The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person. The common good can be safeguarded and the requirements of justice can be met without recourse to capital punishment: effective systems of detention have been developed that protect citizens while at the same time do not completely deprive those who are guilty of the possibility of redemption. #NoDeathPenalty

Jesus shot down the only recorded attempt at Mary veneration in the Bible and redirected the woman to Scripture and obedience to God.

If for no other reason, what Mel Gibson says in the quote in my post below is why NO Christian should watch his upcoming movie on the resurrection. He adds to Scripture and even calls his additions "revelations." And there are at least two dangers to this: 1) Some will watch it and elevate Gibson's "revelations" to a level that will be as or more authoritative to them than Scripture. 2) Some will forever have Gibson's imaginative "revelations" lodged in their mind and will surface whenever they read Scripture or celebrate Christ's resurrection. Compare the words of Newton and Luther to Gibson. “If I venture beyond the pole of the Bible, I’m on enchanted ground and subject to illusions and distortions.” - John Newton “I’m well satisfied with the Bible, I don’t need visions or angels.” - Martin Luther “If you look at the synoptic Gospels, and they are synoptic, which means they don’t tell you everything… And even John says, ‘Y’know, hey, there were many other things [Jesus] said and did which, if they were to be written down, couldn’t fill all the libraries of all the world,’ right? So there’s a lot of stuff that wasn’t written... One can look at these things and go, ‘I wonder what was around that?’ and try and analyze those things and make suppositions about what might have been… Not to go against anything in orthodox teaching but to enhance what’s there for everyone to see, and hopefully they’ll be surprised by some of those revelations.” - Mel Gibson

I've seen so many people - pastors included (and on this platform) - usher Dolly Parton right into Heaven. I have no doubt she was an affable person, but on many points she outright rejected crystal-clear Biblical doctrine. My latest video: youtu.be/ZwwLO5EewYo

Dinesh literally just gave the exact same objection that Paul directly refutes. “But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—” Romans 9:20-23

When debating an atheist, the question of first cause eventually comes up. “What is the first cause from which everything else ultimately derives its existence?” Follow the chain of causes far enough and eventually you have to arrive at something that does not depend upon anything prior for its existence. Now apply a similar line of reasoning to divine authority. “Why should I believe this doctrine?” “Because this Church teaches it.” “Why should I believe that Church?” “Because that Church has divinely established authority.” “How do I know God gave that specific institution infallible authority?” Now we’re getting closer to what we might call our “first cause,” not of existence, but of how we know what God has revealed. I’m often told that I cannot know what Scripture is, much less interpret it correctly, without submitting to an infallible earthly interpreter. This doesn’t solve the problem. It moves it back a step. How did God reveal to me that this particular institution is infallible? Whatever establishes that claim must be known before I can rationally submit to that institution. And if I must examine historical evidence, interpret Scripture, evaluate competing claims, and exercise my own fallible judgment to identify the supposedly infallible interpreter, then appealing to an infallible interpreter hasn’t escaped the epistemic problem being raised against Sola Scriptura. So your question shouldn’t merely be: “Where does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” The deeper question is: What has God actually given mankind TODAY as the objective revelation by which competing claims to divine authority are to be judged? In other words: What is the ultimate epistemic ground for knowing what God has spoken?

If you think it is cruel to answer “yes” to this, then you mistakenly think you’re more merciful than God. You have low view of sin and God’s righteousness. You think God lied when He said that He is the only way, that the wages of sin is death, and that all who do not believe stand condemned. He didn’t really mean it according to you.