Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[racer]

Two places to go to would be the Councils and the Church Fathers.

Well, you've answered one part of my question, where to look. But, why are you tap dancing around the question as to what these traditions/or thie Tradition is?

Also, I didn't realize that the Church fathers were infallible.

 

[racer]

If you study the Fathers and Divided into time periods, here is what the Fathers thought:
30 a.d. - 160 a.d.

Summary - The New Testament is not clearly distinguished from other Christian writings.
Gospels - Generally accepted by 130
Justin Martyr's "Gospels" contain apocryphal material
Polycarp was the first to use the four Gospels we have today.
Pauline Writings - Generally accepted by 130, though quotations from them are rarely introduced as scriptural.
Acts - Scarcely known or quoted from
Philippians, 1 Timothy - Rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr
2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon - Rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Hebrews - Not considered canonical by majority, and expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
James - Not considered canonical, and never quoted from; expressly rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
1 Peter - Not considered canonical
2 Peter - Not considered canonical and never cited
1,2,3 John - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Justin Martyr, and partially rejected by Polycarp
Jude - Not considered canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp and Justin Martyr
Revelation - not canonical and rejected as scriptural by Polycarp
Ignatius of Antioch was unaware of half the Gospels and the majority of the Pauline writings.

160 a.d.- 250 a.d.
Summary - Awareness of a Canon begins toward the end of the 2nd century. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria were the first to use the phrase "New Testament" in the 2nd and 3rd century.
Gospels - Accepted
Acts - Gradually accepted
Pauline Writings - Accepted with certain exceptions
2 Timothy - Rejected by Clement
Philemon - Rejected by Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Clement
Hebrews - Not considered canonical until the 4th century in the West. Disputed by Origen. First accepted by Clement.
James - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 Peter - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus and Clement
2 Peter - Not canonical. First mentioned and disputed by Origen. Rejected by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement
1 John - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Irenaeus, and rejected by Origen.
2 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
3 John - Not canonical. Disputed by Origen and rejected by Tertullian and Clement
Jude - Gradual acceptance. Accepted by Clement and rejected by Origen.
Revelation - Gradual acceptance. First accepted by Clement and rejected by the Barococcio Canon of 206
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Clement
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Clement
The Didache - Accepted by Clement
The Apocalypse of Peter - accepted by Clement
The Acts of Paul - Accepted by Clement, and appears in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Arabic translations
Gospel of Hebrews - Accepted by Clement. Accepted by Muratorian Canon of 190 which excluded Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, and included The Apocaplypse of Peter and Wisdom of Solomon.

250 a.d. – 325 a.d.Summary - The “Catholic epistles” and Revelation are still being disputed
The “Catholic,” or general, epistles are the terms sometimes used for the letters written by James, Peter, John, and Jude. They are so called because they are addressed to Christians in general, not to any church or person in particular such as the epistles to the Corinthians, Thessalonians etc. The word "catholic" originated from Greek and then Latin words which simply meant “throughout the whole.”
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings - Accepted
Hebrews - Accepted in the East. Disputed and rejected in the West.
James - Disputed and rejected in the East, and rejected in the West.
1 Peter - Fairly well accepted
2 Peter - Still disputed
1 John - Fairly well accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Still disputed
Revelation - Disputed, especially in the East. Rejected by Dionysius

Council of Nicaea (325 a.d.)
Questions canonicity of James, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, and Jude

From 325 a.d. to Council of Carthage (397 a.d.)
Summary - St. Athanasius first lists our present 27 New Testament books as such in 367 a.d. Disputes still persist concerning several books, almost right up until 397, when Canon is authoritatively closed.
Gospels, Acts, Pauline Writings, 1 Peter, 1 John - Accepted
Hebrews - Eventually accepted in West
James - Slow acceptance. Not even quoted in the West until around 350 a.d.!
2 Peter - Eventually accepted
2, 3 John, Jude - Eventually accepted
Revelation - Eventually accepted. Rejected by Cyril, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen
Epistle of Barnabas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century
Shepherd of Hermas - Accepted by Codex Sinaiticus in late 4th century. Used as a textbook for catechumens (those studying to become Christian).
1 Clement, 2 Clement - Accepted by Codex Alexandrinus in late 5th century!

