Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Fre3dombear said:

---

Not one single Protestant here responded to my explanation of paradise and where the thief on the cross went with jesus that day. In fact it immediately ended what was a lively discussion so one could only conclude it was unable to be refuted.

---

Using Sola Scriptura to try and sus out the events that occurred between Good Friday and Easter Sunday ends up being like a cat playing with a ball of yarn.

First, you have the parable of Lazarus and the Rich man from Luke 16 in which Lazarus goes to be with Abraham, not God and Jesus in heaven. Furthermore, Abraham's Bosom is a place from which the "righteous" can communicate directly with the "damned." Remember, it is Jesus telling these stories, so they cannot be doctrinally inaccurate. You cannot make the case that Abraham was in Heaven without overturning core teachings of Protestantism about Heaven, Hell, and communication in the hereafter. Add to this "(for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God." (Hebrews 7:19) and you have the doctrine of the Church of the First Millenium that the "righteous" were still not good enough to get to heaven apart from Christ and ended up in Hades, from which they were freed by Christ between Good Friday and Easter Sunday.

Second, you have the declaration of Jesus on the cross: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with Me in Paradise". This statement signifies that the thief would immediately enter paradise upon his death, not at some future resurrection or the end of time, but on that very day.

But after his resurrection, Jesus tells Mary Magdalene "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17).

This is a more evidence for a Trinitarian God, for only in that context could Jesus say those two things.

---

I find it profoundly worth consideration what Jesus told the thief versus the other 80+ comments he made about Heaven and the word He chose in that instance in light and context of various doctrine.

---

Then I'll ask again: Did the thief end up with Jesus in a place called "paradise"? Or did he go to Hell or some fictitious place known as "purgatory" where he had to wait around for a few hundred years until he was cleansed of his sin?

---

You shall ask again and i shall answer…again.

Day as if a thousand years as He says. Seems likely he wasnt in Heaven. What more could he concluded from the text is limited so just using the text seems strong argument he was not in Heaven that day. 80+ versus to help support. For considerstion.

---

Thanks. A few follow up questions to try and understand your answer:

1) Was the thief with Jesus that day in a place called "paradise", as Jesus explained he would be?

Yes. I trust what Jesus said from his own mouth

2) If so, what is paradise?

Appears some "place" other than Heaven. May not be physical in out context of space and time. Again day as if 1000 years etc.

3) Was the thief saved as Jesus suggests, or did he have to go through some unmentioned cleansing process over a period of days, months or years?

Again, you may have to let go of time as day as if 1000 years etc. Catholic doctrine is at a minimum purgatory as you yourself have concluded thief was a scoundrel that lived a life unworthy of God and nothing clean enters into Heaven and he therefore must he cleansed.

---

Now we're getting somewhere! Answers above

It is rather curious that in all the teachings Christ gave us he chose inly one single solitary time to use the word he chose with the thief. Maybe its a typo.

Again, context was our discussion on purgatory and where one goes when they die and people brought up THIEF ON THE CROSS!!! So i shared some thoughts in that context for consideration.

---

Respectfully, the bolded part is poor theology - not supported by scripture but mere man-made Catholic doctrine. As I said in previous posts on this subject, if you are going to rely on tradition, then you better cross reference it against scripture. And there is nothing to suggest at all that Jesus, while on earth, meant 1000 years rather than what he actually said.

Moreover, there is no evidence that "paradise" is somewhere other than Heaven. There just isn't. Paradise is referred to in other places in scripture, and it is always used to describe Heaven. The only logical conclusion is that Christ was referring to the same "paradise" that is used in other places in scripture.

And even if he weren't, once again, there is no evidence that the thief was not saved. Indeed, he was cleansed by the blood of Christ the minute he called on his name, repented of his sins, and believed. No "cleansing" process was necessary, as scripture is crystal clear on this subject. There is no such thing as purgatory.

And therein lies the problem with reliance on man-made doctrine instead of the holy word of God. When scripture doesn't back up or support your position, you should take a hard look at your tradition.

---

It's as if Roman Catholics completely forget that Jesus sacrificed himself to cleanse us from sin, as if his blood achieved nothing (you pay for your own sin before Jesus' sacrfice, and you still pay for your sin after his sacrifice). Even as Scripture directly says "the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin." (1 John 1:7) The belief in purgatory (as it has been historically held by the RC Church) is a rejection of the gospel.

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

---

Blood plasma is 90% water. Every martyr for Christ, if they aren't already baptized, brings their own water for baptism with them at the time of their death. This teaching of the Baptism of Blood goes back to the very foundation of the church and is even shared by the 16th century Anabaptists from whom some Baptists say they are descended.

Keep in mind that for the first millenium of Christianity, and even in the oldest confessions today, becoming a Christian didn't happen as the result of a an emotional decision, walking the aisle, and saying a prayer. Barring exceptional circumstances, such as the Ethopian Eunuch and his peers who were familiar with the Old Testament and lived (30 AD) before the New (Acts was written around 60 AD) was written, you first became what was called a "catechumen", someone who spent a period of time that could range from months to years learning the doctrines of the church and praying and purifying your life in preparation for your baptism. The Christianity of the first millenium was very much a Matthew 7:21 faith.

Boom

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

---

Blood plasma is 90% water. Every martyr for Christ, if they aren't already baptized, brings their own water for baptism with them at the time of their death. This teaching of the Baptism of Blood goes back to the very foundation of the church and is even shared by the 16th century Anabaptists from whom some Baptists say they are descended.

Keep in mind that for the first millenium of Christianity, and even in the oldest confessions today, becoming a Christian didn't happen as the result of a an emotional decision, walking the aisle, and saying a prayer. Barring exceptional circumstances, such as the Ethopian Eunuch and his peers who were familiar with the Old Testament and lived (30 AD) before the New (Acts was written around 60 AD) was written, you first became what was called a "catechumen", someone who spent a period of time that could range from months to years learning the doctrines of the church and praying and purifying your life in preparation for your baptism. The Christianity of the first millenium was very much a Matthew 7:21 faith.

---

Baptism by the water in one's blood is not in Scripture. It does NOT go back to the "very foundation of the church". Neither does the concept of a "catechumen". These are man made traditions, made centuries after the time of Jesus and his original apostles.

Salvation is by one's faith in Jesus Christ, regardless of whether one is a martyr, and regardless of any "catechumen" period. The idea that you can believe in Jesus with all your heart and trust in him for your salvation - but since you didn't get doused with water, or you didn't complete some kind of arbitrary phase of learning/purification, you still go to Hell - is demonstrating that one simply doesn't understand the Gospel or the character of God. The belief that one has to "perform" something in order to be saved is a false gospel. The Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches are putting many into deep peril with this teaching.

Question: Did you take the time to read this first post?

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Question: Did you take the time to read this first post?

---

"12 For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the first principles of the [b]oracles of God; and you have come to need milk and not solid food. 13 For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. 14 But solid food belongs to those who are [c]of full age, that is, those who by reason of [d]use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil."

Hebrews 5:12-14

Realitybites said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Freedom, I do appreciate your last thoughtful post. However, the problem with the position that God somehow made an exception for the thief with respect to the sacraments is that you believe in a God who is inconsistent and whose purported promises you cannot trust. Indeed, if you believe God requires baptism, and allowed the thief to "jump ahead in line" so to speak, then we can't believe what God has promised us. And that is a real problem.

