tragic_pizza
New Member
My point is that Trinitarianism as a feature of Christian thought predates the Nicene Creed - which is built upon the framework of the Apostle's Creed, which is believed to be from the first century.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KeeperOfMyHome
New Member
While the word 'Trinity' is not in the Bible, the doctrine of the Trinity is. It did not take a Council to determine that there is such thing as the Trinity. It's been in God's word all along.
Julia
I'll try again:
Can you name one oral, extra-biblical tradition, demonstratively tracable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?
The key phrase is "necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ". Even Protestants have extrabiblical traditions but they are not necessary for salvation.
Also can someone give me a list of five things that you know about Jesus Christ that was passed on to you orally and NOT found in Scripture.
Can you name one oral, extra-biblical tradition, demonstratively tracable to the apostolic age, which is necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ?
The key phrase is "necessary for the faith and practice of the Church of Jesus Christ". Even Protestants have extrabiblical traditions but they are not necessary for salvation.
Also can someone give me a list of five things that you know about Jesus Christ that was passed on to you orally and NOT found in Scripture.
tragic_pizza
New Member
Judging by some of the "discussions" I've had of late, I'd disagree with you. On discussing the Nicene Creed, for example, on Baptist poster insisted that it did not go "far enough." We Protestants fight and kill (spiritually sometimes and even physically on occasion) over such things as baptism, interpretation of Scripture, nature of the Eucharist, OSAS... the list is nearly inexhaustible.
The RCC differs in that they don't see a particular need to hide their extraBiblical traditions and beliefs beneath the sheep's clothing of Bible interpretation.
I can give you three off the top of my head. let me think awhile and perhaps I'll have a couple more:
Jesus never drank wine.
Jesus was fully immersed.
Jesus was born on December 25.
I don't believe any of these things, but they were told me sincerely by people who do...
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight -- you say "WE Protestants" and then claim that Baptism, Salvation, Communion are all not in the Bible but are merely "traditions" of the Protestants/Baptists - and this list of "tradition-only" topics for Baptists is "nearly endless".
I can't believe I am reading that! I can't believe there is a Protestant or Baptist on earth that does not know that those are BIBLE topics - BIBLE doctrines.
Are you sure you are not RC?
In Christ,
Bob
tragic_pizza
New Member
Let me get this straight -- you say "WE Protestants" and then claim that Baptism, Salvation, Communion are all not in the Bible but are merely "traditions" of the Protestants/Baptists - and this list of "tradition-only" topics for Baptists is "nearly endless".
I can't believe I am reading that! I can't believe there is a Protestant or Baptist on earth that does not know that those are BIBLE topics - BIBLE doctrines.
Are you sure you are not RC?
In Christ,
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]Read again. I am speaking not of the Biblicity of salvation, commununion, and baptism. I am speaking of the fervor for which we insist our way of viewing/doing them is the only Biblical way to do them.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
This is misleading. (Not unnusual for Mioque though).
Some doctrines of the church evolved and were then finally "accepted" by the church once authortatively codified and voted on - but OTHER doctrines were FULLY accepted by the first century believers AND THEN later added in council if questions came up or challenges arose.
The Trinity is a good example of the something fully accepted by first century believers - then later challenged and affirmed in council.
But as "usual" Mioque finds a way to mislead with some incomplete history snippet and comment.
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
Let me get this straight -- you say "WE Protestants" and then claim that Baptism, Salvation, Communion are all not in the Bible but are merely "traditions" of the Protestants/Baptists - and this list of "tradition-only" topics for Baptists is "nearly endless".
I can't believe I am reading that! I can't believe there is a Protestant or Baptist on earth that does not know that those are BIBLE topics - BIBLE doctrines.
Are you sure you are not RC?
BY CONTRAST
Traditions like Purgatory, praying to the dead, Mary co-redemptrix, Pope infallible, Indulgences
(the list is nearly endless)ARE examples of things NOT debated from SCRIPTURE but from TRADITION ALONE.
It is not a question of HOW to interpret all the references to Purgatory in scripture -- RATHER it is a question of WHETHER to accept man-made-myths like purgatory given that there is NO REFERENCE AT ALL to it in scripture.
You equivocate between Baptism which IS MENTIONED in the text - and purgatory which is NOT!!
How on earth can you live with such rationalizing and patronizing of RC methods???
