Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

Interesting. I always assumed the fulfillment of the law brought something greater, which is forgiveness and grace. I thought it replaced executions, explaining why someone cannot be put to death for dishonoring their father.

In a lot of ways the New Covenant did. “Replace” things like killings for dis honoring someone’s father. Not because it was immoral but because we were called to demonstrate more mercy, more love, more grace.

The Old Testament law did this too. In a culture where if a women was found not to be a virgin she might be killed along with her entire family or tribe, God commanded more mercy. Gods justice is eye for an eye. Punishment should fit the crime. If someone murders they should be killed.

Very merciful compared to surrounding cultures.

So Gods morality allows this. Then and now. Gods morality can’t change. Jesus couldn’t replace what God set in place. They are one and the same God and perfect by nature.

So the only way to truly reconcile these two seemingly opposing views of God between old and new testaments is to acknowledge they are the same morally in their dictates, but we are called to now show greater love and mercy.

Simply said, just because a man deserves death, does not mean he must die.

Uprisings?

Waldenses, Wycliffe, Hus. I think the entire Spanish inquisition was the search for heretics wasn’t it? What would happen if they rejected the CC?

I was looking more for the genocide type killing of “ALL movements that failed to recant”. Is that what happened to the Arians? The Gnostics?

 

[dronald]

So the only way to truly reconcile these two seemingly opposing views of God between old and new testaments is to acknowledge they are the same morally in their dictates, but we are called to now show greater love and mercy.

Simply said, just because a man deserves death, does not mean he must die.

I fully agree with this, and my issue is that the leaders of the Church haven’t always spoken like this.

I was looking more for the genocide type killing of “ALL movements that failed to recant”. Is that what happened to the Arians? The Gnostics?

I was referring more to the dark ages up until the reformation.

 

[Jon_S_1]

I fully agree with this, and my issue is that the leaders of the Church haven’t always spoken like this.

Based on my understanding of that time period, I must disagree. For example in your issue with Leo X, he did not declare Luther to be killed. He acted mercifully and advocated God’s grace, all while the civil authorities, Charles the V and others chomped on the bit to execute the criminals.

Arguably, there was just cause for some cases of heresy, particularly in the instances that caused basically civil war in these communities.

But that point aside.

The point remains that this is not the cut and dry deal breaking issue you’ve made it out to be. Or at least it shouldn’t be.

Further, I think it would be good to talk about real issues of theology, not machinations if the Jack Chicks of the world.

I was referring more to the dark ages up until the reformation.

I know. That’s not ALL of the uprisings.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

rinnie;11381618:

I said a

pillar of truth for sure.

Bad poco. :nope:

Do you know that the ESV is the **only **English translation that reads 1 Timothy 3:15 like that?

Even the NIV and the NLT had the decency to translate correctly.

This alone makes the ESV the worse English translation and completely destroy any respect for this translation committee.

:tsktsk:

 

[PRmerger]

Based on my understanding of that time period, I must disagree. For example in your issue with Leo X, he did not declare Luther to be killed. He acted mercifully and advocated God’s grace, all while the civil authorities, Charles the V and others chomped on the bit to execute the criminals.

'zactly.

Jimmy Akin addresses Ex Surge quite eloquently here:
archive.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0109bt.asp

“If the Church condemned the proposition that it is contrary to the will of the Spirit to put heretics to death, that does not mean that the Church holds that it is the will of the Spirit to do so.”

 

[JonNC]

How about a Protestant source?

Indeed. Swan treats the issue with a different viewpoint. And he isn’t Lutheran.

Jon

 

[pocohombre]

pocohombre;11383569:

Bad poco. :nope:
Do you know that the ESV is the **only **

English translation that reads 1 Timothy 3:15 like that?
Even the NIV and the NLT had the decency to translate correctly.
This alone makes the ESV the worse English translation and completely destroy any respect for this translation committee.
:tsktsk:Timeout. What are you talking about? My original post to PR was quite explicit. I agree and quoted the church being the pillar of truth but that scripture can be a pillar of truth, and that is a term I normally do not apply to scripture, but was applied to me for supposedly being a SS solo scriptura, so I went with it. Scripture is a pillar of sorts (though much more). It is term to designate authority, and certainly the CC says scripture has authority, a pillar of sorts, but not the pillar as found in scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Timeout. What are you talking about? My original post to PR was quite explicit. I agree and quoted the church being the pillar of truth but that scripture can be a pillar of truth, and that is a term I normally do not apply to scripture, but was applied to me for supposedly being a SS solo scriptura, so I went with it. Scripture is a pillar of sorts. It is term to designate authority, and certainly the CC says scripture has authority, a pillar of sorts, but not the pillar in found in scripture.

