NationStates

Olivaero wrote:

Nordengrund wrote:
How do you know the church is not deceiving you? The Bible is God's word, which means there are no flaws. It cannot lie to you.

Because Jesus said so. Believing the Bible and being a christian is believing in Jesus Christ and He said the church would stay true, so not believing that is tantamount to calling him a liar and not being a christian (believer in Christ).

Which church?

Norstal wrote:

Olivaero wrote:Because Jesus said so. Believing the Bible and being a christian is believing in Jesus Christ and He said the church would stay true, so not believing that is tantamount to calling him a liar and not being a christian (believer in Christ).

Which church?

well that's really up to the person in question isn't it? Whats being argued about here is not just reading the bible and deciding you have the right interpretation and that doing so is more right than the way the established churches with apostolic succession, those being the Churches which Jesus was talking about assumedly when he said "his" church I mean I'm church of England but we still swear allegiance to the R/C church at our church, that and the orthodox church both having a claim to apostolic succession.

EDIT: oh and the Anglican Communion it's self also has apostolic succession

EDIT 2 so TLDR: those churches with Apostolic succession I babble way too much

Olivaero wrote:

Norstal wrote:Which church?

well that's really up to the person in question isn't it? Whats being argued about here is not just reading the bible and deciding you have the right interpretation and that doing so is more right than the way the established churches with apostolic succession, those being the Churches which Jesus was talking about assumedly when he said "his" church I mean I'm church of England but we still swear allegiance to the R/C church at our church, that and the orthodox church both having a claim to apostolic succession.

EDIT: oh and the Anglican Communion it's self also has apostolic succession

EDIT 2 so TLDR: those churches with Apostolic succession I babble way too much

How do you know Jesus really said that and it wasnt something added inby the Church for political reasons? It doesnt fit for me with the fruit parable in Mathew 7:17, nor with the false prophets in Mathew 7:15

Nordengrund wrote:

Distruzio wrote:

The Church explains that, Nord. And the answer is, "with humility."

How do you know the church is not deceiving you? The Bible is God's word, which means there are no flaws. It cannot lie to you.

Others have given you the logical answer, Nord. I do not know the Church will not deceive me. I do, however, know that God's grace and mercy are greater than that. So when the Bible says the Church is the expanded Nation of God's chosen, then His grace and mercy will compensate for any mistakes the Church makes in its time. As they have done time and again. From the Church eventually condemning slavery, to the Catholics apologizing to the Orthodox for the Crusades, to the initial rise of Luther to prominence correcting questionable Catholic practices, to the Orthodox abandoning their merge with the State and compromising the offices of the Patriarchate, to the repudiation of the iconoclast heresy, and more - God will allow the Church to make mistakes, and then smile as she learns from those mistakes.

Norstal wrote:

Olivaero wrote:Because Jesus said so. Believing the Bible and being a christian is believing in Jesus Christ and He said the church would stay true, so not believing that is tantamount to calling him a liar and not being a christian (believer in Christ).

Which church?

The OP calls into question the validity of the Protestant claim to being Christian.

As for "which" of the expressions of historical Christianity within the Church, I'd suppose that would depend upon the individual Christian. By and large, Protestants are guilty of presuming themselves individual Popes and are therefore troubled by the obvious extension of the logic behind actually heeding the Bible's inerrant words and implications. "The Church" is comprised of the expressions of historical Christianity I have described in the opening sentence of the OP.

However, this is my particular perspective and should NOT be considered a universal, or even a popular, position of Christianity.

Dracone wrote:

Olivaero wrote:well that's really up to the person in question isn't it? Whats being argued about here is not just reading the bible and deciding you have the right interpretation and that doing so is more right than the way the established churches with apostolic succession, those being the Churches which Jesus was talking about assumedly when he said "his" church I mean I'm church of England but we still swear allegiance to the R/C church at our church, that and the orthodox church both having a claim to apostolic succession.

EDIT: oh and the Anglican Communion it's self also has apostolic succession

EDIT 2 so TLDR: those churches with Apostolic succession I babble way too much

How do you know Jesus really said that and it wasnt something added inby the Church for political reasons? It doesnt fit for me with the fruit parable in Mathew 7:17, nor with the false prophets in Mathew 7:15

Following this logic, we should wonder why one even stops there? Who is to say that Jesus himself and His message weren't completely fabricated by politically connected and motivated individuals out of jealousy of the Jewish elite?