---

Blood plasma is 90% water. Every martyr for Christ, if they aren't already baptized, brings their own water for baptism with them at the time of their death. This teaching of the Baptism of Blood goes back to the very foundation of the church and is even shared by the 16th century Anabaptists from whom some Baptists say they are descended.

Keep in mind that for the first millenium of Christianity, and even in the oldest confessions today, becoming a Christian didn't happen as the result of a an emotional decision, walking the aisle, and saying a prayer. Barring exceptional circumstances, such as the Ethopian Eunuch and his peers who were familiar with the Old Testament and lived (30 AD) before the New (Acts was written around 60 AD) was written, you first became what was called a "catechumen", someone who spent a period of time that could range from months to years learning the doctrines of the church and praying and purifying your life in preparation for your baptism. The Christianity of the first millenium was very much a Matthew 7:21 faith.

---

We agree that baptism by sprinkling or dunking is unnecessary for salvation.

But I can't agree with the second paragraph. I think the Orthodox guys like yourself try to dumb down the evangelical position on salvation, and in so doing, subscribe to a theory that isn't supported by either Christ's words or the plain language of scripture regarding the early church. This whole, "salvation is a process" theory simply isn't one that scripture supports. We see countless examples in Acts, and in the Gospels, of people repenting of their sin, submitting to Christ, and becoming followers in the same day. When Peter preached to thousands of people on the day of Pentecost, scripture is clear that around 3k were saved that very day. The idea that they had to become "catechumen" for lengthy periods before they were saved simply isn't supported by the plain language of scripture.

Now, we do agree that some denominations and evangelists have preached a heretical gospel. The idea that merely asking Jesus into your heart, without the required repentance of sin and understanding of Christ's grace, is likewise not biblical. One can't accept Christ until he understands his own depravity. But that does not mean it is a process. Not in the least.

I truly love the amazing amount of discussion in this forum on this topic. Many places have no interest.

Adding works to grace nullifies grace.

Jesus Christ is the ONLY Way to heaven!

Pleases reasd this first post

Fre3dombear said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

A PRAYER OF SALVATION: If you have any doubts about whether or not you are going to heaven, YOU COULD HUMBLY PRAY SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO GOD FROM YOUR HEART IN FAITH:

"Dear Lord Jesus I know that I am a sinner and need you to save me. I believe that You are the Lord and believe in my heart that You died on the Cross and Rose from the dead, shedding your blood as the Sacrifice for my sins. I turn to You as the only way of Salvation, I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours, I place my Faith and Trust in You alone as Lord of my life, Please save me and I thank You for it, in Jesus holy name, Amen."

If you have truly placed your faith in Jesus Christ as your Lord, submitting your life to Him, you can know that you are a child of God and on your way to heaven. Now that you are on your way to heaven, you should attend a bible believing Church and follow in baptism.

---

What churches are not Bible believing? Or is that code language for something?

---

A lot of Churches do not take the Bible literally and therefore lead people astray. The Bible was meant to be taken literally un ess directed otherwise.

When it comes to interpretation, the real issue is that scripture can't be separated from hermeneutics.

To say "Scripture is the sole infallible authority" assumes that Scripture is clear enough for believers to interpret correctly without an external magisterium and that the Holy Spirit guides individuals or churches to right understanding.

That's not a neutral claim about authority, it's a claim about how truth is discerned, aka a hermeneutic.

If Sola Scriptura is only a statement on authority, then how do we adjudicate between contradictory interpretations all claiming that same authority?

Ex. "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Lutherans / Anglicans:
Baptism actually confers grace and regeneration (the Holy Spirit works through the sacrament).

Baptists / Evangelicals:
Baptism is only a symbol of salvation that's already happened by faith, it doesn't save or cleanse.

One group says baptism saves; another says it doesn't. Both appeal to the same verse and claim Scripture alone.

It circles back around: They both act as if their interpretive tradition (Anglican via the Fathers, Baptist via reason) is binding…while simultaneously claiming no tradition is binding

Been busy so will have to get back to several flawed responses. Good to see im driving some engagement.

The most flawed of all of course is sola scriptura and cherry picked belief structure. Especially since hardly anyone had a Scripture for hundreds (until the Catholic church created it) if not thousands of years (until guttemberg printed the 73 books in "large" quantities) yet seems to be the basis for a couple of folks belief systems.

Martin Luther really did them a great disservice for their souls when he convinced a few folks they could all become their own pope in skinny jeans

Doc Holliday said:

---

When it comes to interpretation, the real issue is that scripture can't be separated from hermeneutics.

To say "Scripture is the sole infallible authority" assumes that Scripture is clear enough for believers to interpret correctly without an external magisterium and that the Holy Spirit guides individuals or churches to right understanding.

That's not a neutral claim about authority, it's a claim about how truth is discerned, aka a hermeneutic.

If Sola Scriptura is only a statement on authority, then how do we adjudicate between contradictory interpretations all claiming that same authority?

Ex. "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Lutherans / Anglicans:
Baptism actually confers grace and regeneration (the Holy Spirit works through the sacrament).

Baptists / Evangelicals:
Baptism is only a symbol of salvation that's already happened by faith, it doesn't save or cleanse.

One group says baptism saves; another says it doesn't. Both appeal to the same verse and claim Scripture alone.

It circles back around: They both act as if their interpretive tradition (Anglican via the Fathers, Baptist via reason) is binding…while simultaneously claiming no tradition is binding

---

And dont forget John 6:53

Some on here are John 6:61ers and walked away from Jesus as it was "too difficult"

Doc Holliday said:

---

When it comes to interpretation, the real issue is that scripture can't be separated from hermeneutics.

To say "Scripture is the sole infallible authority" assumes that Scripture is clear enough for believers to interpret correctly without an external magisterium and that the Holy Spirit guides individuals or churches to right understanding.

That's not a neutral claim about authority, it's a claim about how truth is discerned, aka a hermeneutic.

If Sola Scriptura is only a statement on authority, then how do we adjudicate between contradictory interpretations all claiming that same authority?

Ex. "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Lutherans / Anglicans:
Baptism actually confers grace and regeneration (the Holy Spirit works through the sacrament).

Baptists / Evangelicals:
Baptism is only a symbol of salvation that's already happened by faith, it doesn't save or cleanse.

One group says baptism saves; another says it doesn't. Both appeal to the same verse and claim Scripture alone.

It circles back around: They both act as if their interpretive tradition (Anglican via the Fathers, Baptist via reason) is binding…while simultaneously claiming no tradition is binding

---

Sola scriptura does NOT assume that Scripture is clear and easy to understand for all believers. It's only saying that Scripture is the only infallible authority for all believers. The perspicuity of Scripture is an entirely different concept. Differing interpretations of Scripture does not invalidate the concept of sola scriptura. I don't know how you came to this conclusion.

Yes, an interpretive tradition is a tradition, but Protestantism does not hold that ALL traditions should be shunned. Protestantism holds that only original apostolic tradition should be held as infallible teaching. Why? Because Jesus directly told his apostles: 1) that they would remember everything that he said and did (John 14:26); 2) that everyone who receives their message receives Jesus himself (Matthew 10:40-42), and 3) he said this to no one else (that we know of) but his apostles. This puts Jesus' stamp of infallible authority on ONLY the apostles' message. And the only thing that contains all that we know the apostles said and did is Scripture, and nowhere else. Hence, sola scriptura.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

When it comes to interpretation, the real issue is that scripture can't be separated from hermeneutics.