Where does Scripture say that it is “a” pillar of truth?

 

[pocohombre]

Where does Scripture say that it is “a” pillar of truth?

No where directly, which is why I don’t use it that way. But trinity is not in scripture directly either…Post# 541 used it Fundamentalist will refer to scripture as the foundation and pillar of the truth. He started this misapplication.

 

[PRmerger]

No where directly, which is why I don’t use it that way. But trinity is not in scripture directly either.

Right.

That’s why it’s correct to say that you defer to the Church. Any Christian does.

Whether he admits it or not.

 

[dronald]

Right.

That’s why it’s correct to say that you defer to the Church. Any Christian does.

Whether he admits it or not.

If there’s an argument that’s bad, it’s this one.

The Trinity can be believed without the word “Trinity.”

 

[PRmerger]

If there’s an argument that’s bad, it’s this one.

The Trinity can be believed without the word “Trinity.”

Not if one goes by Scripture alone.

We know of the Trinity because of the Church, not because of Scripture (alone).

That’s why we have so many denominations who read the Bible and deny the Trinity. They claim that they read the Bible from cover to cover and cannot abide by the belief in the Trinity.

One needs the lens of the Church to discern the dogma of the Trinity.

 

[pocohombre]

That’s why it’s correct to say that you defer to the Church. Any Christian does.

No, that is why it is correct to use biblical terms properly, use the light we have been clearly given. I will stop trying to ride on post 541 and have you admit scripture is at least a pillar of truth (an onlooker may say ,what ? is it fables, or encoded babblings that only a magisterium can decipher ?)
But yes, an much more than that. May we all defer to one another also, so let’s not leave out our parents,relatives and friends and brothers and sisters in Christ, and scripture and nature and history and traditions,and the Spirit of God being the gel that puts it all together for us individually and corporately.

 

[dronald]

Not if one goes by Scripture alone.

We know of the Trinity because of the Church, not because of Scripture (alone).

That’s why we have so many denominations who read the Bible and deny the Trinity. They claim that they read the Bible from cover to cover and cannot abide by the belief in the Trinity.

One needs the lens of the Church to discern the dogma of the Trinity.

So the Trinity can’t be found in Scripture, correct?

 

[Jon_S_1]

So the Trinity can’t be found in Scripture, correct?

It can only be found there because the church has declared it as revealed by the church/apostles and is supported by scripture.

Without that teaching authority, other conclusions can easily be found.

There is not one verse that says the Holy Spirit is God explicitly for example.

PR is right in showing the examples of many “scripture alone” churches that deny The Trinity.

 

[dronald]

It can only be found there because the church has declared it as revealed by the church/apostles and is supported by scripture.

Without that teaching authority, other conclusions can easily be found.

There is not one verse that says the Holy Spirit is God explicitly for example.

PR is right in showing the examples of many “scripture alone” churches that deny The Trinity.

My question is clear though… Can the Trinity be found in Scripture? Yes or no question.

 

[SteveVH]

So the Trinity can’t be found in Scripture, correct?

The material doctrine of the Trinity is certainly present in Scripture; that is the raw data without any real interpretation. But the formal doctrine of the Trinity, the definitive teaching of the Church concerning the nature of God is certainly not present. As PR pointed out, there are many who do not even see the material doctrine and therefore deny the Trinity. The Trinity as you understand it was given to you by the Catholic Church. To now go back into Scripture to find support for the dogma and subsequent doctrine is an entirely different exercise than gleaning it from the pages of Scripture absent the teaching of the Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It can only be found there because the church has declared it as revealed by the church/apostles and is supported by scripture.

Without that teaching authority, other conclusions can easily be found.

There is not one verse that says the Holy Spirit is God explicitly for example.

PR is right in showing the examples of many “scripture alone” churches that deny The Trinity.

Right! It is easy now because we already know the answer and what to look for.

 

[Jon_S_1]

My question is clear though… Can the Trinity be found in Scripture? Yes or no question.

The word?..no

The concept…yes

 

[jmcrae]

My question is clear though… Can the Trinity be found in Scripture? Yes or no question.

If you are looking for it, yes - that is, if you already know about the Trinity by the teaching of the Church, then you will easily find it in Scripture.

But if you have never heard of it before, and if it does not occur to you that the Holy Spirit is God, and Jesus is God (which are never explicitly spelled out in Scripture, although they are certainly hinted at) you would miss it completely - as the Unitarians do and the Oneness Pentecostals do.