Questions for Protestants

[look3467]

Thought of a couple more for the “once-saved-always-saved” types:

How can a guy be sure that he really meant it (when he asked Jesus into his heart) when he falls into sin repeatedly and when he sees others who have made such an act of faith and later abandoned the faith entirely?

What is the criteria that determines whether one’s faith is saving faith at all?

That question, even to the once saved always saved believers is a question mark.

I come from that arena and I can tell you that what we all thought of one individual who proclaimed He was saved died, with a bad rap looming over his life, posing the question, was he really saved?

Well, I can tell you without a doubt that his soul was.

Now, listen, God saves our souls from eternal separation, and it is up to us to save our souls to good works.
If you do bad works though your saved for life, you will pay the consequences.

Read the part where Paul tells the congregation to deliver such a one to the Devil so that the Devil (world) will spank him,but yet his soul is saved?
Read it and get back to me.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[flyersfan1088]

Maybe I will think oh I see the atheists were right and christians and catholics are all nuts and cannot agree

Catholics are Christians

 

[flyersfan1088]

If we are all fallible individuals, then it seems to me that we can eliminate the “middle man” and just appeal to the authority of God through the bible. In this way, if my fallible judgment has led me into error, at least my error was to trust in what God seems to have said rather than trusting in what Rome seems to have said.

Jesus started a Church. He didn’t write a Bible. The Church is the straighter path.

 

[look3467]

Jesus started a Church. He didn’t write a Bible. The Church is the straighter path.

Trust God and not man.

But, follow your heart, and if you are doing a good work in the Catholic Church, remain there, for God is in the hearts of many regardless of what church affiliation they are in, nick.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[flyersfan1088]

Trust God and not man.

Peace>>>AJ

I do trust God, that is why I remain in the Church he founded. By removing myself from that Church, I would be telling Him that my way is better than His.

 

[Pixie_Dust]

I do trust God, that is why I remain in the Church he founded. By removing myself from that Church, I would be telling Him that my way is better than His.

It was when I put my trust totally in God and not in my own understanding that I was led, pushed, shoved, etc… into the Catholic Church.

 

[look3467]

I do trust God, that is why I remain in the Church he founded. By removing myself from that Church, I would be telling Him that my way is better than His.

I see no problem with that. There is where you can practice your love for God with all your heart.
Each one of us can do that too, but not necessarily, the same way you do.

That’s what is beautiful about the whole thing, that though different, we can still worship God in our own way and be to wards each other as brothers and sisters.

peace>>>AJ

 

[look3467]

It was when I put my trust totally in God and not in my own understanding that I was led, pushed, shoved, etc… into the Catholic Church.

I sought after a deeper meaning of Gods word and He was gracious enough to give me what I needed.

I am a believer in Jesus the Christ, and see all as my brothers and sisters in God.

He left me two commandments, and told me that if I would honor those two, He would be happy with me.

The rest of it, is all a discourse on how to get along with each others differences in a loving way.

But such as the nature of man is, we strive one with another.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Ziggamafu]

I see no problem with that. There is where you can practice your love for God with all your heart.
Each one of us can do that too, but not necessarily, the same way you do.

That’s what is beautiful about the whole thing, that though different, we can still worship God in our own way and be to wards each other as brothers and sisters.

peace>>>AJ

To me, that would imply that truth does not matter to God. But God is Truth. Therefore, the more truth we accept and the more falsehood we reject, the better our faculties will be to deepen our relationship with God.

Which do you want? Partial communion or full communion?

 

[look3467]

To me, that would imply that truth does not matter to God. But God is Truth. Therefore, the more truth we accept and the more falsehood we reject, the better our faculties will be to deepen our relationship with God.

Which do you want? Partial communion or full communion?

What I gather from the scriptures, God does not want sacrifices, but rather obedience.

Question is, how do you define obedience? Obeying with the flesh or with the heart?

I say with the heart, that being the case, the flesh will have to be made to comply.

But it must first happen in the heart, and mind.

2Co 3:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Not of the letter, as pertaining to the law of works, but of the spirit which giveth thee life.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Sllick]

Hey, what about this question.