What is your point? Are you completely taking God out of the picture? Do you not believe we should trust what has been provided to us because God, the Holy Spirit guided the "councils" as to what should be contained? Yes, they negotiated and bargained amongst themselves. Why would they do that if God had a hand in it? Because regardless of the fact the Spirit was guiding them inerrantly, they being mere mortal men, were not all following the Spirit's guidance inerrantly. But, I trust Him, I trust everything that He tells us in Scripture.

Jesus Christ said this would happen? So what is the problem?

You misunderstand my point. There is no problem. The point is, your faith asserts that this verse means the Church can teach infallibly. It doesn't mean that at all.

Woe to the world because of scandals! For it must needs be that scandals come,
but WOE TO THE MAN THROUGH WHOM SCANDAL DOES COME!"
Matthew 1

And He said to His disciples, "It is IMPOSSIBLE THAT SCANDALS SHOULD NOT COME;
BUT WOE TO HIM THROUGH WHOM THEY COME."
Luke 17:1

The words of Jesus Christ Himself he did not say the Church is the source, or the cause of the scandals but individual men.

Uh Huh. He especially did not say the church would not err.

So Sinners in the Church is Bibical.
The Bible clearly teaches that the Church is comprised of both saints and sinners, good and bad. We see this indisputably in several parables of Jesus about the kingdom of heaven (that is, the Church), such as the wheat and the weeds , where Jesus says that they will grow together until the final Judgment, or harvest time (Matthew 13:24-30; cf. Matthew 3:12). He compares the Church to a fishnet which draws good and bad fish, ultimately separated (Matthew 13:47-50), and a marriage banquet, from which one guest was cast out into the outer darkness (Matthew 22:1-14). This parable ends with the famous phrase, Many are called, but few are chosen, which may be interpreted as the distinction between lukewarm, or dead, or nominal Christians and the actual elect who will be saved in the end. Both are present in the Church, according to Jesus.

But, teaching that the Church as a teaching institution would not err is not biblical.

Now in denominationalism's reasonable grounds for forming a new sect is the desire to separate from sinners and sin, which may be infecting the group left which is not Bibical.

The claim that the RCC is the one True Church of God is not biblical.

If Jesus Christ diden't lie when He said...

I am with you ALL days, even until the end of the world."
Matthew 28:20

"...and the gates of hell shall NOT prevail against it."
Matthew 16:18

"...and I will ask the Father and He will give you another Advocate to dwell with you forever, the Spirit of Truth..."
John 14:16-17

"I will not leave you orphans."
John 14:18

Jesus did not lie. None of that implies infallibility of the Church or the Pope.

They are not Bibical for you because you rely on the Bible alone rather than Both Bible and Holy Tradition

.

According to your logic which is quite flawed.

Like i said whatever the Church establishes from the Councils came from Apostolic Traditions.

The ones that are biblical--sure. The ones that aren't biblical? There's no way of knowing for certain if they were ever Apostolic (t)raditions. But since God saw fit to leave them out of Scripture, we can be assured that they are not pertinent to what we must know regarding our salvation.

Which is UNBibical

Our Lord even makes unity a means by which the world might believe that the Father sent the Son (John 17:21,23), and prays that it will be as profound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22). St. Paul makes stirring up division a grounds for virtual exclusion from the Christian community (Romans 16:17), and says that divisions (in effect) divide Christ (1 Corinthians 1:13).

But, look at Scripture, what does our Lord demand of us? The "church" some scholars assert was founded upon Peter's acknowledgement that Jesus was the Messiah. To know and believe this is what is commanded of us. On that we are unified.

 

[Iosias]

Scripture and Tradition are both important but the former is the final authority.

