Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.

---

We've gone over this, yes, and you've shown you have a continued misconception about sola scriptura, which I'm trying to correct. This isn't "framing", it's simply being true to the meaning of concepts. It also isn't about "defending Protestantism", it's about defending sola scriptura. I'm not even saying anything about Orthodoxy right now, I'm just asking you to respond to my correction of your errant view on sola scriptura.

So do you agree to my corrections of your view? Do you agree that your argument is actually NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all?

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.

---

We've gone over this, yes, and you've shown you have a continued misconception about sola scriptura, which I'm trying to correct. This isn't "framing", it's simply being true to the meaning of concepts. It also isn't about "defending Protestantism", it's about defending sola scriptura. I'm not even saying anything about Orthodoxy right now, I'm just asking you to respond to my correction of your errant view on sola scriptura.

So do you agree to my corrections of your view? Do you agree that your argument is actually NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all?

---

I said scripture is infallible. I also said you can't get away from interpretations/authority on scripture. So what's the problem?

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.

---

We've gone over this, yes, and you've shown you have a continued misconception about sola scriptura, which I'm trying to correct. This isn't "framing", it's simply being true to the meaning of concepts. It also isn't about "defending Protestantism", it's about defending sola scriptura. I'm not even saying anything about Orthodoxy right now, I'm just asking you to respond to my correction of your errant view on sola scriptura.

So do you agree to my corrections of your view? Do you agree that your argument is actually NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all?

---

I said scripture is infallible. I also said you can't get away from interpretations/authority on scripture. So what's the problem?

---

The problem is that you're not answering the question.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.

---

We've gone over this, yes, and you've shown you have a continued misconception about sola scriptura, which I'm trying to correct. This isn't "framing", it's simply being true to the meaning of concepts. It also isn't about "defending Protestantism", it's about defending sola scriptura. I'm not even saying anything about Orthodoxy right now, I'm just asking you to respond to my correction of your errant view on sola scriptura.

So do you agree to my corrections of your view? Do you agree that your argument is actually NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all?

---

I said scripture is infallible. I also said you can't get away from interpretations/authority on scripture. So what's the problem?

---

The problem is that you're not answering the question.

---

I've answered. We disagree. Obviously.

I agree with the definition of sola scriptura you're giving: Scripture is the only infallible authority, and sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation. That part is fine.

But where I disagree with you is the idea that the massive fragmentation of Protestantism is irrelevant to sola scriptura. You're trying to separate "authority of Scripture" from "authority of interpretation," but in the real world those two can't be separated. A principle of authority cannot be evaluated apart from the method by which that authority is applied.

You CANNOT work around this. It's insane that you're doing this yourself and you can't even see it: the dynamic between us is the same dynamic that created thousands of Protestant denominations. The moment we disagree on interpretation, you appeal to your authority, I appeal to mine and there's no higher authority to adjudicate the disagreement.

Since you say no interpretive authority should bind the conscience of all believers, then what do you think causes the massive doctrinal separation in Protestantism? If it's not sola scriptura, then what is it? Good luck answering that.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.

---

We've gone over this, yes, and you've shown you have a continued misconception about sola scriptura, which I'm trying to correct. This isn't "framing", it's simply being true to the meaning of concepts. It also isn't about "defending Protestantism", it's about defending sola scriptura. I'm not even saying anything about Orthodoxy right now, I'm just asking you to respond to my correction of your errant view on sola scriptura.

So do you agree to my corrections of your view? Do you agree that your argument is actually NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all?

---

I said scripture is infallible. I also said you can't get away from interpretations/authority on scripture. So what's the problem?

---

The problem is that you're not answering the question.

---

I've answered. We disagree. Obviously.

I agree with the definition of sola scriptura you're giving: Scripture is the only infallible authority, and sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation. That part is fine.

But where I disagree with you is the idea that the massive fragmentation of Protestantism is irrelevant to sola scriptura. You're trying to separate "authority of Scripture" from "authority of interpretation," but in the real world those two can't be separated. A principle of authority cannot be evaluated apart from the method by which that authority is applied.

You CANNOT work around this. It's insane that you're doing this yourself and you can't even see it: the dynamic between us is the same dynamic that created thousands of Protestant denominations. The moment we disagree on interpretation, you appeal to your authority, I appeal to mine and there's no higher authority to adjudicate the disagreement.

Since you say no interpretive authority should bind the conscience of all believers, then what do you think causes the massive doctrinal separation in Protestantism? If it's not sola scriptura, then what is it? Good luck answering that.

---

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. The authority of Scripture and the authority over interpretation of Scripture are two totally different and independent things.

You're completely failing to recognize this independence. Two people who adhere to sola scriptura may disagree as to the interpretation of Scripture - because they have independent interpretive authorities. They both believe scripture is the only infallible authority - but the difference is what each believes Scripture to be saying. Their difference has NOTHING to do with sola scriptura, but rather due to differences in interpretation.