Really, if we allow ourselves to fall to this delusion, then we might as well believe that the entire reasoning behind institutional religion is to fool the plebes among us and enrich the established elites that much more. But, once we do jump down that rabbit hole, Alex Jones becomes quite appealing. Before long, the US gov't will be poisoning our water supply, LED lights will be capable of killing anyone anywhere, and terrorist attacks will be staged by compartmentalized gov't agencies the world over. The world will become a prison of our paranoia.

It's beyond silly to pull on that string. One must draw the line somewhere.

No matter which way I read the bible (or other religious texts) I still fall asleep reading it.

The same goes for tomes like Mein Kampf and Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Distruzio wrote: God will allow the Church to make mistakes, and then smile as she learns from those mistakes.

Then how can you know that Martin Luther was not divinely inspired to correct a mistake in the Church?

Unchecked Expansion wrote:

Distruzio wrote: God will allow the Church to make mistakes, and then smile as she learns from those mistakes.

Then how can you know that Martin Luther was not divinely inspired to correct a mistake in the Church?

I strongly implied that he was. I simply think that Protestantism has drifted too far.

Olivaero wrote:

Norstal wrote:Which church?

well that's really up to the person in question isn't it? Whats being argued about here is not just reading the bible and deciding you have the right interpretation and that doing so is more right than the way the established churches with apostolic succession, those being the Churches which Jesus was talking about assumedly when he said "his" church I mean I'm church of England but we still swear allegiance to the R/C church at our church, that and the orthodox church both having a claim to apostolic succession.

EDIT: oh and the Anglican Communion it's self also has apostolic succession

EDIT 2 so TLDR: those churches with Apostolic succession I babble way too much

A quick question - do you mean that your church actually swears allegiance to the RCC, or that you recite the creed - 'one holy catholic and apostolic Church'?

Distruzio wrote:

Dracone wrote:How do you know Jesus really said that and it wasnt something added inby the Church for political reasons? It doesnt fit for me with the fruit parable in Mathew 7:17, nor with the false prophets in Mathew 7:15

Following this logic, we should wonder why one even stops there? Who is to say that Jesus himself and His message weren't completely fabricated by politically connected and motivated individuals out of jealousy of the Jewish elite?

Really, if we allow ourselves to fall to this delusion, then we might as well believe that the entire reasoning behind institutional religion is to fool the plebes among us and enrich the established elites that much more. But, once we do jump down that rabbit hole, Alex Jones becomes quite appealing. Before long, the US gov't will be poisoning our water supply, LED lights will be capable of killing anyone anywhere, and terrorist attacks will be staged by compartmentalized gov't agencies the world over. The world will become a prison of our paranoia.

It's beyond silly to pull on that string. One must draw the line somewhere.

The problem with it having been one hundred percent fabricated is that so many of the messages condemn the church (or its equivalent at the time)
so the religious elite were condeming themselves?
plus I know that God and Jesus are real, because when I pray, I get an answer. So I know that atleast not all of it was fabricated. and its not that estranged of logic either. Because it is an internal inconsitency, you cant both judge the tree by its fruit and blindly follow the church. So I did what I always do with internal inconsitencies in any document I know to be true. I look at the two options. Decide if one would have benefitted a party. Then Look at which seems to accord with the rest of the document and what I know to be true. Then decide what I beleive is truth.
once again... 300 years ago they were torturing people to death for no reason... you cant tell me thats good fruit.

Distruzio wrote:

Norstal wrote:Which church?

The OP calls into question the validity of the Protestant claim to being Christian.

As for "which" of the expressions of historical Christianity within the Church, I'd suppose that would depend upon the individual Christian. By and large, Protestants are guilty of presuming themselves individual Popes and are therefore troubled by the obvious extension of the logic behind actually heeding the Bible's inerrant words and implications. "The Church" is comprised of the expressions of historical Christianity I have described in the opening sentence of the OP.

However, this is my particular perspective and should NOT be considered a universal, or even a popular, position of Christianity.