 

[racer]

wrong thread

 

[WarriorAngel]

No, the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic Succession IS God's Glory.

Hence He established the Church on Peter......and the Apostles .......

Does anyone protestant have that?
Yet the same ordained line since Christ is unbroken [& intact]...thus the same Spirit passed on without interruption.
TO which man cannot corrupt, even if they try.

No matter what 'corruption' or sinner passed in time thru the Church, the Church remains undisturbed because God is more powerful than sin or sinners.

 

[Axion]

Scripture is PART of Christian Tradition, handed down, like the rest, through the CHURCH which Jesus founded on Peter and the Apostles.

Jesus gave them Authority to Teach and to Bind and Loose. He said that He would always be with the Church to the end of the Age and added that the Gates of Hell (Deception) would not prevail agauinst the Church. Jesus did not leave a book. He left the ONE CHURCH - which as Paul said is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

It's all very clear. The thing is that some groups wished to chuck out much of historic church tradition and then declared what was left (Minimized scriptures) to be ALL of Revelation.

 

[ETide]

Scripture is PART of Christian Tradition.

Scripture existed long before there was ever a person called a Christian..

And again, folks are all too willing to call the church the pillar and foundation of the truth as scripture declares, although they must then abandon the scriptural teaching of the church of God to maintain that their church is the church of God..

The scriptures clearly and emphatically declare that the church of God is being built by God Himself, not by men.. that He alone sets each member into place within His body as it pleases Himself.. and He alone knows the heart and can purify those hearts by faith.. God alone seals those with His Spirit of promise after they trust in Him.. and after they hear the word of truth, the gospel of their salvation, and after they believe..

The scriptures are clear that the church of God is His body, all members being baptized by One Spirit into One Body, His body.. that it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.. and that it is a habitation of God through the Spirit..

And for all that scriptural evidence..(and there's much more), people will say that THEIR church is the church of God.. ? ? ?

 

[Asinner]

Scripture existed long before there was ever a person called a Christian..

As a protestant, what do you mean by this statement?

God Bless

 

[Iosias]

The OT existed before Acts 16

 

[WarriorAngel]

Well, you've answered one part of my question, where to look. But, why are you tap dancing around the question as to what these traditions/or thie Tradition is?

Traditions are the understandings of scripture. And what they truly mean.

For example; if a professor would strictly read a book to the class but had no clue what it meant...would they learn?
No, they wouldnt and for this reason they must be able to UNDERSTAND what they are reading and teach it according to the truth behind the book vs what appeals to him in interpretation.

My favorite example is Shakepeare.
If a group gathered together to learn his works...what good would it do the class if he simply read the literary work, but gave no clue what it meant?

For instance, Shakespeares time the language was vastly different, and to sit down and read for yourself would leave you thinking something altogether different than it really meant.

"Wherefor art thou Romeo?" does NOT mean "Where are you Romeo?"

It means, why were you born into the family you were. [enemies]

Now since we have the TRADITIONAL understanding of the times and language, the meanings become more clear.

This is why Tradition understands the Bible and why it passes on what scripture means.

Hence in 1500-2006 AD we have ppl who do not understand all of the cultural backgrounds and language who at todays rate will misinterpret it completely.

The Authority of the Church is because the concepts have been orally outlined thru the ages.
And this is why Tradition and scripture cannot be seperated one from another.

Doctrines are based on the understandings behind what the Apostles taught. Because the succession was MORE than just ordination, but strict teachings.

AND thus is why in time we have the Pope outline in current languages what a doctrine aka or dogma means.

Also, I didn't realize that the Church fathers were infallible.

Since they were taight by the same teachings, they are infallible as long as they keep the Traditions of scriptures and what the Apostles meant.

The earliest Church fathers who were directly taught... have more inside scoop than someone who never studied what the Church teaches.

Also, let's not forget even in the times of the Aposltes there were disputes on what the Apostles meant, which brought to us the Epistles...who clarified the early heresies.

