” of consistency of message before correctness in faith prevails. Why would you choose to discuss where you know you have wronged when it would denigrate your consistent message.

Quote:
No, the text is very clear when read as its own witness. It is only unclear when you insist that it must be since, taken clearly, it doesn't support (or even contradicts) your traditions.


I wonder if you realize others feel the same way on some of your textual reading. I wonder if you think it perspicuous when stumbling over a little word like “is” …


Luke 16:10

"Whoever can be trusted with the very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with the very little will also be dishonest with much.


I wonder if you think this verse can rightly be perspicaciously attributed to your clarity of thought.

Quote:
The three Gospel narratives of the Last Supper are absolutely consistent. Matthew: 26:26 "This is My Body." 26:27 "This is My Blood…" Mark: 14:22 "This is My Body." 14:24 "This is My Blood…" Luke: 22:19 "This is My Body." 22:20 "This … is the New Covenant in My Blood." Jesus' next words instituted the Catholic priesthood: Lk 22:19 "Do this in remembrance of Me."

Jesus assured the Apostles that the Holy Eucharist is a reflection of the heavenly banquet. Mt 26:29 "I tell you I shall not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom."

The Apostles were visibly religious Jews. They wore the kippah (prayer hat), the tallit (prayer shawl with fringes) and the tephillin (phylacteries). Long after Jesus ascended to the Father, Peter protested that he had never in his life eaten anything unkosher. Acts 10:14 When these Jewish Apostles remembered Christ's command, Lk 22:19 "Do this in remembrance of Me," they added it to their synagogue worship. They began with synagogue prayer and Scripture readings, and then went to their homes to celebrate the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood. To this very day, the Introductory Rite and Liturgy of the Word come directly from Jewish synagogue worship. The Liturgy of the Eucharist comes directly from the Apostles' breaking bread in their homes.

Acts 20:11 "When Paul had gone up and had broken bread and eaten…" St. Paul explained clearly what "breaking bread" meant. 1 Cor 10:16 "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the Blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the Body of Christ?" St. Paul continued, 1 Cor 11:27 "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord." St. Paul in these words confirmed Catholic teaching that the "bread … of the Lord" is truly Christ's Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, and that the "cup of the Lord" is the same substance: "Whoever … eats the bread or drinks the cup … will be guilty of profaning the Body and Blood of the Lord."
St. Paul added, 1 Cor 11:29 "For any one who eats and drinks without discerning the Body eats and drinks judgment upon himself." If we receive the Holy Eucharist without acknowledging, at least in our hearts, that it is His true Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, we send ourselves to hell.

In the beginning God had said of marriage, Gen 2:24 "Therefore a man … cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh." Jesus assured us, Jn 6:56 "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." God prepared us first through natural marriage and then through the Holy Eucharist for the supernatural marriage to come at the end of time, Rev 20:7 "For the marriage of the Lamb has come, and his Bride [the Church] has made herself ready; it was granted her to be clothed in … the righteous deeds of the saints." The Holy Eucharist, through which Christ abides in us and we in Him, will be our wedding feast. Rev 19:9 "Blessed are those who are invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb."
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/scrip/a6.html

As I said to beng, and these are only a few references available, but IMO ably demonstrate the bible’s universal truths and evidence in regards to the real presence, taken in conversational context and not in definitional ridgidness.

Quote:
There are dozens more verse references to the Eucharist and it’s holy composition through out the Old and New Testament in support of St. Paul’s conclusions, all of which I feel sure you might find inconclusive individually, but more difficult to refute as an entire body of work in support of the divinity of the Eucharist.


IMO, deductions can be made, especially if made by a group of trusted learned scholars, from the original fathers of the Church until this very day: over 2 thousand years, putting the collective heads together and all agreeing on the base content and the content of full mystical meaning. I don’t need to see in black and white the exact phraseolgy of any given verse’s meaning. But it looks especially suspicious when a particular verse is in black and white and still refuted to exact a message’s desired personal interpretational correctness in lieu of the true and faithful message’s original portrayal, albeit deductional or not.

I don’t suppose you’ll ever agree with the Catholic view on this, in fact remain in complete disagreement, but to take that a step further by making fun of the questioner, the questions, the way in which the questions were asked (and never respectfully taking the time in answering the questions anyway) and also misrepresenting the Catholic view and further displaying personal angst of embarrassment for that individual and the embarrassment they cause their church (IYO) is wrong and you my friend are the one who should feel embarrassment, as I do for your ill conceived intentions, whatever they were.

