SDA

[CMatt25]

Well, there are fanatics in everything/everywhere. Basketball, baseball and so on.

I can’t simply say, “something is true if a person uses scripture” because scripture can be twisted. To know fanaticism, you have to witness it.

to that. I’ve witnessed it even on Catholic forums and in the Church too.

 

[Serving_Him]

Hello Serving Him,

I have scanned the SDA website, but that doesn’t give me the SDA understanding of doctrines/teachings.

I cannot list doctrines/teachings, if I don’t know them.

There are SDA on these forums, who have condemned me and Cathocism, so maybe a good place to start is to share SDA doctrines/teachings that SDA understand to conflict with Catholicism. There seems to be some ambiguity between, what’s written on the website, between SDA and other Christian faiths. Do SDA not consider Catholics as Christians?

I will first say that I have no problem with Catholics. I have had friends who were Catholic. Sadly there are those who are extremest in their views and feel that they can condemn others. With that said I would like to say that it is not a sin to point out the errors of a persons ways.

The conflict with Catholicism is based upon what we all understand as Protestantisms battle with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Adventist Church stands upon the authority of the scriptures and the teachings of the Bible. The clash is between doctrinal systems more than with people. The Adventist Church takes its stand against non scriptural teachings which are instituted in the place of those which were divinely instituted.

As far as condemning Catholics, I do not agree with it any more than that of a Luciferian, Muslim, or Shinto Priest. The Bible teaches that God will have many of His children saved from every fold (religion). God’s strife is with the teaching of error. I do not agree with the Catholic Church’s system of worship or doctrinal teachings though.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Time does not make a difference with authority. But how can one use the Bible for the purpose of making peter the pope yet say the Bible is not the final authority. That is a pretty big gap. Isn’t that backwards. The Book that you use to “establish” your church is not final authority when it comes to the law? You claim that your church gave us the Bible yet, again, it is not final authority?

Not only the Bible, but the catholic encyclopedia says that Jesus is the Word. Based on the the Bible (that you gave us), we know that Jesus is/was the word made flesh. If that is not final authority then what is?

Going backwards? What came first, the Church or the New Testament?

Christ chose and appointed men over His Church. Some of those, directly chosen and appointed, wrote scriptures. Others, chosen and appointed by those Christ chose and appointed, wrote more scriptures.

Why didn’t Jesus write anything, or command anything written? Because He was the word. He did things in order, God’s order.

It takes the scriptures and the Church, not one without the other.

I won’t even get into interpretation, because we will go into circles of who is right.

I’m not throwing the spotlight on catholicism, I’m stating the obvious.

You’re also not providing the scriptures that state the scriptures are the ‘final authority’, or the scriptures teaching us to interpret scriptures for ourselves.

You want to make the Bible the final authority, but you haven’t explained which interpretation of that final authority is correct. There are many interpretations of scriptures. Some say no infant baptism, one must speak in tongues, one must observe the Saturday Sabbath, there is a real presence in the Eucharist, once saved always saved, etc. For each thing listed, there are opposing views. Which one does scriptures tell us is correct?

Now, as for your questions, again, you are not asking about doctrine. I have never met every SDA pastor, so I can’t answer for them. I’m not rejecting questions, I want to talk about doctrine, whether SDA or catholic. You made the thread, you decide.

You said yourself that you wanted to discuss the understandings of doctrines/teachings of SDA’s. You don’t believe me? Go back and read post 1 and 4.

So, again lets discuss doctrine. And like I said, I will discuss with you the doctrines/teachings to the best of my knowledge.

I know very well what I wrote. I have qualified that with I do not know what is, or what isn’t, SDA doctrines, but you want me to list them for discussion???

I can only go by what those representing themselves to be SDA tell me and I’ve explained my first encounter with those professing to be SDA on these forums.

Remember, I also stated I was interested in the understanding of SDA doctrine/teachings and didn’t think you could help unless you believed in those doctrines/teachings.

