Featured Arguing full circle.

You are forgetting that the Apostles presented the Hebrew Scriptures as testimony to that which they taught, as well as missing part of this teaching itself:

“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

Nothing in there to suggest we hold to the traditions taught by others.

For us, since the Apostles have passed away, that leaves Scripture—alone.

Actually, we don't. Indulgences are just one example of "the Catholic Church" violating the principle you just tried to use as a proof-text. No Apostle of Bible writer presented a teaching that sins could be atoned for with money. The exact opposite is taught. This was one of the new teachings that led to the Reformation.

So I have to amend your statement: Catholic, Orthodox and Coptic all the ancient Apostolic Churches unanimously hold to Apostolic Tradition as well as a few novel ones.

Not being facetious, just being realistic.

Again we see you doing exactly what you seem to decry earlier: relying, not on the teaching of Apostles and the Word, but appealing to the teachings of men.

In regard to the teaching itself, it fails to acknowledge that in view are the ones empowered to teach the early church. Basically, "What you have heard us teach you" doesn't spill over into men at a later date in time. Yet that is what the Church would have you believe. You still have a burden to balance what men now teach with what the Apostles taught then, right? And isn't viewing their teachings as taking precedence over interpretations themselves a necessity?

Many in the early church still participated in ceremonial Law. Do I then myself participate in a ceremony that involves a sacrifice—because it is tradition? Or do I say, "You are wrong, brethren, to do such ..." because Gentiles are not commanded to observe Jewish tradition? No, I can take basic principles of Scripture which are not difficult to understand and forego observance with a clean conscience.

Are there two bodies? One Jewish, the other Gentile? Or is there one Body? How do we answer this question? Church fathers? Or Scripture?

It does. Sorry. Not only do we see the Apostles' teaching presented as authoritative, but we are warned not to embrace teachings they haven't given us. And we view their teaching as commentary on God's teaching (which extends to Revelation as a whole).

There is no justification for making the teachings of men outside of Scripture authoritative, and worse, inspired.

But—Catholics don't do that.

They do embrace human founded traditions, and just as you have done, go outside of Scripture to fortify doctrine. To teach against something and then do it is what we call hypocrisy. And I'm not saying, "You hypocrite!" I'm saying that while you sincerely believe everything the Church teaches can be traced back to the Apostles and the Word, if you look a little closer you will see you violate principles you live by.

Eternal Security, for example: when we go to Scripture the inevitable conclusion is going to be that when someone is saved it is a settled matter. Is there a magic bullet to support this? I believe there is:

Hebrews 10:14
New Catholic Bible

14 Therefore, by a single offering he has made perfect forever those who are being sanctified.

If you understand the context of Hebrews 10 (as well as the context this chapter falls into), you'll see that in view is remission of sins. What the writer is saying is that, in regards to remission of sins, Christ has made those who are sanctified complete—forever.

It doesn't matter if you conclude Progressive or Positional (Positional is in view) sanctification is in view, it still remains, remission of sins is a settled issue.

For ever.

That is Eternal Security.

And it simply is not true that "the Fathers kept" these things. A couple of issues, off the top of my head, would include Eternal Security and Communion as a memorial. Indulgences is another. Christ's teaching concerning eternal indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost another.

The idea that believers cannot hear God's instruction and come to an understanding without the help of other men is lost in the very concept of the Epistle. These were read to a congregation with the expectation that this was sufficient for men and women to know the will of God. The same can be said for now, when we live in a time when the Word of God is readily available to anyone wishing to know God better.

And just because the Catholic Church, and other churches have traditions, I am not under obligation to observe the traditions of men.

Unless it is commanded in Scripture.

No argument there, lol. The problem is, for those like me, is who you consider to be apostolic. My list is limited to those names we find in God's Word. And this, because, it shouldn't be a matter of controversy that what one of them has said should be in question.

I'd suggest, for your consideration, that you think about the Old Testament Prophets. They were Apostles, that is, men sent by God, and their teachings the very will of God. What they taught was authoritative, because they taught what God sent them to teach. It isn't any different with the Apostles of the New Testament. So what it will take for me to ascribe the same authority to men outside of that list, is a work of God as we see in the Incarnation where God's authority provides doctrine that might not quite agree with what He has commanded before. An example would be the Covenant of Law was to be observed under penalty of death. When the Apostles taught that this Covenant has been abrogated by the New, we can embrace that teaching based on Christ's teaching itself.

When we get outside of what we might think of as incontrovertible doctrine, into what some call "grey areas," we are forced to balance all teachings of Scripture (and this takes into account Apostolic teaching). And when we do that, we should be able to come to a unanimous conclusion, seeing we are to be One Body having One Mind.