Do you believe a person is going to Heaven if they have accepted Jesus and are saved through him?

Nordengrund wrote:

Distruzio wrote:

The OP calls into question the validity of the Protestant claim to being Christian.

As for "which" of the expressions of historical Christianity within the Church, I'd suppose that would depend upon the individual Christian. By and large, Protestants are guilty of presuming themselves individual Popes and are therefore troubled by the obvious extension of the logic behind actually heeding the Bible's inerrant words and implications. "The Church" is comprised of the expressions of historical Christianity I have described in the opening sentence of the OP.

However, this is my particular perspective and should NOT be considered a universal, or even a popular, position of Christianity.

Do you believe a person is going to Heaven if they have accepted Jesus and are saved through him?

No.

There are those within the Church but without God. There are those with God but without the Church. Who am I to hold an opinion on anyone else's salvation when my own is in question?

Dracone wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
Following this logic, we should wonder why one even stops there? Who is to say that Jesus himself and His message weren't completely fabricated by politically connected and motivated individuals out of jealousy of the Jewish elite?

Really, if we allow ourselves to fall to this delusion, then we might as well believe that the entire reasoning behind institutional religion is to fool the plebes among us and enrich the established elites that much more. But, once we do jump down that rabbit hole, Alex Jones becomes quite appealing. Before long, the US gov't will be poisoning our water supply, LED lights will be capable of killing anyone anywhere, and terrorist attacks will be staged by compartmentalized gov't agencies the world over. The world will become a prison of our paranoia.

It's beyond silly to pull on that string. One must draw the line somewhere.

The problem with it having been one hundred percent fabricated is that so many of the messages condemn the church (or its equivalent at the time)

No such passages exist. This is an example of you setting yourself up as the supreme Pontiff above even God.

so the religious elite were condeming themselves?

So your reasoning would lead us to believe.

I look at the two options.

And thats the problem. I'm saying there aren't only two options.

Decide if one would have benefitted a party. Then Look at which seems to accord with the rest of the document and what I know to be true. Then decide what I beleive is truth.

Yes. I agree that that is, indeed, what you do. It's precisely what I condemn in the OP of this thread.

once again... 300 years ago they were torturing people to death for no reason... you cant tell me thats good fruit.

I wouldnt presume to misrepresent the Church's works. No one was killed for no reason. Have you never sinned in your lifetime? Should we doubt your repentance and desire to correct wrongs b/c wrongs were once committed? The Church is a living thing, Dracone. She learns from the mistakes she makes the same as you do/did. If God's grace is enough, according to your theological perspective on Christianity, to forgive you for your transgressions, then it is certainly enough to forgive the Church for hers.

Distruzio wrote:

Nordengrund wrote:
Do you believe a person is going to Heaven if they have accepted Jesus and are saved through him?

No.

There are those within the Church but without God. There are those with God but without the Church. Who am I to hold an opinion on anyone else's salvation when my own is in question?

My point is that if you accept Jesus, you are going to heaven. Isn't that what all Christians around the world have in common. Some might add on to it, but all of them believe Jesus is the Messiah and that you are going to Heaven.

Nordengrund wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
No.

There are those within the Church but without God. There are those with God but without the Church. Who am I to hold an opinion on anyone else's salvation when my own is in question?

My point is that if you accept Jesus, you are going to heaven. Isn't that what all Christians around the world have in common. Some might add on to it, but all of them believe Jesus is the Messiah and that you are going to Heaven.

Well, I think all Christians pretty much believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

However, not all Christians believe that they are going to heaven.

Galloism wrote:

Nordengrund wrote:
My point is that if you accept Jesus, you are going to heaven. Isn't that what all Christians around the world have in common. Some might add on to it, but all of them believe Jesus is the Messiah and that you are going to Heaven.

Well, I think all Christians pretty much believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

However, not all Christians believe that they are going to heaven.

I know, but Distruzio condemned Protestants and I was going to tell him that if people believe in the Messiah, they are going to Heaven. Both Protestants and Orthodox believe Jesus is the Messiah, so I do not see why we should condemn each other.

Nordengrund wrote:

Galloism wrote:Well, I think all Christians pretty much believe that Jesus is the Messiah.

However, not all Christians believe that they are going to heaven.