To say "Scripture is the sole infallible authority" assumes that Scripture is clear enough for believers to interpret correctly without an external magisterium and that the Holy Spirit guides individuals or churches to right understanding.

That's not a neutral claim about authority, it's a claim about how truth is discerned, aka a hermeneutic.

If Sola Scriptura is only a statement on authority, then how do we adjudicate between contradictory interpretations all claiming that same authority?

Ex. "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Lutherans / Anglicans:
Baptism actually confers grace and regeneration (the Holy Spirit works through the sacrament).

Baptists / Evangelicals:
Baptism is only a symbol of salvation that's already happened by faith, it doesn't save or cleanse.

One group says baptism saves; another says it doesn't. Both appeal to the same verse and claim Scripture alone.

It circles back around: They both act as if their interpretive tradition (Anglican via the Fathers, Baptist via reason) is binding…while simultaneously claiming no tradition is binding

---

Sola scriptura does NOT assume that Scripture is clear and easy to understand for all believers. It's only saying that Scripture is the only infallible authority for all believers. The perspicuity of Scripture is an entirely different concept. Differing interpretations of Scripture does not invalidate the concept of sola scriptura. I don't know how you came to this conclusion.

Yes, an interpretive tradition is a tradition, but Protestantism does not hold that ALL traditions should be shunned. Protestantism holds that only original apostolic tradition should be held as infallible teaching. Why? Because Jesus directly told his apostles: 1) that they would remember everything that he said and did (John 14:26); 2) that everyone who receives their message receives Jesus himself (Matthew 10:40-42), and 3) he said this to no one else (that we know of) but his apostles. This puts Jesus' stamp of infallible authority on ONLY the apostles' message. And the only thing that contains all that we know the apostles said and did is Scripture, and nowhere else. Hence, sola scriptura.

---

I understand what you're saying, but my point isn't about whether Sola Scriptura explicitly claims Scripture is "easy" to understand. It's about what follows from making Scripture the sole infallible authority.

If no external interpretive authority exists, then each believer or denomination must necessarily rely on some combination of their own reason, experience, or inherited interpretive framework to discern truth. That's a hermeneutic, and it's not neutral. If there's no binding mechanism for adjudication beyond personal or denominational conviction, then in practice the authority shifts from Scripture itself to the individual interpreter (or the collective interpretive tradition of their group).

Christ gave authority to the apostles. But if the only record of that authority is written text, you're presupposing that everything the apostles taught was written down. The New Testament itself never claims that. In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2 explicitly affirm both written and oral apostolic traditions.

So the real question isn't, "Is Scripture authoritative?" (of course it is). The question is: How is that authority rightly interpreted and safeguarded from error without an authoritative interpretive body?

It requires extra-biblical assumptions to function. This is why we have radical Calvinism, LGBT, Mormonism etc.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

When it comes to interpretation, the real issue is that scripture can't be separated from hermeneutics.

To say "Scripture is the sole infallible authority" assumes that Scripture is clear enough for believers to interpret correctly without an external magisterium and that the Holy Spirit guides individuals or churches to right understanding.

That's not a neutral claim about authority, it's a claim about how truth is discerned, aka a hermeneutic.

If Sola Scriptura is only a statement on authority, then how do we adjudicate between contradictory interpretations all claiming that same authority?

Ex. "Baptism now saves you" (1 Peter 3:21)

Lutherans / Anglicans:
Baptism actually confers grace and regeneration (the Holy Spirit works through the sacrament).

Baptists / Evangelicals:
Baptism is only a symbol of salvation that's already happened by faith, it doesn't save or cleanse.

One group says baptism saves; another says it doesn't. Both appeal to the same verse and claim Scripture alone.

It circles back around: They both act as if their interpretive tradition (Anglican via the Fathers, Baptist via reason) is binding…while simultaneously claiming no tradition is binding

---

Sola scriptura does NOT assume that Scripture is clear and easy to understand for all believers. It's only saying that Scripture is the only infallible authority for all believers. The perspicuity of Scripture is an entirely different concept. Differing interpretations of Scripture does not invalidate the concept of sola scriptura. I don't know how you came to this conclusion.

Yes, an interpretive tradition is a tradition, but Protestantism does not hold that ALL traditions should be shunned. Protestantism holds that only original apostolic tradition should be held as infallible teaching. Why? Because Jesus directly told his apostles: 1) that they would remember everything that he said and did (John 14:26); 2) that everyone who receives their message receives Jesus himself (Matthew 10:40-42), and 3) he said this to no one else (that we know of) but his apostles. This puts Jesus' stamp of infallible authority on ONLY the apostles' message. And the only thing that contains all that we know the apostles said and did is Scripture, and nowhere else. Hence, sola scriptura.

---

I understand what you're saying, but my point isn't about whether Sola Scriptura explicitly claims Scripture is "easy" to understand. It's about what follows from making Scripture the sole infallible authority.

If no external interpretive authority exists, then each believer or denomination must necessarily rely on some combination of their own reason, experience, or inherited interpretive framework to discern truth. That's a hermeneutic, and it's not neutral. If there's no binding mechanism for adjudication beyond personal or denominational conviction, then in practice the authority shifts from Scripture itself to the individual interpreter (or the collective interpretive tradition of their group).

Christ gave authority to the apostles. But if the only record of that authority is written text, you're presupposing that everything the apostles taught was written down. The New Testament itself never claims that. In fact, 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 2:2 explicitly affirm both written and oral apostolic traditions.

So the real question isn't, "Is Scripture authoritative?" (of course it is). The question is: How is that authority rightly interpreted and safeguarded from error without an authoritative interpretive body?

It requires extra-biblical assumptions to function. This is why we have radical Calvinism, LGBT, Mormonism etc.

---

Believers resorting to their own reason is supported by Jesus himself - "And why do you not judge for yourselves what is right?" (Luke 12:57). This reason, however, should ultimately come from honest, diligent study of Scripture - reading what the original language said, studying the interpretation of various scholars, studying debates over the interpretation, etc. and then coming to one's conclusion. You can't just pull out interpretations from your behind, in other words.

If you submit to an interpretive authority, you're only deferring your own reason to the reason of other fallible men. You're only kicking the interpretive can down the road. Why should you believe their interpretation is binding and inerrant? What makes this interpretive authority infallible? And then on top of that, you need to interpret for yourself what the interpreters said. Self interpretation is involved either way. Note that not even Roman Catholic scholars all agree with the meaning of their own catechisms. Not to mention that even the church fathers did not agree to everything. Yet, it's based on the authority of these church fathers that is often cited by today's interpretive authorities. But which church father (they say different, often opposing things)? And even the interpretation of what that father said is disagreed upon among scholars. Interpretive authorities are themselves subject to their own cherry picking and, as you say, extrabiblical assumptions.

I'm not presupposing that everything Jesus said and did was written down. I'm only saying that the only infallible evidence of that is from the apostles, and that the only thing we have today that we know came from the apostles is Scripture. Claiming a tradition came from Jesus himself but is outside of Scripture, is what cults do. Can you cite any oral tradition, that we know came from the apostles, that is NOT in Scripture?

