E
- Status
E
Erich
Guest
Can those who do not have God’s approval be saved? Yes or no?
1 Cor 11:18-19 reads as follows: “*In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval.” *
So, there were divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval. Thus the question about whether or not those who did not have God’s approval could be saved.
Christians who believes in essential vs. non-essential doctrines necessarily also believe that as long as we believe in the “essentials,” it’s okay to disagree on the “non-essentials.” And, as long as we agree on the “essentials,” then we can have union with one another and we’re all saved. Problem is, who gets to decide what is an essential and what is a non-essential doctrine? And, since doctrines come from the Word of God, which part of the Word of God does one actually dare to call “non-essential?”
The notion that we can be in union with those we have doctrinal disagreements with…that there can be true unity among those with doctrinal differences…those with different versions of what is and is not truth…is a false one. 1 Cor 11:18-19 shows that divisions among Christians - the Corinthians being written to by Paul were all members of the Church…they were all Christians - cannot simply be ignored by using a contrived theological system which divides doctrines into essential vs. non-essential. Differences among Christians are serious matters that lead to some being approved by God and some not being approved by God.
Those who believe in Sola Scriptura and salvation by faith alone (Sola Fide) would say that as long as one has faith, it doesn’t matter what else they believe, they’re still saved. So, those who believe in different doctrines, as long as they all have faith, all get saved - all have God’s “approval.” Yet, we see here from 1 Cor 11:18-19, that there were Corinthians who had faith, but they obviously believed and did things that caused division in the congregation, and that these beliefs and/or actions resulted in some of them not receiving God’s approval. So, can you be saved if you do not have God’s approval? It doesn’t make any sense to me that God would say of anyone who was saved that they did not have His approval, would He?
If you answer “Yes” to the question about whether those who do not have God’s approval be saved, then you are basically saying that God’s approval or disapproval doesn’t really mean a thing. I mean, if you can be saved whether God approves of you or not, then why worry about His approval? If you answer “No” to the question about whether those who do not have God’s approval be saved, then you are admitting that doctrinal differences, differences that lead to divisions within Christian congregations, can get someone sent to Hell. Which means that differences in the beliefs of the various Christian faith traditons cannot simply be glossed over because they can, and do, have very serious eternal consequences.
A
awantz
Guest
This is my church’s core beliefs.
The Holy Trinity
We believe in the Holy Trinity consisting of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three persons co-equal and co-eternal, having the same nature and attributes and worthy of precisely the same worship, confidence and obedience (John 14:16; 2 Cor. 13:14; Matt. 3:16, 17; 1 Pet. 1:2).
The Father
We believe in God the Father, omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, eternal and immutable; full of love, justice, goodness, mercy, and truth (Eph. 4:6; Eph. 2:18).
The Son
We believe in God the Son, Jesus Christ our only Savior, full of grace and truth, by whom all things were made, who is the image of God in whom all the fullness of the god-head dwells in bodily form (Col. 1:14-19; John 1:1-3; Acts. 4:12). We believe in His deity (John 1:1); humanity (John 1:14); virgin birth (Matt. 1:18-20); death (John 19:33,34); burial (Matt. 27:57-60); bodily resurrection (Matt. 38:6,7); ascension (Acts 1:9); advocacy (1 John 2:1; Heb. 7:25); exaltation (Heb. 1:3); and coming again (1 Thess. 4:16,17).
The Holy Spirit
We believe in God the Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, whom the Father sent into the world to reprove it of sin, righteousness, and judgment and to testify of Jesus Christ (John 16:7-14); who is the source and power of all acceptable worship and service, the infallible interpreter of the infallible word, who indwells every true believer to guide him in grace and truth (Rom. 8:9; Eph. 1:13,14).
The Scriptures
We believe that the Scriptures both Old and New Testaments, as originally written, are verbally inspired of God without any admixture of error in their substance and that they were written by holy men of God who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit and they are final in authority in all matters of conduct and doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:21).
The Church
We believe in the Church, the bride of Christ, and that it is the body of which Christ is the head, and that all who are united by faith to Christ are members of the same. Having been baptized by one spirit into one body which is Christ’s and having thus become members one of another, it is our solemn and covenant duty to fellowship with one another with a pure and fervent heart (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 1:22,23).