Consider that even if you have two people who REJECT sola scriptura (and accept tradition as an additional infallible authority), you STILL get differences in interpretation if they don't have an interpretive authority over both of them. So in this case as well, sola scriptura has NOTHING to do with the difference in interpretation, because in this case sola scriptura isn't even at play since both reject it. Again, their difference is solely due to their difference in interpretation, not sola scriptura.

You're having a difficult time with this, and it's surprising. I don't even know how you think your question at the end of your post is some kind of "gotcha" - the answer is obvious and easy to answer, and I've answered it already - what causes the "massive doctrinal separation among Protestants" who adhere to sola scriptura is their differences in interpretation of Scripture. Are you not listening and/or comprehending? This isn't difficult AT ALL.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.

---

We've gone over this, yes, and you've shown you have a continued misconception about sola scriptura, which I'm trying to correct. This isn't "framing", it's simply being true to the meaning of concepts. It also isn't about "defending Protestantism", it's about defending sola scriptura. I'm not even saying anything about Orthodoxy right now, I'm just asking you to respond to my correction of your errant view on sola scriptura.

So do you agree to my corrections of your view? Do you agree that your argument is actually NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all?

---

I said scripture is infallible. I also said you can't get away from interpretations/authority on scripture. So what's the problem?

---

The problem is that you're not answering the question.

---

I've answered. We disagree. Obviously.

I agree with the definition of sola scriptura you're giving: Scripture is the only infallible authority, and sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation. That part is fine.

But where I disagree with you is the idea that the massive fragmentation of Protestantism is irrelevant to sola scriptura. You're trying to separate "authority of Scripture" from "authority of interpretation," but in the real world those two can't be separated. A principle of authority cannot be evaluated apart from the method by which that authority is applied.

You CANNOT work around this. It's insane that you're doing this yourself and you can't even see it: the dynamic between us is the same dynamic that created thousands of Protestant denominations. The moment we disagree on interpretation, you appeal to your authority, I appeal to mine and there's no higher authority to adjudicate the disagreement.

Since you say no interpretive authority should bind the conscience of all believers, then what do you think causes the massive doctrinal separation in Protestantism? If it's not sola scriptura, then what is it? Good luck answering that.

---

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. The authority of Scripture and the authority over interpretation of Scripture are two totally different and independent things.

You're completely failing to recognize this independence. Two people who adhere to sola scriptura may disagree as to the interpretation of Scripture - because they have independent interpretive authorities. They both believe scripture is the only infallible authority - but the difference is what each believes Scripture to be saying. Their difference has NOTHING to do with sola scriptura, but rather due to differences in interpretation.

Consider that even if you have two people who REJECT sola scriptura (and accept tradition as an additional infallible authority), you STILL get differences in interpretation if they don't have an interpretive authority over both of them. So in this case as well, sola scriptura has NOTHING to do with the difference in interpretation, because in this case sola scriptura isn't even at play since both reject it. Again, their difference is solely due to their difference in interpretation, not sola scriptura.

You're having a difficult time with this, and it's surprising. I don't even know how you think your question at the end of your post is some kind of "gotcha" - the answer is obvious and easy to answer, and I've answered it already - what causes the "massive doctrinal separation among Protestants" who adhere to sola scriptura is their differences in interpretation of Scripture. Are you not listening and/or comprehending? This isn't difficult AT ALL.

---

The only infallible authority has no infallible interpreter. Under sola scriptura, interpretation is the only mechanism available.

Sola scriptura requires interpretation to function. Interpretation determines doctrine. Therefore doctrine is shaped by the interpretive method, not by the authority of the text.

Why do you feel the need to separate interpretation?

I know what you're trying to accomplish. You assume that because Scripture is the only infallible authority we can point to, this means that tradition, apostolic teaching, councils, and the consensus of the Early Church are all automatically "off the table" even when they're the ones who gave you the canon of Scripture. But that collapses immediately when you consider something like the Holy Trinity. You believe the Trinity, yet that doctrine was formulated, articulated, defended, and canonized by a council, not by private individuals reading their Bibles.

If the early Church was "apostate" or incapable of binding doctrinal authority, then the Trinity collapses along with everything else. So the moment you affirm the Trinity, you are already relying on the interpretive authority of the early Church, whether you admit it or not.

Doc, I wouldn't waste any more time on BTD. When he basically said that if Arius agreed with him, then Arius was right is when I put that discussion in the pearls before swine category and put him on ignore. You simply cannot have a Socratic Q&A session let alone a debate with that level of self righteousness and arrogance.

Have a blessed Advent season.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

I fully understand the formal definition of sola scriptura:
Scripture alone is the only infallible authority.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then every other authority, pastors, councils, bishops, synods, must be fallible and non-binding by definition. Yes or no?

---

Well, based on what you're saying, you don't seem to have a full, correct understanding. I'm only trying to help clarify it for you, please don't be defensive.