Besides, tradition outside of Scripture is NOT NEEDED. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Complete, as in needing nothing else.

Yes, we have radical groups that use their own (errant) interpretations today. But I ask you - how is this any worse than, say, Roman Catholicism's idolatry of Mary, which it makes all their believers (numbering around 1.4 BILLION people) submit to based on their magisterium's claim to interpretive authority?? I'd say the latter is much, much worse. All because they've yielded their own reason and critical thinking to an "interpretive authority", who have entrapped them. ("One Ring to rule them all, one ring to find them... One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them") - JRR Tolkien.

But saying "everyone uses reason" isn't the same as saying "reason alone is the final arbiter of truth." Yes, Christ calls us to "judge for ourselves what is right," but He also warns that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). The apostles weren't commissioning private interpretive autonomy; they were calling believers to discern truth within the life of the Church, guided by those whom the apostles themselves appointed to guard the deposit of faith (2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5, Acts 15).

Your appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn't actually say what you're claiming. Paul says Scripture is profitable and that it can equip the man of God, not that it is sufficient in isolation. By that logic, since in the same epistle (1 Timothy 3:15) Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth," we'd have to say the Church is unnecessary too, which would directly contradict Paul's words.

You asked for an example of oral apostolic tradition not written in Scripture: The most obvious is the very canon of Scripture itself. The fact that Christians agree on 27 New Testament books only because of the discernment of the Church proves that something outside Scripture, an authoritative interpretive tradition, was necessary even to know what counts as Scripture in the first place.

I'd caution against equating ancient Christian devotion with paganism. The Church has always made a careful distinction between latria (worship due to God alone) and hyperdulia (veneration due to Mary as Theotokos). Even if you reject that distinction, misrepresenting it doesn't strengthen the Sola Scriptura argument.

Protestants live by extra-biblical traditions every week, they just call them "biblical principles". If "tradition outside of Scripture isn't needed," then you'd also have to reject wedding ceremonies, Sunday worship, the funeral liturgy, the very structure of a church service, and even the doctrine of the Trinity's terminology…because none of those are spelled out explicitly in Scripture. Once you grant that the Church has the authority to formulate and preserve practices consistent with Scripture, you've already conceded the necessity of Sacred Tradition.

Doc Holliday said:

---

But saying "everyone uses reason" isn't the same as saying "reason alone is the final arbiter of truth." Yes, Christ calls us to "judge for ourselves what is right," but He also warns that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). The apostles weren't commissioning private interpretive autonomy; they were calling believers to discern truth within the life of the Church, guided by those whom the apostles themselves appointed to guard the deposit of faith (2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5, Acts 15).

Your appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn't actually say what you're claiming. Paul says Scripture is profitable and that it can equip the man of God, not that it is sufficient in isolation. By that logic, since in the same epistle (1 Timothy 3:15) Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth," we'd have to say the Church is unnecessary too, which would directly contradict Paul's words.

You asked for an example of oral apostolic tradition not written in Scripture: The most obvious is the very canon of Scripture itself. The fact that Christians agree on 27 New Testament books only because of the discernment of the Church proves that something outside Scripture, an authoritative interpretive tradition, was necessary even to know what counts as Scripture in the first place.

I'd caution against equating ancient Christian devotion with paganism. The Church has always made a careful distinction between latria (worship due to God alone) and hyperdulia (veneration due to Mary as Theotokos). Even if you reject that distinction, misrepresenting it doesn't strengthen the Sola Scriptura argument.

Protestants live by extra-biblical traditions every week, they just call them "biblical principles". If "tradition outside of Scripture isn't needed," then you'd also have to reject wedding ceremonies, Sunday worship, the funeral liturgy, the very structure of a church service, and even the doctrine of the Trinity's terminology…because none of those are spelled out explicitly in Scripture. Once you grant that the Church has the authority to formulate and preserve practices consistent with Scripture, you've already conceded the necessity of Sacred Tradition.

---

"no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" - but the correctness of the interpretation of that prophecy can be judged by one's own reason. If you defer that reasoning to other people, you're not correcting your initial problem about personal, extrabiblical assumptions being factored into it. You're only submiting to someone else's assumptions, people who are just as fallible are you are. What happens when people KNOW in their heart that a belief is wrong, but they submitted themselves to "interpretive authorities" to think for them? Those authorities' decisions are final and their followers must obey them or be anathematized and sent to Hell. This is exactly the mind control practice of cults, and it is not from the Spirit.

The canon of scripture is not an oral apostolic tradition. No apostle said "these list of books are the canon of Scripture", at least that we know of. I'm asking if you know of any teaching directly from the original apostles that is not in Scripture.

Do you honestly believe the elevation of Mary to the status of Jesus is merely "devotion" and not rank heresy and idolatry? If so, then I'm afraid we've got much, much bigger problems to discuss. The idolatry of Mary is not an argument for sola scriptura, it's an argument against oral tradition. And if you don't think Roman Catholicism is infused with paganism, then boy do we have a lot to talk about there as well.

Those items you listed: wedding ceremonies, funeral liturgy, the structure of church service.... do you really believe that one can't be saved, or that the man of God can't be "complete", "equipped for every good work" without those things? Remember, the question wasn't whether a Christian shouldn't ever submit themselves to their respective church authorities and extrabiblical traditions. The question was about infallibility, as well as whether they were necessary for a believer to be "complete". 2 Timothy says no.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But saying "everyone uses reason" isn't the same as saying "reason alone is the final arbiter of truth." Yes, Christ calls us to "judge for ourselves what is right," but He also warns that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). The apostles weren't commissioning private interpretive autonomy; they were calling believers to discern truth within the life of the Church, guided by those whom the apostles themselves appointed to guard the deposit of faith (2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5, Acts 15).

Your appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn't actually say what you're claiming. Paul says Scripture is profitable and that it can equip the man of God, not that it is sufficient in isolation. By that logic, since in the same epistle (1 Timothy 3:15) Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth," we'd have to say the Church is unnecessary too, which would directly contradict Paul's words.

You asked for an example of oral apostolic tradition not written in Scripture: The most obvious is the very canon of Scripture itself. The fact that Christians agree on 27 New Testament books only because of the discernment of the Church proves that something outside Scripture, an authoritative interpretive tradition, was necessary even to know what counts as Scripture in the first place.

I'd caution against equating ancient Christian devotion with paganism. The Church has always made a careful distinction between latria (worship due to God alone) and hyperdulia (veneration due to Mary as Theotokos). Even if you reject that distinction, misrepresenting it doesn't strengthen the Sola Scriptura argument.

Protestants live by extra-biblical traditions every week, they just call them "biblical principles". If "tradition outside of Scripture isn't needed," then you'd also have to reject wedding ceremonies, Sunday worship, the funeral liturgy, the very structure of a church service, and even the doctrine of the Trinity's terminology…because none of those are spelled out explicitly in Scripture. Once you grant that the Church has the authority to formulate and preserve practices consistent with Scripture, you've already conceded the necessity of Sacred Tradition.

---

"no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" - but the correctness of the interpretation of that prophecy can be judged by one's own reason. If you defer that reasoning to other people, you're not correcting your initial problem about personal, extrabiblical assumptions being factored into it. You're only submiting to someone else's assumptions, people who are just as fallible are you are. What happens when people KNOW in their heart that a belief is wrong, but they submitted themselves to "interpretive authorities" to think for them? Those authorities' decisions are final and their followers must obey them or be anathematized and sent to Hell. This is exactly the mind control practice of cults, and it is not from the Spirit.

