Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married

Yes it is. We should never suppose that we have an infallible interpretation of God's word. Since we are human beings, our interpretations are always subject to error. It is safer to interpret Scripture in the light of the long tradition of the church's biblical interpretation and we should not cast off traditional interpretations lightly. But are traditional interpretations infallible? Not necessarily so. How may we infallibly know that an interpretation is correct? Only if it can be demonstrated from Scripture.

The problems with Rome's concept of infallible Tradition are manifold. For one, they teach doctrines that are not revealed in Scripture. For example, the immaculate conception of Mary or the assumption of Mary. They present these doctrines as infallibly true and necessary for belief, but Scripture itself does not teach them. Since they cannot be found in Scripture, should we accept them simply because Rome says?

Another problem is that many of their traditional interpretations of Scripture have been shown to be spurious or false.
 
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
So we wind up with the strange situation in which almost every passage in the Bible is subject to all sorts of rival interpretations that divide the denominations, but those churches that consider the ECFs to be as authoritative as the Bible never seem to allow that what THEY wrote might be understood in different ways!

Well yes, that's what I was trying to address. Because they're fallible human beings who can misinterpret things just like anybody else (I agree with that), they can't be an infallible authority in themselves. But they can be a really persuasive argument, for the reasons I gave.

And yes, the Church Fathers have to be interpreted too -- there's no escaping that. But in places they elaborate on and explain what may seem to be obscure teachings from Scripture, and the longer the tradition gets, the easier it is to interpret it in line with itself.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Luther said “sin boldly.” Not a man I want to follow or listen to.

You can take literally any tiny statement entirely out of context to make it sound awful.

Hint: Luther didn't advocate sinning. Luther was talking about being honest with ourselves about our sin, because unless we understand that we are sinners then the Gospel--which is for sinners--means nothing. We can't preach the forgiveness of sins if we deny that we are sinners, we can't repent unless we are honest that we need to repent.

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner." - Martin Luther to Philip Melanchton, On the Feast of St. Peter, 1521

Compare to what we read from St. John, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." However, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

We are to be a people who confesses our sin, to understand that the Law condemns us in our sin; but we are not a people of despair without hope, we are the people who speak God's Gospel, that Christ has died, and rose again, and for us, and by God's grace we have freely been justified. So that we confess our sin, but are not destroyed by our sin; boldly confessing our sin, and even more boldly trusting in God's mercy which is in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Mary Meg

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 11, 2019
562
700
23
Alabama
✟31,384.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
The problems with Rome's concept of infallible Tradition are manifold. For one, they teach doctrines that are not revealed in Scripture. For example, the immaculate conception of Mary or the assumption of Mary. They present these doctrines as infallibly true and necessary for belief, but Scripture itself does not teach them. Since they cannot be found in Scripture, should we accept them simply because Rome says?

I haven't gotten anywhere close to accepting anybody's claims of infallibility. I'm just saying, the tradition from the Church Fathers seems to be showing me something different than where I am now.

It is safer to interpret Scripture in the light of the long tradition of the church's biblical interpretation and we should not cast off traditional interpretations lightly. But are traditional interpretations infallible? Not necessarily so. How may we infallibly know that an interpretation is correct? Only if it can be demonstrated from Scripture.

Yes, the problem is, depending on how I interpret Scripture, I can either claim that Scripture supports or rejects what the Church Fathers are teaching. :( They are certainly using Scripture to back up their arguments.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well as I've been saying, the problem is how to come to an "infallible" understanding of God's Word. How do I interpret Scripture and say I understand it "infallibly"? Isn't that just hubris, to claim a little person like me can come to the truth by myself? :(
I think that "infallibility" refers to being immune to error. That is not the same as getting X correct.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So what are you actually suggesting? You've posted a whole lot here and it's kind of a jumble... Are you for sola fide or against it? Are you for sola scriptura or against it? Are you Charismatic? You talk about there being other options that Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, but pretty much everything split off one of those movements, didn't they? :confused2:

My profile in each of my posts says I am non denominational. This means I don’t go by popular denominational names and I would not be categorized with them.

