"disingenuousness" If I post scripture, do you not go to commentary, before you respond, if you have a question? Link to come.
No, because it's a discussion thing. To refer to the "Reformed Body", many of my Calvinist friends would just lazy write RCC. I corrected them and they would say "Reformed Collective Counsel"... and I started typing HRCC to refer to Roman Catholics. You have this debate point. It was a colloquial thing.
I'm not asking to be seen as intelligent. Could you please explain what John 5:39 is saying?
I’ve been on here for 17 years. I have interacted with Calvinists and non-Calvinists during most of that time. I have never once heard a reformed brother use “RCC” to mean anything other than the Catholic Church. And you are saying you have many friends that use RCC, yet I cannot find that anywhere on the internet?
I responded to you assertion that Calvin is the origin of Calvinism. It appears you are deflecting.
It wasn't here. May I now employ the usage of sarcastic response, with your guarantee that it is acceptable to follow your debate example?
Commentary is writ that is extra biblical, that has been widely distributed as Brick and Mortar central doctrine, which is not Canon. It can come in PDF, Leather bound, Paper back, and may not be central to church doctrine, but based on central church doctrine. I will give a live example. Edit, example given in lower quote of this post.
I don't want to be misunderstood as saying something that is unmotivated. You are the OP and have identified one of my debate style nomenclatures. I am attempting to continue dialogue by identifying the technique that is stalling effective dialogue.
Are you certain that you know what it means? "Sola scriptura is a Latin phrase that means "by scripture alone" or "scripture alone". It is a key slogan of the Protestant Reformation, which used the phrase against the Roman Catholic church in the 16th century. The phrase means that the Bible is the only authority for Christian faith and practice."
If I explained the meaning, it would be extra-biblical.
No. It goes against what you believe to be proper teaching/learning.
John Wesley, John Gill, Matthew Henry, Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke
Discussion is not Adhering to Extra Biblical writings that shape millions of minds of Christ away from Christ's precepts.
My above reply is sufficient.
Wesley: Wesley maintained that the monergistic reading (that is, the work of God alone) in one sense is accurate.
It was intended to mean Canon only. Luther accused the HRCC of using Papal infallibility and proceeding Papal writings, which he argued against the HRCC on those matters and demanded that only Canon be used. The proceeding events even led to redefining books that were Deuterocanonical and included in Paul's Septuagint, and quoted by Jesus and the Apostles in several places as Apocryphal (false).
If you don't understand what John 5:39 means, I apologize for asking the uncomfortable question about what it means. Maybe you do understand it. I'm not sure. I was just hoping you could state what Jesus is saying in John 5:39, by your personal understanding, through the Holy Spirit, in reference to the passage.