The canon of scripture is not an oral apostolic tradition. No apostle said "these list of books are the canon of Scripture", at least that we know of. I'm asking if you know of any teaching directly from the original apostles that is not in Scripture.

Do you honestly believe the elevation of Mary to the status of Jesus is merely "devotion" and not rank heresy and idolatry? If so, then I'm afraid we've got much, much bigger problems to discuss. The idolatry of Mary is not an argument for sola scriptura, it's an argument against oral tradition. And if you don't think Roman Catholicism is infused with paganism, then boy do we have a lot to talk about there as well.

Those items you listed: wedding ceremonies, funeral liturgy, the structure of church service.... do you really believe that one can't be saved, or that the man of God can't be "complete", "equipped for every good work" without those things? Remember, the question wasn't whether a Christian shouldn't ever submit themselves to their respective church authorities and extrabiblical traditions. The question was about infallibility, as well as whether they were necessary for a believer to be "complete". 2 Timothy says no.

---

I'm not arguing for blind submission to an institution, I'm saying the authority Christ gave the apostles continued through the early Church, and that's where true interpretation resides. I'd actually argue that Rome departed from that apostolic foundation. The papacy, indulgences, and other later innovations are precisely what make Roman Catholicism the first real "Protestant" movement: they protested against the historic, conciliar, and apostolic model of the early Church.

The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has preserved that continuity almost unchanged, the same faith, the same liturgy, the same understanding of authority rooted in the first centuries of Christianity. I don't think it's wise to claim the generation immediately following the apostles fell into paganism: you would HAVE to argue that the Apostles taught them pagan practices. These were men taught directly by those who walked with Christ. If they misunderstood the faith so completely, then Christianity essentially vanished within a century of Pentecost, and that would mean the gates of hell did, in fact, prevail against the Church.

Everyone "knows in their heart" something different, and that's exactly the problem. Entire denominations know in their hearts that same-sex marriage and female pastors are blessed by God. They'll tell you they've prayed, studied Scripture, and that the Spirit confirmed it. So who's right? You can't just say, "use reason and Scripture," because they claim to be doing that too.

If we keep introducing secular insanity and radical leftism into society, it's going to continue bleeding into multiple denominations. We're already seeing this with Baptist churches: a small minority currently affirm LGBTQ+ individuals and practices, but over time, without a binding standard, more congregations are likely to follow. I wouldn't be shocked to see the vast majority of Protestants accepting this kind of stuff by the end of the century, even Catholics. I think you'll only see the Orthodox Church standalone against it.

Ephesians 2:8-9 KJV
[8] For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: [9] not of works, lest any man should boast.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

But saying "everyone uses reason" isn't the same as saying "reason alone is the final arbiter of truth." Yes, Christ calls us to "judge for ourselves what is right," but He also warns that "no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20). The apostles weren't commissioning private interpretive autonomy; they were calling believers to discern truth within the life of the Church, guided by those whom the apostles themselves appointed to guard the deposit of faith (2 Timothy 2:2, Titus 1:5, Acts 15).

Your appeal to 2 Timothy 3:16-17 doesn't actually say what you're claiming. Paul says Scripture is profitable and that it can equip the man of God, not that it is sufficient in isolation. By that logic, since in the same epistle (1 Timothy 3:15) Paul calls the Church "the pillar and foundation of truth," we'd have to say the Church is unnecessary too, which would directly contradict Paul's words.

You asked for an example of oral apostolic tradition not written in Scripture: The most obvious is the very canon of Scripture itself. The fact that Christians agree on 27 New Testament books only because of the discernment of the Church proves that something outside Scripture, an authoritative interpretive tradition, was necessary even to know what counts as Scripture in the first place.

I'd caution against equating ancient Christian devotion with paganism. The Church has always made a careful distinction between latria (worship due to God alone) and hyperdulia (veneration due to Mary as Theotokos). Even if you reject that distinction, misrepresenting it doesn't strengthen the Sola Scriptura argument.

Protestants live by extra-biblical traditions every week, they just call them "biblical principles". If "tradition outside of Scripture isn't needed," then you'd also have to reject wedding ceremonies, Sunday worship, the funeral liturgy, the very structure of a church service, and even the doctrine of the Trinity's terminology…because none of those are spelled out explicitly in Scripture. Once you grant that the Church has the authority to formulate and preserve practices consistent with Scripture, you've already conceded the necessity of Sacred Tradition.

---

"no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation" - but the correctness of the interpretation of that prophecy can be judged by one's own reason. If you defer that reasoning to other people, you're not correcting your initial problem about personal, extrabiblical assumptions being factored into it. You're only submiting to someone else's assumptions, people who are just as fallible are you are. What happens when people KNOW in their heart that a belief is wrong, but they submitted themselves to "interpretive authorities" to think for them? Those authorities' decisions are final and their followers must obey them or be anathematized and sent to Hell. This is exactly the mind control practice of cults, and it is not from the Spirit.

The canon of scripture is not an oral apostolic tradition. No apostle said "these list of books are the canon of Scripture", at least that we know of. I'm asking if you know of any teaching directly from the original apostles that is not in Scripture.

Do you honestly believe the elevation of Mary to the status of Jesus is merely "devotion" and not rank heresy and idolatry? If so, then I'm afraid we've got much, much bigger problems to discuss. The idolatry of Mary is not an argument for sola scriptura, it's an argument against oral tradition. And if you don't think Roman Catholicism is infused with paganism, then boy do we have a lot to talk about there as well.

Those items you listed: wedding ceremonies, funeral liturgy, the structure of church service.... do you really believe that one can't be saved, or that the man of God can't be "complete", "equipped for every good work" without those things? Remember, the question wasn't whether a Christian shouldn't ever submit themselves to their respective church authorities and extrabiblical traditions. The question was about infallibility, as well as whether they were necessary for a believer to be "complete". 2 Timothy says no.

---

I'm not arguing for blind submission to an institution, I'm saying the authority Christ gave the apostles continued through the early Church, and that's where true interpretation resides. I'd actually argue that Rome departed from that apostolic foundation. The papacy, indulgences, and other later innovations are precisely what make Roman Catholicism the first real "Protestant" movement: they protested against the historic, conciliar, and apostolic model of the early Church.

The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has preserved that continuity almost unchanged, the same faith, the same liturgy, the same understanding of authority rooted in the first centuries of Christianity. I don't think it's wise to claim the generation immediately following the apostles fell into paganism: you would HAVE to argue that the Apostles taught them pagan practices. These were men taught directly by those who walked with Christ. If they misunderstood the faith so completely, then Christianity essentially vanished within a century of Pentecost, and that would mean the gates of hell did, in fact, prevail against the Church.

Everyone "knows in their heart" something different, and that's exactly the problem. Entire denominations know in their hearts that same-sex marriage and female pastors are blessed by God. They'll tell you they've prayed, studied Scripture, and that the Spirit confirmed it. So who's right? You can't just say, "use reason and Scripture," because they claim to be doing that too.