I believe in:

1. The Trinity.
2. Sola Scriptura (Bible alone as our only spiritual authority).
3. Faith in God’s grace + Works of Faith = Salvation.

I don’t agree with Catholicism, Orthodox churches, and or Charismatic churches.

I was asking you to consider a more narrow way of Christianity where you just follow Jesus and the Bible alone with out a specific church organization. For not many can be seen today (like the early church) who did follow Jesus. It is because we are living in the last days (please read 2 Timothy 3:1-9).
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Mary Meg
Upvote 0

chevyontheriver

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 29, 2015
19,169
16,008
Flyoverland
✟1,224,031.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-American-Solidarity
Bits and pieces, certainly not all of him.
I read a lot of him in college. Of course it was in translation in the multi-volume edition by Jaroslav Pelikan. I felt I might have been a Lutheran had I been a contemporary of his in Northern Europe. But I stayed Catholic. And Jaroslav Pelikan became Orthodox.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Mary Meg
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I haven't gotten anywhere close to accepting anybody's claims of infallibility. I'm just saying, the tradition from the Church Fathers seems to be showing me something different than where I am now.



Yes, the problem is, depending on how I interpret Scripture, I can either claim that Scripture supports or rejects what the Church Fathers are teaching. :( They are certainly using Scripture to back up their arguments.

How can you know whether or not they are successful aside from examining the Scriptures to see if these things are so?
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Well yes, that's what I was trying to address. Because they're fallible human beings who can misinterpret things just like anybody else (I agree with that), they can't be an infallible authority in themselves.[/quote
Right. Nor is there any reason to think that they might be infallible-- or even just correct, if it is one or two or three of them chosen arbitrarily as I so often see done.

[quote
And yes, the Church Fathers have to be interpreted too -- there's no escaping that. But in places they elaborate on and explain what may seem to be obscure teachings from Scripture, and the longer the tradition gets, the easier it is to interpret it in line with itself.
Yes, but my point was that the people and churches which make a lot out of the ECFs almost never follow their own rules, let alone acknowledge the point you were just outlining. By that I mean that there is supposed to be a continuity and a universality of whatever the belief is, not just a few voices plucked out of the first five centuries of church history or so.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You can take literally any tiny statement entirely out of context to make it sound awful.

Hint: Luther didn't advocate sinning. Luther was talking about being honest with ourselves about our sin, because unless we understand that we are sinners then the Gospel--which is for sinners--means nothing. We can't preach the forgiveness of sins if we deny that we are sinners, we can't repent unless we are honest that we need to repent.

"If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner." - Martin Luther to Philip Melanchton, On the Feast of St. Peter, 1521

Compare to what we read from St. John, "If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us." However, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

We are to be a people who confesses our sin, to understand that the Law condemns us in our sin; but we are not a people of despair without hope, we are the people who speak God's Gospel, that Christ has died, and rose again, and for us, and by God's grace we have freely been justified. So that we confess our sin, but are not destroyed by our sin; boldly confessing our sin, and even more boldly trusting in God's mercy which is in Christ.

-CryptoLutheran

He is not talking in the past tense but the present tense. He telling to do something. He is telling you to sin. Not just to sin but to do it boldly. The Bible does not teach this.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,785
Pacific Northwest
✟728,215.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'm glad you understand.

I appreciate all you've written and quoted here. Several things that occur to me right off about Lutherans:

First: Luther and other Lutherans were excommunicated. But rather than try to work out the issue and restore communion with Rome, they went off on their own and built another church. Or is that a mistaken perception? Did they deny that the Church of Rome, or the pope, had the authority to excommunicate them? I know, from things I read, that Luther and others were pretty scathing in their polemic against the pope and Rome... but I read here that they don't really have any fundamental beef? How did they justify continuing in what, from the perspective of Rome, was schism?

Second verse, same as the first: Why, after the Council of Trent addressed many of the issues of corruption Luther was concerned about in the first place, did the Lutherans not try to patch things up then? Or did they?

Finally: There are probably diverse traditions of Lutherans. But isn't it true that at least some of them here in the U.S. no longer have bishops? How they can claim to be "catholic" without bishops?


