Why I'm discontent with my Protestantism

[Just_a_Christian]

I thought it requires "ZERO interpretation"?

ZERO interpretation regarding doctrine that deals with salvation.... I find it sad that you find anything regarding spiritual matters FUNNY
In Him

 

[Mary Meg]

That is where you are dead wrong. It is not my understanding. When Jesus said whosoever believes and is baptized shall be saved. It says what it says. In order for you or anyone else, for that matter, to make the verse say something other you must use YOUR higher knowledge or something aside from the word. God said what He meant to say, if He didn't then WE ALL are wasting our time.
In Him

Tell me, how do you know what God said in Scripture?

 

[truefiction1]

Yeah, but I'm a girl.

Myrrhbearer and Equal of the Apostles Mary Magdalene

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Tell me, how do you know what God said in Scripture?

All scripture is given by inspiration. That's another one there, if we can't know God's word is exactly what He claims it to be, we are WASTING our time.
In Him

 

[FireDragon76]

Absolutely right. That is starting to sound like Judaism, where ALL of the options are considered and unless shown wrong elsewhere, are accepted as valid. (even if they conflict with each other)

The logic framework of the Bible is vastly different than that of Aristotle.

David Wagschall talks alot about this on the blog, Under the Sun. The Roman world assumed there was only one right way to do things. Diversity was dangerous in their thinking as it obviously conflicted with their philosophical assumptions about the unity of truth and the power of human language (inherited from the Greek rhetorical tradition). Even the Church Fathers were very much influenced by their Greco-Roman culture they lived in.

 

[Mary Meg]

All scripture is given by inspiration. That's another one there, if we can't know God's word is exactly what He claims it to be, we are WASTING our time.
In Him

Yes, but do YOU know? Can you read the original Hebrew and Greek? Or are you depending on somebody else to edit it and translate it for you? An interpretation?

 

[ripple the car]

rock, is clearly the fact that Christ is the son of the Living God. Nothing more, if you wish to interpret it that way you have the right to but you can not bind that on anyone else.
In Him

Yes, I would definitely say that the Papacy is deeply Scriptural. Surely Christ is the Rock as stated elsewhere, but I would say there is a reason Christ essentially named Peter after Himself. In this context, the Rock refered to is Peter. God be with you.

 

[Dave-W]

David Wagschall talks alot about this on the blog, Under the Sun. The Roman world assumed there was only one right way to do things. Diversity was dangerous in their thinking as it obviously conflicted with their philosophical assumptions about the unity of truth and the power of human language (inherited from the Greek rhetorical tradition). Even the Church Fathers were very much influenced by their Greco-Roman culture they lived in.

There is a big difference in world view between the Greko/Roman world and the Jewish world of the Apostles. Greek thought had everything in isolation for analysis. Jewish thought put things together for meaning.

Even the language reflected that. With out context, you did not know what a word even was. No vowels. And Hebrew/Aramaic/Arabic supported multiple meanings. And they were ALL right and true.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Yes, but do YOU know? Can you read the original Hebrew and Greek? Or are you depending on somebody else to edit it and translate it for you? An interpretation?

To be a follower of God you must believe that He is in control, totally. You can not limit Gods power by a lack of faith. He is the OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT and OMNISCIENT ONE.
In Him

 

[ripple the car]

To be a follower of God you must believe that He is in control, totally. You can not limit Gods power by a lack of faith. He is the OMNIPOTENT, OMNIPRESENT and OMNISCIENT ONE.
In Him

This is, in part, what many of us on here would say about trusting and living out what our Churches have always taught, and done.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

Yes, I would definitely say that the Papacy is deeply Scriptural. Surely Christ is the Rock as stated elsewhere, but I would say there is a reason Christ essentially named Peter after Himself. God be with you.

And you could be wrong, Catholicism has many doctrine inconsistent with His word. And by following Catholicism you by default agree with them, especially when you are cognitively aware of them.
In Him

 

[Dave-W]

And you could be wrong, Catholicism has many doctrine inconsistent with His word. And by following Catholicism you by default agree with them, especially when you are cognitively aware of them.

Not just the catholics. The Orthodox and protestants also.

The whole thing went off the rails in the 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt.

 

[Just_a_Christian]

This is, in part, what many of us on here would say about trusting and living out what our Churches have always taught, and done.

That is in scripture, that is not a "tradition". Which by the way I find amazing that Catholicism would boast so greatly about following. Given all the warnings concerning preaching for doctrine the commandments of men and NOT following tradition. The traditions referred to by the apostles, the ones we should follow, are the day of worship, breaking of bread, singing spirituals songs and such
In Him

Not just the catholics. The Orthodox and protestants also.

The whole thing went off the rails in the 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt.

Amen

 

[Concord1968]

Paul made it known the apostasy would occur in 2nd Thessalonians.

Are you claiming that Paul is referring to the Catholics and Orthodox there?

 

[FireDragon76]

Not just the catholics. The Orthodox and protestants also.

The whole thing went off the rails in the 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt.

I don't think it went off the rails but some people don't distinguish what is obviously a contextualized theology of one time period from what is Jesus' actual message, which is about the kingdom of God and God's reconciliation with the world.

 

[Dave-W]

I don't think it went off the rails but some people don't distinguish what is obviously a contextualized theology of one time period from what is Jesus' actual message, which is about the kingdom of God and God's reconciliation with the world.

Yes it did.

Following the revolt, the church leaders completely severed ties with Judaism and purged Jewish interpretation from their teachings. But the apostles were ALL Jews. So christian doctrine became a ship without a rudder or anchor.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes it did.

Following the revolt, the church leaders completely severed ties with Judaism and purged Jewish interpretation from their teachings. But the apostles were ALL Jews. So christian doctrine became a ship without a rudder or anchor.

The severing of ties went both ways. The earliest persecution of followers of Jesus was from other Jews.

 

[Dave-W]

The severing of ties went both ways. The earliest persecution of followers of Jesus was from other Jews.

that is totally beside the point. I do not deny the Jews made grave mistakes. But the Church cut itself off of the cultural understanding of its own scriptures. That was an act of doctrinal suicide.

 

[FireDragon76]

that is totally beside the point. I do not deny the Jews made grave mistakes. But the Church cut itself off of the cultural understanding of its own scriptures. That was an act of doctrinal suicide.

That's rather strong language, what do you mean by that? Are you implying there were no real believers for 1800-1900 years?

 

[Dave-W]

That's rather strong language, what do you mean by that? Are you implying there were no real believers for 1800-1900 years?

Does a "real believer" have to have 100% true doctrine? 90%? 80%?

Of course not. There were lots of real believers that had areas of deception.