a question for "Bible Only" churches

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is hard to respond to so many points. I will certainly try. There is a reality though. Long before there were Protestants, there were different canons in place. I cannot historically ignore that. We all agree on that.
I also cannot ignore that they had several different councils. These councils from what I have read were local in nature and never set the canon for the entire church. If they did, it did not work. Remember, this is before Protestants for the most part, although the date of some groups are open but it will distract.
So I see all of these different groups who recognize different canons and yet…I am supposed to think that the Reformers were bound to something that apparently did not bind the groups that preceded them?
Since I have become a Christian, I have been trying to understand infallible tradition. But I do not really think that is the case. Catholicism holds to an infallible church. That is the bottom line. But I evaluate that against scripture and what Christ says with the rest of the Bible that talks about the church. The earliest churches that we know quite a bit about occur in Revelation. They had serious doctrinal and behavioral errors or actions. You see, that is one of the problems. How does Catholicism claim infallibility only in the realm of teaching and not actions? Its a distinction based upon what?
I will try not to spam the thread with too many ideas at once.
If there is a very specific question you would like me to answer, please ask.

Are you trying to say the Protestant’s choice of canons has bound the groups together? How come there are thousands of different denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines?

You evaluate Catholic Church doctrines against your interpretation of scriptures? Even though the Bible clearly shows an appointed authority over the Church and warns about unlearned, unstable and errors of the unwise in reference to understanding the scriptures.

In Revelations, did Christ abandon the Churches, or did He send them corrections in the book of Revelations?

When Peter received the keys, and he did, and the authority to bind and loose, that was given to his office. In the Apostolic succession, that office retained those authorities.

Now, there were many points listed and you’ve chosen not to respond to many. How about the fact that you consider the Bible that came from the Catholic Church to be the ‘final authority’? What gives anyone from the 1500s or later more insight into scriptures than those who held them for 1500 years? Why is it Protestants can trust the scriptures from the Catholic Church, but not the Church itself? Protestants consider the Bible to be ‘infallible’, but it came from the Catholic Church. Did God really leave 1500 years of generations without the truth, as it is believed to be by Protestants?

 

[jmcrae]

Okay. I do understand your points but obviously I disagree with the premise that it is not important.

Right. My point is, if you think it’s important, then you need to know what it is, and you need to be able to trust the people who are telling you what it is (Bishops and Pope of the Catholic Church).

If you trust them on this, then why not on other things?

If you don’t trust them on this, then on what basis do you know what constitutes the Bible? Who is your trusted authority?

I think it very important. I would suggest that the process concerning or recognizing the canon is much more clear than deciding which items in Sacred Tradition should be considered infallible. IMO

Both of them have the same source. The Sacred Tradition was transmitted through the exact same group of individuals who gave us the canon of the New Testament. If they were wrong about nearly everything else, then how on earth can you believe they were correct about the canon of the Scriptures? Did they just get lucky, and if they did, what independent verification do you have that they did, indeed, get lucky in that one instance, while at the same time being completely wrong on everything else?

 

[Rightlydivide]

jmcrae;6460816]Right. But nobody was saying “Bible Alone.” Everyone was following the testimony of the Apostles; they weren’t saying, “We find all the Doctrine we need in the Bible.” So if they were missing a few books, or including a few “extra” books, it was not an issue, since the Deposit of the Faith was not thought to be confined to the Bible.
Right, which is why Pope Innocent I did that, with regard to the New Testament, in 405 AD, after considering the findings of those local Councils. You are right that there were a number of different Old Testament canons floating around, right up until the Council of Trent.
The earliest form of Protestantism is Lutheranism, which was established in 1524.
It was the Reformers who were saying “Bible Alone,” and to heck with the testimony of the Apostles.
If you say “Bible Alone” you do not then get to go ahead and invent your own Bible - otherwise, you are guilty of creating your own theology, instead of receiving it from the ancestors in faith.