If you, as a Protestant, believe that salvation can only be achieved through the bible, then why do you read and interpret the Hebrew version of the bible when it is missing seven books and there is known to be over two hundred mistranslations in the King James version of the bible alone?

Note: The Catholic version of the bible was translated from Greek because Jesus taught and lectured in Greek so we (Catholics) figured that God’s word was in the Greek versions, not the Hebrew ones. Also note that some of the books left out of the Hebrew bible were done so because their was no Hebrew versions of those books at the time. Now though, with the finding of the dead sea scrolls (which are written in Hebrew) there has been found in these scrolls some of the books currently left out of the Hebrew version of the bible.

 

[look3467]

Hey, what about this question.

If you, as a Protestant, believe that salvation can only be achieved through the bible, then why do you read and interpret the Hebrew version of the bible when it is missing seven books and there is known to be over two hundred mistranslations in the King James version of the bible alone?

Note: The Catholic version of the bible was translated from Greek because Jesus taught and lectured in Greek so we (Catholics) figured that God’s word was in the Greek versions, not the Hebrew ones. Also note that some of the books left out of the Hebrew bible were done so because their was no Hebrew versions of those books at the time. Now though, with the finding of the dead sea scrolls (which are written in Hebrew) there has been found in these scrolls some of the books currently left out of the Hebrew version of the bible.>>>Sllick

Correction my friend, salvation is achieved by Christ in my behalf, and the bible tells me so.
Shift through and find the truth.
The truth is untainted and is true throughout the bible.

Even without the bible, mankind was a law unto them selves.

om 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Then Jesus came and revealed the father to us.
As for the other books, if they do not give Jesus the son-ship of God, then they don’t fit.

My opinion.

Peace>>>AJ

 

[Ziggamafu]

From Dear Brother, by Brian Roberts:

**What if Protestant Bibles Remove Portions of God’s Word?
**
Baruch 3:29
Who has gone up to the heavens and taken her,
or brought her down from the clouds?

John 3:13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

• Before John wrote about what he saw, it was prophesied in Baruch. *

1 Maccabees 4:59
Then Judas and his brothers and the entire congregation of Israel decreed that the days of the dedication of the altar should be observed with joy and gladness on the anniversary every year for eight days, from the twenty-fifth day of the month Chislev.

John 10:22
And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
*
The feast day mentioned in John does not have its origin in Exodus or Deuteronomy, but in Maccabees.*

Sirach 35:12
For he is a God of justice,
who knows no favorites.

Romans 2:11
For there is no respect of persons with God.

Wisdom 13:1
For all men were by nature foolish who were in ignorance of God,
and who from the good things seen did not succeed in knowing him who is,
and from studying the works did not discern the artisan;

Romans 1:20
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Wisdom 15:7
For truly the potter, laboriously working the soft earth, molds for our service each several article:
Both the vessels that serve for clean purposes
and their opposites, all alike;
As to what shall be the use of each vessel of either class
the worker in clay is the judge.

Romans 9:21
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?

Wisdom 19:7
The cloud overshadowed their camp;
and out of what had before been water, dry land was seen emerging:
Out of the Red Sea an unimpeded road,
and a grassy plain out of the mighty flood.

1 Cor. 10:1
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;

Baruch 4:7
For you provoked your Maker
with sacrifices to demons, to no-gods

1 Cor. 10:20
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

*These passages of Paul were all influenced by the preceding passages from books that Protestant Bibles reject. In some cases, Paul’s information could only have come from the Deuterocanonicals. *

2 Maccabees 12:43-46
He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection of the dead in view;
for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death.
But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought.
Thus he made atonement for the dead that they might be freed from this sin.

1 Cor. 15:29
Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

The passage from Maccabees illuminates the passage from the letter to Corinth. Only in Catholic theology (namely the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences – see also 1 Corinthians 3:10-15) does 1 Corinthians 15:29 make sense.