Section 7. The Ordinances
We believe in the holy ordinances of water baptism (Matt. 28:19; Acts 8:36-39) and the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11:23-36). We believe these ordinances are not essential to salvation but should be observed by all true believers.
Satan
We believe in the reality and personality of Satan, the Christian’s adversary, a created being, who was originally the anointed cherub, but who sinned, losing his estate and thus becoming the father of lies and that his destiny is the lake of fire (1 Peter 5:8; Isa. 14:12-15; Rev. 20:10).
Sin and Fall
We believe that man was created in the image of God, after His likeness, that man through his own choice, at the temptation of Satan sinned and thus alienated himself and all the human race from God (Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:1-7; Rom. 3:23; Rom. 5:18). We believe that the wages of sin is death and that man is totally unable to save himself (Rom. 6:23; Titus 3:5).
Salvation
We believe that the Lord Jesus Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures as a representative and substitutionary sacrifice; and that all who believe in Him are justified by His shed blood and that all who receive by faith the Lord Jesus Christ are born again of the Holy Spirit and thereby become the children of God (Titus 3:5,6; John 1:12; John 1:29; Heb. 9:13-15; 1 Peter 1:18,19).
Assurance and Possession
We believe that believers can enjoy the assurance of the possession of salvation (1 John 5:13); security in Christ (John 3:36; John 5:24); the inheritance of incorruptible things (1 Peter 1:4); redemption (Gal. 3:13); justification (Rom. 5:1); propitiation (Rom. 3:25); adoption (Gal. 4:5-7); reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18-19); sanctification (1 Cor. 1:30); and ultimate glorification (Phil. 3:20,21); and that they are partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).
Future Destiny
A. We believe in a literal hell, a place of torment and anguish, prepared for the Devil and his angels, in which those who reject the Son of God as their personal Savior shall be tormented forever and forever (Matt. 25:41; Luke 16:23-26; Rev. 20:10, 13-15).
B. We believe in an eternal heaven where all the redeemed shall live in perfect peace and bliss forever before the face of God (Rev. 21:7; Rev. 22:7).
Resurrection
We believe in the resurrection of the dead. The righteous dead shall be raised at the appearance of Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 20:4-6); but the wicked dead shall not be raised until after the millennium and then face the judgment of the Great White Throne (Rev. 20:11-15
Second Coming
A. We believe in the imminent, personal, pre-millennial return of Christ in the air for His saints, which event is the blessed hope of the Church and at which time the righteous dead shall be raised and the living believers translated, thus the righteous dead and the living saints shall be caught up into the air to be eternally with Christ (1 Thess. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-54).
B. We believe in the personal, pre-millennial return of Christ to the earth with His saints in power and great glory; judging the nations and setting up His Kingdom (Matt. 25:31-24; Rev. 19:8-16).
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: Catholic’s don’t believe something is dogma JUST BECAUSE the pope SAID IT. We only believe it’s dogma when he speaks, for the whole church. Defining a dogma on matters of faith and morals. Or if the bishops in council, speaking for the whole chruch define, a dogma, on faith and morals.
JL: As LDS you will have to believe whatever their prophet says is dogma.
JL: Mortal/venial sin has been answered in another post. the following links are on contraception.
ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/FKBCONTR.HTM
catholic.com/magazine/articles/contraception%E2%80%99s-dark-fruits
The Church uses God’s entire Word wheather by WORD (oral Divine Tradition) or EPISTLE (written Divine Tradition). [2 THES 2:14 Whereunto he called you by **OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and HOLD the TRADITIONS which ye have been TAUGHT, whether BY word, OR our epistle.]
The word Trinity isn’t found in scripture but only in oral Tradition. Baptism by immersion isn’t found in scripture but only in oral Tradition. The books of the bible aren’t found in scripture but only in oral Tradition. Do you not accept at lest one of these doctrines as revealed by God?