I do not think that they did invent their own Bible. The complexities around the Deuterocanonical books during this era can be boiled down to a central belief that the Reformers hold that the books should not have been included. Why they held this is because primarily because the canon was not closed in their estimation.
The groups like the Waldensians and the Hussites come before. Luther gets more attention.
There exists different canons after Trent as well. It may have closed it for the Catholic Church but not every branch of Christianity.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Are you trying to say the Protestant’s choice of canons has bound the groups together? How come there are thousands of different denominations, with slight to great differences in doctrines?
You evaluate Catholic Church doctrines against your interpretation of scriptures? Even though the Bible clearly shows an appointed authority over the Church and warns about unlearned, unstable and errors of the unwise in reference to understanding the scriptures.
In Revelations, did Christ abandon the Churches, or did He send them corrections in the book of Revelations?
When Peter received the keys, and he did, and the authority to bind and loose, that was given to his office. In the Apostolic succession, that office retained those authorities.
Now, there were many points listed and you’ve chosen not to respond to many. How about the fact that you consider the Bible that came from the Catholic Church to be the ‘final authority’? What gives anyone from the 1500s or later more insight into scriptures than those who held them for 1500 years? Why is it Protestants can trust the scriptures from the Catholic Church, but not the Church itself? Protestants consider the Bible to be ‘infallible’, but it came from the Catholic Church. Did God really leave 1500 years of generations without the truth, as it is believed to be by Protestants?

Groups disagreeing does not invalidate bibical truth. If it could invalidate Truth in the case of Protestants, there is nothing intrinsically different about the premise that would not do so for other infallible Truths. Maybe you are not stating that but it certainly needs to be clarified and logically consistent.
Peter’s office per scripture is elder. The churches in Revelation were in error and nothing indicates that churches did not continue in errors. Of course there were corrections to errors, the line of reasoning supports me not you. You keep mentioning 1500 years. I completely disagree. Doctrines that seperate us are more recent than that. There were also individuals and groups who contested these doctrines prior to 1500 years. It is also helpful to rememeber that certain groups considered heretical, like remnents of the Nestorians, find themselves 1900 years later with your Pope agreeing that the problems were largely semantical!
We have listed before, with you I believe, names of individuals killed that disagreed with Catholic doctrine. This 1500 years also ignores the reality that differences over the canon, purgatory, indulgences, the role of the Papacy were in full force prior to this.

 

[jmcrae]

I do not think that they did invent their own Bible. The complexities around the Deuterocanonical books during this era can be boiled down to a central belief that the Reformers hold that the books should not have been included. Why they held this is because primarily because the canon was not closed in their estimation.

It wasn’t, but the general usage of the Church at the time was to include them in the Liturgy.

The groups like the Waldensians and the Hussites come before.

They were not Protestant in any sense that would be recognizable today. There is a reason that both of those religions died out in a single generation, that had nothing to do with “oppression” from the Catholic Church - their teachings were simply physically impossible to live by. Those who actually followed the strict fasts of the Waldensians starved to death; the rest reconverted to the Catholic faith, realizing that it was not so bad, after all. The Hussians forbade sex even to married people, thus shutting off any possibility of having people born into their religion.

Luther gets more attention.

Luther created a doable system of religion that could be transmitted to the next generation.

There exists different canons after Trent as well.

Right, but most of the people following those canons aren’t saying “Bible, Alone” - and apart from a very few doctrinal and disciplinary issues, they believe and do the same things that Catholics believe and do.

 

[jmcrae]

It is also helpful to rememeber that certain groups considered heretical, like remnents of the Nestorians, find themselves 1900 years later with your Pope agreeing that the problems were largely semantical!

What “remnants of the Nestorians” exist today, and in what possible way is the Nestorian belief that Jesus was two different people occupying the same body a “semantic difference” from the understanding of the Catholic Church that Jesus was one person with two natures - a Divine nature, and a human nature?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Right. My point is, if you think it’s important, then you need to know what it is, and you need to be able to trust the people who are telling you what it is (Bishops and Pope of the Catholic Church).

If you trust them on this, then why not on other things?

If you don’t trust them on this, then on what basis do you know what constitutes the Bible? Who is your trusted authority?