If we keep introducing secular insanity and radical leftism into society, it's going to continue bleeding into multiple denominations. We're already seeing this with Baptist churches: a small minority currently affirm LGBTQ+ individuals and practices, but over time, without a binding standard, more congregations are likely to follow. I wouldn't be shocked to see the vast majority of Protestants accepting this kind of stuff by the end of the century, even Catholics. I think you'll only see the Orthodox Church standalone against it.

---

"I'm not arguing for blind submission to an institution, I'm saying the authority Christ gave the apostles continued through the early Church" - infallible authority? If you believe so, then based on what original apostolic teaching? The Roman Catholic Church claims the same thing, and yet you and I have both discerned that their teachings departed from the original apostles. Don't look now, but you're exercising your own reasoning to discern this, as I have. How else could we get a Roman Catholic to see their church's errors, if not by appealing to their own understanding and reasoning? You see the problem with a binding interpretive authority that supercedes one's own reasoning and discernment?

"The Orthodox Church, on the other hand, has preserved that continuity" - are you sure about that? Orthodox Christianity venerates icons by praying and bowing to them, and is just as guilty of Marian idolatry as Roman Catholicism. Neither of which are present or supported in Scripture or in the early church AT ALL. Here's what the Orthodox Church says about Mary, in their Akathist Hymn:

• "Rejoice, O Bride unwedded, the world's salvation; Rejoice, deliverer from the mire of sin."
• "..for while never experiencing marriage, you held, O Virgin, the God of all in your womb and gave birth to an eternal son who grants salvation to all who chant hymns of praise to you."
• "Most Holy Theotokus, save us. Rejoice, bride of God, all blameless maiden, who saved the world from the flood of sin."
• "Rejoice, the gate of salvation! You, the laudable mother who gave birth to the Logos, while accepting this offering now, deliver everyone from all calamities, and deliver from future punishment from those who cry out."

.... do I need to go on? None of this resembles ANYTHING believed or taught by the original apostles or the early church. It's clearly not Christianity. It's clear and blatant heresy and idolatry.

I fully agree with you that some "protestant" Christian churches have compromised with the world, and it is pure evil. But the answer is to reject them and only be involved in churches that are fully consistent with Scripture, Scripture being the only thing we have that we know came from the original apostles. The answer isn't to then embrace Orthodoxy, which obviously is guilty of the same compromise. The above Marian hymn is the result of the infiltration of ancient pagan religions into Christianity (ancient mother goddess worship). I really hope you see this, and will think twice about converting to Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy has other problems too, like distorting the gospel.

We both use reason, but the question is: how do we know when our reasoning has departed from apostolic truth?

You and another in your church may disagree on salvation based on how you're interpreting scripture. How do guys figure out who's right?

You said you and I "discerned" Rome's errors by reason. But what made those errors recognizable as errors? We judged them against something older, the consensus of the early, undivided Church. That's precisely my point: when our private reasoning disagrees with the consistent witness of the Church closest to the apostles, humility demands we consider that the problem may not be the Church, but our modern assumptions.

Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history. They don't pray to icons or to Mary as deities, they venerate them as windows into the reality of Christ's work.

The irony is that Protestants reject "tradition" in theory but live by it in practice, from their canon of Scripture to their wedding ceremonies and worship styles. There's no apostolic command or scriptural blueprint for the modern wedding rite (rings, vows, pastor officiating, white dress). Yet virtually all Protestant churches practice it as a sacred ritual and don't see marriage legitimate without it. Many Protestants submit their "reason" to their pastor's interpretations or denominational statements of faith. That's functionally identical to what they accuse Orthodoxy or Rome of doing, just without the historical continuity.

Honestly, Orthodoxy looks a lot more like the faith the apostles actually lived because it still carries the DNA of Second Temple Judaism: the religious world Jesus and the apostles came from. The liturgy, use of incense, vestments, psalms, fasting cycles, and sacraments all directly mirror Jewish worship patterns that were fulfilled in Christ, not discarded. The early Christians didn't suddenly invent a new way of worshiping God; they took the synagogue and temple rhythms and reoriented them around the risen Messiah.

Doc Holliday said:

---

We both use reason, but the question is: how do we know when our reasoning has departed from apostolic truth?

You and another in your church may disagree on salvation based on how you're interpreting scripture. How do guys figure out who's right?

You said you and I "discerned" Rome's errors by reason. But what made those errors recognizable as errors? We judged them against something older, the consensus of the early, undivided Church. That's precisely my point: when our private reasoning disagrees with the consistent witness of the Church closest to the apostles, humility demands we consider that the problem may not be the Church, but our modern assumptions.

---

"We both use reason, but the question is: how do we know when our reasoning has departed from apostolic truth? You and another in your church may disagree on salvation based on how you're interpreting scripture. How do guys figure out who's right?" ---- how does the situation change with "interpretive authorities"? Your Orthodox intepretive authority is at odds with Roman Catholic interpretive authority. Both believe the other has departed from original apostolic truth. How did you decide which to believe?

"You said you and I "discerned" Rome's errors by reason. But what made those errors recognizable as errors? We judged them against something older, the consensus of the early, undivided Church. That's precisely my point: when our private reasoning disagrees with the consistent witness of the Church closest to the apostles, humility demands we consider that the problem may not be the Church, but our modern assumptions" ---- we discerned those errors from something a lot older, and more original than the early church witness of the church fathers - we use Scripture, employing our own reasoning (which the Bereans were praised for, and which Jesus himself told us to employ) guided by the Holy Spirit. I think you're discounting the Spirit. And what early "consensus"? The early fathers did not always agree. They even seemingly contradict themselves at times. The RCC and Orthodox claims to preserving the original faith involves a lot of cherry picking from the fathers, while ignoring others. Important as the church fathers were, they were not infallible. They did not write Scripture. This was fully acknowledged by one of the most important early church fathers, Augustine:

• "I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)
• "As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth.... Such writings are read with the right of judgement, and without any obligation to believe." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

Assuming that the early church was immune from heresy is dangerous. The most dangerous heresies began in the 1st century. Even the apostle Paul, as well as Jesus himself, had to harshly criticize the first century churches for their errors.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We both use reason, but the question is: how do we know when our reasoning has departed from apostolic truth?

You and another in your church may disagree on salvation based on how you're interpreting scripture. How do guys figure out who's right?

You said you and I "discerned" Rome's errors by reason. But what made those errors recognizable as errors? We judged them against something older, the consensus of the early, undivided Church. That's precisely my point: when our private reasoning disagrees with the consistent witness of the Church closest to the apostles, humility demands we consider that the problem may not be the Church, but our modern assumptions.

---

"We both use reason, but the question is: how do we know when our reasoning has departed from apostolic truth? You and another in your church may disagree on salvation based on how you're interpreting scripture. How do guys figure out who's right?" ---- how does the situation change with "interpretive authorities"? Your Orthodox intepretive authority is at odds with Roman Catholic interpretive authority. Both believe the other has departed from original apostolic truth. How did you decide which to believe?

