Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Well, the RCC considers NT Scripture to be written Tradition-that part of Christ's revelation to us that was recorded. None of the authors, including Peter, were endeavoring to produce a catechism. The letters were written on an as-need basis, as the authors were moved to address one issue or another.I just have a simple question? If the RCC true protector of truth, if the RCC think it important to write down all the doctrine/traditions; Why didn't they just do this at the very beginning; like Peter himself do it?
Are you concerned about the word "totally?" Then let's just say--and please do not pretend that it's not so--that the EO and the RCC have a number of doctrines that are different from the other church's doctrines...and yet they both say that "Tradition" is what they followed (since Sola Scriptura allegedly leads to differences of interpretation.But that's the point; they don't have "totally different doctrines".
It doesn't matter. The fact that Scripture is called "Tradition" is just superfluous since custom and legend and speculation are also considered to be Tradition...in other words, all of that is believed to be the equal of God's word.Well, the RCC considers NT Scripture to be written Tradition-that part of Christ's revelation to us that was recorded. None of the authors, including Peter, were endeavoring to produce a catechism. The letters were written on an as-need basis, as the authors were moved to address one issue or another.
This is completely false. Nice try though. The Councils don't just pull dogma out of their hats in the Eastern Orthodox Church. I challenge you to find one doctrine that can't be shown to have been believed much earlier than the Council in which it was formally dealt with. Icons? Can be found in first century synagogues and churches. The reverence of the Saints? Can be found in the first and second century, starting with Polycarp and also in Jewish tradition prior to the Christian Church. The reverence for the Theotokos? Again, first and second century.That's certainly true, but in that post I was mainly concerned with the fact that Tradition doesn't even adhere to its own rules.
IN THEORY, it's supposed to be something that the church has always believed, everywhere, and by all...but in reality the church leaders simply choose to dogmatize whatever legend it finds the most beneficial to the institutional church (denomination) or on some other practical basis.
Why the importance to test truth claims with the Inspired written Word of God.
From the CCC:
134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9 176,642-643).
135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).
136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).
You are ignoring the point. Without the Church well meaning people can garner radically different understandings from scripture. That's why Jesus gave us a Church.
The Word of God can be twisted in many different directions.
I think he's not sure yet. If he were, he would have joined one or the other.
So, give me some examples of what works need to be carried out in order to confirm that you have salvation?I already quoted and referenced it several times. And no, that claim that James is referring to a faith in a particular thing is not anything more than rationalizing. He very specifically contrasts a person who has faith without works and a person who has faith with works. He then asks if the faith without works can save a man. Those are the two types of faith he is referring to. And he even defines what works are in his letter earlier in the second chapter.
He poses the question of whether or not faith ALONE can save a person, and his answer is that "a man is justified by his works, and not by faith alone".
Think of salvation as a Christmas present. If I give you a present, all wrapped up in a box, and you take the wrapped present and put it on a shelf without unwrapping it, will you have really benefited from the present? Of course not. In order to benefit from it, you must unwrap it, open it, and use the present. That mixer isn't going to be useful to you if it stays on the shelf. The same is true of salvation. Salvation benefits nobody if they do not use their salvation. It was still freely given to them, but they still have to use it, and that requires work.
Nice diversion, but the only way those interpretations could exist is because of sola scriptura. Without sola scriptura, there wouldn't bethousands of contradictory interpretations. So yes, it is relevant. Just because you don't like that it stabs directly to the central error of SS, because it makes every person his own personal Pope.Not relevant to the discussion of Sola Scriptura which isn't about interpretations.
Well, what works did Jesus bring up in His description of the judgement in Matthew? You know, sheep, goats?So, give me some examples of what works need to be carried out in order to confirm that you have salvation?
You stated that you cannot "sin" away your salvation. Now, if we are saved by faith and there is no visible works ( what ever these acceptable works would be ) can you then lose your salvation for lack of these works?
You are ignoring the point. Without the Church well meaning people can garner radically different understandings from scripture. That's why Jesus gave us a Church.
The Word of God can be twisted in many different directions.
Nice diversion, but the only way those interpretations could exist is because of sola scriptura. Without sola scriptura, there wouldn't bethousands of contradictory interpretations. So yes, it is relevant. Just because you don't like that it stabs directly to the central error of SS, because it makes every person his own personal Pope.