Both of them have the same source. The Sacred Tradition was transmitted through the exact same group of individuals who gave us the canon of the New Testament. If they were wrong about nearly everything else, then how on earth can you believe they were correct about the canon of the Scriptures? Did they just get lucky, and if they did, what independent verification do you have that they did, indeed, get lucky in that one instance, while at the same time being completely wrong on everything else?

How carefully did you read the Apostolic Fathers? Not meant as an accusatory but more rhetorical. Did they believe in the Assumption of Mary? Did they venerate images? Did Eusebius write about how no images were found in churches? Did they choose their own leaders? Lets be fair here. The doctrines I believe are also found in the Apostolic writings. As it advances to the Ante-Nicene writings a little later, starting around 175 AD lets say, what I believe and what you believe starts to really shape up. Please understand a crucial distinction, the canon is not dependent on man. Men DO recognize different truths but that does not make their truth…Truth.
I do not think you can historically prove the distinctions that exist between us prior to around 200 AD. There is only ONE that I can think of and I will readily admit…I am sure it will be brought up. However, documents like the Didache support a meal instead of a religious ceremony and local choosing of bishops by individual churches and baptism by full immersion UNLESS it was not available.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not think that they did invent their own Bible. The complexities around the Deuterocanonical books during this era can be boiled down to a central belief that the Reformers hold that the books should not have been included. Why they held this is because primarily because the canon was not closed in their estimation.
The groups like the Waldensians and the Hussites come before. Luther gets more attention.
There exists different canons after Trent as well. It may have closed it for the Catholic Church but not every branch of Christianity.

What are the differences of the Bible once you take away the Deuterocanonicals? They are the same as the Catholics use.

Let’s throw in some more groups. That might just justify starting another one.

If you really believed there was validation in the Hussites or Waldensians, you would be a member of those. You are only using them to try and show disagreement with the Catholic Church, which it appears one might be able to justify another Church with ‘newer’ doctrines.

Hussites

A religious sect which arose in Southern Bohemia in the early 15th century; the followers of Hus; also known as Wycliffites, as they professed the teaching of Wyclif and as Utraquists, as their distinctive dogma was Utraquism, i.e., the necessity of receiving Communion under both species. The followers of Hus, venerating him as a holy martyr of the old religion rather than as a founder of a new one, objected to the appellation “Hussites,” which implied separation from the Universal Church, for they believed their creed to be truly Catholic; but during the Hussite Wars the name became commonly applied both to the original followers of Hus and to the subsequent smaller sects into which they divided. The dogma of Utraquism, introduced by Jacobellis von Mies, was never preached by Hus, who first thought it “wise not to introduce such an innovation without the approbation of the Church.” Later, however, he maintained that the chalice should be given to the laity if Christ and the Apostle Paul were to be obeyed. The Council of Constance, realizing the danger of the heresy, ordered its extirpation by the civil and ecclesiastical authorities of Bohemia, but the Bohemian and Moravian nobles considered the “unjust” martyrdom of Hus, and the assertion that a heresy existed in Bohemia, insults to their country, and therefore banded together in an offensive and defensive league. Dissensions soon arose among the Hussites; the Taborites, so called because they met at “Mount Tabor,” completely set aside the authority of the Church and admitted no other rule than the Bible; the Calixtines only demanded Communion under both species for the laity, and free preaching of the Gospel; they were called Calixtines because of the chalice which they displayed on their flag, weapons, clothes, etc. Under the leadership of Ziska of Troznow, however, the two factions successfully resisted both the imperial armies and the papal crusaders sent to subdue them. Civil war and the destructive forces of the Hussites ravaged Bohemia for over fifteen years, but finally peace was obtained by the Compactata of Basle, 1433, which permitted Communion under both forms to those who had reached the age of discretion and were in the state of grace, under these conditions: that the Hussites confess that the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ was contained whole and entire both under the form of bread and under that of wine, and that they retract the statement that communion under both forms is necessary for salvation. Though the Compactata pleased the moderate Utraquists, the Calixtines, it found little favor with the Taborites (also, since the death of Ziska in 1424, called “Orphans”), but the Taborites were nearly exterminated at the Battle of Lippau, 1424, and the Compactata was finally accepted at the Diet of Iglau, 1436. Various troubles with Rokyzana, a leader of the Calixtines, eventually led to the nullification of the Compactata by Pius II, and his refusal to recognize the Utraquist rite, and other religious and civil wars followed, until in 1485 both parties were granted equal rights and liberty by King Wladislaw. By degrees the Utraquists conformed to the Roman rites so as to be hardly distinguishable from them, except through the chalice for the laity.