If Scripture is the only infallible authority, then yes, by definition every other authority (pastors, councils, bishops, etc) is not infallible. But NO, it does not mean that their authority is not "binding" in every sense. It depends on what you mean by "binding". Consider - a church may have a statement of beliefs that it requires every member to believe, otherwise they can't be a member of the church. They are "bound" by the authority of their church to be a member.... but they are not "bound" in the sense that they can't be a Christian, and thus, apart from salvation if they don't believe it.

---

My point is about binding doctrinal authority over the conscience of all believers in a way that prevents contradictory interpretations from taking hold.

Landmark Baptists have historically argued that only Baptists who hold their specific beliefs about baptism and church polity are true Christians and saved. They base this on their interpretation of scripture. How do you deal with that?

So while local churches can bind members to certain beliefs, that is not the same as having a central, apostolic authority that preserves unity and guards correct interpretation across the entire body of believers.

Imagine that over the next 300 years the vast majority of Protestants gradually reject the Holy Trinity, reasoning that "the Council of Nicaea came from the Orthodox, and they're apostate." "ecumenical councils were wrong, our interpretation is right". That's fatal because then we're not worshipping the same God.

It's valid to stretch these concepts to the extreme, if they can't hold up then it's a problem. If at the extreme it's not an issue, we're on the right track.

---

In your sense of "binding", then no, the interpretation of Scripture by a few fallible men should never "bind" the conscience of every believer in a way that prevents them from thinking for themselves and following their own conscience. This is essentially authoritarianism, but much worse, because it involves mens' conscience. Why do those who strongly defend the free market of ideas and self determination in politics all of the sudden give in to dictatorship in religion?

The way to deal with churches like Landmark Baptist is to follow your conscience, and go to another church. If you don't believe Calvinism is true, then don't go to a Calvinist church. In the end, Jesus will judge you as an individual for what's in your heart, not what church building you went to on Sundays.

The Trinity is an interesting topic. Not to go off the rails here, but a correct belief in the Trinity is not necessary for salvation. Jesus isn't going to send someone who believes in him and fully trusts in him for their salvation to Hell because that person didn't get the doctrine on the Trinity correct.

We can continue these discussions more in depth, but let's not detract from the main point - do you agree that protestant denominational divisions is NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all, for all the reasons hashed out above? We need a correct conceptual understanding before we move on, if we want this to be productive.

---

We've already gone over this and you want to frame it your way so you can protect Protestantism.

I don't think this will be productive at all. You see Orthodoxy as apostate and you're not willing to change your mind.

---

We've gone over this, yes, and you've shown you have a continued misconception about sola scriptura, which I'm trying to correct. This isn't "framing", it's simply being true to the meaning of concepts. It also isn't about "defending Protestantism", it's about defending sola scriptura. I'm not even saying anything about Orthodoxy right now, I'm just asking you to respond to my correction of your errant view on sola scriptura.

So do you agree to my corrections of your view? Do you agree that your argument is actually NOT an argument against sola scriptura at all?

---

I said scripture is infallible. I also said you can't get away from interpretations/authority on scripture. So what's the problem?

---

The problem is that you're not answering the question.

---

I've answered. We disagree. Obviously.

I agree with the definition of sola scriptura you're giving: Scripture is the only infallible authority, and sola scriptura does not guarantee correct interpretation. That part is fine.

But where I disagree with you is the idea that the massive fragmentation of Protestantism is irrelevant to sola scriptura. You're trying to separate "authority of Scripture" from "authority of interpretation," but in the real world those two can't be separated. A principle of authority cannot be evaluated apart from the method by which that authority is applied.

You CANNOT work around this. It's insane that you're doing this yourself and you can't even see it: the dynamic between us is the same dynamic that created thousands of Protestant denominations. The moment we disagree on interpretation, you appeal to your authority, I appeal to mine and there's no higher authority to adjudicate the disagreement.

Since you say no interpretive authority should bind the conscience of all believers, then what do you think causes the massive doctrinal separation in Protestantism? If it's not sola scriptura, then what is it? Good luck answering that.

---

I'm sorry, but you're not making any sense. The authority of Scripture and the authority over interpretation of Scripture are two totally different and independent things.

You're completely failing to recognize this independence. Two people who adhere to sola scriptura may disagree as to the interpretation of Scripture - because they have independent interpretive authorities. They both believe scripture is the only infallible authority - but the difference is what each believes Scripture to be saying. Their difference has NOTHING to do with sola scriptura, but rather due to differences in interpretation.

Consider that even if you have two people who REJECT sola scriptura (and accept tradition as an additional infallible authority), you STILL get differences in interpretation if they don't have an interpretive authority over both of them. So in this case as well, sola scriptura has NOTHING to do with the difference in interpretation, because in this case sola scriptura isn't even at play since both reject it. Again, their difference is solely due to their difference in interpretation, not sola scriptura.

