A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
Just testing my new sig line
Yeah it worked:thumbsup:
Yeah it worked:thumbsup:
- Status
I
Indyann
Guest
very trueJust testing my new sig line
Yeah it worked:thumbsup:
C
Curious
Guest
I think Jesus would say, perhaps even somewhat sadly,
“Guys…this is NOT what I meant when I prayed that you would be one.”
Denominations backbiting, splitting, gossping, pointing fingers, each thinking secretly, smugly, that theirs is the denomination which has the truth.
Not even close to being one.
:crying: :banghead:
“Guys…this is NOT what I meant when I prayed that you would be one.”
Denominations backbiting, splitting, gossping, pointing fingers, each thinking secretly, smugly, that theirs is the denomination which has the truth.
Not even close to being one.
:crying: :banghead:
F
FrankLawrence
Guest
I address this issue on nearly every thread, but when it all comes down to it, the doctrine of Sola-Scriptura is at the very heart of Christian division. People won’t submit to the Pope, the Successor of Peter, because their own interpretation of Scripture tells them that the Catholic Church is doctrinally wrong on many things, and that if it is not found in Scripture( ie. the Glorious Assumption) then it is neither a true nor important doctrine. If my understanding of Christianity was based strictly on what I could gather from Scripture, and if I was furthermore taught not to trust any source outside of Scripture for understanding doctrine, I’d have many of the same objections to the Catholic Church that many Protestants do.
What I’m saying is, we need to understand where Protestants are coming from, and why accepting the Catholic Church and authority of the Pope can be so difficult for them. In some cases, they believe slander that they heard. In other cases, what seems to them to be a very straightforward, clear, and direct passage of Scripture seems to contradict our beliefs. None of our true beliefs actually contradict Scripture, but without clear authoritative guidance on reading Scripture, it is very easy to see how it may appear that way. St. Peter warns of this problem in 2 Peter 3:16. and 2 Peter 2:2.
The problem lies in source of authority. Protestants are told that they can trust the Bible alone to be the ultimate source of truth, the pillar and bulwark of truth, if you will. Yet, that becomes a paradox in that the Bible gives a different source that title. What? The Bible refers to something other than the Bible as the pillar and bulwark of truth??? Where is that? 1 Timothy 3:15. Read it, if you dare.
What I’m saying is, we need to understand where Protestants are coming from, and why accepting the Catholic Church and authority of the Pope can be so difficult for them. In some cases, they believe slander that they heard. In other cases, what seems to them to be a very straightforward, clear, and direct passage of Scripture seems to contradict our beliefs. None of our true beliefs actually contradict Scripture, but without clear authoritative guidance on reading Scripture, it is very easy to see how it may appear that way. St. Peter warns of this problem in 2 Peter 3:16. and 2 Peter 2:2.
The problem lies in source of authority. Protestants are told that they can trust the Bible alone to be the ultimate source of truth, the pillar and bulwark of truth, if you will. Yet, that becomes a paradox in that the Bible gives a different source that title. What? The Bible refers to something other than the Bible as the pillar and bulwark of truth??? Where is that? 1 Timothy 3:15. Read it, if you dare.
P
Palladio
Guest
I, for one, know where Protestants are coming from, historically: I read the languages necessary to follow sixteenth-century history. I’ve lived in bastions of Protestantism for most of my life now, have close friends who are Protestant, as are a few family members, published on a few Protestant thinkers in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, respect Protestant (or whatever) efforts to uphold Biblical morality and to emulate Christ’s example.
Without time to reply to all of the replies, there is one fallacy I would want to point out:
That believers can be divorced from belief.
I think that Protestants make this mistake because of a climate: they are further and further moving away from dogmatic religion–their own, with its ultimate source in the RCC–to use other means which flatly contradict not only one and another but also the NT in passages impossible to mistake and requiring next to no ‘interpretation.’ This is why the C of E looks more like a bad hollywood movie of the RCC than it does a genuine Christian religion.
What is the nature of that divorce? In essence, claiming there is a a church of believers, no matter the belief.
Yet, a church makes no sense–as the passage from Romans makes clear–apart from belief, as specific and explicit as can be, and that belief resides in doctrine, the word which Paul himself uses here. For the polyglot Paul, adept at Greek and Roman philosophy, to say nothing of Jewish law, doctrine was a great, essential, and delicate thing to be handled with utmost care, as only one church could ever do.
In other words, contrary to one passage (there are plenty of others) obviously a cornerstone for dogmatic and credal religion, self-identifying Protestants claim a church based on belief, unspecified and forever, since the sixteenth century, changing, contradicting, self-contradictary, even to the denial of the divinity of Christ.
I’ve heard all the proviso clauses: as long as you believe in x, you still get to be a Christian. But the x is variable, ad infinitum, but obviously. Nor is there any NT support for that proviso arrangement.
I think Paul was Spirit-filled in his pronouncement, which fits Protestantism about perfectly.
Without time to reply to all of the replies, there is one fallacy I would want to point out:
That believers can be divorced from belief.
I think that Protestants make this mistake because of a climate: they are further and further moving away from dogmatic religion–their own, with its ultimate source in the RCC–to use other means which flatly contradict not only one and another but also the NT in passages impossible to mistake and requiring next to no ‘interpretation.’ This is why the C of E looks more like a bad hollywood movie of the RCC than it does a genuine Christian religion.
What is the nature of that divorce? In essence, claiming there is a a church of believers, no matter the belief.
Yet, a church makes no sense–as the passage from Romans makes clear–apart from belief, as specific and explicit as can be, and that belief resides in doctrine, the word which Paul himself uses here. For the polyglot Paul, adept at Greek and Roman philosophy, to say nothing of Jewish law, doctrine was a great, essential, and delicate thing to be handled with utmost care, as only one church could ever do.
In other words, contrary to one passage (there are plenty of others) obviously a cornerstone for dogmatic and credal religion, self-identifying Protestants claim a church based on belief, unspecified and forever, since the sixteenth century, changing, contradicting, self-contradictary, even to the denial of the divinity of Christ.
I’ve heard all the proviso clauses: as long as you believe in x, you still get to be a Christian. But the x is variable, ad infinitum, but obviously. Nor is there any NT support for that proviso arrangement.
I think Paul was Spirit-filled in his pronouncement, which fits Protestantism about perfectly.
- Status