Quote:
No comment necessary on the remainder of your remarks
I suppose not, from your POV.

_________________
The truth of the Real Presence "cannot be apprehended by the senses but only by faith which relies on divine authority"
(St. Thomas Aquinas)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2017 7:43 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4068
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
I don't want you to feel like I'm simply ignoring a post that it looks like you put some effort into, ES. Is there a particular argument you are making that you'd like me to respond to or are you just sharing your own thoughts on the Eucharist as rooted in the Catholic perspective? If the latter, I'm not at all being dismissive. I certainly appreciate that to be your point of view. But absent a specific argument, I don't think it would be helpful to address it if there's nothing really directed at me.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 7:47 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5863
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
anawim wrote:
In the Our Father, the word for 'daily bread' is epiousios, which is found no where else in the Bible. It refers to a super-substantial bread, and not just a bread needed for sustenance.
I believe this is mistaken, and represents a misreading of the Greek adjective ἐπιούσιος (epioúsios) and its Latin translation supersubstantialis. According to Bauer and Danker’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature there is some doubt as to what epioúsios means, but the three most probable possibilities is these: (1) [bread] that is necessary for existence; (2) [bread] for the current day, for today; or (3) [bread] for the next day.

I think that the first reading is the best one, seeing epioúsios as derived from the preposition ἐπί (’at, over, to,’ etc.) + the noun οὐσία (‘being, existence’). And this is reflected in the Vulgate’s panis supersubstantialis. This is not a reference to transubstantiation (or any other theory on the real presence). It just means the bread needed for existence; needed to uphold one’s ‘substance.’ A possible translation could perhaps be ‘life-sustaining.’ So a good translation might go something like this: “Give us this day our life-sustaining bread.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that one cannot interpret ‘give us this day our daily bread’ in a spiritual way, referring to the Eucharist, in addition to a literal reading. But that is a spiritual reading of the text, a reading that should not trump a literal reading.

_________________
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

“Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” — Paul Tillich

http://katolikken.wordpress.com/
English texts: http://katolikken.wordpress.com/tag/english-texts-2/

http://www.facebook.com/kjetilkringlebotten

http://twitter.com/katolikken

http://thecatholic.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:24 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4068
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
Thank you for posting that, CC. I had briefly made a post which I deleted making almost that same argument. I retracted/deleted it because I didn't want to get accused, as I so often do, of just pushing some idea because of my own preexisting traditions and thus further derail the thread. I should also note that I think the argument for "bread for the next day" ought not be immediately dismissed just given the possible Aramaic connection underneath. It's one that Jerome himself noted. But regardless, either (1) or (3) seem very reasonable to me. It's all evidence, man. Evidence. As you say, there could just as well be a proper spiritual application (or, in hermeneutical language I would prefer, while the meaning may be obvious and have no reference to the Eucharist, there could well be a proper Eucharistic significance). But to appeal to the word itself is, I think, wrongheaded.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:37 am 
Offline
**********
**********
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 2:20 pm
Posts: 31863
Location: The countertop
Religion: The True One
Church Affiliations: OblSB
Closet Catholic wrote:
But that is a spiritual reading of the text, a reading that should not trump a literal reading.

If by "trump," you mean "contradict" or even "cause us to entirely ignore," then I'd agree. But as I'm sure you know, the tradition is very clear that Biblical texts involve multiple meanings, and that the spiritual meanings aren't some kind of poor cousins to the literal.

_________________
Image
The Medal of St. Benedict

Suscipe me secundum eloquium tuum, et vivam: et non confundas me ab exspectatione mea.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:15 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:23 am
Posts: 18819
Location: NYC area
Religion: Catholic
Closet Catholic wrote:
anawim wrote:
In the Our Father, the word for 'daily bread' is epiousios, which is found no where else in the Bible. It refers to a super-substantial bread, and not just a bread needed for sustenance.
I believe this is mistaken, and represents a misreading of the Greek adjective ἐπιούσιος (epioúsios) and its Latin translation supersubstantialis. According to Bauer and Danker’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature there is some doubt as to what epioúsios means, but the three most probable possibilities is these: (1) [bread] that is necessary for existence; (2) [bread] for the current day, for today; or (3) [bread] for the next day.