You're having a difficult time with this, and it's surprising. I don't even know how you think your question at the end of your post is some kind of "gotcha" - the answer is obvious and easy to answer, and I've answered it already - what causes the "massive doctrinal separation among Protestants" who adhere to sola scriptura is their differences in interpretation of Scripture. Are you not listening and/or comprehending? This isn't difficult AT ALL.

---

The only infallible authority has no infallible interpreter. Under sola scriptura, interpretation is the only mechanism available.

Sola scriptura requires interpretation to function. Interpretation determines doctrine. Therefore doctrine is shaped by the interpretive method, not by the authority of the text.

Why do you feel the need to separate interpretation?

I know what you're trying to accomplish. You assume that because Scripture is the only infallible authority we can point to, this means that tradition, apostolic teaching, councils, and the consensus of the Early Church are all automatically "off the table" even when they're the ones who gave you the canon of Scripture. But that collapses immediately when you consider something like the Holy Trinity. You believe the Trinity, yet that doctrine was formulated, articulated, defended, and canonized by a council, not by private individuals reading their Bibles.

If the early Church was "apostate" or incapable of binding doctrinal authority, then the Trinity collapses along with everything else. So the moment you affirm the Trinity, you are already relying on the interpretive authority of the early Church, whether you admit it or not.

---

"The only infallible authority has no infallible interpreter" - sure it does, it's called the Holy Spirit.

"Under sola scriptura, interpretation is the only mechanism available" - that's true for everything outside of sola scriptura as well. Tradition needs to be interpreted too.

"Sola scriptura requires interpretation to function" - so does Scripture + tradition. You're not making any argument that is unique to sola scriptura.

"Therefore doctrine is shaped by the interpretive method, not by the authority of the text" - EXACTLY! Sola scriptura is only about the authority of the text, not the interpretive method. And it's the differencs in interpretive method that leads to differences in doctrine. Therefore, denominational divisions are the result of differences in interpretive method, NOT by sola scriptura. You're making my argument for me.

"Why do you feel the need to separate interpretation?" - Because they ARE separate. Sola scriptura is a principle that has nothing to do with interpretation. When you are arguing "how sola scriptura functions in practice", **you're NOT arguing how sola scriptura functions in practice, you're arguing how INTERPRETATION of Scripture functions in practice. You're combining two separate concepts and trying to pin the blame for division among protestant denominations on sola scriptura when you're really blaming their differences in interpretation due to there not being a singular interpretive authority over all of them.

Think with me for a second: if the Roman Catholic Church decided to follow sola scriptura, but keep its magisterial authority over interpretation - it would not lead to doctrinal division, right? Because they have a singular interpretive authority. Therefore, here you have sola scriptura, but "sola scriptura functions in practice" in this case without denominational division.

Now consider this too: the Orthodox Church and Roman Catholicism BOTH reject sola scriptura. But they are divided! Why? Because of differences in interpretation between their interpretive authorities! So in this particular case, there is no sola scriptura that "functioning in practice" at all since both reject it, yet you have the same kind of division that you're blaming sola scriptura for.

So the above two scenarios logically demonstrate that sola scriptura isn't related to the cause of division at all, because you can have sola scriptura without division, and you can have division without sola scriptura. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this logic for you to get it, but if necessary, I will.

No, I'm not following the authority of the early church for the canon. I'm following the authority of the canon itself. The early church only correctly recognized what the canon consisted of. In other words, I'm not saying "this is the canon because the early church said so". Rather, I'm saying "this is the canon because GOD said so, and the early church recognized and received it." You do realize that I don't accept the canon of Roman Catholicism, which includes the books of the deuterocanon? So obviously I'm not going by their "authority". This defeats your claim right there.

Realitybites said:

---

Doc, I wouldn't waste any more time on BTD. When he basically said that if Arius agreed with him, then Arius was right is when I put that discussion in the pearls before swine category and put him on ignore. You simply cannot have a Socratic Q&A session let alone a debate with that level of self righteousness and arrogance.

Have a blessed Advent season.

---

Never said that. You are bearing false witness.

What really happened is you couldn't argue against my points, so you decided to lie in order to attack me personally.

People who are in the truth just don't do this.

Realitybites said:

---

Doc, I wouldn't waste any more time on BTD. When he basically said that if Arius agreed with him, then Arius was right is when I put that discussion in the pearls before swine category and put him on ignore. You simply cannot have a Socratic Q&A session let alone a debate with that level of self righteousness and arrogance.

Have a blessed Advent season.

---

Yeah, he wants me to agree that denominational division is not relevant to sola scriptura. I told him we disagree, listed reasoning and he won't even agree to disagree. He won't even refute me.

I see the writing on the wall. Protestantism will continue to drift towards secular and woke ideology until it's accepted by the vast majority of them. They have no authority or safeguards to prevent further splintering.

