Search results

Yeah, why takes James literally when you can explain away what he said?

Thank you for your informative post, especially point 1.

:) You see that as a bad thing. I do not, now.

I agree with you on that!

I kind of get your point, but I think you kind of missed mine.

Not trying to get you to admit anything. This is a discussion forum, right? Where the objective is to think and discuss?

Do you think there can be secondary sources of authority as long as they agree with scripture in fact or principle?

Your response was to Walpole, but I hope you don't mind my replying. I read the Piper comment, and I agree that it was excellent. However, James does say we are justified by works and not by faith alone. That's exact and clear. Why not take it for what it says and not try to explain it away? It...

:) :)

"check out the" ?? I didn't say that I believed Protestant doctrine is neither ancient nor Biblical. I think it is more ancient and Biblical than Catholicism, but I'm saying that in some important areas it did not reform Catholicism. Yes, I am definitely okay with undergoing believer's...

No. But my point is that different branches of Christianity disagree on what constitutes scripture. Granted, they all agree on most books, but there is disagreement, too, on some.

I appreciate all the excellent comments, but it still seems to me that Paul and James disagree. In interpreting scripture, I tend to read things literally and first take the literal sense of a passage. I have also observed that different denominations interpret passages literally when it suits...

Wherever the discussion takes us.

But James says, "You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone." Taken literally, that denies justification by faith alone, does it not?

Since the three major branches of Christianity (Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism) all have different Bibles, if the Bible is considered the sole authority for beliefs and practices, which of these Bibles should be used for that purpose? The Protestants would say the Protestant Bible, but...

If you believe that Luther thought James taught the same as Paul on this, then why did he wish that James was not included in the NT?

Growing up in Eastern Orthodoxy, where I lived, we were in the minority. We were surrounded by Roman Catholicism. There were not that many Protestant churches around. So I came to know a lot about the Roman Catholic Church and how it differed from us. But I did not know a lot about Protestantism...

Well, you see, the problem is, every denomination thinks it is filled with "real NT Christians". That's why I wanted to get your definition.

The Reformation didn't reform as much as is commonly believed. Maybe I'll start a thread on that.

No, that is not true. The teachings of the apostles are the authority. Their teachings are found in the Bible. Sure, some of those teachings may be interpreted differently by different individuals and groups, but the Bible is still the source document of the Christian faith because of who wrote...