Equal authority of Tradition to Scripture

[mike1reynolds]

There is no biblical warnings about knowing you're saved, there is biblical assurance that we can know we're saved. And plenty of Scripture that tell us if we believe we're saved.

Well, there is a Biblical warning about people who embrace Christianity for prideful reasons not being saved in Matthew 7:21-23. It is not precisely the kind admonition that you specify here, but it is in the same vein.

And plenty of Scripture that tell us if we believe we're saved.

The Bible can tell you whether or not you believe you are saved? I want one of those mind reading Bibles too!

 

[Asinner]

If I might interject, Asinner is asking HOW you got your traditions for baptism.

Thank you, WA.

Good morning everyone.





*Asinner needs some more coffee*

 

[Asinner]

Again I'll simply say that I disagree with this completely, and I believe that it's one of the most, if not the most, destructive teachings in Christendom today.. teaching people that they're born again in this way.

It implies that God is obliged to seal every infant that is baptized regardless of their understanding or hearing the gospel.

As mentioned, scripture affirms clearly that God adds members to His body as it pleases Himself.. He is building His church..and when He does it, there's assurance in it..

No wonder so many believe that they can lose their salvation..

God sealed the infant Jews with circumcision, did He not? They did not understand the covenant as a child. This does not negate the covenant nor make it void. God loves us before we can ever love Him.

God Bless

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Well, imo, there's nothing more ironic than the fact that two of the largest self proclaimed religious institutions on the planet, which also claim that they can see, simply can not assure anyone of their salvation in our Lord Jesus Christ..

We're not confused as from whom salvation comes from, or who sits on the throne of judgement as the Righteous Judge. Clearly, there are those on this earth who are confused regarding both matters.

We are not a "self proclaimed (sic) religious institution." We are a communion and Body of believers continuing in unity together since 33 AD.

Perhaps because you were taught in your religious institution that you were born again when you were baptized as an infant.. ? ?

Yes, perish the thought that Orthodox and/or Catholics can think or study these matters out for themselves. If we did, it seems, we would agree with you???

I do not know of your particular testimony, although this is what the EOC preaches and teaches, and ministers to those who attend.

When GOD Seals a person with His holy Spirit of promise, after they come to Him by faith.. HE purifies their heart by faith..

Perhaps you need a new heart through the love and grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, rather than feeding upon the dogma which you so readily embrace in the orthodox religion..

Thank you for your concern- as misguided as it is. Believe it or not, everyone in the Orthodox Church is through the liturgical teaching and worship of the Church guided toward having a new heart, a soft heart full of love for the Savior and passion for His Kingdom to be manifest on this earth. We are a people who live repentance. Our entire focus in faith and life is to become more like Him. Thus, our Tradition, which you loosely refer to as "dogma," teaches us to pray, to fast, to read the scriptures, to do good works as He commanded.

God purifies hearts that are obedient to Him. I was obedient to Him when I was an Evangelical pastor, so I studied the scriptures in depth, and the history and theology of the Church over time. This led me to become Orthodox some years ago- so, without rancor, but with directness, please spare me the condescension. I have suffered loss of reputation and have become an object of derision among some of the Evangelicals I once taught and/or fellowshipped with, for I have embraced something they do not understand. I hold no enmity or resentment, for I made an informed choice, one that I would make again, even if it cost my life. I am graced within the Beloved (eph 1:6)

And yes, Orthodox doctrine embraces the whole counsel of scripture, not just a few proof verses for a pet and formulaic soteriology. Scripture teaches that we are saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Jesus Christ made it clear in Matthew 25 that 'faith alone' will not save you, if it is not manifest in love for God's children. James echoes this obvious and fundamental theme which runs uninterrupted from the Five books of Moses (Torah) through the prophets, the psalms, the proverbs, and through the New Covenant.

For those of you who seem to gloss over this point:
"Lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him." And what then? "He will make your paths straight."

 

[Asinner]

It's also pretty ironic that the church which claims to be 'the church', can not assure anyone of their salvation.

Paul did not rest in some type of "assurance".

1 Cor 9:26I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.



When Abba Sisoes was asked, "Are you saved?" he answered, "I do not know whether I have even begun to repent."



The pharisee was "assured" of his salvation.