The division between Catholics, Protestants, and Evangelicals is itself in violation of the Word of God. And while each group can chastise the other and exhort them to "get it right," if they fail to reprove and correct in humility and fear of God they are themselves then come under judgment for violation of God's will for all of us.

So, do I think I am right and the Catholic wrong? Of course, and I can recognize he thinks likewise. Do I think those who are wrong are not brethren? Not my place. I have to question the profession of those who actually agree with the doctrine and practice I hold to sometimes, because both need to be consistent. Pharisees (many of them) were expert in knowledge, yet the practice derived from that knowledge created a dilemma. One was contrary to another. The irony being, most felt their practice mirrored the principles of the teachings.

How often do we all do that?

Anyway, I have enjoyed the discussion. I don't remain on this (or any other) forum for too long, because oftentimes feelings get hurt and people just get tired of others (especially me! lol). So I just come by for a little while, then take my leave. So I think today will be my last day for a while, so if you want to respond to my own comments, feel free. But if I do not respond to those, you will understand why.


God bless.

 

You should trade sides. You should make the best possible case for the opposing position and they should make the best possible case for your position. That will at least force you to understand the opposing point of view.

 

Darrell look at Church history. Look at all the ancient Apostolic Churches beliefs.

All of them say water baptism is regenerative, all of them say they always baptised infants, all of them say the Eucharist is the flesh and blood of Jesus.

It was unanimously held doctrine for the first 1500 years. Read Christians every century up the reformation, they hold to all these doctrines.

Are they all stupid for the first 1500 years, never read the scriptures?

 

I once participated in an online FORMAL DEBATE. That particular forum had a space reserved for two people to formally debate an agreed upon premise as PRO and CON positions with actual THREE rounds to give an opening statement, response to your opponent, and a formal concluding statement. Then the topic was thrown open to the “peanut gallery”. It could only work in that sort of a setting of mutual respect.

If the topic is held in an atmosphere of a donnybrook, then any participation is ultimately just an exercise in shouting past your opponents and to the choir.

 

It was great … and it didn’t get much use.

 

FYI, when you verbalize your thoughts and accuse someone "out of hand" of being ignorant, extremely arrogant, or a heretic, it shouldn't surprise you to get their thoughts verbalized right back at you.

 

If you assume something is personal from a post you were not involved in, and wasn't in a reply to you, then it could mean one of two things. Either you have a guilty conscience or it's time to refill that medicine.

 

Oh, but I was, and you know it. You virtually quoted my words.

 

True. The colorful colloquial language is unique to you for sure but while the post was partly about you it was more about some of the fundamentalists and hypercals who just keep repeating the same thing over and over - without even the colorful and even humorous language that you come up with. Besides, your theology in your posts is so random that you keep me guessing so I enjoy your posts. And, thinking about past posts, if I remember right you fly fish, which means you can't be all bad no matter what some say.

 

ROFGuffawing!!! Pot calling kettle black! It's why I consider you wishy washy, waffling. You're 'all over the place' in your posts, you read so many 'other men's opinions' that you literally don't know who to believe, or, what to believe.

 

Yes. That's what this thread is about. Look. The discussions I get into on here are usually about the finer points of Calvinism. It turns out that the truth of the matter is that there is a vast range of specific understandings of Calvinism and as well as a range of differences in the application of it. Both sides have good points made by good people. Most of it comes down ultimately to your own specific understanding of how our will works. Of course there are tons of "other men's opinions" to look at. The one advantage of a forum like this should be that because we are not in a "real" group where our membership in a college, denomination or school of thought could be put at jeopardy by putting an opinion out there - we are free to try out ideas without risking our group affiliation.

I do admit that when I carefully read a smart guy who is a free willer, like a Lennox, or a Forlines, I tend to think they have some good points. But when I take the trouble to really read Owen or Edwards I think the same thing - maybe they are right too. So while I respect people from both sides of an issue when they take the time to respond and explain their opinions, even if they disagree with me, I do tend to get annoyed with people like you, who rather than rebut, just start throwing out insults. And per this thread, I'm glad it was started because this needs to be said to dogmatics who just repeat themselves, and to smart aleks like yourself.

The fact is, there is scripture accounts of events and prophesies and conversations that make you wonder about how our freedom meshes with God's plan and how all that works. We can develop theologies about these things and disagree. But when it comes to God's revealed will to us there is not really any difference between the sides. I first realized this when reading a list of essential beliefs necessary for Christian fellowship that was put together by a group of overwhelmingly Calvinist Puritans in the late 1600's. What amazed me was that none of the points were exclusively Calvinistic. So, I don't apologize at all for respecting the views of a Wesley or Aquinas or Lennox as well as Owen and Edwards. And I certainly would rather discover what all those guys said than listen to someone like you, who is too intellectually lazy to do any more than repeat your own opinion over and over.