There's a reason why Orthodoxy is gaining so much ground. Before the internet, a typical Protestant only heard their own pastor's teaching. Now they see 10,000 contradictory interpretations from other Protestants who all say: "Just read the Bible plainly."

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Doc, I wouldn't waste any more time on BTD. When he basically said that if Arius agreed with him, then Arius was right is when I put that discussion in the pearls before swine category and put him on ignore. You simply cannot have a Socratic Q&A session let alone a debate with that level of self righteousness and arrogance.

Have a blessed Advent season.

---

Yeah, he wants me to agree that denominational division is not relevant to sola scriptura. I told him we disagree, listed reasoning and he won't even agree to disagree. He won't even refute me.

I see the writing on the wall. Protestantism will continue to drift towards secular and woke ideology until it's accepted by the vast majority of them. They have no authority or safeguards to prevent further splintering.

There's a reason why Orthodoxy is gaining so much ground. Before the internet, a typical Protestant only heard their own pastor's teaching. Now they see 10,000 contradictory interpretations from other Protestants who all say: "Just read the Bible plainly."

---

Denominational division is NOT related to sola scriptura, and I've proved it in the posts above. I have refuted you. Your "reasoning" is flawed, as I've also proven above. You're trying to blame sola scriptura by blaming interpretation of scripture, a straw man argument. You just won't admit to this, because you're defending your tribe over truth.

If you won't engage the argument honestly, then you're just like all the others like Realitybites, who couldn't argue against me logically and in good faith so they had to resort to ad hominem as a reason to disregard me. This is merely a defense mechanism against having to come to terms with the flaws in your beliefs. I know you've seen this happen to me a lot here. And all I've been doing is argue logic, history, and facts.

SO MANY of you, especially RealityBites, have a fatal misconception of sola scriptura, and it's clouding your understanding and judgement. I challenge you to not be like them, and to answer my arguments honestly. If you really do have the truth, then you'd be able to. If you're just going to run away like the others, then it clearly shows that you don't.

It will never cease to amaze me, the irony of how Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism argues that sola scriptura leads to division among Protestants.... when Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism both reject sola scriptura, yet it led to division between them.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It will never cease to amaze me, the irony of how Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism argues that sola scriptura leads to division among Protestants.... when Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism both reject sola scriptura, yet it led to division between them.

---

The Orthodox-Catholic split was not caused by Scripture being the only authority. It was caused by a dispute over competing authorities: papal supremacy vs. conciliar authority.

It was two authorities claiming the same throne.
Protestantism has the opposite problem: no throne at all.

Orthodoxy has dozens of jurisdictions, hundreds of dioceses, thousands of bishops, millions of believers…yet one doctrine for 2,000 years. If your logic was sound, the Orthodox Church should look like Protestantism.

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It will never cease to amaze me, the irony of how Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism argues that sola scriptura leads to division among Protestants.... when Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism both reject sola scriptura, yet it led to division between them.

---

The Orthodox-Catholic split was not caused by Scripture being the only authority. It was caused by a dispute over competing authorities: papal supremacy vs. conciliar authority.

It was two authorities claiming the same throne.
Protestantism has the opposite problem: no throne at all.

Orthodoxy has dozens of jurisdictions, hundreds of dioceses, thousands of bishops, millions of believers…yet one doctrine for 2,000 years. If your logic was sound, the Orthodox Church should look like Protestantism.

---

Thanks for making my point - the division occured due to differences in interpretation, and it happens regardless of whether you have sola scriptura or not.

But it's just so ironic that when Protestants divide in the same way, you blame sola scriptura instead of differences in interpretation.

Your last paragraph is the perfect example of how you simply can not process and grasp the argument - no, according to my logic Orthodoxy would NOT be divided like protestantism, because Orthodoxy has a single interpretive authority over all of Orthodox Christianity, while protestantism does not. It's inexplicable how this simple concept is escaping you.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It will never cease to amaze me, the irony of how Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism argues that sola scriptura leads to division among Protestants.... when Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism both reject sola scriptura, yet it led to division between them.

---

The Orthodox-Catholic split was not caused by Scripture being the only authority. It was caused by a dispute over competing authorities: papal supremacy vs. conciliar authority.

It was two authorities claiming the same throne.
Protestantism has the opposite problem: no throne at all.

Orthodoxy has dozens of jurisdictions, hundreds of dioceses, thousands of bishops, millions of believers…yet one doctrine for 2,000 years. If your logic was sound, the Orthodox Church should look like Protestantism.

---

Thanks for making my point - the division occured due to differences in interpretation, and it happens regardless of whether you have sola scriptura or not.

But it's just so ironic that when Protestants divide in the same way, you blame sola scriptura instead of differences in interpretation.

Your last paragraph is the perfect example of how you simply can not process and grasp the argument - no, according to my logic Orthodoxy would NOT be divided like protestantism, because Orthodoxy has a single interpretive authority over all of Orthodox Christianity, while protestantism does not. It's inexplicable how this simple concept is escaping you.