"You said you and I "discerned" Rome's errors by reason. But what made those errors recognizable as errors? We judged them against something older, the consensus of the early, undivided Church. That's precisely my point: when our private reasoning disagrees with the consistent witness of the Church closest to the apostles, humility demands we consider that the problem may not be the Church, but our modern assumptions" ---- we discerned those errors from something a lot older, and more original than the early church witness of the church fathers - we use Scripture, employing our own reasoning (which the Bereans were praised for, and which Jesus himself told us to employ) guided by the Holy Spirit. I think you're discounting the Spirit. And what early "consensus"? The early fathers did not always agree. They even seemingly contradict themselves at times. The RCC and Orthodox claims to preserving the original faith involves a lot of cherry picking from the fathers, while ignoring others. Important as the church fathers were, they were not infallible. They did not write Scripture. This was fully acknowledged by one of the most important early church fathers, Augustine:

• "I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)
• "As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth.... Such writings are read with the right of judgement, and without any obligation to believe." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

Assuming that the early church was immune from heresy is dangerous. The most dangerous heresies began in the 1st century. Even the apostle Paul, as well as Jesus himself, had to harshly criticize the first century churches for their errors.

---

What denomination is correct then and why?

Are calvinists correct when they claim that God unilaterally decides who is saved and who is damned, without any true offer of grace to all, that Human choices don't matter because God's decree is exhaustive and that Evangelism is unnecessary since the elect will be saved anyway? They're pointing to scripture to make this claim. I had an elder Calvinist at a Baptist church try to convince me of all of that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history. They don't pray to icons or to Mary as deities, they venerate them as windows into the reality of Christ's work.

The irony is that Protestants reject "tradition" in theory but live by it in practice, from their canon of Scripture to their wedding ceremonies and worship styles. There's no apostolic command or scriptural blueprint for the modern wedding rite (rings, vows, pastor officiating, white dress). Yet virtually all Protestant churches practice it as a sacred ritual and don't see marriage legitimate without it. Many Protestants submit their "reason" to their pastor's interpretations or denominational statements of faith. That's functionally identical to what they accuse Orthodoxy or Rome of doing, just without the historical continuity.

Honestly, Orthodoxy looks a lot more like the faith the apostles actually lived because it still carries the DNA of Second Temple Judaism: the religious world Jesus and the apostles came from. The liturgy, use of incense, vestments, psalms, fasting cycles, and sacraments all directly mirror Jewish worship patterns that were fulfilled in Christ, not discarded. The early Christians didn't suddenly invent a new way of worshiping God; they took the synagogue and temple rhythms and reoriented them around the risen Messiah.

---

"Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history." ---- but did Jesus or his apostles? And we're talking about a lot more than just "exalted language", aren't we? Do you honestly believe it's okay to praise someone and credit them for our salvation other than Jesus, like the Akathist Hymn does? Do you truly not see the idolatry and blasphemy there?

Again, things like wedding ceremonies aren't crucial to salvation or righteousness. On the other hand, to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, you are anathematized to Hell for not bowing to and praying to images (icons). See the HUGE difference?

So what do you think, then, of the Orthodox Church's practice of icon veneration (and it's absolute requirement for believers upon pain of anthema) in light of the fact that you insist that we should not stray from the witness of the early church? Because not only is icon veneration completely absent in Scripture, the consensus among the early church fathers was that it was forbidden. How then do you reconcile this with the Orthodox claim of being the one true, undivided and undeviated church?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history. They don't pray to icons or to Mary as deities, they venerate them as windows into the reality of Christ's work.

The irony is that Protestants reject "tradition" in theory but live by it in practice, from their canon of Scripture to their wedding ceremonies and worship styles. There's no apostolic command or scriptural blueprint for the modern wedding rite (rings, vows, pastor officiating, white dress). Yet virtually all Protestant churches practice it as a sacred ritual and don't see marriage legitimate without it. Many Protestants submit their "reason" to their pastor's interpretations or denominational statements of faith. That's functionally identical to what they accuse Orthodoxy or Rome of doing, just without the historical continuity.

Honestly, Orthodoxy looks a lot more like the faith the apostles actually lived because it still carries the DNA of Second Temple Judaism: the religious world Jesus and the apostles came from. The liturgy, use of incense, vestments, psalms, fasting cycles, and sacraments all directly mirror Jewish worship patterns that were fulfilled in Christ, not discarded. The early Christians didn't suddenly invent a new way of worshiping God; they took the synagogue and temple rhythms and reoriented them around the risen Messiah.

---

"Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history." ---- but did Jesus or his apostles? And we're talking about a lot more than just "exalted language", aren't we? Do you honestly believe it's okay to praise someone and credit them for our salvation other than Jesus, like the Akathist Hymn does? Do you truly not see the idolatry and blasphemy there?

Again, things like wedding ceremonies aren't crucial to salvation or righteousness. On the other hand, to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, you are anathematized to Hell for not bowing to and praying to images (icons). See the HUGE difference?

So what do you think, then, of the Orthodox Church's practice of icon veneration (and it's absolute requirement for believers upon pain of anthema) in light of the fact that you insist that we should not stray from the witness of the early church? Because not only is icon veneration completely absent in Scripture, the consensus among the early church fathers was that it was forbidden. How then do you reconcile this with the Orthodox claim of being the one true, undivided and undeviated church?

---

Let's say you're correct…what denomination is right?

We've got so many different interpretations within sola scriptura…who has the authority on the correct interpretation?

Hell we have one pastor saying something completely contradictory to another within even the same denominations. Whose right?

I'm looking for authority on interpretation. Where is it? Someone has to be right. The truth has to exist. The best argument I've found is that the early church knows because they were closest to Jesus.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

We both use reason, but the question is: how do we know when our reasoning has departed from apostolic truth?

You and another in your church may disagree on salvation based on how you're interpreting scripture. How do guys figure out who's right?

You said you and I "discerned" Rome's errors by reason. But what made those errors recognizable as errors? We judged them against something older, the consensus of the early, undivided Church. That's precisely my point: when our private reasoning disagrees with the consistent witness of the Church closest to the apostles, humility demands we consider that the problem may not be the Church, but our modern assumptions.

---

"We both use reason, but the question is: how do we know when our reasoning has departed from apostolic truth? You and another in your church may disagree on salvation based on how you're interpreting scripture. How do guys figure out who's right?" ---- how does the situation change with "interpretive authorities"? Your Orthodox intepretive authority is at odds with Roman Catholic interpretive authority. Both believe the other has departed from original apostolic truth. How did you decide which to believe?

"You said you and I "discerned" Rome's errors by reason. But what made those errors recognizable as errors? We judged them against something older, the consensus of the early, undivided Church. That's precisely my point: when our private reasoning disagrees with the consistent witness of the Church closest to the apostles, humility demands we consider that the problem may not be the Church, but our modern assumptions" ---- we discerned those errors from something a lot older, and more original than the early church witness of the church fathers - we use Scripture, employing our own reasoning (which the Bereans were praised for, and which Jesus himself told us to employ) guided by the Holy Spirit. I think you're discounting the Spirit. And what early "consensus"? The early fathers did not always agree. They even seemingly contradict themselves at times. The RCC and Orthodox claims to preserving the original faith involves a lot of cherry picking from the fathers, while ignoring others. Important as the church fathers were, they were not infallible. They did not write Scripture. This was fully acknowledged by one of the most important early church fathers, Augustine:

• "I have learned to hold only the Holy Scripture as inerrant. All others, no matter learned they may be, I only read in such a way that I do not hold what they say to be true unless they can prove their statements by the Holy Scripture or by clear reason." (Letter 82, Chapter 1)
• "As regards our writings, which are not a rule of faith or practice, but only a help to edification, we may suppose that they contain some things falling short of the truth.... Such writings are read with the right of judgement, and without any obligation to believe." (Against Faustus, Book XI Chapter 5)

Assuming that the early church was immune from heresy is dangerous. The most dangerous heresies began in the 1st century. Even the apostle Paul, as well as Jesus himself, had to harshly criticize the first century churches for their errors.