I think that the first reading is the best one, seeing epioúsios as derived from the preposition ἐπί (’at, over, to,’ etc.) + the noun οὐσία (‘being, existence’). And this is reflected in the Vulgate’s panis supersubstantialis. This is not a reference to transubstantiation (or any other theory on the real presence). It just means the bread needed for existence; needed to uphold one’s ‘substance.’ A possible translation could perhaps be ‘life-sustaining.’ So a good translation might go something like this: “Give us this day our life-sustaining bread.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that one cannot interpret ‘give us this day our daily bread’ in a spiritual way, referring to the Eucharist, in addition to a literal reading. But that is a spiritual reading of the text, a reading that should not trump a literal reading.


But I see the spiritual bread as the literal, and the physical as an additional sense.

_________________
A modern day Shunamite woman. (2 Kgs. 4:26)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:09 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5863
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
gherkin wrote:
Closet Catholic wrote:
But that is a spiritual reading of the text, a reading that should not trump a literal reading.

If by "trump," you mean "contradict" or even "cause us to entirely ignore," then I'd agree. But as I'm sure you know, the tradition is very clear that Biblical texts involve multiple meanings, and that the spiritual meanings aren't some kind of poor cousins to the literal.
Yes, I agree. But I don't think that has anything specifically to do with using the word epioúsios. It is a spiritual application of food. To claim that epioúsios is connected to the Eucharist because the word contains the word ouisia (or substantialis) is to read younger terminology (theologically and ecclesially historically, that is) into the text.

_________________
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

“Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” — Paul Tillich

http://katolikken.wordpress.com/
English texts: http://katolikken.wordpress.com/tag/english-texts-2/

http://www.facebook.com/kjetilkringlebotten

http://twitter.com/katolikken

http://thecatholic.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:14 pm 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2006 3:37 pm
Posts: 5863
Location: Bergen, Norway
Religion: High Church Lutheran
Church Affiliations: Church of Norway
anawim wrote:
Closet Catholic wrote:
anawim wrote:
In the Our Father, the word for 'daily bread' is epiousios, which is found no where else in the Bible. It refers to a super-substantial bread, and not just a bread needed for sustenance.
I believe this is mistaken, and represents a misreading of the Greek adjective ἐπιούσιος (epioúsios) and its Latin translation supersubstantialis. According to Bauer and Danker’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature there is some doubt as to what epioúsios means, but the three most probable possibilities is these: (1) [bread] that is necessary for existence; (2) [bread] for the current day, for today; or (3) [bread] for the next day.

I think that the first reading is the best one, seeing epioúsios as derived from the preposition ἐπί (’at, over, to,’ etc.) + the noun οὐσία (‘being, existence’). And this is reflected in the Vulgate’s panis supersubstantialis. This is not a reference to transubstantiation (or any other theory on the real presence). It just means the bread needed for existence; needed to uphold one’s ‘substance.’ A possible translation could perhaps be ‘life-sustaining.’ So a good translation might go something like this: “Give us this day our life-sustaining bread.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that one cannot interpret ‘give us this day our daily bread’ in a spiritual way, referring to the Eucharist, in addition to a literal reading. But that is a spiritual reading of the text, a reading that should not trump a literal reading.


But I see the spiritual bread as the literal, and the physical as an additional sense.
Yes, I know. But I don't think you can read that out of the text. And you can't read that just by pointing to the use of epioúsios. There isn't anything 'special' about that word, apart from it being a so called hapax legomenon. The word is simply a compound of two otherwise ordinary Greek words.

_________________
Καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο

“Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt.” — Paul Tillich

http://katolikken.wordpress.com/
English texts: http://katolikken.wordpress.com/tag/english-texts-2/

http://www.facebook.com/kjetilkringlebotten

http://twitter.com/katolikken

http://thecatholic.wordpress.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 8:32 am 
Offline
Moderator
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2002 9:23 am
Posts: 18819
Location: NYC area
Religion: Catholic
Closet Catholic wrote:
anawim wrote:
Closet Catholic wrote:
anawim wrote:
In the Our Father, the word for 'daily bread' is epiousios, which is found no where else in the Bible. It refers to a super-substantial bread, and not just a bread needed for sustenance.
I believe this is mistaken, and represents a misreading of the Greek adjective ἐπιούσιος (epioúsios) and its Latin translation supersubstantialis. According to Bauer and Danker’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature there is some doubt as to what epioúsios means, but the three most probable possibilities is these: (1) [bread] that is necessary for existence; (2) [bread] for the current day, for today; or (3) [bread] for the next day.