In Christ,
Bob
That claim is made by many who think they are right and have few answers and so escape to self justification. However the scripture about the Holy Spirit guiding a person into all truth is correct. But there are too many who claim to have God's power and spirit to only try and confuse others with their own spirit rather than the Holy Spirit. A good case is about the issue of indulgences in the RCC at the time of Luther. Dr. Martin Luther certainly disagreed with a few things as well as other early church fathers and popes.
It was posted...
"Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.
In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them.
The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).
In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.[/quote]
Link... Click here
Mike
And this response was given...
Here are excerpts from a fine artcle in response to this comical "25,000 denominations all teaching different" nonsense...
"Throughout this book we have examined the Roman Catholic apologist’s primary argument against sola Scriptura and Protestantism; namely, that sola Scriptura produces doctrinal anarchy as is witnessed in the 25,000 Protestant denominations extant today. We have all along assumed the soundness of the premise that in fact there are 25,000 Protestant denominations; and we have shown that—even if this figure is correct—the Roman Catholic argument falls to the ground since it compares apples to oranges. We have just one more little detail to address before we can close; namely, the correctness of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denominations figure itself.
In reality, Barrett indicates that what he means by “denomination” is any ecclesial body that retains a “jurisdiction” (i.e., semi-autonomy). As an example, Baptist denominations comprise approximately 321 of the total Protestant figure. Yet the lion’s share of Baptist denominations are independent, making them (in Barrett’s calculation) separate denominations. In other words, if there are ten Independent Baptist churches in a given city, even though all of them are identical in belief and practice, each one is counted as a separate denomination due to its autonomy in jurisdiction. This same principle applies to all independent or semi-independent denominations. And even beyond this, all Independent Baptist denominations are counted separately from all other Baptist denominations, even though there might not be a dime’s worth of difference among them.
The same principle is operative in Barrett’s count of Roman Catholic denominations. He cites 194 Latin-rite denominations in 1970, by which Barrett means separate jurisdictions (or diocese). Again, a distinction is made on the basis of jurisdiction, rather than differing beliefs and practices.
In any case, once we inquire into the source of the infamous 25,000-Protestant-denomination figure one point becomes crystal clear. Whenever and at whatever point Barrett compares true denominations and differences among either Protestants or Evangelicals to those of Roman Catholicism, Roman Catholicism emerges almost as splintered as Protestantism, and even more splintered than Evangelicalism. That levels the playing field significantly. Whatever charge of “doctrinal chaos” Roman Catholic apologists wish to level against Protestantism may be leveled with equal force—and perhaps even greater force—against the doctrinal chaos of Roman Catholicism. Obviously, the Roman Catholic apologist can take little comfort in the fact that he has only sixteen denominations while Protestantism has twenty-one; and he can take even less comfort in the fact that while Evangelicalism has no divisional breakdown, Roman Catholicism has at least four major divisions.
If the Roman Catholic apologist wants instead to cite 8,196 idiosyncrasies within Protestantism, then he must be willing to compare that figure to at least 2,942 (perhaps upwards of 8,000 these days) idiosyncrasies within Roman Catholicism. In any case, he cannot compare the one ecclesial tradition of Roman Catholicism to 25,000, 8,196, or even twenty-one Protestant denominations; for Barrett places Roman Catholicism (as a single ecclesial tradition) on the same level as Protestantism (as a single ecclesial tradition).
In short, Roman Catholic apologists have hurriedly, carelessly—and, as a result, irresponsibly—glanced at Barrett’s work, found a large number (22,189), and arrived at all sorts of absurdities that Barrett never concluded. One can only hope that, upon reading this critique, Roman Catholic apologists will finally put this argument to bed. The more likely scenario, however, is that the death of this argument will come about only when Evangelicals consistently point out this error—and correct it—each time it is raised by a Roman Catholic apologist. Sooner or later they will grow weary of the embarrassment that accompanies citing erroneous figures in a public forum.[/quote]
Link... Click here
Mike
tragic_pizza
New Member
Let me get this straight -- you say "WE Protestants" and then claim that Baptism, Salvation, Communion are all not in the Bible but are merely "traditions" of the Protestants/Baptists - and this list of "tradition-only" topics for Baptists is "nearly endless".
I can't believe I am reading that! I can't believe there is a Protestant or Baptist on earth that does not know that those are BIBLE topics - BIBLE doctrines.
Are you sure you are not RC?
BY CONTRAST
Traditions like Purgatory, praying to the dead, Mary co-redemptrix, Pope infallible, Indulgences
(the list is nearly endless)ARE examples of things NOT debated from SCRIPTURE but from TRADITION ALONE.