---

What denomination is correct then and why?

Are calvinists correct when they claim that God unilaterally decides who is saved and who is damned, without any true offer of grace to all, that Human choices don't matter because God's decree is exhaustive and that Evangelism is unnecessary since the elect will be saved anyway? They're pointing to scripture to make this claim. I had an elder Calvinist at a Baptist church try to convince me of all of that.

---

We don't have to hash this out all just yet. Let's first just agree to the base principles.

Yes, the inevitable result is that there will be different intepretations. But the point is that we should agree on the principle of sola scriptura and the limitations of oral tradition. Yes, there will inevitably be differences in interpretations of Scripture this way, leading to division - but I submit to you: it's far worse to have "interpretive authorities" that claim infallibility and ulltimate, final authority because that forces followers to completely ABANDON their own critical reasoning and self-discernment and follow the authority blindly, even when their conscience tells them otherwise. It makes it near impossible for a committed Roman Catholic to see their error, which we both agree is there.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history. They don't pray to icons or to Mary as deities, they venerate them as windows into the reality of Christ's work.

The irony is that Protestants reject "tradition" in theory but live by it in practice, from their canon of Scripture to their wedding ceremonies and worship styles. There's no apostolic command or scriptural blueprint for the modern wedding rite (rings, vows, pastor officiating, white dress). Yet virtually all Protestant churches practice it as a sacred ritual and don't see marriage legitimate without it. Many Protestants submit their "reason" to their pastor's interpretations or denominational statements of faith. That's functionally identical to what they accuse Orthodoxy or Rome of doing, just without the historical continuity.

Honestly, Orthodoxy looks a lot more like the faith the apostles actually lived because it still carries the DNA of Second Temple Judaism: the religious world Jesus and the apostles came from. The liturgy, use of incense, vestments, psalms, fasting cycles, and sacraments all directly mirror Jewish worship patterns that were fulfilled in Christ, not discarded. The early Christians didn't suddenly invent a new way of worshiping God; they took the synagogue and temple rhythms and reoriented them around the risen Messiah.

---

"Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history." ---- but did Jesus or his apostles? And we're talking about a lot more than just "exalted language", aren't we? Do you honestly believe it's okay to praise someone and credit them for our salvation other than Jesus, like the Akathist Hymn does? Do you truly not see the idolatry and blasphemy there?

Again, things like wedding ceremonies aren't crucial to salvation or righteousness. On the other hand, to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, you are anathematized to Hell for not bowing to and praying to images (icons). See the HUGE difference?

So what do you think, then, of the Orthodox Church's practice of icon veneration (and it's absolute requirement for believers upon pain of anthema) in light of the fact that you insist that we should not stray from the witness of the early church? Because not only is icon veneration completely absent in Scripture, the consensus among the early church fathers was that it was forbidden. How then do you reconcile this with the Orthodox claim of being the one true, undivided and undeviated church?

---

Let's say you're correct…what denomination is right?

We've got so many different interpretations within sola scriptura…who has the authority on the correct interpretation?

Hell we have one pastor saying something completely contradictory to another within even the same denominations. Whose right?

I'm looking for authority on interpretation. Where is it? Someone has to be right. The truth has to exist. The best argument I've found is that the early church knows because they were closest to Jesus.

---

I think if we honestly and diligently study Scripture, read other people's intepretations (who are far smarter than us), read/view debates and engage in them, and pray to God for the Holy Spirit to guide us..... then I truly believe we can come to a correct/non-heretical understanding. I believe in the Spirit-guided perspicuity of most of Scripture. Let's not pretend that Scripture is so hard to understand that it's a complete mystery what it says. For instance, if someone comes along and tries to argue that homsexuality is not a sin, then I think you and I can agree that Scripture is absolutely clear on that topic.

Please take the time to read this first post if you haven't yet

Romans 10:13 KJV
[13] For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

I would be curious to know how many people prayed that prayer in faith

1 Corinthians 2:9 KJV
[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, Neither have entered into the heart of man, The things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history. They don't pray to icons or to Mary as deities, they venerate them as windows into the reality of Christ's work.

The irony is that Protestants reject "tradition" in theory but live by it in practice, from their canon of Scripture to their wedding ceremonies and worship styles. There's no apostolic command or scriptural blueprint for the modern wedding rite (rings, vows, pastor officiating, white dress). Yet virtually all Protestant churches practice it as a sacred ritual and don't see marriage legitimate without it. Many Protestants submit their "reason" to their pastor's interpretations or denominational statements of faith. That's functionally identical to what they accuse Orthodoxy or Rome of doing, just without the historical continuity.

Honestly, Orthodoxy looks a lot more like the faith the apostles actually lived because it still carries the DNA of Second Temple Judaism: the religious world Jesus and the apostles came from. The liturgy, use of incense, vestments, psalms, fasting cycles, and sacraments all directly mirror Jewish worship patterns that were fulfilled in Christ, not discarded. The early Christians didn't suddenly invent a new way of worshiping God; they took the synagogue and temple rhythms and reoriented them around the risen Messiah.

---

"Every early Christian writer, from Irenaeus to Athanasius, used similar exalted language about the saints and about Mary's unique role in salvation history." ---- but did Jesus or his apostles? And we're talking about a lot more than just "exalted language", aren't we? Do you honestly believe it's okay to praise someone and credit them for our salvation other than Jesus, like the Akathist Hymn does? Do you truly not see the idolatry and blasphemy there?

Again, things like wedding ceremonies aren't crucial to salvation or righteousness. On the other hand, to the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, you are anathematized to Hell for not bowing to and praying to images (icons). See the HUGE difference?

So what do you think, then, of the Orthodox Church's practice of icon veneration (and it's absolute requirement for believers upon pain of anthema) in light of the fact that you insist that we should not stray from the witness of the early church? Because not only is icon veneration completely absent in Scripture, the consensus among the early church fathers was that it was forbidden. How then do you reconcile this with the Orthodox claim of being the one true, undivided and undeviated church?

---

Let's say you're correct…what denomination is right?

We've got so many different interpretations within sola scriptura…who has the authority on the correct interpretation?

Hell we have one pastor saying something completely contradictory to another within even the same denominations. Whose right?

I'm looking for authority on interpretation. Where is it? Someone has to be right. The truth has to exist. The best argument I've found is that the early church knows because they were closest to Jesus.

---

I think if we honestly and diligently study Scripture, read other people's intepretations (who are far smarter than us), read/view debates and engage in them, and pray to God for the Holy Spirit to guide us..... then I truly believe we can come to a correct/non-heretical understanding. I believe in the Spirit-guided perspicuity of most of Scripture. Let's not pretend that Scripture is so hard to understand that it's a complete mystery what it says. For instance, if someone comes along and tries to argue that homsexuality is not a sin, then I think you and I can agree that Scripture is absolutely clear on that topic.

---

If you interpret the Bible literally unless directed otherwise, it is not that hard to understand. One of the biggest problems with interpreting scriptures when people try to allegorize it where it is not supposed to be allegorized.