I am not going to list misconceptions about the SDA doctrines/teachings, as many visitors that visit CAF feel free, or obligated to do in reference to what Catholics believe. I’d prefer to hear it from the ‘horses mouth’ so to speak.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I will first say that I have no problem with Catholics. I have had friends who were Catholic. Sadly there are those who are extremest in their views and feel that they can condemn others. With that said I would like to say that it is not a sin to point out the errors of a persons ways.

The conflict with Catholicism is based upon what we all understand as Protestantisms battle with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The Adventist Church stands upon the authority of the scriptures and the teachings of the Bible. The clash is between doctrinal systems more than with people. The Adventist Church takes its stand against non scriptural teachings which are instituted in the place of those which were divinely instituted.

As far as condemning Catholics, I do not agree with it any more than that of a Luciferian, Muslim, or Shinto Priest. The Bible teaches that God will have many of His children saved from every fold (religion). God’s strife is with the teaching of error. I do not agree with the Catholic Church’s system of worship or doctrinal teachings though.

Ok, we have a starting point. You state that the SDA takes a stand against non scriptural teachings. I say, Catholic teachings are scriptural. I also say, making the scriptures the final authority is not scriptural. Neither is having people interpret scriptures for themselves. I am open to correction if you care to provide the scriptures stating the scriptures are the final authority and that each and every man should interpret scriptures for themselves.

Fair warning, according to my interpretation, arrived at through the tradition of the living Church, I have scriptures to argue the authority of the Church and that we should not be interpreting scriptures for ourselves.

 

[MeekandHumble]

Going backwards? What came first, the Church or the New Testament?

Christ chose and appointed men over His Church. Some of those, directly chosen and appointed, wrote scriptures. Others, chosen and appointed by those Christ chose and appointed, wrote more scriptures.

Why didn’t Jesus write anything, or command anything written? Because He was the word. He did things in order, God’s order.

It takes the scriptures and the Church, not one without the other.

You’re also not providing the scriptures that state the scriptures are the ‘final authority’, or the scriptures teaching us to interpret scriptures for ourselves.

You want to make the Bible the final authority, but you haven’t explained which interpretation of that final authority is correct. There are many interpretations of scriptures. Some say no infant baptism, one must speak in tongues, one must observe the Saturday Sabbath, there is a real presence in the Eucharist, once saved always saved, etc. For each thing listed, there are opposing views. Which one does scriptures tell us is correct?

I know very well what I wrote. I have qualified that with I do not know what is, or what isn’t, SDA doctrines, but you want me to list them for discussion???

I can only go by what those representing themselves to be SDA tell me and I’ve explained my first encounter with those professing to be SDA on these forums.

Remember, I also stated I was interested in the understanding of SDA doctrine/teachings and didn’t think you could help unless you believed in those doctrines/teachings.

I am not going to list misconceptions about the SDA doctrines/teachings, as many visitors that visit CAF feel free, or obligated to do in reference to what Catholics believe. I’d prefer to hear it from the ‘horses mouth’ so to speak.

You are all over the place. One minute you asking about doctrine the next minute you are asking about pastors wearing linen. Two people gave you a link to what SDA’s believe, if you don’t understand it, ask about it. You made the thread, so you state what you don’t understand from the provided link. You don’t have to list misconceptions, it is provided for you.

I have to say this. The church/denomination is not above the Bible in any way. You keep mentioning final authority, why?

I gave you the reason why I say the scriptures are final authority. Jesus is the Word. He is final authority. If the Bible isn’t final authority then what is?

Also, we do not interpret scripture on our own, we let the Bible define itself (for lack of words)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I have to say this. The church/denomination is not above the Bible in any way. You keep mentioning final authority, why?

I gave you the reason why I say the scriptures are final authority. Jesus is the Word. He is final authority. If the Bible isn’t final authority then what is?