I know, but Distruzio condemned Protestants and I was going to tell him that if people believe in the Messiah, they are going to Heaven. Both Protestants and Orthodox believe Jesus is the Messiah, so I do not see why we should condemn each other.

I didn't condemn Protestants. I called into question the legitimacy of their claim to the title of Christian when they deny the things that make a Christian a Christian. I have condemned the practise of sola scriptura. I also made it very clear that I can't be trusted to make a determination about who goes where when I'm neither God nor secure in my own worthiness for salvation.

Distruzio wrote:

Nordengrund wrote:
I know, but Distruzio condemned Protestants and I was going to tell him that if people believe in the Messiah, they are going to Heaven. Both Protestants and Orthodox believe Jesus is the Messiah, so I do not see why we should condemn each other.

I didn't condemn Protestants. I called into question the legitimacy of their claim to the title of Christian when they deny the things that make a Christian a Christian. I have condemned the practise of solar scriptura. I also made it very clear that I can't be trusted to make a determination about who goes where when I'm neither God nor secure in my own worthiness for salvation.

That is why we read the Bible so we can find out the truth ourselves. As far as I know, though I am a Protestant I did not, nor do I know any protestant who did declare themself as their own individual pope.

Nordengrund wrote:

Distruzio wrote:

I didn't condemn Protestants. I called into question the legitimacy of their claim to the title of Christian when they deny the things that make a Christian a Christian. I have condemned the practise of solar scriptura. I also made it very clear that I can't be trusted to make a determination about who goes where when I'm neither God nor secure in my own worthiness for salvation.

That is why we read the Bible so we can find out the truth ourselves. As far as I know, though I am a Protestant I did not, nor do I know any protestant who did declare themself as their own individual pope.

You did the moment you adopted a sola scripturist perspective.

Distruzio wrote:

Nordengrund wrote:
That is why we read the Bible so we can find out the truth ourselves. As far as I know, though I am a Protestant I did not, nor do I know any protestant who did declare themself as their own individual pope.

You did the moment you adopted a sola scripturist perspective.

How does that make me a pope? It is just a different way of translating the Bible. I do not think people would go to hell for something as silly as that. I have accepted Jesus and that is the only way to Salvation.

Now I remember why I became a non- denominational Protestant in the first place.

Nordengrund wrote:

Distruzio wrote:
You did the moment you adopted a sola scripturist perspective.

How does that make me a pope? It is just a different way of translating the Bible. I do not think people would go to hell for something as silly as that. I have accepted Jesus and that is the only way to Salvation.

Now I remember why I became a non- denominational Protestant in the first place.

No, it isn't 'just' another way to translate Scripture. Its a way to interpret infallible Scripture infallibly - on your own. Only the Pope makes such a claim and exceedingly rarely does he do so. Protestants do it everyday. Also, you've always side identified yourself as evangelical baptist in denomination. That isn't non denominational.

Distruzio wrote:

Nordengrund wrote:
How does that make me a pope? It is just a different way of translating the Bible. I do not think people would go to hell for something as silly as that. I have accepted Jesus and that is the only way to Salvation.

Now I remember why I became a non- denominational Protestant in the first place.

No, it isn't 'just' another way to translate Scripture. Its a way to interpret infallible Scripture infallibly - on your own. Only the Pope makes such a claim and exceedingly rarely does he do so. Protestants do it everyday. Also, you've always side identified yourself as evangelical baptist in denomination. That isn't non denominational.

I used to be one. I was Baptist, became non- denominational, but my beliefs were based on the Baptist denomination and I borrowed from the Adventists, then I reverted to Southern Baptist and threw away the Adventist beliefs.

Read this, Nord: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=174780&p=9725734&hilit=sola#p9725734

Distruzio wrote:Read this, Nord: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=174780&p=9725734&hilit=sola#p9725734

I am not a sola scripturist, because I do not regard the Bible as a getting you saved, but as a way for finding out the truth. I do recognize Christ as both Son of God and Son of Man and he is the divine head of the church. Doesn't the pastor serve the same role as the pope except he is not a physical embodiment of God? The pope is Catholic, yet you are Orthodox, meaning your loyalty is to the patriarch and not the pope, who you say is the ruler of the true church.