Results 1 - 6 of 6
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Brian.g | 48092 | ||
joe I'm not trying to be argumentive or turn this into a debate, I would just like to understand your viewpoint. I have always agreed that Scripture is the inspired word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17), but doesn't the Protestant viewpoint completely disregard the truth and wisdom of God, brought to us through the ongoing relationship between God and man through the Holy Spirit? Also, where does the Bible specifically say it is the ONLY source of teaching? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 does not say it is the only source of teaching. Last, for many, many years, there was no New Testament. All teaching was based upon traditions of the Apostles. Where in the Bible is it written that the traditional teachings of the Apostles were no longer valid and should not be used in conjunction with the written New Testament, once the written New Testament was compiled. Brian |
||||||
2 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Reformer Joe | 48112 | ||
You wrote: "Last, for many, many years, there was no New Testament. All teaching was based upon traditions of the Apostles. Where in the Bible is it written that the traditional teachings of the Apostles were no longer valid and should not be used in conjunction with the written New Testament, once the written New Testament was compiled." Well, I wouldn't put a handful of decades on the order of "many, many years," but I agree that the traditions of the apostles are completely valid for today. I disagree, however, when you imply that RCC traditions as they exist today are identical to the traditions of the apostles. The New Testament was written with the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit by the apostles themselves or their associates. They are as close to the source of apostolic tradition as you can get. Compare that to papal encyclicals and bulls of the nineteenth, twentieth, and twenty-first centuries. Am I to hold them as part of the apostolic traditions as well, even if there is no clear link whatsoever between the doctrine contained in them and every early-church record of the apostolic traditions? The short, Protestant answer: the traditions of the apostles, for all practical purposes, are faithfully and infallibly recorded in the New Testament. There is not a "second" tradition that runs alongside the NT, nor is there additional revelation given by God to supplement His all-sufficient word. One last question to drive home my problems of an "infallible church." During the Great Schism, who was the true vicar of Christ, the "pope" at Avignon or the "pope" at Rome? Both claimed the chair of Peter, both had their loyal followers, and both anathematized the other. Yet, after several decades, the schism was healed without any commentary on which pope was the real pope. Likewise, for centuries bishoprics were given as political favors to people as young as toddlers. Are we to consider these bishops as being part of the infallible teaching magesterium of the church? The RCC has also had its history of wicked popes (not merely "sinful" popes, since we all fall into that category, but downright depraved). Are we to believe that the Holy Spirit was using these apparent enemies of Christ to be his Vicar? It is the difficulties like these which cause me to believe more fully that while the church was established by God, the only infallible source of authority and the only source of revelation in the post-apostolic age is the Bible. --Joe! |
||||||
3 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Brian.g | 48407 | ||
Joe A passing thought, not meant to be funny. Somewhere within these posts of the past few days, I saw a statement that there are 3,000 or 30,000 Protestant denominations. Which indicates 3,000-30,000 different interpretations of the Gospel. I'm not an expert, but 3,000-30,000 different denominations in 500 years is probably not that far off the mark. Which is right - one singular or all 3,000-30,000. And by what authority do you make that decision. And, what do you say to the Protestant denominations, that are wrong. Brian |
||||||
4 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Reformer Joe | 48416 | ||
I will be happy to address denominationalism within Protestantism, but could you first answer my question regarding the identity of the true pope during the Great Schism? --Joe! |
||||||
5 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | Brian.g | 48444 | ||
Joe I don't know the answer to your question. Now, which one of the 30,000 Protestant human leaders and teaching authorities is correct. And, how do you explain the 29,999 wrong ones. And, don't tell me that all 30,000 groups are basicly one, because we all realize that one Protestant denomination will not have any problem testifying to another Protestant (of a different denomination) that their denomination is the truer way to Christ. Brian |
||||||
6 | Was Mary a virgin her whole life | Matt 1:25 | meusing | 48449 | ||
It is not the church we go to that saves us, whether Catholic or Protestant, it is Jesus Christ. The 'church' is an assembly of sinners redeemed by the blood of Christ. There are many tempermants, some feel worshipful in a liturgical setting, others feel worsip in a more free service, still it is not the service or litergy that saves us. If the leadership of the assembly denys the basics of the birth, death, resurrection, assention and coming of Jesus then that assembly has rejected the blood of Christ and we should look for another assembly of blood bought Christians who meet to worship God. That might be a little disjointed, but if you feel that you can worship Christ in the Baptist church ok, If that church leadership however starts to deny Jesus then it is ok to fellowship with other Christians where-ever they are. |
||||||