The final authority is Christ, the Word, who built a Church, chose and appointed men over that Church, before the New Testament was ‘penned’, by those men He chose and appointed over His Church, and those appointed by those He chose and appointed. The Church and the Bible are the authority on earth. Not one without the other.

Also, we do not interpret scripture on our own, we let the Bible define itself (for lack of words)

Then why does the Bible define itself differently among all the Churches? That is chaos and confusion, neither of which is God.

 

[Serving_Him]

Ok, we have a starting point. You state that the SDA takes a stand against non scriptural teachings. I say, Catholic teachings are scriptural. I also say, making the scriptures the final authority is not scriptural. Neither is having people interpret scriptures for themselves. I am open to correction if you care to provide the scriptures stating the scriptures are the final authority and that each and every man should interpret scriptures for themselves.

Fair warning, according to my interpretation, arrived at through the tradition of the living Church, I have scriptures to argue the authority of the Church and that we should not be interpreting scriptures for ourselves.

There is no scriptural backing for theprivate interpretation of scripture. In fact the Bible disagrees with it.

2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

We all know that scripture is profitable for the edification of ones life.

2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

I’m a little worried that you have the wrong understanding of the Adventist argument on the Bible. We do not teach that one must interpret scripture for them self. This would lead to multitudes of errors and confusion. To follow your own understanding would eventually lead you to radical differences in beliefs such as the Pharisees and Saducees of Christ’s day.

Acts 23:8 “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.”

Scripture is to be understood in the light in which it is given. If one has a question about the nature of one of Christ’s teachings then they should search the Bible for the meaning in the Bible.

Isaiah 28:10 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”

You say that Catholic teachings are scriptural. I agree. Their foundation is, to some extent, scriptural but that does not mean that they are wholly right. If a person were to begin building a house following the proper blue print and then toss the plans aside and finish the house with the plans for a car, what would they have? It would not be a house or a car. A church’s teachings can have the foundation of scripture but that foundation has to built upon properly.

Those in the apostle Paul’s time took the truth and mingled it with other beliefs and this only worked to weaken the faith those who they taught.

2 Timothy 2:16-18 “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”

The Bible gives the context and scriptures…and proper way to perform every service in the church yet they have been warped and changed over the years. Let us for a moment assume that Peter is the individual who the weight of the church was laid upon. He was taught directly by Christ. In his epistles there is no mention of the teachings of the Catholic church. Things such as infant baptism are not taught by any of the apostles or anywhere in scripture. The question would have to be asked then why?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are all over the place. One minute you asking about doctrine the next minute you are asking about pastors wearing linen. Two people gave you a link to what SDA’s believe, if you don’t understand it, ask about it. You made the thread, so you state what you don’t understand from the provided link. You don’t have to list misconceptions, it is provided for you.
/QUOTE]

What a pastor wears, according to God’s commandments, is doctrinal. Does the SDA clergy wear fine linen vestments?

If you believe you can understand everything posted on the SDA website, why aren’t you SDA? I’ve plainly asked about the differences of Churches, even though the SDA website states it accepts other Christian Churches, but it appears to have limitations not fully explained.

It appears, I am not making myself clear, or you cannot understand what I’m saying. I’ve told you, unless you believe what they believe, you cannot give a correct understanding of their doctrines/teachings, yet you keep jumping in there, in what seems to be a defense. Is that only because of the differences between them and the Catholic Church?

 

[MeekandHumble]

There is no scriptural backing for theprivate interpretation of scripture. In fact the Bible disagrees with it.

2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

We all know that scripture is profitable for the edification of ones life.

2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

I’m a little worried that you have the wrong understanding of the Adventist argument on the Bible. We do not teach that one must interpret scripture for them self. This would lead to multitudes of errors and confusion. To follow your own understanding would eventually lead you to radical differences in beliefs such as the Pharisees and Saducees of Christ’s day.