1) We didn't go off to build another church. We continued being the Church even without Rome's blessing.

2) The Lutherans earnestly had desired for the Church to convene a council to discuss things, but it never happened; and when Trent was finally convened it was not in the spirit of ecumenicism, but to condemn, as a whole, the entirety of the Reformation. Up and until the 2nd Vatican Council in the 1960's Rome declared us heretics. Hard to have a conversation with someone who considers you a group of schismatic heretics. Trent did resolve a number of things, but it stopped short of addressing some of the more serious concerns of the Reformers; though some of those concerns were later addressed at Vatican II, such as allowing Mass in the common tongue, celebration of the Eucharist in both kinds, etc.

3) Whether or not there are bishops in historical succession depends a lot on where you're a Lutheran. The Scandinavian and Eastern European Lutherans retained the historic episcopate, because the bishops there didn't have the same political pressures as much of the rest of Western Europe. Bottom line though, the Lutheran position ultimately was this: Even without the support of the local bishops, if that were the case, the preaching of the Gospel and the faith of the Church took precedence. The historic episcopate is a boon, a good for the Church, but the Church is not built upon the historic episcopate, but on Christ, His word, and the preaching of the Apostles. Should every bishop on earth suddenly fall down dead, the Church wouldn't cease to exist. Because Christ's promise that the gates of Hades will not prevail against her is not limited to the historic episcopate, it is the universal promise to the whole Church. No bishop owns the Keys of the Kingdom, the Keys are the common possession of the catholic Church; the Church calls and ordains ministers to exercise the Keys for the common good of the Church. Lutherans have no particular strong feelings on ecclesiastical polity, except that it serve the good of the Church and that it promotes the preaching of the Word and the administration of the Sacraments--that the Gospel might be preached, and that we might enjoy all the gifts of God in His Word and Sacraments. Because it is here, in Word and Sacrament, that we are united and held together as Christ's Church.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
Who is promoting the sin of witchcraft in their avatar? So I can say the same for you. But that does not prove anything but to simply name call each other.

I don't know. That mountain guy looks like a witch to me.
 
Upvote 0

archer75

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 16, 2016
5,930
4,649
USA
✟253,749.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Good and great Christians -- So I've come to admire a lot of great people from the history of Christianity -- saints. That means they were holy people who are surely now enjoying God's glory in eternity. But my Protestant background tells me that no one is holy... But surely people go to heaven, right? Surely people can grow in sanctity and become more Christlike... I've seen that with my own eyes, and isn't that the point?
Good post.

Re: holiness, in our liturgy, at one point the priest raises the Gifts (the bread and wine, Body and Blood) and says "Holy things are for the holy!" (i.e. for Christians) Then the choir or congregation replies "One is holy, one is Lord: Jesus Christ, to the glory of God the Father, amen." The idea is: yes, we are holy, but only through our being part of the Body of Christ.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

MournfulWatcher

In the beginning was the Word.
Feb 15, 2016
392
444
United States
✟110,673.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Hi. I grew up in a small Southern Baptist church that my something-great-great-grandparents helped found. It's not really a great place for dynamic preaching or worship -- it's just my family and a few other families, sharing the love and Gospel of Christ. I love it for that, and in some way, it will always be home...

But as I've gotten older and learned things (maybe too much for my own good), I've started to have doubts and questions about a lot of things. I studied a lot of Christian history in school and Bible and theology and classical languages, and through all of that I've grown to feel a lot closer to the Early Church...... and honestly I've started to feel like it doesn't look all that much like my church today. :confused2:

I know the Protestant narrative very well... that the Catholic Church was corrupt, had fallen away from the truth of the Gospel of Christ, and needed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation to come and bring us back to the true Gospel. And I've mostly been happy with my church and my upbringing and everything, just now I am wondering...

So I'm not sure I even know how to ask the questions I'm asking... How do I approach these things? Are there answers, and how can I find them? Where do I go from here? Or do I stay put?