Yet, through out time, even when the first Christians started..there were quarrels, but all through out Christiandom quarrels arose, and we have the Churches authors clarify them.

And you will see doctrines become more defined thru outthe ages as more ppl argue them.

IT is when arguments arose that the Church defined.....and proclaimed.

In some ways...if we all were just to believe as a child, we would never have seen the 'against heresies' written over time by the fathers..

But what was from the start will always continue.
How can we expect our time to be different if even the times of the Apostles there were quarrels?

Thats' mankind for ya.

 

[GenemZ]

Not to be a poophead........but why do ppl insist we make the mistakes?
If we are mistaken ......we have 2000 years behind us with the same mistakes the Apostles taught.

When the Epistles of the Bible tells them to not sue their brother but [eventually as a last resort] take them to the Church......I dont think he was referring to the ppl who made up the Church, BUT the instructors of the Church.

It does not say instructors. Does it? Where did you get that from?

1 Corinthians 6:2-4 (New International Version)
"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life! Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! "

​

You read that?

"Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even men of little account in the church! "


​

Maybe, your instructors are that way in your church. Not, mine! It says all of us will someday judge angels.

And when it says the Church is the pillar and Bulwark of truth, I dont think he was referring to the PPL being the truth, but the DOCTRINES of the Church.

Where did you get that one from, too? I do not even know where to begin.

You are told things, and you never verify.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New American Standard Bible)
"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."



"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." ​

kjv

​

Are you allowed to question and prove what you have been told is true? Or, are you taught not to question? From own members of your church I have read that they have no need to question what the Church declares to be official.


If we are to prove all things? [and, we are commanded in God's Word to do so] ....how can you do that?

Scripture is the standard by which we are to prove all things we are taught.

Are you allowed that liberty?

Or, must you refer to church assigned reference material for verifying? I am asking that as a question that I do not know the answer for. But, from what I have seen in posts so far from members of your church, its always church assigned materials that are used to verify what you choose to believe. That is like having a jury of relatives, not a jury of peers. Can you explain, please?

And, also. Explain how you can refer to Scripture like you did? Without knowing what it says?

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (New American Standard Bible)
"But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good."

In Christ, GeneZ

​

 

[Asinner]

The OT existed before Acts 16

Thank you.

What would the protestant perspective be prior to the OT?

God Bless

 

[ETide]

As a protestant, what do you mean by this statement?

God Bless

The statement was made that scripture is part of Christian tradition, although of course scripture preceeds there being Christians, as the OT was written before the church existed...

I do not consider myself a protestant.. I simply enjoy the title that God gives to us, not men..

 

[Asinner]

The statement was made that scripture is part of Christian tradition, although of course scripture preceeds there being Christians, as the OT was written before the church existed...

I do not consider myself a protestant.. I simply enjoy the title that God gives to us, not men..

 

[Trento]

Luther acknowleges---" No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

I completely agree with Luther. This is why I reject the private interpretation and principle of Sola Eccesia so stressed by some. How some teachers (individuals, congregations and denominations) have essentially declared themselves to be Prophets - even sometimes claiming to essentially be an Apostle or Christ Himself, claiming to be infallible and unaccountable.


Scripture tells us, "Lean not on your own understanding." Odd how some teachers (persons, congregations, denominations) teach that means everyone should lean on their understanding.


MY view...


Pax.


- Josiah

 

[racer]

No, the Roman Catholic Church and the Apostolic Succession IS God's Glory.

Hence He established the Church on Peter......and the Apostles .......

News flash, all of Christianity is God’s Glory.

Does anyone protestant have that?

I got better than that, I have the Holy Spirit guiding me and touching my heart everyday. As I mature in my faith, more and more truth is revealed to me. As Jesus said in Scripture, because I believe on Him, He is in me and I in Him.

Yet the same ordained line since Christ is unbroken [& intact]...thus the same Spirit passed on without interruption.

This is a disputed fact, WA. The Holy Spirit is not passed on by the Church or the apostles. The Holy Spirit was sent by Jesus to comfort and guide us—all of us—until Jesus’ return. There is no need for an imaginary unbroken line of apostles.