Acts 23:8 “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.”

Scripture is to be understood in the light in which it is given. If one has a question about the nature of one of Christ’s teachings then they should search the Bible for the meaning in the Bible.

Isaiah 28:10 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”

You say that Catholic teachings are scriptural. I agree. Their foundation is, to some extent, scriptural but that does not mean that they are wholly right. If a person were to begin building a house following the proper blue print and then toss the plans aside and finish the house with the plans for a car, what would they have? It would not be a house or a car. A church’s teachings can have the foundation of scripture but that foundation has to built upon properly.

Those in the apostle Paul’s time took the truth and mingled it with other beliefs and this only worked to weaken the faith those who they taught.

2 Timothy 2:16-18 “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”

The Bible gives the context and scriptures…and proper way to perform every service in the church yet they have been warped and changed over the years. Let us for a moment assume that Peter is the individual who the weight of the church was laid upon. He was taught directly by Christ. In his epistles there is no mention of the teachings of the Catholic church. Things such as infant baptism are not taught by any of the apostles or anywhere in scripture. The question would have to be asked then why?

Agreed.

 

[CMatt25]

Prod, I am not SDA, do not hold to some of their beliefs, but my SDA friends consider me part of the body of Christ more than some Catholics here on CAF do.

But you lost me when you kept saying you can’t understand something if you don’t believe it. Why can’t you?

I understand why the NFL ended overtime if the team winning the coin toss kicked a field goal. Because it was up to the other team’s defense to hold them. Doesn’t mean I believed the other team shouldn’t have gotten the ball too though.

Same with faith. If we only try with an open and honest heart, we can understand a lot of things as to why someone might believe something even if we do not. I understood a lot of where in Scripture SDA get their beliefs from even if I might not agree with every interpretation. Take for instance Col 2 and the Sabbath. They don’t believe it speaks of the weekly Sabbath but of other sacrificial ceremonial OT sabbaths and it are those which were shadows of Christ. They will also say Christ rested in the tomb on the 7th Day.

On the state of the dead they speak of Genesis and the person or soul being body + breath. And regarding absent from the body and with the Lord, they say Paul never said in that verse when we will be absent from our old earthly bodies and with the Lord in our new heavenly bodies. SDA teach that 1Thess 4:13-18 tells us of one resurrection for us.

Can you at least understand Prod, even if you do not believe the same or agree with their interpretations?

The SDA site gives you plenty of Scripture. The Discover Bible study for which I posted a link is easy to understand.

We can do this with various faiths, Prod. Lutheran, TEC, UMC, and so forth. If we only open our hearts and minds.

Prod, faith is beliefs and interpretation. Even your faith is based on your interpretation of Peter and the CC and ECFs as you have been led to believe. My guess is SDA get their authority from the same place others tell you they get theirs. As led by the Holy Spirit. You don’t like that answer I know because you don’t understand how the HS can give so many interpretations. I don’t either Prod. But that’s why it’s called faith. Yours mine and ours.

So let us, Prod, as we approach this weekend, rejoice in our unity in Him. God bless you with a most Blessed and Happy Easter weekend and a Blessed Sabbath to our SDA friends.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no scriptural backing for theprivate interpretation of scripture. In fact the Bible disagrees with it.

2 Peter 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

We all know that scripture is profitable for the edification of ones life.

2 Timothy 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

I’m a little worried that you have the wrong understanding of the Adventist argument on the Bible. We do not teach that one must interpret scripture for them self. This would lead to multitudes of errors and confusion. To follow your own understanding would eventually lead you to radical differences in beliefs such as the Pharisees and Saducees of Christ’s day.

Acts 23:8 “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.”

Scripture is to be understood in the light in which it is given. If one has a question about the nature of one of Christ’s teachings then they should search the Bible for the meaning in the Bible.