1Thes2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye RECEIVED the WORD OF GOD which ye HEARD of US, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
I challenge you to post ONE SCRIPTURE telling us not to hold oral Tradition. Or ONE SCRIPTURE telling us ALL oral Tradition is now in Scripture. You won’t of course because you simply can’t. Yet I can post many scriptures telling us to HOLD TRADITIONS. Do you believe The Holy Spirit really forgot to inspire one of the writers to say don’t follow Oral Traditions not in scripture?
[2THES 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye **withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the TRADITION which he received of US.] It seems Tradition is of such importance that one who does not follow them are to be shunned. Sounds like, [Mt18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, **TELL IT UNTO THE CHURCH: but IF HE NEGLECT TO HEAR THE CHURCH, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.
H
happy_88
Guest
Awantz…Your churches creed seems fine and does fit with the essetials of historic christianity. Where it gets a bit muddy is in the second coming of Jesus. While it is the hope and expectation of the physical second coming of Jesus. Premilennial rapture theories are not part of the essentials. The second coming is, but inserting the rapture into a creed is not a universal creed at all and is dogma. This theory is on very shaky ground. While it is not something we have to seperate over since it does in itself contain the essential hope.
V
Vanny
Guest
Nope.
I belonged to an evangelical church that frowned on dancing and alcohol consumption of any kind.
Where is that in the bible?
Where does it say in the bible that there are only 2 sacrements as My Lutheran church teaches?
I belonged to an evangelical church that frowned on dancing and alcohol consumption of any kind.
Where is that in the bible?
Where does it say in the bible that there are only 2 sacrements as My Lutheran church teaches?
H
happy_88
Guest
I think the poster who claims a passage in corithians is making a common but misleading mistake. Read the book of Corinthians again and identify the audience and the problem being addressed, this is not ammo to use in the situation at hand but it is out of context. It shows that we have a problem reading the bible to what it addresses, and what we want it to say in a certain circumstance.for example it would be hard to read Romans 8 without knowing the customs of Roman family law. In mentioning this I will be willing to bet that most people will not take the time to study this, but would find the need and desire to find info to dispute theology or tradition for arguments sake
I can find verses that condemn tradition, but is this necessary? If you believe a certain way then this wii not be worth the time or effort. Tradition not based on scripture was a leading reason for the jews rejection of the Messiah which resides in Judaism today.Jesus himself could not break this…if it were possibe history would repeat itself…the minset in this topic alone is proof.
Coptic…the verse I wrote could be referencing only the old testament or it may not be. Do you not think that the apostles knew very well that they were creating a new doctrine and were writing inspired on the the result of Christs fulfillment of the new covenant. Without these writings the old testament is incomplete. Do they not inclide the words inspired or authority? The last words of revelation show a warning, which show it was not to be read and thrown out. Most definatly these were inspired words to complete the OT. The evidence is in the huge amount of manuscripts, these were valuable.
I can find verses that condemn tradition, but is this necessary? If you believe a certain way then this wii not be worth the time or effort. Tradition not based on scripture was a leading reason for the jews rejection of the Messiah which resides in Judaism today.Jesus himself could not break this…if it were possibe history would repeat itself…the minset in this topic alone is proof.
Coptic…the verse I wrote could be referencing only the old testament or it may not be. Do you not think that the apostles knew very well that they were creating a new doctrine and were writing inspired on the the result of Christs fulfillment of the new covenant. Without these writings the old testament is incomplete. Do they not inclide the words inspired or authority? The last words of revelation show a warning, which show it was not to be read and thrown out. Most definatly these were inspired words to complete the OT. The evidence is in the huge amount of manuscripts, these were valuable.
E
Erich
Guest
2 Tim. 3:16,17 (“All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”) doesn’t say what you think it says – particularly in light of the two previous verses, 2 Tim. 3:14,15 (“But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”)
“from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures” – Paul wrote his letters to Timothy no later than 67 AD. According to Tradition, Timothy was stoned to death in the year 97, at age 80. So… which Scriptures would Timothy have known “from childhood”? Just the books we know as the Old Testament! So, what you’re really saying is, only the Old Testament is “final in authority in all matters of conduct and doctrine.”
“continue in the things which you have learned…knowing from whom you have learned them” (i.e. oral teaching/tradition) – not “knowing from what book you have read them!”