A so-called non-denominational Protestant who can't think of a single Catholic doctrine or teaching that he doesn't agree with. Hmm.I'm a non-denominational Protestant but unlike most Protestants I know I study to learn what the earliest Christians believed and how they interpreted scripture. I always find it interesting when people think I'm Orthodox or Catholic because I'm not following either church and just following the ancient Christian faith taught in scripture and believed by the earliest Christians.
Even though I'm Protestant, I have nothing in common with most non-denominational Protestants I know and don't even consider them Christians because they don't care what Jesus taught preferring instead to follow a man-made 21st century gospel that itches their ears by telling them what they want to believe which is that salvation is so easy you just have to believe something about Jesus (that he died for your sins) and it's guaranteed without any need to repent, become a disciple of Jesus, or live for God.
Yes, they are "ripped," not consistent without the totality of Scripture on the subject.From what we know, we are judged by our works, justified by our works, and that they are part of making our faith alive. All three of those statements are true because they are statements literally ripped out of Scripture.
Which is a false dilemma, for salvation is about forgiveness, and being saved from Hell to Heaven, with a faith that effects characteristic holiness and obedience, and will finally result in being not simply presently being the sons of God, but that "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2)"The fact is that salvation isn't about heaven or hell, or forgiveness. It's about a relationship to God. It's about becoming like God."
Which is absurd. To be a pope the basis of the veracity of his definitive teaching would rest upon the premise of ensured infallibility. Thus as Keating states,Nice diversion, but the only way those interpretations could exist is because of sola scriptura. Without sola scriptura, there wouldn't bethousands of contradictory interpretations. So yes, it is relevant. Just because you don't like that it stabs directly to the central error of SS, because it makes every person his own personal Pope.
Meaning you reject Orthodox or Catholic as faithfully following the ancient Christian faith taught in scripture and believed by the earliest Christians? Which is true.I'm a non-denominational Protestant but unlike most Protestants I know I study to learn what the earliest Christians believed and how they interpreted scripture. I always find it interesting when people think I'm Orthodox or Catholic because I'm not following either church and just following the ancient Christian faith taught in scripture and believed by the earliest Christians.
"Nothing in common?" That is quite a statement."Even though I'm Protestant, I have nothing in common with most non-denominational Protestants I know
Well then i would agree, but i would have to say that the non-denominational Protestants you know do not represent either what Reformers as Luther taught or multitudes of non-denominational Protestants."and don't even consider them Christians because they don't care what Jesus taught preferring instead to follow a man-made 21st century gospel that itches their ears by telling them what they want to believe which is that salvation is so easy you just have to believe something about Jesus (that he died for your sins) and it's guaranteed without any need to repent, become a disciple of Jesus, or live for God.""
You are ignoring the point. Without the Church well meaning people can garner radically different understandings from scripture. That's why Jesus gave us a Church.
The Word of God can be twisted in many different directions.
Not so simply, but after prolonged accretion of traditions of men.That's certainly true, but in that post I was mainly concerned with the fact that Tradition doesn't even adhere to its own rules.
IN THEORY, it's supposed to be something that the church has always believed, everywhere, and by all...but in reality the church leaders simply choose to dogmatize whatever legend it finds the most beneficial to the institutional church (denomination) or on some other practical basis.
While related to the need for Sacred Tradition, the matter of SS "allegedly" leading to different interpretations is its own, separate, issue. What an unbiased observer, say a secular historian, would consider interesting is the fact that for some reason the older churches, nearer in time to the beginning of Christianity, believe in a final state of purification for those who need it, prior to heaven, while most Protestants, going by Scripture alone, dismiss the idea entirely. And this also ties in with those same church’s views on soteriology, of course, that justice for man is not merely imputed but must involve a real, non-idealized change, that no sinners enter heaven, that one may lose their saved state, that repentance (change of heart) and confession must follow serious sin if one is to remain in Christ, that what we do, as per Matt 25:31-46 for example, ultimately counts towards salvation. These are issues that are either denied by most Protestants or debated among them.Are you concerned about the word "totally?" Then let's just say--and please do not pretend that it's not so--that the EO and the RCC have a number of doctrines that are different from the other church's doctrines...and yet they both say that "Tradition" is what they followed (since Sola Scriptura allegedly leads to differences of interpretation.).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?