It is not a question of HOW to interpret all the references to Purgatory in scripture -- RATHER it is a question of WHETHER to accept man-made-myths like purgatory given that there is NO REFERENCE AT ALL to it in scripture.
You equivocate between Baptism which IS MENTIONED in the text - and purgatory which is NOT!!
How on earth can you live with such rationalizing and patronizing of RC methods???
In Christ,
Bob </font>[/QUOTE]That is most certainly not what I said. read my first reply to you again, then we'll discuss what I really said.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The quote provided above is from your post.
If the contrast between understanding BIBLE doctrines like Baptism vs accepting TRADITIONS like Purgatory - are indeed as confused in your thinking as you say - then I can see why you don't want to discuss this further.
In Christ,
Bob
If the contrast between understanding BIBLE doctrines like Baptism vs accepting TRADITIONS like Purgatory - are indeed as confused in your thinking as you say - then I can see why you don't want to discuss this further.
In Christ,
Bob
tragic_pizza
New Member
That is most certainly not what I said, Bob. My point is that the specific modes of these things, not their existence in Scripture, is often made essential to salvation in some Protestant's eyes. How wet one gets when baptized, for example, is a constant source of conflict between believers, as is the bread and the cup: wine or grape juice? consubstantiation, virtualism, or ordinalism? Then there's the OSAS argument.
You didn't read that.
I'm Prebyterian, but I enjoy RCC masses. There is a devoutness and awe that is missing from many worship services. They are generally much slower paced as well, offering ample time for reflection and meditation. In addition, the care with which they treat the bread and the cup brings a majesty to the worship that I've only seen in Episcopal services to date.
We have no argument when referring to RCC traditions like purgatory, Marian theology, etc. My point is that we Protestants have a rather large beam in our own eyes when it comes to the ancillary theologies we've built up around Biblical principles.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
The point is that those are all BIBLE doctrine and the issue there is the proper exegesis for each text within a given BIBLE doctrine to get the right resulting picture.
That is a challenge in almost every BIBLE doctrine across Christian churches. And who knows - maybe we ALSO ADD tradition to combat some Bible doctrine. (I can think of a man-made tradition about week-day-1 vs one of Christ's commandments for example) -- however in general - until we start "appealing to CHURCH TRADITION as PROOF" that argument stays in scripture.
But in the case of Purgatory the appeal to extra-Biblical CHURCH TRADITION ALONE is hugely dominant as compared to Baptism by immersion.
Of course you are right to point out that sprinkling and infant baptism is pretty much limited to TRADITION ALONE. But that is not a fault of the Baptists or the other believers-baptism by immersion-only groups who stick JUST with the Bible to make their case.
OSAS - is possibly the only one where NO appeal is ever made to TRADITION - it is a PURE Bible doctrine debate -- text vs text where errors in exegesis "alone" account for the differences.
(No doubt tradition provides MOTIVE for acceptance of some of that error - but certainly there is a Bible argument on both sides -- with the vast majority of examples favoring the Arminian view).
In Christ,
Bob
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
So then you agree that the second list you give above are examples of "tradition only" doctrines and are not in the same category as the "Bible debate" based doctrines like Baptism and OSAS and Free Will etc.
Now as for the Presbyterian view on infant baptism (which gets to Baptism as "The Appeal to God for a clean conscience" as Peter says in 1Peter 3 - OR Baptism as a sacramaent with the power to change the status of the soul regardless of an appeal by the one being baptized) - what is your view of the Prebyterian argument - is it from Bible examples of infants being baptized and a discussion of how the Bible shows them to benefit - or is it from tradition?
Are you aware of what Church historian (in both infant baptizing churches and in believers baptism churches) say about the practice of the first century church in that regard? Is it not "instructive" that historians in BOTH groups AGREE that the first century practice was BELIEVERS baptism by immersion only?
How then can ANY CHANGE to that be on the basis of anything OTHER than tradition?
In Christ,
Bob
tragic_pizza
New Member
My argument, Bob, is that there are far more important things to worry about than whose theology is more "right."
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
In the dark ages the saints were killed for things like failure to worship Mary. I am sure we would agree that this is a topic worth discussing. But I suppose we both agree on that little "tradition" being an important error.
Notice that in Mark 7 Christ Condemns the leaders of the ONE TRUE church in His day - but what are they condemned about?
They have a kind of "will" or estate management at death where the estate of the individual goes to the church. They then claim that since the property is ultimately going to God's church (the greater cause) then the parents should not be able to draw-down the estate (the lesser cause) if the child has willed their estate to the church. (As compared to an actual Commandment of Christ our Creator - namely the 5th commandment to honor parents).