---

Orthodoxy teaches Holy tradition plus scripture, never scripture alone. They interpret scripture within the authority of the apostolic Church that produced it, not by private judgment. They do this for good reason, without tradition, they wouldn't have been able to oppose the papacy, because although scripture is clear, catholics don't interpret it the same.

Scripture and Holy tradition absolutely refutes the papacy. See the following:
Galatians 2:11
Acts 15 (Counsel of Jerusalem - decision made by the whole council, not Peter).
Acts 14:23 (Church structure is collegial, not monarchical).
Matthew 18:18

Tradition is what ultimately refutes the papacy. See the following:
Ecumenical councils repeatedly affirmed the equality of bishops
Writings of Church Fathers overwhelmingly taught conciliarity.
St. Cyprian of Carthage said "no bishop is the bishop of bishops" in the 3rd century.

They had consistent practice of conciliarity. No pope could overrule a council. No pope acted as supreme judge. It was this way for over 1000 years. Orthodoxy still preserves this model.

Its not shocking to then see why Catholics have liturgical breakdown and chaos. They have Priests that bless same sex unions, entire dioceses openly endorsing lgbt ideology. Many of these same issues cover a MASSIVE portion of Protestants too. Even mainline and moderate baptists (CBF, American Baptist Churches USA) have already embraced insanity like female pastors, lgbt affirming clergy, and social justice language in denominational materials.

There obviously needs to be a body of conciliarity that prevents heresy from becoming widespread.

All these crazy things will takeover the majority of Protestantism and Catholicism by the end of century. There's no mechanism to stop it. The Orthodox church doesn't have this problem. In the future they will stand alone in rejecting this modern secular/woke nonsense which all Protestants/Catholics will eventually affirm.

Rudimentary

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It will never cease to amaze me, the irony of how Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism argues that sola scriptura leads to division among Protestants.... when Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism both reject sola scriptura, yet it led to division between them.

---

The Orthodox-Catholic split was not caused by Scripture being the only authority. It was caused by a dispute over competing authorities: papal supremacy vs. conciliar authority.

It was two authorities claiming the same throne.
Protestantism has the opposite problem: no throne at all.

Orthodoxy has dozens of jurisdictions, hundreds of dioceses, thousands of bishops, millions of believers…yet one doctrine for 2,000 years. If your logic was sound, the Orthodox Church should look like Protestantism.

---

Thanks for making my point - the division occured due to differences in interpretation, and it happens regardless of whether you have sola scriptura or not.

But it's just so ironic that when Protestants divide in the same way, you blame sola scriptura instead of differences in interpretation.

Your last paragraph is the perfect example of how you simply can not process and grasp the argument - no, according to my logic Orthodoxy would NOT be divided like protestantism, because Orthodoxy has a single interpretive authority over all of Orthodox Christianity, while protestantism does not. It's inexplicable how this simple concept is escaping you.

---

Orthodoxy teaches Holy tradition plus scripture, never scripture alone. They interpret scripture within the authority of the apostolic Church that produced it, not by private judgment. They do this for good reason, without tradition, they wouldn't have been able to oppose the papacy, because although scripture is clear, catholics don't interpret it the same.

Scripture and Holy tradition absolutely refutes the papacy. See the following:
Galatians 2:11
Acts 15 (Counsel of Jerusalem - decision made by the whole council, not Peter).
Acts 14:23 (Church structure is collegial, not monarchical).
Matthew 18:18

Tradition is what ultimately refutes the papacy. See the following:
Ecumenical councils repeatedly affirmed the equality of bishops
Writings of Church Fathers overwhelmingly taught conciliarity.
St. Cyprian of Carthage said "no bishop is the bishop of bishops" in the 3rd century.

They had consistent practice of conciliarity. No pope could overrule a council. No pope acted as supreme judge. It was this way for over 1000 years. Orthodoxy still preserves this model.

Its not shocking to then see why Catholics have liturgical breakdown and chaos. They have Priests that bless same sex unions, entire dioceses openly endorsing lgbt ideology. Many of these same issues cover a MASSIVE portion of Protestants too. Even mainline and moderate baptists (CBF, American Baptist Churches USA) have already embraced insanity like female pastors, lgbt affirming clergy, and social justice language in denominational materials.

There obviously needs to be a body of conciliarity that prevents heresy from becoming widespread.

All these crazy things will takeover the majority of Protestantism and Catholicism by the end of century. There's no mechanism to stop it. The Orthodox church doesn't have this problem. In the future they will stand alone in rejecting this modern secular/woke nonsense which all Protestants/Catholics will eventually affirm.