Isaiah 28:10 “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little:”

You say that Catholic teachings are scriptural. I agree. Their foundation is, to some extent, scriptural but that does not mean that they are wholly right. If a person were to begin building a house following the proper blue print and then toss the plans aside and finish the house with the plans for a car, what would they have? It would not be a house or a car. A church’s teachings can have the foundation of scripture but that foundation has to built upon properly.

Those in the apostle Paul’s time took the truth and mingled it with other beliefs and this only worked to weaken the faith those who they taught.

2 Timothy 2:16-18 “But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”

The Bible gives the context and scriptures…and proper way to perform every service in the church yet they have been warped and changed over the years. Let us for a moment assume that Peter is the individual who the weight of the church was laid upon. He was taught directly by Christ. In his epistles there is no mention of the teachings of the Catholic church. Things such as infant baptism are not taught by any of the apostles or anywhere in scripture. The question would have to be asked then why?

Several questions come to mind. Who is the authority for the SDA to assure they all have the same interpretation?

How does a Church, founded in the late 1800s, determine what is ‘warped’ and what is not?

There is no assuming Peter is the leader of the Church, if the scriptures are read in context.

Where is it written that infant baptism is forbidden?

See how this goes. I asked to discuss SDA doctrines and we’re now discussing teachings of the Catholic Church.

Now, slow your roll and choose one issue and I’ll discuss it with you, even if it’s Catholic.

The word ‘Catholic’ comes from the Greek language and it’s origin is found in scriptures.

The Catholic Church is scriptural.

I say reading scriptures the way SDA has been presenting them makes them the modern day Pharisees. I threw that in to show you, I will not tolerate ad hominem worded statements, inferring ill will against myself, or Catholicism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prod, I am not SDA, do not hold to some of their beliefs, but my SDA friends consider me part of the body of Christ more than some Catholics here on CAF do.

But you lost me when you kept saying you can’t understand something if you don’t believe it. Why can’t you?

I understand why the NFL ended overtime if the team winning the coin toss kicked a field goal. Because it was up to the other team’s defense to hold them. Doesn’t mean I believed the other team shouldn’t have gotten the ball too though.

Same with faith. If we only try with an open and honest heart, we can understand a lot of things as to why someone might believe something even if we do not. I understood a lot of where in Scripture SDA get their beliefs from even if I might not agree with every interpretation. Take for instance Col 2 and the Sabbath. They don’t believe it speaks of the weekly Sabbath but of other sacrificial ceremonial OT sabbaths and it are those which were shadows of Christ. They will also say Christ rested in the tomb on the 7th Day.

On the state of the dead they speak of Genesis and the person or soul being body + breath. And regarding absent from the body and with the Lord, they say Paul never said in that verse when we will be absent from our old earthly bodies and with the Lord in our new heavenly bodies. SDA teach that 1Thess 4:13-18 tells us of one resurrection for us.

Can you at least understand Prod, even if you do not believe the same or agree with their interpretations?

The SDA site gives you plenty of Scripture. The Discover Bible study for which I posted a link is easy to understand.

We can do this with various faiths, Prod. Lutheran, TEC, UMC, and so forth. If we only open our hearts and minds.

Prod, faith is beliefs and interpretation. Even your faith is based on your interpretation of Peter and the CC and ECFs as you have been led to believe. My guess is SDA get their authority from the same place others tell you they get theirs. As led by the Holy Spirit. You don’t like that answer I know because you don’t understand how the HS can give so many interpretations. I don’t either Prod. But that’s why it’s called faith. Yours mine and ours.

So let us, Prod, as we approach this weekend, rejoice in our unity in Him. God bless you with a most Blessed and Happy Easter weekend and a Blessed Sabbath to our SDA friends.

Explain how the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations of the ONE truth?

Scriptures do not give any examples of multiple applications of the ONE faith.

I was enjoying the end of Lent, until some SDA condemned myself and all Catholics from entering heaven. So, rather than start a ‘fight’, I chose to discuss their doctrines in light of scriptures.