TO which man cannot corrupt, even if they try.

Because, any line of succession is comprised of sinful man, the line is/was corrupt. History proves this.

No matter what 'corruption' or sinner passed in time thru the Church, the Church remains undisturbed because God is more powerful than sin or sinners.

A fable which is deserving of no serious consideration. The Church is comprised of and run by men, it has suffered and endured corruption. But, as promised it will prevail. That we are unified upon.

 

[racer]

You just declared that the Spirit guided them inerrantly.

Dictionary

1. Incapable of erring; infallible.
2. Containing no errors

So did the Spirit stop guiding the Church after that ?

Thank you, but I know what inerrantly means? Do you believe the Holy Spirit leads anybody errantly? Is that possible? Or do you just think the Holy Spirit guides your Church? That as individuals we’re just swimming around in this evil world run amok with Satan’s minions, with only the RCC/EO to protect us from eternal damnation? Regardless of who the Holy Spirit is guiding, which I believe to be all of us who are Christian, He leads inerrantly. The fault and errors are only those of us humans.


The Spirit guides 24/7. The problem is we don’t always follow 24/7, and sometimes when we are following, we’re not paying close enough attention. To believe and assert that the Holy Spirit guides us all inerrantly does not necessitate that we then believe that everyone or anyone is following inerrantly.

I recall Jesus telling the Apostles Acts 1.8: But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.

Okay. What does this have to do with the discussion? You infer that this verse means that the Church will witness infallibly or inerrantly?

Similarly in Mark 3:14, and 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world.

What is your point? Why do you object so to the fact that the Gospel is preserved for us in writing? Jesus may not have said to write this down when He commissioned them to go out and “preach” the Gospel. The Gospel is authoritative whether I read it for myself, if someone else reads it to me, whether my pastor reads to me in church or recites what he has memorized. It doesn’t matter. Scripture was composed in a written text for matters of preservation and teaching reference. Preserving it in writing guarantees that it will be passed on accurately. Is it really that hard to comprehend? No person who adheres to Sola Scriptura asserts that Scripture is authoritative because it’s in writing. That’s not what it means.

There is no commandment to write,

No there isn’t, and nobody says (that I know of) there is.

and no indication that the oral apostolic word died in the fourth century.

That’s because it didn’t. It was preserved for us in writing so that it would not die or be so distorted that it did not resemble the teachings of Christ at all.

It was the Apostles who carried Jesus message and passed it down to succeeding generations.

Right. Except when they were unable to address the congregations in person, they sent written missives, remember I Tim 3:14 & 15:

These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

For teaching and preserving, written form is the best. It ensures that what is being taught is true and consistent.

The New Testament proceeded from the traditions of the Apostles and the Church.

The New Testament proceeded from Christ’s teachings during His earthly ministry as it was passed on to the Apostles. These teachings were eventually expounded upon and clarified to the masses by the apostles in the NT books which follow the four (4) Gospels.

The problem of understanding Scripture, and its correct interpretation, existed then as well as now. How was it dealt with?

I disagree. I think things are somewhat clearer in our day and age than they were in the Apostolic era. This is because we have the benefit of access and availability of the apostles teachings. As I mentioned above, the apostles taught and added clarity to Jesus words.

In order that the major doctrines that you and i believe (Trinity and Incarnation ect.) which the historical Church has developed

I never cease to be amazed at the audacity of people who wish to give God’s glory to their church. The historical Church did not develop those doctrines. Jesus’ delivered those doctrines and teachings during His ministry. What are you talking about?

remain unchangeable the authority must be infallible (without err). If the early definitions of the Church doctrines were fallible they would be therefore reformable.

The autority—God—is without question not only infallible, but is also inerrant. Any doctrine created or declared by the Church which is not biblical is reformable.

Only a visible, authoritative Church could have set in place the pillars that would support Christian belief and practice through the ages.