---

But consider that Orthodoxy, despite its "body of conciliarity", STILL allowed heresy to creep in. You've been given the purest example in the form of Marian idolatry in Orthodoxy, where Mary is given credit for salvation, as evidenced by Orthodoxy's Akathisa Hymn. Icon veneration, making images of and praying to Mary and the saints, and adding works to the gospel of grace are other, very criticial errors. And why are these errors present? Precisely because Orthodoxy rejects sola scriptura. And what's worse is that Orthodoxy neither sees the need, nor provides the mechanism to correct her errors, because she claims to be the infallible extension of the original apostolic tradition, incapable of error.

But, there is NO apostolic tradition outside of Scripture. I've challenged you and everyone here who's made that claim to produce ONE tradition that we know came from the apostles, but is not in Scripture. And NONE of you have every been able to give even one. You've been shown firsthand how your "tradition" has to be drawn from sources that are not apostolic, evidenced firsthand by one of your own Orthodox brethren right here in this thread when he presented the source for your belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary - the Protoevangelium of James, a GNOSTIC text whose author IS NOT KNOWN but who claimed to be James the apostle, but wasn't (so it was based on a lie), written a century after the time of Jesus. Moreover, your tradition has to pick-and-choose which parts of this fantastical tale is reliable "history", and which parts are not. This is a VERY DUBIOUS source to be claiming as "apostolic tradition". And this is just one example.

And what makes this even worse, is that your church REQUIRES this belief to be part of the body of Christ, which means that if you don't believe in it based on very good historical, scriptural, and logical grounds, you are still ANATHEMA. Meaning, you are apart from God and destined for Hell. Do you REALLY believe this? Can you REALLY say that those, including myself, who believe and trust in Jesus for our salvation, are still going to Hell because we don't believe in..... Mary's perpetual virginity? Is that the Gospel of Jesus Christ? And we aren't even getting into how Orthodoxy added works to Jesus' gospel of grace, something that Paul said was the REAL anathema!

I agree with you 100% about Roman Catholicism's errors with regard to the papacy, but Orthodoxy still shares deep errors along with her, because they both rely on man's fallible tradition in addition to infallible Scripture, i.e. they've both rejected sola scriptura. I also disagree with you, in that not all Protestant churches will give in to LGBT, female clergy, and wokeism. Some false churches will, but that's the beauty of Protestantism. You don't have to be trapped in their errors, and you can leave for another, bible based church. There are good protestant churches that hold fast to Scripture, and have not "soiled their garments" as Jesus said to the church in Sardis in Revelation 3. And in the end, Jesus is going to judge you individually for what's in your heart, NOT by what building you went to on Sundays.

I commend you for your pursuit of correctness, truth, and holiness. And for your "questioning" that you said you were currently doing. But with respect, what I see from you is that, for some reason, your "questioning" completely stops with Orthodoxy. You just swallow what they say wholesale, even when you're shown overt, blatant Marian idolatry in your liturgy, something I firmly believe that NO true Christian would even think is remotely okay. Honestly, I don't see honestly "questioning" here, I only see you being disillusioned about the compromises of your previous protestant church, and you running to a Church that claims historical constancy with original apostolic tradition (though it can't even show this to be true). And in this church, there is NO mechanism for correction, even when it is clearly evident she is in deep error. THAT is the fundamental problem with churches like RC and Orthodoxy who claim an infallible, single, central, interpretive authority that binds the conscience of all its followers upon pain of anathema, i.e. you go to Hell if you don't follow. Wake up folks, that is a cult. Unlike in protestantism, you are trapped in her errors.

This is why sola scriptura is fundamental and vital. It's why I've focused on it. And I still would like you to engage in the discussion about it.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Remember to give Thanks unto the Lord.

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

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

It will never cease to amaze me, the irony of how Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism argues that sola scriptura leads to division among Protestants.... when Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism both reject sola scriptura, yet it led to division between them.

---

Jesus Himself quoted Scripture and expected us to believe all Scripture

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

Please read the first post

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you read it? That's exactky what it says. So yes, Salvation can be gotten by praying this prayer in true faith, but it has to be in true faith.

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Ephesians 1:13-14 KJV
[13] In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, [14] which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.

It's simple, Faith in Scripture always includes obedience.
If your faith doesn't produce works, it's dead, and dead things don't save you.

If you truly love Him, you will keep His commandments. That is effort on your behalf. Period. It's you not resisting and that's a work. Period.

We've got to stop promoting the demonic gospel that's a legal argument where you're saved once and you don't have to do anything or you get to continue living in unrepentant sin.

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

"Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom…
but he who does the will of My Father." Matthew 7:21

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

I hope you all had a great weekend

Doc Holliday said:

---

It's simple, Faith in Scripture always includes obedience.
If your faith doesn't produce works, it's dead, and dead things don't save you.

If you truly love Him, you will keep His commandments. That is effort on your behalf. Period. It's you not resisting and that's a work. Period.

We've got to stop promoting the demonic gospel that's a legal argument where you're saved once and you don't have to do anything or you get to continue living in unrepentant sin.

