Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nonsense. There are a multitude of doctrines that are not spelled out in the Creeds that Christians of differing denominations fail to agree upon.
Most of them are quite minor.
Quote:
Even the whole ET/UR debate (which appears to be the focus of about half of the threads on the Christianity forum at any given time) is not even mentioned in the Creeds, and yet look how it divides Christians today.
It stems from a lack of understanding of a major doctrinal error--the substitutionary atonement and the nature of salvation.
Quote:
It is entirely possible to use the Bible alone to prove either side of that particular argument. All you have to do is use the verses which support your position and ignore the ones that support the opposite point of view.
Then, when your opponent brings up the ones you pretended don't exist, you just have to tell him that he's interpreting them incorrectly. So much for Sola Scriptura as a reliable way of settling doctrinal disputes.
No...you read all of them in context. That's what I do. It's called Systematic Theology.
Since Mike and Twin are two parrots singing the same song, more or less, I'm just responding to one of them and it's Twin's turn.
Does calling my thinking Satanic make you feel better about yourself by the way?
There is only two sets of opinions ... God's or Satan's.
So as God said a person either speaks for the one or for the other ... and Jesus was very clear about that.
"Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong
to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from
the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his
native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
Yet because I tell the truth, you do not believe me! "
-------------------------
" This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: ..... "
----------------------------------------------------------
But when Jesus turned and looked at his disciples, he rebuked Peter.
“Get behind me, Satan! For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
And you mistake me. I do not want to erase any of those works from the Bible. I would rather see all Christians go back and really and truly revisit the canonization process. None of the accepted works laid down any of your rules for validity as scripture. Those are the rules set forth by the early Catholic Church. I would like to track down and find the many hundreds of other New Testament writings that must have existed but do not appear to have survived. Is it even remotely plausible that Peter led the Church of Jesus Christ for almost 30 years, but never offered his own witness and account of the life of the Master? Are we to believe that he only wrote two letters to the Church in nearly 30 years? Are we supposed to believe that James only took the time to write something down once during his apostleship? Are we honestly supposed to believe that the rest of the original 12 apostles didn't have anything at all to say to us at all? And what of the surviving works claiming apostolic authorship? What of other works that are almost certainly inspired works, but which were not written by the apostles? Since when has God been limited when bestowing the prophetic mantle?
Actually, I understand you more than you think.
I have encounter many people such like yourself.
It's not by accident that what has been preserved from all the potential writings is due entirely because God is the author of the both testaments ... it wasn't some random power ball chances of winning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
And why can't God give us new scripture now? .... Why would things have changed?
Because enough was given
John 20:31
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
the desire to want to know more than what God has provide is the time old evil ploy that Satan used against Adam & Eve.
Paul had to be content with fact that ... "For we know in part and we prophesy in part," .... and it will remain that way. John 20:31 gives the answer to why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Protestantism rejected so many non-Biblical and unsupportable claims:
-- The RCC elevated Mary to the status of virtual deity. Protestantism rejected this "truth."
-- The RCC claimed that the Pope is God's appointed head of the Church. Protestantism rejected this "truth."
-- The RCC claims transubstantiation of the Eucharist. Protestantism rejects it.
-- The RCC claims that celibacy is an absolute requirement for entry into the priesthood. Protestantism rejected this notion.
-- The RCC claimed to have the right from God to sell indulgences. Protestantism rejected it.
-- The RCC practices infant baptism. Much of Protestantism rejected the idea.
-- The RCC claims that you can pray to saints as an intermediary to speak to God. Protestants rejected the idea.
-- The RCC claims that their earthly organization is the only source of real authority from God on earth. Protestants rejected the idea.
-- The RCC claimed that all sermons must be spoken in Latin. Protestants rejected the idea.
-- The RCC claimed exclusive rights to the Biblical texts. Protestants rejected the idea.
There are so many cases where Protestantism denounced non-Biblical claims by the RCC. Seems like they're on a roll, right? That's what makes the next bit so bizarre:
-- The RCC practices infant baptism. Much of Protestantism rejected the idea.
not historically, nor not currently. ..... otherwise so what does that have to do with it other than a big build up to what exactly .... this vvvvv ?
What do you expect ... to rewrite history so that it makes sense to you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
-- The RCC claims that the formalized Trinity (as best expounded in the Athanasian Creed) is the only legitimate description of the Godhead. They claim that anyone saying otherwise will burn in hell for rejecting the one true God. Protestants universally and enthusiastically accepted it.
-- The RCC claims that the scriptural canon is closed forever and specified the canon of the Old and Test Testaments. Protestantism accepted it 100%.
-- The RCC sets for the doctrine of Ex Nihilo Creation as absolute truth. Protestantism almost universally accepts it as absolute truth.
If the Roman Catholic Church is right and they are God's only church on earth then blindly accepting their notions of truth only makes sense. But after rejecting so many pieces and parts of Catholic doctrine, Protestantism seems so very contrary when it sells its soul to its Catholic roots by refusing to question the foundational Catholic dogmas of "what is God like" and "what is or is not scripture" and "does God still speak?"
If you are Catholic that it is perfectly reasonable to accept Catholic dogma. But if you are not, why would you blindly and unquestioningly accept any of it?