Good and great Christians -- So I've come to admire a lot of great people from the history of Christianity -- saints. That means they were holy people who are surely now enjoying God's glory in eternity. But my Protestant background tells me that no one is holy... But surely people go to heaven, right? Surely people can grow in sanctity and become more Christlike... I've seen that with my own eyes, and isn't that the point?

But if I admire Christians from the first dozen Christian centuries -- it turns out I'm admiring people who believed very differently than me, who believed in things like baptismal regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus... Does that mean they were less than Christian, for believing something beyond what's revealed in the Bible? Should I even admire them? As much as I admire them, I'm afraid these people would have told me I'm not a Christian since I don't believe those things. :anguished:

My Protestant background tells me that the Catholic Church went off the rails at some point in history. When? If I accept that these great saints -- it is what I want to call them -- were true believers, despite believing different things than me, then don't I also have to accept that the faith they had was true? And that the Church that was teaching them was teaching the true faith? At the very least, that it wasn't as wholly corrupt at that time as the Protestant Reformation would have me believe it became -- to the point that breaking from it and starting over was warranted? That it must have gone off the rails sometime later? The problem is, the more people I admire, and the closer they get to 1517, the more I start to wonder if anything really could have gone off the rails very far...

(Don't even mention that I might admire Catholic saints after 1517... :fearscream:)

This is getting long and I haven't even gotten to half the things in my head... but I'll have to put a period here and maybe post again sometime.
This is something I went through/am still going through as well. I realized in high school a couple of years ago that there was essentially this gap in knowledge about the church between the apostles and the time of the Reformation. I started reading writings of the early church and was inspired by their words, but realized it was very different from what I was raised to believe. I also came to a place where I recognized that these early church fathers knew the apostles or at least knew people who had known them, and in certain doctrines about baptism and communion among other things, they were very consistent. It was also very consistently in opposition to my understanding of baptism and communion.

I went to an Anglican christmas service during this time and was swept away by the practices of communion and the liturgy. I've been attending regularly since then, and looking back I can't believe I never knew what I was missing with communion growing up. I've been looking at orthodoxy and Catholicism kind of casually for a while because they both claim to be the original church that Christ established, but for now I'm staying where I am. You're decision won't ultimately happen overnight most likely, but it will be gradual as God takes you on your journey. I would recommend attending a more traditional liturgy and experiencing more ancient practices for yourself.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don't know. That mountain guy looks like a witch to me.

My avatar is just a picture of a silhouette of a guy standing on a mountain. It’s not a picture of a wizard character from Dungeons and Dragons (Which is role playing game that you endorse).

In any event, we shouldn’t fight each other, but we should help Mary be guided to follow the Lord (according to His Word).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

thecolorsblend

If God is your Father, who is your Mother?
Supporter
Jul 1, 2013
9,199
8,425
Gotham City, New Jersey
✟308,231.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Well as I've been saying, the problem is how to come to an "infallible" understanding of God's Word. How do I interpret Scripture and say I understand it "infallibly"? Isn't that just hubris, to claim a little person like me can come to the truth by myself? :(
This is part of my critique of Protestantism. When I was adrift in the Southern Baptist world, I put a lot of pressure on myself to truly understand Sacred Scripture.

I compared different manuscripts to different translations, I educated myself on dead languages, I studied history in order to understand the various political contexts in which the events of scripture took place, etc.

In the end, I realized that while I might be able to do those things, 99% of my evangelical co-religionists are not. They either don't have the aptitude for it or else they just plain don't have the time. But even if they did, we're all just one person. Take me, for example. It's a bit much for me to think that I, one guy in one country at one small point of history, can grasp the totality of the 2,000 year history of my faith.

That doesn't make me less devout. But it does make me a product of my time in ways that I can't possibly hope to correct for in my studies.

But the Catholic Church was founded by Our Lord Himself. She has studied, prayed, analyzed, compiled and considered the scriptures for two full millennia. She has an unmatched historical pedigree.

She knows more than I can ever hope to.

In the end, I decided to build my spiritual house on the rock of the Church and her teaching authority. The Catholic Church doesn't require that everybody be everything. She welcomes everyone whether they're academics and intellectuals or not. They all receive the same sacraments no matter what charism they have (or lack).