"You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." James 2:24

"Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord' will enter the kingdom…
but he who does the will of My Father." Matthew 7:21

---

Faith doesn't include obedience. Faith results in obedience.

Yes, true faith will produce works. But it's your faith that saves you, not your works.

Yes, if you truly love Him, you will keep His commandments (though not perfectly, as no one is perfect). But you are saved by faith, not by your keeping of His commandments.

You're calling a "demonic gospel" the actual gospel of the Bible. You don't have to do anything for your salvation. The Bible is clear on that.

James 2:24 is not talking about "justification" in the sense of being made righteous before God. It's talking about "justification" in the sense of a person proving his faith to be real. God doesn't need that proof, he knows your heart.

The will of the Father is that we believe in Jesus (John 6:29).

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

A person who says they believe, but then uses their supposed salvation as an excuse to sin to their heart's delight, does NOT have a real faith. If they had real faith, they'd have the Holy Spirit, and be regenerate by it. Though a saved person may still sin, the Spirit convicts them and guides them into truth. They do not go on sinning unrepentantly. You Roman Catholics and Orthodox seem to either forget about or signficantly discount the presence and role of the Holy Spirit in the believer's life.

Now consider what your belief system is promoting: it produces Christians who think "I must obey, otherwise I won't be saved" thus making them place their faith on their own performance rather than on the completed work of Jesus Christ for their salvation. It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

Ugly sweater Christmas Party. Yea or nay?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

Exactly.

This is "once saved, always saved" or "profession of faith" salvation. It's only been around for about 200 years, basically since the 1800s revivalist movement. The apostles didn't believe this, and neither did the early Church. Even the reformers didn't believe this concept.

A person can genuinely believe for a time and later reject the faith. But their system collapses that reality by saying, "Well, then they never truly believed." Yet those same people who reject it, insist they did truly believe for a period of time. So now we're left with an impossible problem: even what feels like genuine faith might be illegitimate. How do they know they're not fooling themselves? How does anyone know? Their assurance rests on their own self-evaluation, not on God's judgment.




The good in me is God's work. The evil in me is my resistance.
This is precisely why Paul speaks with "fear and trembling" TO BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, because salvation involves continually responding to God, not assuming it's already a done deal.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

Saying you lose your salvation by disobedience is no different than saying you are saved by your performance, i.e. your works. This would make salvation NOT a gift. It's not a gift if you take it back if the person doesn't do what you want, or do what you require. This would most certainly be a false gospel.

Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy is trying to turn the free gift of salvation into something that their church can only dispense through their sacraments. It's the typical double talk needed to get around what the Bible teaches - "yes, it's a gift....that you must work to keep".

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

xfrodobagginsx said:

---

Realitybites said:

---

Salvation is not found in the saying of this prayer. This sort of incantational Christianity has practically destroyed the church in the West.

Salvation is found in "I submit my life to you, I submit my will to yours."

"Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:" Matthew 7:24.

Revivalism is not the solution. It is the problem.

---

Did you even read the prayer? Yes you can pray for Salvation....Romans 10:9,10-13

---

Yes. Read the prayer many times, for the first time decades ago. Prayed it. Over the years I've come to understand that it is the beginning, not the end point of salvation.

---

Yep.

If you tell people that they are saved the moment they believe, that nothing they do affects their salvation, and that works have zero relationship to salvation, then logically there is no eternal consequence for disobedience, apathy, or lack of repentance. Humans respond to incentives, and when you remove the incentive, you inevitably remove the behavior. This produces Christians who think, "I should obey, but I don't have to," "Sin won't affect my salvation," and "Fruit is nice, but not necessary." It is a theological setup that naturally leads to spiritual laziness.

---

It makes them say to themselves, "Have I done enough to be saved?" thus placing their faith on their works to be saved. The Bible clearly says that this is a false gospel.

---

It would be a false gospel, but it's not what Catholics and Orthodox believe. Salvation is a gift. It cannot be earned. It can be lost through disobedience. That's the difference between a gift and an entitlement. Catholics are not so proud as to believe our works entitle us to anything.

---

Exactly.

This is "once saved, always saved" or "profession of faith" salvation. It's only been around for about 200 years, basically since the 1800s revivalist movement. The apostles didn't believe this, and neither did the early Church. Even the reformers didn't believe this concept.

---

The apostles literally taught that if you believe in Jesus, you will be saved (Acts 16:30-31). That's literally how the thief on the cross, the sinful woman in Luke 7, and the house of Cornelius were all saved. No works whatsoever. No obedience. Just their faith.

In addition, Jesus himself said that he would not lose any that was given to him by the Father, that this was God's will (John 6:39). If one were saved, then lost, then God's will would be thwarted. The apostle Paul also said that when we believed, we were SEALED by the Holy Spirit for salvation, which is a GUARANTEE of our salvation (Ephesians 1:13-14)