Sounds like a nit-picky thing for Christ to jump all over - and yet!
In the SAME chapter the Jews accuse Christ of ignoring their man-made-tradition of baptizing hands before eating. Christ tells them that this is also "Wrong" INSTEAD of saying "well you have your traditions and ideas and I have mine - can't we all just get along?"
In Matt 22 the Sadducees come to Jesus with another "theology" debate - and Christ tells them that they are in error not knowing the Bible or the Power of God. He "Could have said" well you view the resurrection one way - and I view it another way. Let's all just get along and we will all find out how it really goes some day at the end.
Check and see if that is the approach that He took.
In 1Tim chapter 1 - Paul tells Timothy that the entire reason Timothy has to stay behind at Ephesus is to stop the bad doctrine mill that is churning out speculative error after speculative error in the local church.
Where is the "well it does not matter that much and we have bigger fish to fry anyway." Idea in the book of first Timothy?
Titus chapter 1 has the same "theme".
In 2Thess 2 we find that "strong delusions" are sent upon the entire earth at the end of time and only those with a "love" of the truth survive.
Christ said "I AM the way the TRUTH and the life" we have to develop a LOVE of the Truth that says "I want the truth that I have - and I also want MORE" - to truly be loving Christ who IS the "WAY the TRUTH and the life".
So although I agree with you on not drawing swords over this and also not getting angry that someone else has a different view - at the same time we should be very enthusiatic about sharing real "light".
In Christ,
Bob
Notice that in Mark 7 Christ Condemns the leaders of the ONE TRUE church in His day - but what are they condemned about?
They have a kind of "will" or estate management at death where the estate of the individual goes to the church. They then claim that since the property is ultimately going to God's church (the greater cause) then the parents should not be able to draw-down the estate (the lesser cause) if the child has willed their estate to the church. (As compared to an actual Commandment of Christ our Creator - namely the 5th commandment to honor parents).
Sounds like a nit-picky thing for Christ to jump all over - and yet!
In the SAME chapter the Jews accuse Christ of ignoring their man-made-tradition of baptizing hands before eating. Christ tells them that this is also "Wrong" INSTEAD of saying "well you have your traditions and ideas and I have mine - can't we all just get along?"
In Matt 22 the Sadducees come to Jesus with another "theology" debate - and Christ tells them that they are in error not knowing the Bible or the Power of God. He "Could have said" well you view the resurrection one way - and I view it another way. Let's all just get along and we will all find out how it really goes some day at the end.
Check and see if that is the approach that He took.
In 1Tim chapter 1 - Paul tells Timothy that the entire reason Timothy has to stay behind at Ephesus is to stop the bad doctrine mill that is churning out speculative error after speculative error in the local church.
Where is the "well it does not matter that much and we have bigger fish to fry anyway." Idea in the book of first Timothy?
Titus chapter 1 has the same "theme".
In 2Thess 2 we find that "strong delusions" are sent upon the entire earth at the end of time and only those with a "love" of the truth survive.
Christ said "I AM the way the TRUTH and the life" we have to develop a LOVE of the Truth that says "I want the truth that I have - and I also want MORE" - to truly be loving Christ who IS the "WAY the TRUTH and the life".
So although I agree with you on not drawing swords over this and also not getting angry that someone else has a different view - at the same time we should be very enthusiatic about sharing real "light".
In Christ,
Bob
tragic_pizza
New Member
Not at all. This "tradition" caused people to be hurt - to be impoverished so that the "church" of the day could be materially wealthy. Christ always responded to the needs of people over religious traditions.
People are just as important today: if my "tradition" excludes another believer, or discourages an unbeliever from faith, then that tradition is suspect at best.
Yet the OT told them to wash their hands. Can I thus begin arguing Sabbath-worship with you, since the same Old Testamtnestablished it, yet the New Testmant church met on "the first day of the week?" No, because speaking with you and getting to know you better is far more important to me than arguing over a matter you and I shall not likely ever agree upon anyway.
Straw man. The existence of Biblical principles is not in question here. The ancillary theologies built around them which serve to demystify the holiest aspects of them and to exclude others without similar ancillary theologies is.
As to the rest, you may well be right, I don't know. I just know the old way of beating one another to death over days of worship and how wet we get or when we're baptized or any of the rest just is not working. Never has.
BobRyan
Well-Known Member
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob said --
In the SAME chapter the Jews accuse Christ of ignoring their man-made-tradition of baptizing hands before eating. Christ tells them that this is also "Wrong" INSTEAD of saying "well you have your traditions and ideas and I have mine - can't we all just get along?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But as it is - you have no Bible basis to show in either OT or NT where God told people to do what the Jews had "made up".
