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.
the question is why don't you? do you not own a bible? none of these things are hidden or abscure, there laid out in simple to read text, you can either follow what it says or do what you have been doing since error crept in (we were also told this would happen too)It is you who know the will of God?
By saying the Bible only has truth that we are to follow than you are setting yourself up as God's spokesman, something that never happened in Scripture and historical Christianity. We can see there were leaders and no one until the 1500's went solely by something that came out of TraditionIt has to do with the principles used to determine what the bible is. When Moses prepared the Jews for a meeting with God, they said being in his presence was too terrifying and they asked for a spokesman, or in this case Moses. God agreed to use prophets, and he gave the people criteria for recognizing an accredited prophets. Their writings were stored in the temple. People who said they spoke for God, but who could not pass the test God gave, were to be stoned to death. God said the people only had to listen to an accredited prophet.
I've already answered the part on how the truth of the bible is determined. According to the theory of denominationalism, some of the bible is entirely clear, just using the principles of language, logic, historical circumstance, etc. Core doctrine, on which all Protestants agree, is based on what is clear. However, peripheral matters are not as clear and are subject to debate until agreement is reached.
However, I reject absolutely that we can arbitrarily pick someone to set out what is truth because otherwise there could be a lack of institutional unity. It's ridiculous. The truth is authority, not people, which is best represented by the bible, and when the words are not entirely clear on peripheral matters, it is best to go through a process of debate to discern who is correct.
PS -- by the way, Protestants do not advocate stoning those Catholics to death who act as God's spokesman in a way that does not meet the test of an accredited prophet in upholding Holy Tradition. Stoning people to death is not part of the New Covenant under Christ. However, when those people meet Christ in judgment, it does seem there is going to be a problem for them.
By saying the Bible only has truth that we are to follow than you are setting yourself up as God's spokesman, something that never happened in Scripture and historical Christianity. We can see there were leaders and no one until the 1500's went solely by something that came out of Tradition
By saying the Bible only has truth that we are to follow than you are setting yourself up as God's spokesman
something that never happened in Scripture and historical Christianity. We can see there were leaders and no one until the 1500's went solely by something that came out of Tradition
Run out of valium today, did you?Oh! Boy! were not for Luther, we would not have had the Council of Trent, the Vatican I and II and all the Synods of Bishops, the Encyclica of the Popes and all the Orders founded since then (Jesuits and the like) !!! It seemed that we needed Luther for Conversion !!! It seems Luther is the center of the History !!! We should have a before-Luther and after-Luther !!!
The sarcasm-fu is strong with this one.
Well, one thing I really like about Protestantism is the separation of powers in church government. Executive office (or Pastor), legislative body (or board of elders), congregation (or Priesthood of all believers). Protestants say the Adamic nature can overtake a Christian at any time, especially those in government, but it is the job of the other branches to rein in the abuses.
The problem with Holy Tradition (besides the theory that it lends itself to abuse by those in authority), is that it is not truth. Thus, the Reformation is a great success as it moves toward the truth. Holy Tradition is not based on the bible. Its initial form is identical to what was considered divine about the Roman Empire -- the RCC just incorporated that into Christianity. Straying from truth always leads to abuse.
At the start of the Reformation, some Protestants practiced some of the same abuse the Catholics did, but others upheld the theory of denominationalism, which won out, and which eliminated a huge amount of abuse.
One very good thing about the Reformation -- in World War II, Hitler fully intended to take over the Vatican and kill the Pope. If the Nazis had won the war, the Vatican would be an SS headquarters today. However, the significant difference in the war was the armies and money from English speaking thoroughly Protestant (at that time) societies. We made the Russian front possible with finances, and we set up a second front on the West. It was the Protestants that saved the RCC. Hmm... but should we consider that a success???
Just a simple question: if Protestants do not have Tradition, why are there different "dogmas" in different Protestant churches?
The RCC direction is divine: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not stand against it".
...So you want us to rely upon Tradition to prove Scripture??? You should know by now that we are guided by the word of God instead?You like to quote the Bible, where is in the Bible your structure from day zero to Luther?
Different understandings of Scripture.
Where in that verse do you find the Roman Catholic Church or even the city of Rome mentioned?
...So you want us to rely upon Tradition to prove Scripture??? You should know by now that we are guided by the word of God instead?
Different Traditions on Scripture. If you are a Lutheran and you defend something that Lutherans consider essential or fundamental to Lutheran Tradition, he is not considered Lutheran.Different understandings of Scripture.
Where in that verse do you find the Roman Catholic Church or even the city of Rome mentioned?
So you want us to rely upon Tradition to prove Scripture???
Then, if the verses are ONE, why are there 30 thousand interpretations? Either are all wrong or they are all of them right and we must know: "how come?"You should know by now that we are guided by the word of God instead?
Today it's February 6, 495 A.L.
Run out of valium today, did you?
Run out of valium today, did you?
the question is why don't you? do you not own a bible? none of these things are hidden or abscure, there laid out in simple to read text, you can either follow what it says or do what you have been doing since error crept in (we were also told this would happen too)
Different Traditions on Scripture.
In that verse, it is mentioned the Church which is based on Peter, the first Leader of the Church, who had 2000 years of Leaders who succeeded to Him.
I follow the Church which has 1 billion people, and its leader, the Pope. These you call wrong people....
Just a simple question: if Protestants do not have Tradition, why are there different "dogmas" in different Protestant churches? What is the set of dogmas in each Church but Tradition in Protestantism, better, Tradition in Each Denomination. If Each Denomination did not have His own Tradition (please do not distinguish it from traditions, for I can do the same with the Catholic church), they would not distinguish from each other!
I follow the Church which has 1 billion people, and its leader, the Pope. These you call wrong people....
The Eastern Orthodox would beg to differ with you. And the Oriental Orthodox would beg to differ with both.
It has to do with the principles used to determine what the bible is. When Moses prepared the Jews for a meeting with God, they said being in his presence was too terrifying and they asked for a spokesman, or in this case Moses. God agreed to use prophets, and he gave the people criteria for recognizing an accredited prophets. Their writings were stored in the temple. People who said they spoke for God, but who could not pass the test God gave, were to be stoned to death. God said the people only had to listen to an accredited prophet.
I've already answered the part on how the truth of the bible is determined. According to the theory of denominationalism, some of the bible is entirely clear, just using the principles of language, logic, historical circumstance, etc. Core doctrine, on which all Protestants agree, is based on what is clear. However, peripheral matters are not as clear and are subject to debate until agreement is reached.
However, I reject absolutely that we can arbitrarily pick someone to set out what is truth because otherwise there could be a lack of institutional unity. It's ridiculous. The truth is authority, not people, which is best represented by the bible, and when the words are not entirely clear on peripheral matters, it is best to go through a process of debate to discern who is correct.
PS -- by the way, Protestants do not advocate stoning those Catholics to death who act as God's spokesman in a way that does not meet the test of an accredited prophet in upholding Holy Tradition. Stoning people to death is not part of the New Covenant under Christ. However, when those people meet Christ in judgment, it does seem there is going to be a problem for them.
They're not Traditions in any sense, no matter how often you say it.
As I said, no mention of Rome or Roman Catholic Church. Your imagination is not serving you well. And BTW, where do you think the church was from about 1484 B.L. until Peter got to Rome almost a decade later. Do you think that there wasn't any church of Christ for that time?
They're not Traditions in any sense, no matter how often you say it.
I told in the quote: Where was Peter, there was the Church.And BTW, where do you think the church was from about 1484 B.L. until Peter got to Rome almost a decade later.
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?