The Catholic Church is just as comfortable a home for me as it is for someone whose calling is feeding the hungry or evangelism or whatever else. She truly is universal in ways that other communities simply are not.
 
Upvote 0

Maria Billingsley

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 7, 2018
9,578
7,775
63
Martinez
✟894,261.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi. I grew up in a small Southern Baptist church that my something-great-great-grandparents helped found. It's not really a great place for dynamic preaching or worship -- it's just my family and a few other families, sharing the love and Gospel of Christ. I love it for that, and in some way, it will always be home...

But as I've gotten older and learned things (maybe too much for my own good), I've started to have doubts and questions about a lot of things. I studied a lot of Christian history in school and Bible and theology and classical languages, and through all of that I've grown to feel a lot closer to the Early Church...... and honestly I've started to feel like it doesn't look all that much like my church today. :confused2:

I know the Protestant narrative very well... that the Catholic Church was corrupt, had fallen away from the truth of the Gospel of Christ, and needed Martin Luther and the Protestant Reformation to come and bring us back to the true Gospel. And I've mostly been happy with my church and my upbringing and everything, just now I am wondering...

So I'm not sure I even know how to ask the questions I'm asking... How do I approach these things? Are there answers, and how can I find them? Where do I go from here? Or do I stay put?

Good and great Christians -- So I've come to admire a lot of great people from the history of Christianity -- saints. That means they were holy people who are surely now enjoying God's glory in eternity. But my Protestant background tells me that no one is holy... But surely people go to heaven, right? Surely people can grow in sanctity and become more Christlike... I've seen that with my own eyes, and isn't that the point?

But if I admire Christians from the first dozen Christian centuries -- it turns out I'm admiring people who believed very differently than me, who believed in things like baptismal regeneration, the perpetual virginity of Mary, that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Jesus... Does that mean they were less than Christian, for believing something beyond what's revealed in the Bible? Should I even admire them? As much as I admire them, I'm afraid these people would have told me I'm not a Christian since I don't believe those things. :anguished:

My Protestant background tells me that the Catholic Church went off the rails at some point in history. When? If I accept that these great saints -- it is what I want to call them -- were true believers, despite believing different things than me, then don't I also have to accept that the faith they had was true? And that the Church that was teaching them was teaching the true faith? At the very least, that it wasn't as wholly corrupt at that time as the Protestant Reformation would have me believe it became -- to the point that breaking from it and starting over was warranted? That it must have gone off the rails sometime later? The problem is, the more people I admire, and the closer they get to 1517, the more I start to wonder if anything really could have gone off the rails very far...

(Don't even mention that I might admire Catholic saints after 1517... :fearscream:)

This is getting long and I haven't even gotten to half the things in my head... but I'll have to put a period here and maybe post again sometime.
I believe teaching the purity of the Gospel with no man made doctrines is the best way to walk with the Lord. Anything added is just a diversion so that control can be exercised on the individual. I believe there are true Holy Christians that span all denominations and timelines whether or not doctrine played a role in their "sainthood". It is also good to know that we who are in the Body of Christ are all Saints and only God is the true judge of the heart of man. It is good to explore other options as the Lord wants us to seek the truth rather than be led to the truth by man made tradition. Remember, we are all equal in the eye's of the Lord and no one is better than another just more obedient.
Blessings
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
@Mary Meg

I want to assure you that I do believe in the Hypostatic Union or that Jesus is fully man. So I do affirm that truth as per abiding by the forum’s statement of faith. So Tree of Life is merely misunderstanding my beliefs (God bless his soul).

I believe we look through a glass darkly, and I see certain things in Scripture as having multiple possibilities. Granted, there are things that we can affirm as 100% fact (with the Bible) like the Trinity, Sola Scriptura, and Faith in God’s grace + works of faith = Salvation.

In any event, I hope what I said (with Scripture) was helpful to you in following the Lord.

With loving kindness to you in Christ,

Sincerely,

Jason.
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Mary Meg
Upvote 0