Wisdom 18:14-15 (NJB)
When peaceful silence lay over all,
and night had run the half of her swift course,
down from the heavens, from the royal throne, leapt your all-powerful Word
like a pitiless warrior into the heart of a land doomed to destruction.
Carrying your unambiguous command like a sharp sword…

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
*
Not only do we see Paul borrowing a metaphor from Wisdom, but the passage from which he borrowed it contains a wonderful prophecy of Christ’s Nativity.*

Tobit 12:12-15
So you must know that when you and Sarah were at prayer, it was I who offered your supplications before the glory of the Lord and who read them; so too when you were burying the dead.
When you did not hesitate to get up and leave the table to go and bury a dead man, I was sent to test your faith,
and at the same time God sent me to heal you and your daughter-in-law Sarah.
I am Raphael, one of the seven angels who stand ever ready to enter the presence of the glory of the Lord.

Rev. 1:4
John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven spirits which are before his throne

Rev. 8:3-4
And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel’s hand.

I remember running into Revelations 1:4 a long time ago and wondering what “the seven spirits” referred to. I found competing explanations – some even claiming the seven spirits were the Holy Spirit! But Tobit clears that (and the intercession of angels) up quite nicely.

…

Wisdom 2:12-21
“Let us beset the Just One, because he is obnoxious to us; he sets himself against our doings,
Reproaches us for transgressions of the law
and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us,
Because his life is not like other men’s,
and different are his ways.
He judges us debased;
he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the just
and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true;
let us find out what will happen to him.
For if the just one be the Son of God, he will defend him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test
that we may have proof of his gentleness
and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death;
for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”
These were their thoughts, but they erred;
for their wickedness blinded them…

Matthew 27:43
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

The prophecy from Wisdom clearly refers to the Messiah and the Pharisees. In fact, next to Isaiah 53, this is probably the most obvious, striking, and irrefutable prophecy concerning Christ.

 

[Sean_Boyle]

Correction my friend, salvation is achieved by Christ in my behalf, and the bible tells me so.
Shift through and find the truth.
The truth is untainted and is true throughout the bible.

Even without the bible, mankind was a law unto them selves.

om 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

Then Jesus came and revealed the father to us.
As for the other books, if they do not give Jesus the son-ship of God, then they don’t fit.

My opinion.

Peace>>>AJ

When did the bible and the law that you speak of become untainted. Was it at the time of the reformation?

From the time of Christ until the reformation the only form of christian faith was the Catholic Church. Are you say the truth became tainted sometime after Christ’s earthly life by the Catholic Church and that it needed to be fixed?

 

[AAC08]

David Palm has a lot of rhetorical questions on this…but, as for the convenience of everybody, let me answer some of those questions:

Where did Jesus give instructions that the Christian faith should be based exclusively on a book?

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
(Mat 22:29)

Where in the New Testament do the apostles tell future generations that the Christian faith will be based solely on a book?

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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2Ti 3:16-17)

Where in the Bible is God’s Word restricted only to what is written down?

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
(Joh 20:31)

Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)

NONE BECAUSE A TABLE OF CONTENTS IS NOT REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR CHRISTIANS TO DISCERN WHAT IS SCRIPTURE OR NOT

How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(Joh 14:25-26)

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(Isa 8:20)

Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
(2Ti 3:16-17)

If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

ecause you should not deceive yourself into thinking that ALL PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS were really Christians. Especially those who were BAPTIZED as BABIES, and those who were converted under false pretenses. They are not true Christians, even if they are BISHOPS. That means, those who are not true CHRISTIANS are not indwelt by the Spirit of God, are not led by the Spirit of God for they are none of His. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CONFUSED.

Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

**Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,

Luk 1:2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;

Luk 1:3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus,

Luk 1:4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, wherein thou hast been instructed.**

THESE VERSES WERE GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD. This reveals to us why GOD prompted His penmen to write.

 

[Church_Militant]

David Palm has a lot of rhetorical questions on this…but, as for the convenience of everybody, let me answer some of those questions:

How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
(Mat 22:29)This does not address the issue of inspiration, nor does it tell us what books are inspired or how to tell.

You’ll have to do a lot better than that.