And you’re right about the canon not closing other Churches, or faiths, that’s why the Mormons consider the Book of Mormon as scriptures.

Did the Protestant choice of canons bring all the groups together? It appears it made many more divisions, in my honest opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Nestorianism

Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople (5th century), while combating the Arians, came to accept the view that in Christ the two natures stand for two personalities which are united in one moral person. This doctrine had previously been prevalent in the School of Antioch where it was held by Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia of whom Nestorius was the disciple. Like his master, Nestorius refused to admit that Mary was the Mother of God, but claimed she was only the mother of Christ. He was condemned by the aecumenical councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451). Many of his followers persistently adhered to their beliefs and formed a powerful religious body, part of which has survived to our own day.

Are your beliefs in align with Nestorius?

 

[Rightlydivide]

What “remnants of the Nestorians” exist today, and in what possible way is the Nestorian belief that Jesus was two different people occupying the same body a “semantic difference” from the understanding of the Catholic Church that Jesus was one person with two natures - a Divine nature, and a human nature?

In the decades since the Second Vatican Council, several patriarchs of the Assyrian Church of the East have met with the respective popes as teams of theologicans from both churches have labored to bridge the theological gaps of division. These efforts have borne fruit in the Common Christological Declaration between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East signed by Pope John Paul II and the Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV in 1994, whereby the two churches established that they in fact share full doctrinal agreement on the person and nature of the Christ. Through extensive historical and theological research, the theologians of both churches were able to show that differing understanding of the words employed by Nestorius were at the heart of the condemnations of the Council of Ephesus, and the Assyrian Church of the East understood the words of Nestorius in a way that was not within the meaning assumed in that council’s condemnation, making this joint declaration possible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

What are the differences of the Bible once you take away the Deuterocanonicals? They are the same as the Catholics use.
Let’s throw in some more groups. That might just justify starting another one.
If you really believed there was validation in the Hussites or Waldensians, you would be a member of those. You are only using them to try and show disagreement with the Catholic Church, which it appears one might be able to justify another Church with ‘newer’ doctrines.
Hussites

And you’re right about the canon not closing other Churches, or faiths, that’s why the Mormons consider the Book of Mormon as scriptures.
Did the Protestant choice of canons bring all the groups together? It appears it made many more divisions, in my honest opinion.

I do not feel like any group has to justify anything to the Catholic Church. That is presumptious to say the least. It is also kind of hard to be a member of the Hussites…your church executed the leader and it had a hard time really taking off after that…
Once again, I do not recognize your churches authority. Just because one group is saying they have infallible teachings, does not mean the rest of us agree obviously. So please, for the sake of civil discourse, drop that any Christian has to justify their actions to a church they are not a member of.
Maybe…your church should answer to us! Since we follow the Bible…
See, I did not THINK you would like that…grin…trying to keep it light.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Nestorianism

Are your beliefs in align with Nestorius?

No, not really.
Did you not understand my point in mentioning them?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How carefully did you read the Apostolic Fathers? Not meant as an accusatory but more rhetorical. Did they believe in the Assumption of Mary? Did they venerate images? Did Eusebius write about how no images were found in churches? Did they choose their own leaders? Lets be fair here. The doctrines I believe are also found in the Apostolic writings. As it advances to the Ante-Nicene writings a little later, starting around 175 AD lets say, what I believe and what you believe starts to really shape up. Please understand a crucial distinction, the canon is not dependent on man. Men DO recognize different truths but that does not make their truth…Truth.
I do not think you can historically prove the distinctions that exist between us prior to around 200 AD. There is only ONE that I can think of and I will readily admit…I am sure it will be brought up. However, documents like the Didache support a meal instead of a religious ceremony and local choosing of bishops by individual churches and baptism by full immersion UNLESS it was not available.