Also this incident is before the cross so I am not sure which part of the scriptures you think as abolished pre-cross.
In the case of this chapter Christ FOR the continued authority of scripture not against it.
Would you like to take an approach based in fact on this example?
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob said
In Matt 22 the Sadducees come to Jesus with another "theology" debate - and Christ tells them that they are in error not knowing the Bible or the Power of God. He "Could have said" well you view the resurrection one way - and I view it another way. Let's all just get along and we will all find out how it really goes some day at the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am simply pointing out that statements on death ALSO existed at the time of Christ - and HE felt it was important to engage in debate over the somewhat esoteric topic of what WILL happen in the future at the resurrection.
Notice the question? "A woman had 7 husbands in sequence - in the resurrection whose wife will she be"??
Surely that angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin style question fits your "not worth debating" category.
ONE church. BOTH groups - in debate.
The point of "exclusion" today is NOT that one group says the other group is "not christian" because they don't baptize by the Bible model - it is that they are messing around with God's word and substituting what the Bible says for what man's tradition "would prefer".
I already pointed out that historians in BOTH groups AGREE on what the ACTUAL practice was in the first century.
The point remains.
-----------------------------------
The "day of worhship" thing happens to be one God's Own Ten commandments spoken directly by God to the people. Some argue that the entire Ten commandment of God should be ignored -- so in that case, what more damage is there to also ignoring His 4th commandment. I would agree in that case that the PRIMARY issue is the tradition of man that says that God's Words spoken directly to mankind - can be ignored in total.
I for one agree with a lot of what D. L Moody said as quoted on that other thread.
If you read his position carefully and then toss it all out the window - fine. At least you know what you are doing when you do it.
In Christ,
Bob
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob said --
In the SAME chapter the Jews accuse Christ of ignoring their man-made-tradition of baptizing hands before eating. Christ tells them that this is also "Wrong" INSTEAD of saying "well you have your traditions and ideas and I have mine - can't we all just get along?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you could find a single text in the OT that said to baptize hands before eating (this is a reference to ceremonial baptism to remove sin from the hands so that one would not eat food and get sin into their body -- PURELY a tradition invented by the Jews as Christ states in Mark 7) -- then you could make a case for that.
But as it is - you have no Bible basis to show in either OT or NT where God told people to do what the Jews had "made up".
err ummm - "that is the point" this is not a case for that. In fact Christ points that out.
Also this incident is before the cross so I am not sure which part of the scriptures you think as abolished pre-cross.
In the case of this chapter Christ FOR the continued authority of scripture not against it.
Would you like to take an approach based in fact on this example?
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Bob said
In Matt 22 the Sadducees come to Jesus with another "theology" debate - and Christ tells them that they are in error not knowing the Bible or the Power of God. He "Could have said" well you view the resurrection one way - and I view it another way. Let's all just get along and we will all find out how it really goes some day at the end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is not whether bible statements on Baptism or Free will "exist" - they do. The question is whether it is "worth it" to discuss differences on those BIBLE topics.
I am simply pointing out that statements on death ALSO existed at the time of Christ - and HE felt it was important to engage in debate over the somewhat esoteric topic of what WILL happen in the future at the resurrection.
Notice the question? "A woman had 7 husbands in sequence - in the resurrection whose wife will she be"??
Surely that angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin style question fits your "not worth debating" category.
In the ONE Hebrew church there were BOTH Sadducees (with THEIR view on angels and resurrection) and the Pharisees (with THEIR view).
ONE church. BOTH groups - in debate.
The point of "exclusion" today is NOT that one group says the other group is "not christian" because they don't baptize by the Bible model - it is that they are messing around with God's word and substituting what the Bible says for what man's tradition "would prefer".
I already pointed out that historians in BOTH groups AGREE on what the ACTUAL practice was in the first century.
The point remains.
-----------------------------------
The "day of worhship" thing happens to be one God's Own Ten commandments spoken directly by God to the people. Some argue that the entire Ten commandment of God should be ignored -- so in that case, what more damage is there to also ignoring His 4th commandment. I would agree in that case that the PRIMARY issue is the tradition of man that says that God's Words spoken directly to mankind - can be ignored in total.
I for one agree with a lot of what D. L Moody said as quoted on that other thread.
If you read his position carefully and then toss it all out the window - fine. At least you know what you are doing when you do it.
In Christ,
Bob