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

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 perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.(2Ti 3:16-17)Being profitable for something is not the same as being the sole authority. Here you force an interpretation onto the verse that it does not say.

Most of the books of the New Testament were written to address very specific problems in the early Church, and none of them are a systematic presentation of Christian faith and theology. On what biblical basis do Protestants think that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?

But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.(Joh 20:31)Here again you force something onto the test that it does not say. The question asks where you get “that everything that the apostles taught is captured in the New Testament writings?”, not if the New Testament teaches that we should believe in Him and gain life, which is precisely all that that verse says.

Where in the Bible do we find an inspired and infallible list of books that should belong in the Bible? (e.g., Is the Bible’s Table of Contents inspired?)

NONE BECAUSE A TABLE OF CONTENTS IS NOT REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR CHRISTIANS TO DISCERN WHAT IS SCRIPTURE OR NOTIt’s unnecessary (and rude!) to shout.

The problem here is that you have nothing to base your belief that your particular version of the Canon is inspired. Of course you are correct that a table of contents is not needed for inspiration, but the early church did indeed have to discern what writings were authentically Christian and which were inspired. If they had not, you might still be trying to discern your way through the Gnostic gospels and other apocryphal works.

You are apparently somewhat ignorant of the history of the Word of God and the Christian faith. If you weren’t, you’d know that the church, (yes…the Catholic Church!) discussed this for quite some time and it was finally decided in the councils of Hippo and Carthage and the matter closed in 382 by the then serving Pope.
newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm

newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

How do we know, from the Bible alone, that the individual books of the New Testament are inspired, even when they make no claim to be inspired?

These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (Joh 14:25-26)I’m sorry, but that is a non answer because you have not shown any kind of specifics. If this is your best evidence then it’s very tenuous at best.

Where does the Bible claim to be the sole authority for Christians in matters of faith and morals?

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
(Isa 8:20)But that is an Old Testament quote and the Jews do not agree with your application even today. That does not answer the question that was put to you. Can’t you do any better than that?

(Cont’d)

 

[Church_Militant]

If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

ecause you should not deceive yourself into thinking that ALL PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS were really Christians. Especially those who were BAPTIZED as BABIES, and those who were converted under false pretenses. They are not true Christians, even if they are BISHOPS. That means, those who are not true CHRISTIANS are not indwelt by the Spirit of God, are not led by the Spirit of God for they are none of His. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CONFUSED.See, now here you finally give up and resort to rhetoric instead of making your case from facts.

And just what measure do you use to judge whether a Catholic (or even a Lutheran for that matter) who was infant baptized is “not a true Christian”?

I think you’ll be in for a very great surprise if and when you enter the Kingdom of Heaven and discover (probably to your great dismay) that from the earliest days of the Christian faith infants were baptized and that they were indeed “true Christians” (in God’s eyes) even as much as the Jewish infant circumcised on the 8th day (By God’s own command if you remember) become members of the Jewish faith community at that time.

I have a blog article that covers all this.
The Case For Infant Baptism

So…even if a person displays all the fruits of the Holy Spirit and bears much holy fruit in their Christian life, because they do not agree with your particular denominational teaching of men, you decree that they are not believers at all? :ehh:

I suggest that perhaps you read the link in my blog article about the martyrdom of Polycarp and then come back and tell su that he wasn’t a “true Christian”. Then… if you are blessed enough to find yourself in Heaven later on, you can take it up with him…and then with Our Lord.

Other than the specific command to John to pen the Revelation, where did Jesus tell His apostles to write anything down and compile it into an authoritative book?

**Luk 1:1 Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us, 2 Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word; 3 It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, 4 That thou mightest know the certainty of those things, **wherein thou hast been instructed.

THESE VERSES WERE GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD. This reveals to us why GOD prompted His penmen to write.

I’m sorry, but I don’t see a command from Our Lord to write anything, just St. Luke’s somewhat vague statement that others have chosen to write things, but nowhere at all is there a passage in the New Testament where Jesus tells anyone but St. john (in Revelation) to write anything at all.