Moving on to interpreting all writings for yourself, yet that teaching is taught against in scriptures.

Below sounds like just a meal to you?

Now concerning the Thanksgiving (Eucharist), thus give thanks. First, concerning the cup: We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David Your servant, which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. And concerning the broken bread: We thank You, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You made known to us through Jesus Your Servant; to You be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Your kingdom; for Yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever. But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs.

Why is it you take the Didache to support ‘self appointments’ of clergy, when scriptures explain it more in detail and as fulfilling scritpures?

Therefore, appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, 1 Timothy 3:4 and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers. Despise them not therefore, for they are your honoured ones, together with the prophets and teachers. And reprove one another, not in anger, but in peace, as you have it in the Gospel; Matthew 18:15-17 but to every one that acts amiss against another, let no one speak, nor let him hear anything from you until he repents. But your prayers and alms and all your deeds so do, as you have it in the Gospel of our Lord.

Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

You fail to recognize that instructions written to Churches, were instructions written to those appointed by the Apostles. Paul said several times, he would set things in order when he got there, yet all we have are the letters of corrections and nothing on those things he set in order.

There were no individual Churches as there are denominations today. All received the same teachings. Protestants say those letters were circulated, but there were different Churches. That’s a contradiction. There was one Church in many locations.

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, Matthew 28:19 in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Baptizing by submersion was fine, when towns were dependent on being near water sources. Now the world has grown and Churches are in a lot more locations, but we are to take your interpretation that one form is not acceptable, which it is clearly stated to be accepted.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, not really.
Did you not understand my point in mentioning them?

It seems your point is, they did not agree with Catholics, therefore Catholic teachings cannot be trusted. You take something you don’t agree with to invalidate the one that maintained since the beginning.

 

[Rightlydivide]

It wasn’t, but the general usage of the Church at the time was to include them in the Liturgy.

They were not Protestant in any sense that would be recognizable today. There is a reason that both of those religions died out in a single generation, that had nothing to do with “oppression” from the Catholic Church - their teachings were simply physically impossible to live by. Those who actually followed the strict fasts of the Waldensians starved to death; the rest reconverted to the Catholic faith, realizing that it was not so bad, after all. The Hussians forbade sex even to married people, thus shutting off any possibility of having people born into their religion.

Luther created a doable system of religion that could be transmitted to the next generation.

Right, but most of the people following those canons aren’t saying “Bible, Alone” - and apart from a very few doctrinal and disciplinary issues, they believe and do the same things that Catholics believe and do.

I am not trying to criticize your history and view of their theology…but you do realize that the Waldensians exist even today with a distinct identity albeit combined with Presbyterianism?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not feel like any group has to justify anything to the Catholic Church. That is presumptious to say the least. It is also kind of hard to be a member of the Hussites…your church executed the leader and it had a hard time really taking off after that…
Once again, I do not recognize your churches authority. Just because one group is saying they have infallible teachings, does not mean the rest of us agree obviously. So please, for the sake of civil discourse, drop that any Christian has to justify their actions to a church they are not a member of.
Maybe…your church should answer to us! Since we follow the Bible…
See, I did not THINK you would like that…grin…trying to keep it light.

The problem is, your Church is less than 500 years old, based on someone’s interpretation of scriptures. But your Church does not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church, becaue they have their own infallible interpretation of scriptures. See, it’s quite clear to understand your message.

Bring up Gnostics, Hussites, Nestorius and a lot more, but you disagree with their teachings as well, because a more modern day Church figured it out by interpreting scriptures for themselves, which again is against what the scriptures teach us about understanding scriptures.

 

[Nicea325]

**How carefully did you read the Apostolic Fathers? Not meant as an accusatory but more rhetorical. Did they believe in the Assumption of Mary? Did they venerate images? Did Eusebius write about how no images were found in churches? Did they choose their own leaders? Lets be fair here. **

Very carefully. Simply because a church fathers does not mention or teach about a specific doctrine,does not mean it is false or ‘invented’ as so many non-Catholics tend to believe. Did St.Paul discuss in deep detail or the theology behind the Trinity or the canon? Does it make false? Jerome wanted to follow the 39 Hebrew canon,but guess what? It is not about private judgment but what the whole church.Jerome set aside his own judgment for the decision/authority of the church. Private judgment runs cirlces in the non-Catholic world,the reason why there exist thousands of different churches.

**
The doctrines I believe are also found in the Apostolic writings. **

Such as?

As it advances to the Ante-Nicene writings a little later, starting around 175 AD lets say, what I believe and what you believe starts to really shape up.

Are you refering to doctrinal development? The Trinity,Incarnation,Canon of scripture,the Assumption of Mary,Infallibility,etc.

Please understand a crucial distinction, the canon is not dependent on man.

Not true.It was dependent on man,because it is not a question of WHO (God) guided the bishops in its determination,but HOW God did it. He chose men to decide the canon. Who gaves us deep theological understanding of the Trinity? Ordained men called bishops through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

** Men DO recognize different truths but that does not make their truth…Truth.**

Exactly! Precisely why Jesus left a Church with authority and infallible. It is absurd to believe we have an infallible book called the Bible,but the very church which formulated the canon was fallible. That would bring the entire canon into question and serious issues.

**I do not think you can historically prove the distinctions that exist between us prior to around 200 AD. **

Based on what?

There is only ONE that I can think of and I will readily admit…I am sure it will be brought up. However, documents like the Didache support a meal instead of a religious ceremony and local choosing of bishops by individual churches and baptism by full immersion UNLESS it was not available

The Didache was more a guidebook and it was not said it was ‘the’ official book of the church. As for the meal? Exactly the Lord’s Supper is a sacrificial meal and read what it meant to the early Christians. It was a religious ceremony,not just a routine meal.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Rightlydivide,

Did the Protestant choice of canons bring all groups together?

 

[Rightlydivide]

Moving on to interpreting all writings for yourself, yet that teaching is taught against in scriptures.

Below sounds like just a meal to you?

Why is it you take the Didache to support ‘self appointments’ of clergy, when scriptures explain it more in detail and as fulfilling scritpures?

Act 1:16 Men, brethren, the scripture must needs be fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spoke before by the mouth of David concerning Judas, who was the leader of them that apprehended Jesus:

You fail to recognize that instructions written to Churches, were instructions written to those appointed by the Apostles. Paul said several times, he would set things in order when he got there, yet all we have are the letters of corrections and nothing on those things he set in order.

There were no individual Churches as there are denominations today. All received the same teachings. Protestants say those letters were circulated, but there were different Churches. That’s a contradiction. There was one Church in many locations.

Baptizing by submersion was fine, when towns were dependent on being near water sources. Now the world has grown and Churches are in a lot more locations, but we are to take your interpretation that one form is not acceptable, which it is clearly stated to be accepted.

The Didache does support the view it was a meal. Of course that coincides with Paul as well. Perhaps you should look at the very next verse.
No, the early church choose their own leaders. That is a matter of history. That actually changed around the fourth century. Surely this is not new information to you. The Didache shows the pattern. Paul’s letter to Timothy talks about the personal characteristics bishops that people choose are to have.
Yes, apostles appointed people to churches but not all the churches. Clement’s letter confirms the Didache’s view as well. You see, the earliest writings support our view.
Baptism IS by immersion. It is not “fine” as you state. The text simply does not say that. It is only an option another way if water is not available.

 

[Rightlydivide]

The problem is, your Church is less than 500 years old, based on someone’s interpretation of scriptures. But your Church does not recognize the authority of the Catholic Church, becaue they have their own infallible interpretation of scriptures. See, it’s quite clear to understand your message.

Bring up Gnostics, Hussites, Nestorius and a lot more, but you disagree with their teachings as well, because a more modern day Church figured it out by interpreting scriptures for themselves, which again is against what the scriptures teach us about understanding scriptures.

We do not claim infallibility. You know that. Lets keep it accurate.