As I explained, I choose to follow the Church’s teaching on interpreting scriptures. I read them in light of the tradition of the living Church.

Scriptures plainly give examples of the authority explaining scriptures and causing the people to understand. At the time those scriptures were written there was one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Yes, Catholic means universal, as the Catholic Church is worldwide today. It doesn’t make the Church invalid because of the name chosen. There were not multiple Churches similar to the mulitiple denominations of today. If you wish to challenge Catholicism with those ideas, please feel free to start a thread and send me the link. I’d be more than happy to share my view.

 

[MeekandHumble]

Explain how the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations of the ONE truth?

Scriptures do not give any examples of multiple applications of the ONE faith.

I was enjoying the end of Lent, until some SDA condemned myself and all Catholics from entering heaven. So, rather than start a ‘fight’, I chose to discuss their doctrines in light of scriptures.

As I explained, I choose to follow the Church’s teaching on interpreting scriptures. I read them in light of the tradition of the living Church.

Scriptures plainly give examples of the authority explaining scriptures and causing the people to understand. At the time those scriptures were written there was one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Yes, Catholic means universal, as the Catholic Church is worldwide today. It doesn’t make the Church invalid because of the name chosen. There were not multiple Churches similar to the mulitiple denominations of today. If you wish to challenge Catholicism with those ideas, please feel free to start a thread and send me the link. I’d be more than happy to share my view.

Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

Where does it state ‘written word’?

Here’s a couple of examples, specifically about the written word, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.

Nehemiah 8

**1And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

2And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.

3And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law.

4And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam.

5And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people) and when he opened it, all the people stood up:

6And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the LORD with their faces to the ground.

7Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.**

**2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. **

Now, if Peter warns about being led aside by the error of the unwise, it clearly indicates there is only ONE correct interpretation.

 

[MeekandHumble]

Where does it state ‘written word’?

Here’s a couple of examples, specifically about the written word, one from the Old Testament and one from the New Testament.

Nehemiah 8

Now, if Peter warns about being led aside by the error of the unwise, it clearly indicates there is only ONE correct interpretation.

I never said there was more than one true interpretation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I never said there was more than one true interpretation.

Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

You posted the above verse in response to my request “Explain how the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations of the ONE truth?”

Notably, you did not address the scriptures I provided, that specifically addressed the written word, unlike the unspecified ‘word’ example from the verse you provided. The priests explained the scriptures to the people and caused them to understand, from the Old Testament. Peter warns about being led aside from the errors of the unwise, indicating there was only ONE truth to be received from reading scriptures.

If I misunderstood your intent in posting a single verse, without any explantion, I apologize and suggest your give the intent behind the verses you provide.

 

[MeekandHumble]

Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.

You posted the above verse in response to my request “Explain how the Holy Spirit gives different interpretations of the ONE truth?”

Notably, you did not address the scriptures I provided, that specifically addressed the written word, unlike the unspecified ‘word’ example from the verse you provided. The priests explained the scriptures to the people and caused them to understand, from the Old Testament. Peter warns about being led aside from the errors of the unwise, indicating there was only ONE truth to be received from reading scriptures.

If I misunderstood your intent in posting a single verse, without any explantion, I apologize and suggest your give the intent behind the verses you provide.

So when are you going to talk about doctrine?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So when are you going to talk about doctrine?

When someone who believes and understands those doctrines cares to share them and discuss them.

Still no response to the scriptures teaching other than private interpretations…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I may start another thread, since there are some who seem determined to derail this one.

 

[MeekandHumble]

I may start another thread, since there are some who seem determined to derail this one.

You didn’t list what you wanted to talk about. I asked you to do so. Two people listed the beliefs for you and you never mentioned any of them.

How can you say no one understands the doctrine when you have failed to mention anything. We haven’t talked about doctrine, so please do not tell someone that they don’t understand anything.