Luke 18:10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.
12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted


God Bless

 

[racer]

Private intepretation is not in the vocabulary of St. Augustine, hence St. Augustine is foreign to the formal aspect of Sola Scriptura.

Your major first major faux pas. “Private interpretation” and Sola Scriptura are not synonamous.

The testimonies from St. Augustine are legion affirming that Scripture, Tradition and Church are inseparable as opposed to Sola Scriptura (i.e.Bible and one's private interpretation to obtain the truth).

You have yet to show this to anyone. You can post other quotes by Augustine, but not of them will diminish the meanings of the statements cited below. I’m truly baffled as to how you can read them and then so absurdly deny the clear and explicit meaning of them.

for none is promised in that Holy Scripture which is to be PREFERRED TO ALL HUMAN AUTHORITY AND OPINION

making it QUITE PLAIN AND CERTAIN what should be the manner of life in our conduct, and TO WHAT ALL THINGS should be referred

The salvation of the mind and the way of happiness is pointed out by the concord of both Scriptures


For Thy divine Scripture is of more sublime authority, since those mortals through whom Thou didst dispense it unto us underwent mortality


Nor have we known any other books so destructive to pride, so destructive to the enemy and the defender,11 who resisteth Thy reconciliation in defence of his own sins.12 I know not, O Lord, I know not other such “pure”13 words which so persuade me to confession, and make my neck submissive to Thy yoke, and invite me to serve Thee for nought


The preachers of Thy Word pass away from this life into another; but Thy Scripture is spread abroad over the people, even to the end of the world. Yea, both heaven and earth shall pass away, but Thy Words shall not pass away

And in reading it, men seek nothing more than to find out the thought and will of those by whom it was written, and 537through these to find out the will of God,

For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book.

The words of St. Augustine in his work dealing with the Manichean heresy:

Regardless to whom he is speaking or about what, what is very evident in his teachings is that he believed that plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life.He stresses in all his letters of instruction or correction this fact, that Scripture is the ultimate authority.

'For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:--`Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.` Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus.But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?'

The use of the word “authority” does not always mean “final or ultimate authority.” I’ve shown before the different ways “authority” is used. But, I’ll do it again to help get my point across.

Authority: 1 a (1) : a citation (as from a book or file) used in defense or support (2) : the source from which the citation is drawn b (1) : a conclusive statement or set of statements (as an official decision of a court) (2) : a decision taken as a precedent (3) : TESTIMONY c : an individual cited or appealed to as an expert
2 a : power to influence or command thought, opinion, or behavior b : freedom granted by one in authority : RIGHT
3 a : persons in command; specifically : GOVERNMENT b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise ****e transit authority>
4 a : GROUNDS, WARRANT <had excellent authority for believing the claim> b : convincing force <lent authority to the performance>

I would think all Christians believe the church to possess expertise regarding the Gospel. As I quoted Augustine earlier in this thread, even he believed the church to be a “teaching authority.”

Are you, like WarriorAngel, implying that when Augustine uses the term “catholic church,” that he is referring to your church?

Likewise we have Augustine affirming the need for interpreting Scripture in light of Tradition/Church and never apart from them:

"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it" Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

First, I don’t see how you get your version of what you believe Augustine to be saying from the snippet you’ve provided to us. Second, I just don’t understand how you cite these quotations and completely miss Augustine’s main belief. Like this: even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it . . . .

Third, I’m going to address this quote more fully later.

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you"
C. Cresconius I:33

Did you miss this part: although on this matter andwe cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures?

 

[racer]

Let me repost an earlier quote:

On Christian Doctrine, Book I

Chapter 40.—What Manner of Reader Scripture Demands.

44. And, therefore, if a man fully understands that “the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,”1757 and is bent upon making all his understanding of Scripture to bear upon these three graces, he may come to the interpretation of these books with an easy mind.

Book II

Chapter 9.—How We Should Proceed in Studying Scripture.

14. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,—to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true" Sermon 117:6

One can not tell much about this quote due to its brevity, but let me point out something:

1)“It is obvious;” 2) “the faith allows it;” 3)“the Catholic Church approves;” 4) “it is true”

I think I know what you’ve inferred from this quote. But, what you have are four (4) independent statements. What its says is not the same as if it said, “It is obvious, the faith allows, and IF the Catholic Church approves it, it is true.” You might have something if it weren’t for the fact that little two-letter word “IF is missing.

"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will separate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?" C. Julian 1:7,34

The point to note is that whoever Augustine is speaking to is that HE is in error. It’s hard to know what he is talking about from yet another brief quote. But, the statement does not imply unquestionable, infallible authority on behalf of the “universal” church. It shows that he respects their unity and agreement and as such considers what they believe to be true and credible.

Like the rest of the Fathers who intepreted the Scriptures in light of Tradition and Church, Augustine affirmed Catholic doctrines such as the real presence:

I’m sorry but you have not shown this to be the case.

'For Christ was carried in his own hands when, entrusting to us his own Body, he said: "This is my Body." Indeed he was carrying that Body in his own hands'

Ennar. In Ps 33

This has nothing to do with the OP, so I’m not going to bother showing you that this is yet another falsehood regarding Augustine propagated by your church.

The farthest thing from Augustine, like the rest of the Fathers, is that he interprets Scripture within the milieu of tradition and Church as opposed to private interpretation.

Even IF this were the case, it would not—does not—negate the fact that Augustine considered Scripture to be the ultimate and final authority on Church doctrine. That has been explicitly shown in this discussion.

Similarly, St. Augustine affirms the authority of Tradition (via the monument of universal belief and usage) regarding prayers for the dead. We read:

"In the books of Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. Howbeit, even if their were no where at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, which in this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely that in the prayers of the priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendation of the death hath its place"

Again, recognition of authority in the Church or Tradition does not mean he held it to the same level of authority that he did Scripture.

Likewise, St. Augustine appeals to Tradition and Church regarding the doctrine of infant baptism. In this passage we find St. Augustine affirm a couple of aspects of Tradition; 1)viewed as a belief held by the whole Church , 2) a belief that is entrenched in antiquity and 3)a belief that is unchanging. In addition, we find St. Augustine contrasting the apostolic authority of invariable custom with the authority placed in the Church (in Council)...Again we find St. Augustine, like Athanasius and the rest of the Fathers, upholding Church, Scripture and Tradition as opposed to the Scriptures Alone.

Again, you’re self-defeating in your refusal to argue based on a true and correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. You’ll never refute the ideology or substantiate your argument as long as you continue on this path.

And this is the firm tradition of the universal church, in respect of baptism of infants...and if one seek for divine authority in this matter, though what is held by the WHOLE Church, and that not as instituted by Councils, but as a matter of invariable custom, is rightly held to have been handed down by APOSTOLIC authority..." ibid IV,31

You can’t cite tiny blips and expect anyone to know what your, or Augustine, is talking about. Do you really want to talk about Augustine’s belief regarding baptism? It’s not exactly what your church teaches now.

For St. Augustine, Scripture is the criterion of faith but not at the exclusion of tradition and Church. That is why St. Augustine explicitly affirms (eg. heretical baptism, infant baptism etc.) what the Church has traditionally/generally held to be of apostolic authority. In addition, St. Augustine also affirms that this tradition is entrusted to the Church and preserved by apostolic succession.

You have failed to prove this. None of what you have asserted here contradicts the fact that Augustine considered Scripture to be the final arbiter of truth and ultimate authority on salvific matters.

 

[Asinner]

Do you assert that doctrine is not Scriptural if it is not explicit?

If it is not the teachings that were handed down from the Apostles, then they are not the correct teachings. Scripture is not explicit on baptism, which is why Tradition is needed.

That is a false statement, for more than one reason. However, the main reason it is false is because you do not possess a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. Until you get a grasp on it, these little discussions, where you try to milk self-contradictory statements out of people with patronizing questions like, "you quote such-and-such, what does that mean to you?" you will get nowhere.

Oh, Racer. You quoted scripture and didn't give your understanding of it. I was made to guess what that was, i.e., immersion. I am not upset. I like you too much.

Also, I believed in sola scriptura for 13 years. I rejected it, because I understood it.

I think I asked you this before, but I'll ask again anyway. Do you think that how many times a person is dipped affects the validity of the baptism? Do you think it has a bearing on a persons salvation?

I answered that God is our judge.


God Bless

 

[Asinner]

Are you, like WarriorAngel, implying that when Augustine uses the term “catholic church,” that he is referring to your church?

There was only ONE Church at the time.

God Bless

 

[racer]

Trento quoted Augustine:

"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it" Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

I don’t know which source was used in the above quote, but from New Advent, a Catholic website, I found this quote to be a little differently expressed:

Chapter III

• As to the first man, the father of mankind, it is agreed by almost the entire Church that the Lord loosed him from that prison; a tenet which must be believed to have been accepted not without reason – from whatever source it was handed down to the Church, although the authority of the canonical Scriptures cannot be brought forward as speaking expressly in its support, though this seems to be the opinion which is more than any other borne out by these words in the book of Wisdom. Some add to this [tradition] that the same favour was bestowed on the holy men of antiquity , on Abel, Seth, Noah and his house, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the other patriarchs and prophets, they also being loosed from those pains at the time when the Lord descended into hell.

If one goes on to read the entire letter, he will find that Augustine states nothing as certainty or fact. He is quite perplexed by the subject brought up by Evodius.

Chapter VI

10. You perceive, therefore, how intricate is the question why Peter chose to mention, as persons to whom, when shut up in prison, the gospel was preached, those only who were unbelieving in the days of Noah when the ark was a preparing – and also the difficulties which prevent me from pronouncing any definite opinion on the subject . . . .

11. . . . ; but how this could be taken as true in the case of those who were unbelieving in the days of Noah I do not see, for Scripture does not affirm that they were made to live in the flesh, nor can it be believed that the end for which they were loosed from the pains of hell was that they who were delivered from these might resume their flesh in order to suffer punishment . . . . .

Chapter V

14. . . . but as to the question propounded by you from the words of the Apostle Peter, since you now perceive the difficulties which I find in it, and since other difficulties may possibly be found if the subject be more carefully studied, let us continue to investigate it, whether by applying our own thoughts to the subject, or by asking the opinion of any one whom it may be becoming and possible to consult.


Chapter VI

18. The words of Scripture which are under consideration seem to me of themselves to make this sufficiently plain to those who carefully attend to them: “For Christ hath died once for our sins, the Just for the unjust, that He bring us to god; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit: in which also He came and preached unto the spirits, who sometime were unbelieving, when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing.

 

[racer]

If it is not the teachings that were handed down from the Apostles, then they are not the correct teachings. Scripture is not explicit on baptism, which is why Tradition is needed.

Yet another standard non-answer. Is it possible for you to just give a straight-forward answer to a straight-forward question? I’ve yet to see you do it.

Oh, Racer. You quoted scripture and didn't give your understanding of it. I was made to guess what that was, i.e., immersion. I am not upset. I like you too much.

But, I did. You said that Scripture did not indicate baptism by immersion. I said that it did and supplied verses which indicated that baptism was done by immersion. What else did I need to say?

I like you, also. But, I don’t like fishing expeditions, especially when I feel like I’m the one with bait dangling in front of me (I don’t mean “bait” as in you are trying to upset me. I don’t think that is what your are trying to do) . I’m just not sure what you are fishing for.

Also, I believed in sola scriptura for 13 years. I rejected it, because I understood it.

I hate to tell you that you don’t know something. But, it is clear from our discussions you do not have a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. You obviously came to see the problems with the version of Sola Scriptura that you held and practiced, thus rejected it as well you should have.

We can try this again if you will just be more specific as to what you want to know.

 

[racer]

nevermind

 

[racer]

I answered that God is our judge.

Yet, Another standard non-answer.

 

[racer]

There was only ONE Church at the time.

God Bless

Again . . . non-answer . . . . .

 

[ETide]

[/size]
We're not confused as from whom salvation comes from, or who sits on the throne of judgement as the Righteous Judge.

Clearly, there are those on this earth who are confused regarding both matters.

You folks claim that you're born again and that this takes place through water baptism, even for infants.. as if God is obligated to birth Christ into anyone who is baptized in your denomination.. I agree, there are many on earth confused regarding these matters.

We are not a "self proclaimed (sic) religious institution." We are a communion and Body of believers continuing in unity together since 33 AD.

The church of God has clearly been established by GOD since Pentecost.. He is building it, adding members to it as it pleases Himself.. baptizing them into His body by His Spirit.. So again, there are many confused denominations on this earth who actually believe that they can add members to His body when they baptize people.. even infants.

Yes, perish the thought that Orthodox and/or Catholics can think or study these matters out for themselves. If we did, it seems, we would agree with you???

Well again, you're the self proclaimed religious institutions which claim to be "the church of God", even from 33 AD... many others simply know how silly that is and that it has nothing to do with the truth contained in the scriptures.

Thank you for your concern- as misguided as it is. Believe it or not, everyone in the Orthodox Church is through the liturgical teaching and worship of the Church guided toward having a new heart, a soft heart full of love for the Savior and passion for His Kingdom to be manifest on this earth. We are a people who live repentance. Our entire focus in faith and life is to become more like Him. Thus, our Tradition, which you loosely refer to as "dogma," teaches us to pray, to fast, to read the scriptures, to do good works as He commanded.

God purifies hearts that are obedient to Him. I was obedient to Him when I was an Evangelical pastor, so I studied the scriptures in depth, and the history and theology of the Church over time. This led me to become Orthodox some years ago- so, without rancor, but with directness, please spare me the condescension. I have suffered loss of reputation and have become an object of derision among some of the Evangelicals I once taught and/or fellowshipped with, for I have embraced something they do not understand. I hold no enmity or resentment, for I made an informed choice, one that I would make again, even if it cost my life. I am graced within the Beloved (eph 1:6)

And yes, Orthodox doctrine embraces the whole counsel of scripture, not just a few proof verses for a pet and formulaic soteriology. Scripture teaches that we are saved, are being saved, and will be saved. Jesus Christ made it clear in Matthew 25 that 'faith alone' will not save you, if it is not manifest in love for God's children. James echoes this obvious and fundamental theme which runs uninterrupted from the Five books of Moses (Torah) through the prophets, the psalms, the proverbs, and through the New Covenant.

For those of you who seem to gloss over this point:
"Lean not on your own understanding, but in all your ways acknowledge Him." And what then? "He will make your paths straight."

AND yet you have no assurance of salvation.. you quoted scripture pertaining to having a wicked heart.. as if to be completely oblivious to the fact that God purifies the hearts of those who come to Him in faith..

Sometimes your own testimonies speak clearly for themselves.. no assurance of salvation, you spoke of a wicked heart.. and all this from those who profess to be the church of God from 33 AD.

 

[Lynn73]

Paul did not rest in some type of "assurance".

1 Cor 9:26I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

I don't believe this is speaking of salvation. It's speaking of rewards for faithful service on earth. Paul isn't worried about his salvation because elsewhere he states he's willing to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. He doesn't sound uncertain to me. He's concerned with being a castaway for heavenly rewards, not losing his salvation. He knew where he was going.

 

[Asinner]

Yet another standard non-answer. Is it possible for you to just give a straight-forward answer to a straight-forward question? .

Not sure . . .

But, I did. You said that Scripture did not indicate baptism by immersion. I said that it did and supplied verses which indicated that baptism was done by immersion. What else did I need to say?

I know that scripture is explicit on immersion. Why then would I ask you to supply verses I already know exist? Not sure where you got this from.

I like you, also. But, I don’t like fishing expeditions, especially when I feel like I’m the one with bait dangling in front of me (I don’t mean “bait” as in you are trying to upset me. I don’t think that is what your are trying to do) . I’m just not sure what you are fishing for.

Perhaps an answer . . . You claim that I don't anwer your questions, yet you continue to avoid my questions. Do you avoid them because you believe I'm "fishing"? Racer, can we not have dialogue without you becoming so defensive and touchy?

I hate to tell you that you don’t know something. But, it is clear from our discussions you do not have a correct understanding of Sola Scriptura. You obviously came to see the problems with the version of Sola Scriptura that you held and practiced, thus rejected it as well you should have.

We can try this again if you will just be more specific as to what you want to know.

I am trying to figure out where you get your traditions on baptism from, for they are not the same Traditions that Christ left.

God Bless

 

[Lynn73]

If he believes in baptism by immersion, yes it's the same that Christ experienced when He went down into the water. What's the problem? We believe the biblical example.

 

[Asinner]

[/color][/font][/color][/size][/font]

Yet, Another standard non-answer.

What would you like me to say? Obviously, I believe that your traditions are incorrect. Do I believe it matters to God? I DON'T KNOW.

God Bless

 

[Asinner]

If he believes in baptism by immersion, yes it's the same that Christ experienced when He went down into the water. What's the problem? We believe the biblical example.

The Church practices immersion. There is no problem here.

God Bless