The creeds were produced in order to refute the false teachers \ teaching of the time.
The Athanasian Creed purposefully was created to refute two false heresies, one of which you have said in a different OP
"I believe that they are one Eternal Gods without end." ... (plural God's)
Your statement is the attempt to rationalize what is beyond comprehension.
Twin.Spin obviously we'll agree that The Bible is an inspired work of God, a miracle and a great gift from God. We'll just have to agree to disagree on the belief in the closed canon. We'll agree and both wholeheartedly believe in and revere Father, Son and Holy Ghost. You are welcome to accept the post-Biblical addition of "one in substance" as Biblical, while I will just have to add that to my list of "wait and see when we meet God in the next life."
To me, these are like Roe vs Wade. The SCOTUS reads things into the Constitution that simply aren't there in order to establish a mother's right to murder her unborn offspring as a fundamental human right. Likewise, "one in substance" and "I God have written everything you will ever need and won't ever have anything else to say to you" are things that I simply cannot find being taught in anywhere in the Bible. You and those who think like you keep throwing around the same scriptures -- ones that do not actually establish your point of view at all. I still believe that the "one in substance" clause of the Trinity and the closed canon are examples where modern Christianity refuses to question "truths" that were arrived at by act of committee and popular vote among the supposed experts. If you honestly believe that these things can be definitively established Sola Scriptura, then God bless you. We'll both find out the real truth of the matter eventually.
At this point we seem to just be repeating ourselves and rehashing a cyclical debate that will never end. Nobody can definitively prove they are right here short of God himself intervening directly. I may check on the thread a bit, but I'm taking a break from the back and forth as it is unproductive at this point.
In your opinion. In mine, they are relatively significant.
Quote:
It stems from a lack of understanding of a major doctrinal error--the substitutionary atonement and the nature of salvation.
I would agree with you on that, and yet we're on opposite sides of that "misunderstanding."
Quote:
No...you read all of them in context. That's what I do. It's called Systematic Theology.
So do I. So why do you suppose we disagree on how they should be interpreted? If we are both equally sincere in wanting to know the truth and we are both reading the same passages, and are reading them in context, it would seem that the Holy Ghost would impart the same understanding to each of us.
Yes, quite flawed. And although Christians generally think they are somehow "immune" to this flaw, they fall into the same trap. I'll explain.
Before Jesus came, there was the Law and the Prophets. And the religious people of that time held closely to those writings which we now call the OT. (Hindsight is always 20-20.)
So when Jesus came (thank you God Almighty), he brought some scandalous messages. For example, until Jesus came in the nazareth body, the Sabbath was thought never to be broken. Whoa unto anyone who did! It was the Religious Law, and if anyone broke it, pay the penalty!!
Yet Jesus, our Loving Savior, broke the Sabbath by performing miracles and healings on that very day.
Oh, how the religious people's blood boiled to see it happen! And yet Jesus was right, and they were wrong. He brought common sense, and they rejected it.
So today, we have the same scenario. God is all around us, He made every fiber of our being-- every human creature (and non-human) were made by Him and for Him. All of us can talk to God, at any time. We don't need religious people to tell us how to relate to God anymore, because we see clearly that He is always with us, and we can draw nigh unto Him at anytime we need Him. Great!!
Yet religion continues to try to control mankind, and tell people how and when and in what way they can talk with God and know Him. Shame on them!!
Back then, Jesus had to lay it open for them to understand. Today, we should know better!
But getting back on topic (and to respond to the last part of what you posted), when and how did the Bible become a closed-ended proposition? That has long puzzled me. I make no claims to being a modern day Moses or Peter. I'm not about to start making claims that God has spoken to me. But after a lifetime of studying the Bible I have yet to find the passage that says, "God will never have anything more to say that is worth writing down." It seems to me that the scriptural canon should be just as open-ended now as it was during the lives of the apostles. Christ and the apostles were not forced to prove everything about Christianity with the Old Testament, so why are we forced to rely entirely upon an incomplete and fragmentary text that is nearly 2000 years old? If God spoke to somebody today, I expect we could use the Bible to validate what they are saying to some degree, but in the end, nobody gets to tell God he can't speak to humankind anymore. Nobody gets to tell God he can't tell humankind anything important anymore. And even if you could twist the scriptures to say as much, ink and paper do not have the authority to silence God.
I believe the only people I need to listen to in order to gain salvation, are Jesus Christ himself, and the people who he ministered to, as far as the NT is concerned.
People can have more to say all they want. That's not gonna change my mind, if it's not in the Holy Bible I don't believe it, simple as that. I DO know that ADDING to God's word is CONTRARY to his word, and that's really all that matters to me.
I do NOT believe that what we now use as the Holy Bible is incomplete and fragmented, that's YOUR believe. IMO the bible is PERFECT just the way it is.
I never said God can't speak to humankind anymore. Don't put words in my mouth. I STRONGLY believe God speaks to us ALL EVERYDAY.
I believe I should speak where the bible speaks and be silent where the bible is silent. Period.
There is only two sets of opinions ... God's or Satan's.
aka: "There are only two sets of opinions: my pastors and Satans'."
Peace.
brian
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