Even Sts Luke and Mark, (who are in fact not apostles, but evangelists!) nowhere state that they were told by the Lord to write anything.

Can you do any better than this?

 

[AAC08]

I’m sorry but I believe even if i present the whole gamut of evidence for my own perception of SOLA SCRIPTURA, it will be futile since you have already convinced yourself that it is not the truth. This exchange can’t do anything to change your mind. I think that an effective way for you is once you encounter an abuse of the TRADITIONS and MAGISTERIUM, then you yourself will start seeking .

I have answered the questions the best I know how but to expound on each of them would take the thread to absurd lengths.

I can only issue this statement.

SOLA SCRIPTURA does not mean everything should be in scripture.

It simply means, when there is a DOCTRINE, when there is a PRACTICE, SCRIPTURE should be your absolute guide. When a doctrine or practice clearly opposes scripture, then it should be dropped.

Any practice or doctrine that is promulgated may be promulgated but the church or pastor doing so MUST BE able to defend his doctrine or practice by the SCRIPTURES.

If TRADITION goes against the SCRIPTURES then it must be dropped.

If the sayings of old pastors or even theologians go against the SCRIPTURES, THEN IT must be dropped.

The ONLY valid interpreter of scripture is scripture itself with the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT and no group of human beings may deem themselves as having this sole authority today.

 

[Thing]

If the books of the New Testament are “self-authenticating” through the ministry of the Holy Spirit to each individual, then why was there confusion in the early Church over which books were inspired, with some books being rejected by the majority?

**ecause you should not deceive yourself into thinking that ALL PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO BE CHRISTIANS were really Christians. Especially those who were BAPTIZED as BABIES, and those who were converted under false pretenses. They are not true Christians, even if they are BISHOPS. That means, those who are not true CHRISTIANS are not indwelt by the Spirit of God, are not led by the Spirit of God for they are none of His. THAT’S WHY THEY ARE CONFUSED. **

…The ONLY valid interpreter of scripture is scripture itself with the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT and no group of human beings may deem themselves as having this sole authority today.

I’m confused. Christians wrote, and compiled the Sacred Scriptures into the Latin Vulgate Bible. Many Scriptures were examined. A few were chosen. Many were rejected. All original MSS are lost. Many were lost before 400AD.
But if we do not know and cannot be sure that the Christians, who chose for us the few Scriptures to keep as inspired writings, were actually real Christians and not imposters who were baptised as babies, how can we ever be sure we have any inspired writings at all, and if we do, how can we be sure which ones they are. If, for example, i think a writing must be inspired 'cause it sounds nice, it may just as easily turn out to be a fake, how could I know?

 

[Teflon93]

I’m sorry but I believe even if i present the whole gamut of evidence for my own perception of SOLA SCRIPTURA, it will be futile since you have already convinced yourself that it is not the truth. This exchange can’t do anything to change your mind. I think that an effective way for you is once you encounter an abuse of the TRADITIONS and MAGISTERIUM, then you yourself will start seeking .

I have answered the questions the best I know how but to expound on each of them would take the thread to absurd lengths.

I can only issue this statement.

SOLA SCRIPTURA does not mean everything should be in scripture.

It simply means, when there is a DOCTRINE, when there is a PRACTICE, SCRIPTURE should be your absolute guide. When a doctrine or practice clearly opposes scripture, then it should be dropped.

Any practice or doctrine that is promulgated may be promulgated but the church or pastor doing so MUST BE able to defend his doctrine or practice by the SCRIPTURES.

If TRADITION goes against the SCRIPTURES then it must be dropped.

If the sayings of old pastors or even theologians go against the SCRIPTURES, THEN IT must be dropped.

The ONLY valid interpreter of scripture is scripture itself with the guidance of the HOLY SPIRIT and no group of human beings may deem themselves as having this sole authority today.

Many more people read this thread than just the interlocutors.

If you have evidence, please provide it.

If you do not, it would be dishonest to claim you did but to seek an excuse not to provide it. Since you are not dishonest, and since the question is on-topic in this broad thread, please share, that we may all understand.