If Jesus and the Apostles meant for Scripture – including that Scripture which had not been written yet – to be the “final authority in all matters of conduct and doctrine,” then we should expect to find (or at least infer) this teaching. But we know – from the New Testament itself! – that Jesus and the Apostles relied on oral tradition and taught by oral tradition:
Matt. 2:23 - the prophecy “He shall be a Nazarene” is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament.
Code:
Matt 23:2 - Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
John 19:26; 20:2; 21:20,24 - knowing that the "beloved disciple" is John is inferred from Scripture, but is also largely oral tradition.
Acts 20:35 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles for this statement ("it is better to give than to receive") of Jesus. It is not recorded in the Gospels.
1 Cor. 7:10 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the apostles to give the charge of Jesus that a wife should not separate from her husband.
1 Cor. 10:4 - Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.
Eph 5:14 - Paul relies on oral tradition to quote an early Christian hymn - "awake O sleeper rise from the dead and Christ shall give you light."
Heb. 11:37 - the author of Hebrews relies on the oral tradition of the martyrs being sawed in two. This is not recorded in the Old Testament.
Jude 9 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
Jude 14-15 - Jude relies on the oral tradition of Enoch's prophecy which is not recorded in the Old Testament.It doesn’t, but the numbering of sacraments isn’t a particularly big deal, it seems, to the Lutheran reformers. Melanchthon spends a good bit of time on the subject in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession. Here, he actually names 3, as was the case in the earlier confessional writings, using the specific definition,
God’s command (peculiar to the NT, which means essentially instituted by Christ), with a promise of grace. Later came the third mark, that being a physical element, which narrows the definition to Baptism (some would then include Absolution as an extention of Baptism), and the Supper.
I prefer the former numbering of 3, as the institution by Christ of Absolution is a critical means of grace for a Christian.
Of the others, does marriage have a promise of grace? Does annointing? Comfirmation?
I think it can certainly can be argued for the first 2. What about Ordination? Not directly, but the means of grace are made available to me through it.
Are they all in scripture? Yes. Sacraments? depends on definition, but they are all vital to the Godly life.
Jon
E
Erich
Guest
So… you believe that the Scriptures are “final in authority in all matters of conduct and doctrine” AND you believe that water baptism and the Lord’s Supper are not essential to salvation – even though the latter belief contradicts the clear teaching and instruction of the former?
Baptism is salvific, not just symbolic!
Mark 16:16 - Jesus said “He who believes AND is baptized will be saved.” Jesus says believing is not enough. Baptism is also required. This is because baptism is salvific, not just symbolic. The Greek text also does not mandate any specific order for belief and baptism, so the verse proves nothing about a “believer’s baptism.”
John 3:3,5 - unless we are “born again” of water and Spirit in baptism, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 2:38 - Peter commands them to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be actually forgiven of sin, not just to partake of a symbolic ritual.
Acts 9:18 - Paul, even though he was directly chosen by Christ and immediately converted to Christianity, still had to be baptized to be forgiven his sin.
Acts 22:16 - Ananias tells Paul, “arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins,” even though Paul was converted directly by Jesus Christ. This proves that Paul’s acceptance of Jesus as personal Lord and Savior was not enough to be forgiven of his sin and saved. The sacrament of baptism is required.
Titus 3:5-7 – “He saved us by the washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit, which He poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ, so that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs of eternal life.” This is a powerful text which proves that baptism regenerates our souls and is thus salvific. The “washing of regeneration” “saves us.” Regeneration is never symbolic, and the phrase “saved us” refers to salvation. By baptism, we become justified by His grace (interior change) and heirs of eternal life (filial adoption). Because this refers to baptism, the verse is about the beginning of the life in Christ. No righteous deeds done before baptism could save us. Righteous deeds after baptism are necessary for our salvation.
Jesus’ Passion is connected to the Passover sacrifice – where the Lamb must be eaten!
Matt. 26:2; Mark 14:12; Luke 22:7 - Jesus’ passion is clearly identified with the Passover sacrifice (where lambs were slain and eaten).
John 1:29,36; Acts 8:32; 1 Peter 1:19 - Jesus is described as the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. The Lamb must be sacrificed and eaten.
Luke 23:4,14; John 18:38; 19:4,6 - under the Old Covenant, the lambs were examined on Nisan 14 to ensure that they had no blemish. The Gospel writers also emphasize that Jesus the Lamb was examined on Nisan 14 and no fault was found in him. He is the true Passover Lamb which must be eaten.
Heb. 9:14 - Jesus offering Himself “without blemish” refers to the unblemished lamb in Exodus 12:5 which had to be consumed.
Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25 - Jesus is celebrating the Passover seder meal with the apostles which requires them to drink four cups of wine. But Jesus only presents the first three cups. He stops at the Third Cup (called “Cup of Blessing” - that is why Paul in 1 Cor. 10:16 uses the phrase “Cup of Blessing” to refer to the Eucharist – he ties the seder meal to the Eucharistic sacrifice). But Jesus conspicuously tells his apostles that He is omitting the Fourth Cup called the “Cup of Consummation.” The Gospel writers point this critical omission of the seder meal out to us to demonstrate that the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacrifice on the cross are one and the same sacrifice, and the sacrifice would not be completed until Jesus drank the Fourth Cup on the cross.
Matt. 26:30; Mark 14:26 - they sung the great Hallel, which traditionally followed the Third Cup of the seder meal, but did not drink the Fourth Cup of Consummation. The Passover sacrifice had begun, but was not yet finished. It continued in the Garden of Gethsemane and was consummated on the cross.
Matt. 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42; John 18:11 - our Lord acknowledges He has one more cup to drink. This is the Cup of Consummation which he will drink on the cross.
Psalm 116:13 - this passage references this cup of salvation. Jesus will offer this Cup as both Priest and Victim. This is the final cup of the New Testament Passover.
Luke 22:44 - after the Eucharist, Jesus sweats blood in the garden of Gethsemane. This shows that His sacrifice began in the Upper Room and connects the Passion to the seder meal where the lamb must not only be sacrificed, but consumed.
Matt. 27:34; Mark 15:23 - Jesus, in his Passion, refuses to even drink an opiate. The writers point this out to emphasize that the final cup will be drunk on the cross, after the Paschal Lamb’s sacrifice is completed.
John 19:23 - this verse describes the “chiton” garment Jesus wore when He offered Himself on the cross. These were worn by the Old Testament priests to offer sacrifices. See Exodus 28:4; Lev. 16:4.
John 19:29; cf. Matt. 27:48; Mark 15:36; - Jesus is provided wine (the Fourth Cup) on a hyssop branch which was used to sprinkle the lambs’ blood in Exodus 12:22. This ties Jesus’ sacrifice to the Passover lambs which had to be consumed in the seder meal which was ceremonially completed by drinking the Cup of Consummation. Then in John 19:30, Jesus says, “It is consummated.” The sacrifice began in the upper room and was completed on the cross. God’s love for humanity is made manifest.
Matt. 27:45; Mark 15:33; John 19:14 - the Gospel writers confirm Jesus’ death at the sixth hour, just when the Passover lambs were sacrificed. Again, this ties Jesus’ death to the death of the Passover lambs. Like the Old Covenant, in the New Covenant, the Passover Lamb must be eaten.
H
happy_88
Guest
My computer crashed and wasd not able to edit or go on…so this is an extension of the above. If paul was mentionoing only the OT Then his statement raises many many more questions than answers. This undermines his own teachings! Then his own words can be used against him by the OT law. We should have unclean foods and the pork industry should be banned. The sabbath should be observed along with its own observances imncliding the death penalty for working on this day. .All the Jewish customs,rituals and days should be practiced. Sacrifices should continue. Of course Paul said we were free from this…
If the scriptures where not written yet,then why is two of them addressed to timothy, there where other leaders and disciples mentioned by name.
If the scriptures where not written yet,then why is two of them addressed to timothy, there where other leaders and disciples mentioned by name.
E
Erich
Guest
I believe I am “the poster who claims a passage in corithians (sic)” that you are referring to. I did read 1 Corinthians again; the audience is the young Corinthian church which was located in the midst of a large, decadent seaport–a city deeply immersed in pagan idolatry and immorality–and whose members were primarily Gentiles converted by Paul on his second missionary journey. The problem being addressed is that, in Paul’s absence, the church had fallen into serious problems of disunity, sexual immorality, confusion over church discipline and other matters involving worship and holy living.
Paul wrote his uncompromising letter precisely to confront and correct these Christians, answer their questions, and instruct them in several areas. He warned them not to be conformed to the world around them, but rather, to live as godly examples, reflecting Christlikeness in the midst of an immoral society.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, there were, clearly, divisions among the Corinthian congregation. And, these divisions were such that they helped to reveal who had God’s approval. Which means, on the flip side, that there were those among the Corinthian congregation who did not have God’s approval.
So tell me… by what authority do you say that I am “making a common but misleading mistake” and that I am quoting “out of context”? Are you an infallible interpreter of Scripture? I will assume that your answer to this question is, of course, “No.” So do you admit then, since you are fallible, that your interpretation of this particular passage of Scripture could be wrong?
Actually, the best you can hope for in this discussion is, in a sense, a tie. You cannot tell me in an absolute manner that I am wrong. The best you can do is say that I am wrong, “in your opinion.”
By your theology, I have the right, nay, the duty, to read and interpret Scripture for myself to come to my own conclusions about what is true doctrine and what is false doctrine. To come to my own conclusions about what are good morals and what are bad morals. To come to my own conclusions about what are holy practices and what are unholy practices.
So, when I read the Bible and come to a conclusion about a doctrine, and you disagree with my conclusion, the best you can do is say that you disagree with me and that your fallible interpretation of the Bible is better than my fallible interpretation of the Bible…in your opinion.
E
Erich
Guest
Here are some more questions I am willing to bet most people have not taken the time to study/think through:
Did the Apostles teach different doctrines to different people? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles and other leaders of the early Church believe it was okay to have false doctrines within the Church? Yes or no?
Did the Apostles break fellowship with those who were teaching different doctrines than they were teaching? Yes or no?
Did Jesus and the Apostles demand conformity to the doctrines they taught? Yes or no?
Were the Apostles infallible in their teaching on faith and morals? Yes or no?
Can you be “one” with someone who believes in false doctrines? Yes or no?
In your particular denomination, can two walk together if they are not in agreement? Yes or no?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Awanz,
You had me at Church and with the exception of the Ordinances and the Dispensationism you sound Catholic.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Happy,
Which history book are you reading that describes Ordinances in the first 1600 years and Dispensationalism or Premillinialism a la Darby is an invention of the Church of Ireland, a Protestant group.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Happy,
I am just reading, not arguing, if you look at what Paul says…what you learned as a Child was the OT and if Paul is talking to Timothy and as of that writing there was no New Testament Canon agreed on…
The above passage you quoted as validating all of Scripture only validates the OT. How do you know that the NT books you have are Scripture?
What are you talking about in Romans 8 and customs?
Concerning the Inspired words being thrown out…why is there a difference in The Catholic and Protestant Bible. Did someone take them out or did someone add them?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Happy,
You have questions and need answers. How do you know Hebrews was written by Paul and has been part of the Bible for some time. What about Mark? Who wrote that and put that in the Bible for a long time as well. Who numbered the verses? Did you ever wonder about that? What about the table of contents? Who did that?
H
happy_88
Guest
Eric, I hope that I did not offend you. I don’t think that my theology says to interpret the bible anyway anyone wants. Your knowledge of corinthians is bang on, my concern is that I felt that you were usmg this as ammo to anyone who disagrees with you and your church. This has been used against me by another infallable church…the adventists.
My point with pauls words to timothy are that I don’t think we know the entire context of the conversation. As this could be used against him…again this has been pointed out by the adventists. So studying the context is crucial
Obviously the words of Paul do not line up with the OT, he preached agaimst the judaisers
Let’s work together…
My point with pauls words to timothy are that I don’t think we know the entire context of the conversation. As this could be used against him…again this has been pointed out by the adventists. So studying the context is crucial
Obviously the words of Paul do not line up with the OT, he preached agaimst the judaisers
Let’s work together…
- Status