Huh? Says who? Oh yeah, your CHURCH. Do you not realize that such outlandish assertions are nothing more than that—assertions—to those who do not hold to the same beliefs as does your faith? Simply making such assertions as facts to those who do not adhere to your beliefs does not in turn make them facts. I can sit here and make outlandish claims all day long, but without some type of credible substantiation—for those opposed to my argument—my claims are moot.
No Church set any pillars in place. Jesus established His Church. The words “pillar and foundation” are not literal. He’s not talking about a physical edifice. He’s talking about a spiritual body which would preserve His teachings, protect them, uphold them and continue to pass them on. The earliest church leaders, the apostles and such, determined that the best way to ensure this was to preserve the Gospel in written form. It has nothing to do with a “visible, authoritative” institution whatsoever.

Is Christianity Historical ?

Do you really have to answer that question? The answer it “yes,” however Christianity encompasses way more than the RCC/EOC.

Let's look at a few quotes from Protestants.

I will ask you again, what are you implying? If you are still attempting to insinuate that these Protestant Scholars believed and taught what your church teaches, it is out-and-out dishonesty.

Protestant Church historian Philip Schaff, in his History of the Christian Church, Vol. III: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity

There is no stronger proof of the continual presence of Christ with his people, no more thorough vindication of Christianity, no richer source of spiritual wisdom and experience, no deeper incentive to virtue and piety, than the history of Christ's kingdom. Every age has a message from God to man, which is of the greatest importance for man to understand.”
The early Church fathers steered this young church through turbulent cultural and mythological currents of the world around them. Their writings provided guidance and assurance to early Christians whose faith was not only doctrinally challenged, since copies of Scripture were rare and costly, but who often suffered persecution and even martyrdom. Contemporary believers will find in these records a fascinating glimpse of the first centuries following the death and resurrection of Christ, and will be given rich insight into the growth and history of the Christian Church.
They represent primary evidences of the Canon and the credibility of the New Testament. Written before the Canon was established, the works of the Ante-Nicene Fathers offers itself as a means to defend the Christian faith, to record the martyrdom of the early Christian church body, and to stand as monuments to the power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Nothing to refute here. Surely, you’re not asserting that he is referring to the RCC?

Martin Luther Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension;

"Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them."
Sermon for the Sunday after Christ’s Ascension; John 15:26-16:4 (2nd sermon), page 265, paragraph 28, 1522
"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 304

Was this before or after he posted his 95 thesis?

Protestant Historical Scholar presents an enlighting view of the Historic Church read it again,as Christ never abandoned the Church which was His Promise.

Who said He abandoned His church?

Can you look at Christianity today and see that it is asprofound as the unity of the Trinity itself (John 17:21-22) ?

Luther acknowleges---"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.

He said this after Shards had splintered off from his Lutheran church, with Munzer going this way, Calvin going that way, Zwingli going another way.

I’m not sure how this addresses my post, but let me ask you, do you think that God is more saddened by the fact we are not in complete union, or by the fact that certain ones of us insist upon pointing out and focusing on what separates us instead of what unifies us?

 

[Asinner]

I think things are somewhat clearer in our day and age than they were in the Apostolic era

This is an interesting perspective, racer. Why do you believe things are clearer for us today?

God Bless

 

[racer]

This is an interesting perspective, racer. Why do you believe things are clearer for us today?

God Bless

Well, we have the benefit of having access to the writings which follow the Gospels. What was left in question after Jesus' ascension was clarified by the apostles, mostly Paul?

Could anyone truly believe that we do not possess a better understanding today than they did during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles.

 

[Asinner]

Well, we have the benefit of having access to the writings which follow the Gospels. What was left in question after Jesus' ascension was clarified by the apostles, mostly Paul?

Could anyone truly believe that we do not possess a better understanding today than they did during the ministry of Jesus and the apostles.

Yes, I can see this also. IMO, I believe that satan has created much confusion and made the narrow way more difficult to find; however, I do believe that all things are possible with God and those that want the truth will find it.

God Bless