I think that the first reading is the best one, seeing epioúsios as derived from the preposition ἐπί (’at, over, to,’ etc.) + the noun οὐσία (‘being, existence’). And this is reflected in the Vulgate’s panis supersubstantialis. This is not a reference to transubstantiation (or any other theory on the real presence). It just means the bread needed for existence; needed to uphold one’s ‘substance.’ A possible translation could perhaps be ‘life-sustaining.’ So a good translation might go something like this: “Give us this day our life-sustaining bread.”

That doesn’t mean, however, that one cannot interpret ‘give us this day our daily bread’ in a spiritual way, referring to the Eucharist, in addition to a literal reading. But that is a spiritual reading of the text, a reading that should not trump a literal reading.


But I see the spiritual bread as the literal, and the physical as an additional sense.
Yes, I know. But I don't think you can read that out of the text. And you can't read that just by pointing to the use of epioúsios. There isn't anything 'special' about that word, apart from it being a so called hapax legomenon. The word is simply a compound of two otherwise ordinary Greek words.


O.K., so maybe my brain is wired differently. I call 'em as I see 'em.

_________________
A modern day Shunamite woman. (2 Kgs. 4:26)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 1 Corinthians 11:27-29
PostPosted: Wed Oct 18, 2017 11:27 am 
Offline
Adept
Adept
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 10:25 am
Posts: 4068
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Religion: Christian & Missionary Alliance
anawim, does it cause you to pause at all to notice that you've offered three assertions without any evidence, whereas CC has responded with evidence and rational argument? You can't accuse him, as you can accuse me, of not wanting to see transubstantiation. When I read the exchange above, it just strikes me that it boils down to this:

Anawim: I believe A because B
CC: I believe A, too, but not because of B. B actually isn't true because of C
Anawim: No, B is true because D
CC: Yes, D is true as far as it goes. But D doesn't apply in this case of E.
Anawim: Whatever. Forget C and E. It doesn't matter that they contradict my claims. I still say that believe A because of B and D for no other reason than that's the way that I see them.

I'm not challenging your belief in transubstantiation or even whether or not Jesus' statement the the Lord's Prayer can be meaningfully applied to the doctrine. I'm wondering if "calling 'em like you see 'em" means anything at all when there is really good evidence that what you see actually isn't there (the word just doesn't mean what you are saying it means).

edit:

Let me offer an analogy. In Summa Contra Gentiles, Thomas Aquinas considers the arguments that some were making (and some still try to make today) that the world necessarily began a finite time ago. Thomas, of course, believed that the world DID begin a finite time ago. But he thought that the arguments people were making to support that claim were wrong. And he thought it was important not to affirm a bad argument just because it supported a conclusion he liked. In his own words:

    Now, these arguments, though not devoid of probability, lack absolute and necessary conclusiveness. Hence it is sufficient to deal with them quite briefly, lest the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings, and not, as it is, on the most solid teaching of God. It would seem fitting, then, to state how these arguments are countered by the partisans of the doctrine of the world’s eternity. (SCG II.38.3)

That's what I'm getting at here. CC has done what Thomas did. You've presented arguments that support a conclusion you think is true. But he (CC) is telling you that while the conclusion is true that the arguments themselves are faulty. Maybe I'm misreading you, but it seems to me that you insist by mere assertion ("I call 'em like I see 'em") in complete denial of the evidence he has presented to just hold the faulty arguments to be true because of the conclusion you like. But then you run the risk, in Thomas' words, of making seem that "the Catholic faith might appear to be founded on ineffectual reasonings." Again, I wonder if this gives you any pause at all.

_________________
Making Divine Simplicity Simple: Rediscovering Who and What God Is - an evangelical's (my!) attempt to explain Divine Simplicity in non-technical language
The Galatian Heresy (Gal 3:1-6) - An Argument for Sanctification by Faith Alone


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 2 of 2   [ 35 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


Jump to: