Protestants explanation of this verse(s), Part 1

[cygnusx1]

Paul's statement insists that what is transmitted either by word or letter have to be in full and complete agreement, which is where Roman Catholics part ways by upholding traditions which are not in agreement with Scripture.

but where you have ongoing revelation (new doctrines) and an authority that in effect is higher than scripture , you just don't need to agree with scripture , you can circumvent the Bible , by hot wiring an imposing authority ............. and few will notice , and if they do ..... just , threaten them with hell and damnation , it usually works!

 

[CCWoody]

He appears to be agreeing with you, countering CCWoody's continued breaking of the 8th commandment.

I see, so taking a Roman Catholic at their word is a breaking of the 8th Commandment. Must be nice to realize that what you say is really pretty bad and then cover it up by simply claiming that those who understand what you said are bearing a false witness.

Gotcha!

 

[Borealis]

but where you have ongoing revelation (new doctrines) and an authority that in effect is higher than scripture , you just don't need to agree with scripture , you can circumvent the Bible , by hot wiring an imposing authority ............. and few will notice , and if they do ..... just , threaten them with hell and damnation , it usually works!

Wow...so many strawmen in one para--scratch that, one sentence!

 

[Borealis]

Paul's statement insists that what is transmitted either by word or letter have to be in full and complete agreement, which is where Roman Catholics part ways by upholding traditions which are not in agreement with Scripture.

Still waiting for someone to post an actual non-agreeing doctrine. But then, it's easier to just say that they don't agree with Scripture rather than actually prove it. Of course, it's even easier when you throw historical context out the window and claim the Scriptures mean whatever you feel they should mean, right?

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and that she lived a sinless life are both directly contrary to the Bible which teaches that ALL (without exception) have fallen short, that no one is righteous, not one, etc.

Also, your church maintains that she died a bodily death before she was assumed into heaven, how can she have died if she was exempt from the stain of Original Sin?

 

[Borealis]

The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and that she lived a sinless life are both directly contrary to the Bible which teaches that ALL (without exception) have fallen short, that no one is righteous, not one, etc.

Including infants, children and the mentally retarded, right?

Also, your church maintains that she died a bodily death before she was assumed into heaven, how can she have died if she was exempt from the stain of Original Sin?

The Church doesn't say whether Mary died before her Assumption or not. Better check your sources more carefully.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Including infants, children and the mentally retarded, right?

Right.

Sinfulness is itself sinful.

Concupiscence, the very tendency to sin, the inclination, the "lust of the flesh" is sinful. So, yes, everyone without exception.

If you don't believe infants and the retarded are sinful, why do you baptize them?

The Church doesn't say whether Mary died before her Assumption or not. Better check your sources more carefully.

This article from Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that Mary died before she was "assumed".

It has always been a common Catholic teaching that she died before she was assumed.

For the record, and just so you know, I was Catholic for 20 years and at one time a candidate for the Jesuit Novitiate in the Detroit Province of that order.

I think you'll find me pretty well informed and unwilling to offer opinions when I am not.

 

[gbear]

Prostestant theology really requires all of God's people to be Priests and Priestesses (think I spelled that right)
1Pet 2:9; Rev 1:6

Elders are men in the church that have proven themselves to be faithful and above reproach... similar to Deacons.

Catholic persons who walk with and follow Jesus Christ are my brothers and sisters by the way... and this whole protestant/catholic thing will be put aside when we all get to heaven I'm quite sure.

 

[Borealis]

Right.

Sinfulness is itself sinful.

Concupiscence, the very tendency to sin, the inclination, the "lust of the flesh" is sinful. So, yes, everyone without exception.

If you don't believe infants and the retarded are sinful, why do you baptize them?

Because they haven't committed any sins. Sin requires wilful action. They aren't capable of it yet. We baptize them to wash away the stain of original sin.

This article from Catholic Encyclopedia tells us that Mary died before she was "assumed".

It has always been a common Catholic teaching that she died before she was assumed.

For the record, and just so you know, I was Catholic for 20 years and at one time a candidate for the Jesuit Novitiate in the Detroit Province of that order.

I think you'll find me pretty well informed and unwilling to offer opinions when I am not.

The Church does not and has not made a formal declaration about Mary's death one way or another. The Catholic Encyclopedia, as valuable as it is, does not carry the weight of infallibility. She was Assumed into Heaven. Whether she was dead or not at the time is an open question.

 

[Ethan_Fetch]

Because they haven't committed any sins. Sin requires wilful action. They aren't capable of it yet. We baptize them to wash away the stain of original sin.

The Church does not and has not made a formal declaration about Mary's death one way or another. The Catholic Encyclopedia, as valuable as it is, does not carry the weight of infallibility. She was Assumed into Heaven. Whether she was dead or not at the time is an open question.

Okay, so you baptize them to wash away the stain of original sin.

Let's get back to the point: your church teaches that Mary was conceived without stain of original sin.

You've conceded here that children and the mentally challenged have this stain.

Leaving aside for the moment the question of whether this stain is itself sinful or not, and assuming that this is all the Apostle is talking about when he says that all have fallen short, none are righteous, etc. (and we're assuming it just for the sake of argument because I think it's quite clear that Paul's context is the absolute pervasiveness of sinfulness as well as sinful acts), then your church has contravened Scripture by making an exception for Mary to what Paul is clearly teaching is an absolute rule:

Everyone has original sin, everyone bears the stain of this original sin. Everyone. No exceptions, except of course Our Lord who had no human father and is elsewhere said to be like us in all things except sin. Paul's point is that everyone born the normal way on this planet is born sinful. Jesus being God the Son and the Son of God is the obvious exception, besides which again, Scripture clearly says that He is THE exception. the only mediator, the only righteous one, the only sinless, perfect sacrifice, 100% man and 100% God.

No such exception is made for Mary. And another question that comes to mind is why her parents weren't similarly preserved? And their parents before them, and their grandparents all the way back to Adam and Eve such that nonsense is made of the whole doctrine of Original Sin in the first place.

Ergo, you have been answered: your church clearly teaches and dogmatically binds consciences to a doctrine which is not only unknown to Scripture but is completely contrary to what it actually does teach.

 

[Jig]

Or perhaps I happen to believe in something bigger than the understanding my own fallible mind gives me, and like to understand based on 2000 years of inspired Church (The pillar and bulwark of Truth) interpretation.

Inspired Church interpretaion? Let me guess...the Eastern Orthodox Church is the only denomination today that holds this key to understanding scripture correctly.

We are told that Jesus will send us a 'Helper' (the Holy Spirit) to help govern and guide us, not an institution.

No you didn't get your beliefs from the Apostles, you got your beliefs from your own reading of select writings from them. There is a difference.

Wha?! Select writtings? How could you possibly know this about me? Is there more inspired writtings by Paul that aren't in scripture? If not, then your assumtion about me is wrong. I got my teachings from the Apostles, too.

How is it heresay, I can even give you lists of names.

What will that prove?

It's more the fact that we don't declare the Fathers to be infallible interpreters of anything by themsleves, we trust the consencus of all of them together,

You mean majority rule. You know, sometimes the majority isn't always right. Just look at some of the past presidental elections.

and we trust the Church councils more than that.

I've noticed.

When a father wrote something that just doesn't quite jive with the rest we just realize that they were fallible men capable of making mistakes sometimes.

And sweep it under the rug....I'm sure there was a reason why a particular church father believed in something, regardless if it was the majorities opinion or not. What was the bible talking about when it said 'remnant'?

I mearly quoted Scripture since it's something you relate to and trust. There is more backing for the Tradition outside of the Scripture, but that would not hold as much weight with you, right?

My context is different than yours on matters like this, you seem to be blinded by your own church's position and would be very bais in translation, no matter what. To me, this is an attempt by your church to limit independent thinking and gain more power and influence over it's members and society. Chirst's Church shouldn't be like this. Also, when I read Revelation, I see seven very different church institutes that don't seem to be in agreement with each other, this seems like proof to me that even 60 years after Jesus's death there was a body of believers, not a universal institute of believers.

This is speculation. You must admit, that the word whether can make it so that verse is interpreted in the Orthodox way as well.

Speculation? It's plain and clear.

However, when people are making sure they get it right, it does pass on correctly. Btw I did play a game of this one time with 50 people,and it did actually make it to the end exactly the same as it started.

Humans are fallable, period. I wouldn't trust somebody else with my salvation. I'm going to go out and study scripture for myself. You may say you do this, but you are limited by your church's interpretation from the get go. You never have a true chance to think for yourself this way. This is very dangerous.

But you still must agree to the possibility that it actually did pass on without corruption. Remember, we believe that the Holy Spirit is the one who preserved it through the years, It's not that hard for us to believe that He actually did.

I know for a fact it didn't pass on correctly. Have you read the bible lately? A lot of traditional teachings DONT match up.

Yes, the epistles were corrections in many cases, but your own logic here kind of proves my point. I will ask this one question. Had the Churches not made mistakes, would those epistles had been written?

I don't understand what your getting at. The early church had proven itself wrong time and again. Even Peter made mistakes and went against what God wanted. (Gal. 2:11...) This just shows me that humans can't always be trusted. Only the word of God can be trusted to be fully inspired.

Not by the Catholics it isn't, but it is the same thing taught by the Orthodox. (Now a Catholic memeber is gonna come in here and say that they are right and the Orthodox are wrong of course.)

Like I said, someone is wrong here, but yet both claim the same history. Thisschism is a great example of my point about how tradition can be fallable.

This is speculation again. Your are reading words into Pauls writing.

You only claim this because your church forces you wear blinders. Your opinion is not your own, but your churches.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Presbyteros means "elder", not priest. Hieros means "priest".

Hello:
Not exactly. The term priest comes from proistomen, one who stands before, which is very descriptive of priests/pastors.
Hierus, the term translated in the NT as priest, is not really the origin of our understanding of the role of our presvyteros.

Yes, the English word "priest" is a form of the word "Presbyteros", but this is an accident of usage.

A sacerdos (latin), a person who represents the people of God and who offers sacrifice for them to God is a Hieros.

A Presbyteros is one who rules and teaches in the Church.

Christianity doesn't have "priests" as an office. We have one High Priest, Jesus, and we are each of us priests after Him.

The Church of God has Elders; pastors and teachers and men apt to govern.

It doesn't have priests.

"Pastor" is not an office either- the term poimen is used very infrequently in scripture, and refers to a spiritual gift of shepherding and, metaphorically, nurturing.

So if you wish to take issue to the term priest, please remember to take issue with 'pastor' also.

Teachers are not rulers. Teachers are teachers. There are Elders who teach, but it is presvyteros/episcopates who ruled and rule the Church.

By rule, we are referring to the parameters set forth in scripture.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Inspired Church interpretaion? Let me guess...the Eastern Orthodox Church is the only denomination today that holds this key to understanding scripture correctly.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a denomination. A one dollar bill is a denomination. So is a ten dollar bill. The gold that once backed up currency was not a denomination, and neither is the Eastern Orthodox Church.

We are told that Jesus will send us a 'Helper' (the Holy Spirit) to help govern and guide us, not an institution.

The Eastern Orthodox Chruch is not an "institution." We are a communion, a synaxis, a gathering of autonomous churches who adhere to the communion and unbroken worship tradition handed down for 2000 years. We do not claim to be the only ones who have some modicum of truth, or church- we DO claim to be the fullest expression of apostolic worship and truth, not by our brilliance, but by the grace of God.

Wha?! Select writtings? How could you possibly know this about me? Is there more inspired writtings by Paul that aren't in scripture? If not, then your assumtion about me is wrong. I got my teachings from the Apostles, too.

You have received your teachings from scripture, and more truthfully, from your reading and the readings of those have influenced you.

You mean majority rule. You know, sometimes the majority isn't always right. Just look at some of the past presidental elections.

I agree- mob rule is a scary prospect. Scarier still is absolute anarchy. Representative government, holding fast to the founding documents and sensibility of founders, allowing for an eveolving, historic understanding of both, makes for the greatest liberty and justice for all.

And this works well for the United States also.

And sweep it under the rug....I'm sure there was a reason why a particular church father believed in something, regardless if it was the majorities opinion or not. What was the bible talking about when it said 'remnant'?

It was talking about what would be left after the falling away of Israel, which occured multiple times. Rather than hold fast to Torah and to devotion to God, the sheep went astray.

Feel very welcome to come investigate the remnant in your local Orthodox parish.

My context is different than yours on matters like this, you seem to be blinded by your own church's position and would be very bais in translation, no matter what. To me, this is an attempt by your church to limit independent thinking and gain more power and influence over it's members and society. Chirst's Church shouldn't be like this.

Why is it that when people disagree with us, it is they who are blinded, and we who see? Believe me, I've taken the same position many times.

Another question: Why is it that those who adhere to long-standing wisdom are captive in their minds, but those who make it up as they go along are the 'free-thinkers?' Certainly there long-held fallacies, and radical and revolutionary paradigm shifts which correct ancient errors. Let us take women's status as a prime example.
But there is a 'contemporary wisdom' that is not wisdom at all.

The scriptures are very guilty of rejecting 'independent thinking.' And, I might add, emphasizing 'group think.'

Also, when I read Revelation, I see seven very different church institutes that don't seem to be in agreement with each other, this seems like proof to me that even 60 years after Jesus's death there was a body of believers, not a universal institute of believers.

You have again erred in referring to the Church regions in Revelation as 'institutions.' And, keep in mind, though they each had their own thing going on, they were each being addressed by one Apostle and bishop, John.

Humans are fallable, period. I wouldn't trust somebody else with my salvation. I'm going to go out and study scripture for myself. You may say you do this, but you are limited by your church's interpretation from the get go. You never have a true chance to think for yourself this way. This is very dangerous.

There is safety in an abundance of Godly counsel. No wise person sees themself as the last resort. Kings and Counselors all have counselors, and all are guided by wisdom ancient and contemporary.

One who 'thinks for himself' is one who has learned to channel and combine his influences. Most of such people never speak of thinking for themselves. The ones who do are generallly people who have not yet learned or been trained to think deeply enough to realize there is NO freedom from influence.

I know for a fact it didn't pass on correctly. Have you read the bible lately? A lot of traditional teachings DONT match up.

According to who? You? Which 'traditional teachings?'
Questioning and challenging is a good thing- understanding comes from that process. Simply negating teaches neither the negator nor the one being negated.

I don't understand what your getting at. The early church had proven itself wrong time and again. Even Peter made mistakes and went against what God wanted. (Gal. 2:11...) This just shows me that humans can't always be trusted. Only the word of God can be trusted to be fully inspired.

God's words will always be read by fallible readers- you and I. From the beginning, the scriptures had teachers to teach them. That's not 'reading it for yourself.' Rather, that's reading and being taught.

Like I said, someone is wrong here, but yet both claim the same history. Thisschism is a great example of my point about how tradition can be fallable.

The schism was not a failing of apostolic tradition. It was a falling away from apostolic tradition.

You only claim this because your church forces you wear blinders. Your opinion is not your own, but your churches.

You must be aware that this is a fallacy on your part. Please address the issues.
Thanks, and regards
James

 

[CCWoody]

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a denomination. A one dollar bill is a denomination.

Cool!!!

The PCA is not a denomination. We are the True Church. (I likes it!)

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist
Woody.​

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Cool!!!

The PCA is not a denomination. We are the True Church. (I likes it!)

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist

Woody.​

non sequitur

One entry found for non sequitur. Main Entry: non se·qui·tur javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?nonseq01.wav=non+sequitur')
Pronunciation: 'nän-'se-kw&-t&r also -"tur
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, it does not follow
1 : an inference that does not follow from the premises; specifically : a fallacy resulting from a simple conversion of a universal affirmative proposition or from the transposition of a condition and its consequent
2 : a statement (as a response) that does not follow logically from anything previously said

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

From the official American PCA website:

"The PCA is one of the faster growing denominations in the United States, with over 1450 churches and missions throughout the USA and Canada. There were over 306,000 communicant and non-communicant members as of December 2000. "



It would appear that the PCA is a denomination, and see themselves as such.

 

[CCWoody]

A denomination is a dollar bill. Ergo, my PCA cannot be a denomination. Therefore, we must be the True Church.

Like I said, I like your logic.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist

Woody.​

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

A denomination is a dollar bill. Ergo, my PCA cannot be a denomination. Therefore, we must be the True Church.

Like I said, I like your logic.

Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory....

Your friendly neighborhood Cordial Calvinist​

Woody.​

Hi:
I wish I could reply in kind- but I'm not very taken with your demonstration of logic, at least to this point.

I said that a one dollar bill is a denomination, not the other way around.
A dog is a mammal, but not every mammal is a dog. Likewise, not all denominations are monetary.

I compared the reified bill with the genuine standard, a point that apparently didn't register with you. My bad.

Let's try this again:
Denomination:
"a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body"

As I stated before, EOC is not a denomination, but a collection of unified yet autonomous church bodies. Eastern Orthodox is not our name. Both terms Eastern and Orthodox are adjectives.

Thanks for responding
James

 

[MikeMcK]

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (15) and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he willbe forgiven.

The verse demonstrates several things the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

First, in order to apply the sacrament, one must call for the elders or priests of the Church. This would require ordained men that constitute the Church.

Elders are not necessarily ordained.

Secondly, James says “

the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.” This demonstrates that the Church's priests act in the person of Christ ("in persona Christi") in furthering Christ's work of salvation.

This says nothing about Catholic priests acting in the person of Christ. Jesus Christ is perfectly capable of acting on His own behalf.

He calls certain men to participate in a very intimate way by effecting salvation

Do you have scripture to back this up?

Finally, by virtue of the actions and prayers of the priests, the sick man's sins are forgiven (this is what actually saves the man's soul).

So then, you don't believe that we're saved by virtue of Christ's atonement on the cross?

These verses demonstrate that priests have the power and authority to forgive sins (which was given to men by Christ; see Matthew 9:8), and in particular to His Apostles, see John 20:22-23.

No, I'm afraid these verses don't say anything like that.

So, what do these two verses mean to a protestant?

Pretty much what it says: that the church has a ministry of prayer.

No where in protestant theology does it allow for priests to forgive sins or apply the sacrament for the sick.

You're right. We base our teachings on scripture.

 

[jetzeppelin]

James 5:14-15 Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; (15) and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.

The verse demonstrates several things the Church has taught for 2,000 years.

First, in order to apply the sacrament, one must call for the elders or priests of the Church. This would require ordained men that constitute the Church.

Secondly, James says “the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up.” This demonstrates that the Church's priests act in the person of Christ ("in persona Christi") in furthering Christ's work of salvation.

Yes, Jesus is our only Savior, but He desires us to participate in His eternal priesthood, and He calls certain men to participate in a very intimate way by effecting salvation (through the ministerial priesthood described here). So the priests, through the power of Christ, save the sick man's soul.

Finally, by virtue of the actions and prayers of the priests, the sick man's sins are forgiven (this is what actually saves the man's soul). These verses demonstrate that priests have the power and authority to forgive sins (which was given to men by Christ; see Matthew 9:8), and in particular to His Apostles, see John 20:22-23.

So, what do these two verses mean to a protestant? No where in protestant theology does it allow for priests to forgive sins or apply the sacrament for the sick.

Time, it does not exist, in actuality. It is just the effect of existence upon matter. God is spiritual, and incorporreal, and by creating matter he created our concept of time.

Ok that's across now. God, is not subject to time. God is outside of linear human thinking and sees all time the same, just as he sees you now as he saw Adam in the Garden.

To deny election is in a way to deny God's supremacy over the universe. Because God is outside of time, and matter, he does not percieve it as we do.

God knows now who will make the choice to be saved, he knew it from eternity. He knew in 1298 ad that I would accept Christ at 18. And he knew in 1298 ad that my name would be in the Lamb's Book of Life. So because God knows and has written, or said what he knows, that does not negate freewill.