RangerAg87 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.

---

I honestly don't think they would approve of much here. I don't think they would understand American Protestant Christianity or Reformation at all.

I think they would grasp Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism with some understanding and explanation of the progression.

That's my honest opinion.

Zobel said:

---

What about them? I think the Orthodox role of women is what we see in the NT scriptures, excepting only that we no longer have the office of deaconess - largely because the cultural barriers around things like men baptizing women no longer exist.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about the born in a barn myth - Orthodox hymnography says He was born in a cave.

---

Ok. So some cultural barriers can just go away, but others must be maintained.

And when you go to visit family, do they put you up in a cave?

RangerAg87 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.

---

Thank about how much the written word is taken out of context. Hear a speech from a politicians and you walk away with what you think is a decent understanding. Read a short article on the same speech and that politician is evil incarnate.

In my opinion, if Jesus wanted everyone to follow what was written, He would have arrived after the printing press. Or at least when literacy rates were semi-decent and the cost of hand copying manuscripts was reduced. Sometimes I don't wonder if He showed up prior to modern inventions precisely because of how much they can be used to skew reality.

Imagine Jesus showing up in the YouTube era… He'd instantly go viral as the world's best magician and any chance of getting people to listen to the bigger message would be gone before it started.

RangerAg87 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.

---

Knowing people who are EO outside of this forum, I'm not so sure. When they study the Bible, they look to their priests to interpret it for them, rather than reading it together and sharing their thoughts. The individualistic aspect of this, instead of being a communal thing, would not only be foreign to our forefathers, but perhaps anathema.

Edit: this is not to make the EO the guiding light, but to illustrate the communal identity of early Christians where they gather to read and be taught, instead of thinking it something where each is his own authority.

AGC said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.

---

Knowing people who are EO outside of this forum, I'm not so sure. When they study the Bible, they look to their priests to interpret it for them, rather than reading it together and sharing their thoughts. The individualistic aspect of this, instead of being a communal thing, would not only be foreign to our forefathers, but perhaps anathema.

Edit: this is not to make the EO the guiding light, but to illustrate the communal identity of early Christians where they gather to read and be taught, instead of thinking it something where each is his own authority.

---

This is incorrect. Orthodox don't debate the meaning of scripture as it has been handed down to us from Church Fathers etc…
It's a closed matter.

Everyone's personal feelings and "what it means to me" is really silly to me.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.

---

Knowing people who are EO outside of this forum, I'm not so sure. When they study the Bible, they look to their priests to interpret it for them, rather than reading it together and sharing their thoughts. The individualistic aspect of this, instead of being a communal thing, would not only be foreign to our forefathers, but perhaps anathema.

Edit: this is not to make the EO the guiding light, but to illustrate the communal identity of early Christians where they gather to read and be taught, instead of thinking it something where each is his own authority.

---

This is incorrect. Orthodox don't debate the meaning of scripture as it has been handed down to us from Church Fathers etc…
It's a closed matter.

Everyone's personal feelings and "what it means to me" is really silly to me.

---

How did we as Christians, get to the point where there is accepted theology by some that says we have no free will and God preordains humans He created in His own image to suffer eternally in the worst way possible? With zero chance to miss out on that destiny. How is that not a heresy?

What would you think of me if I had a child knowing I had pre destined the child for eternal conscious torture? With zero chance to avoid that fate? Would you think I was a good and loving father? Does this fit the character of God as revealed by Jesus?

I can not think of any greater evil that exists. Or has ever existed.

Praise the Lord that is not the Gospel, which means good news.

Praise the Lord that Scripture clearly states God is love and desires every person to be saved.

Dear Lord, I pray that all people open their minds and hearts to the truth of what your character truly is.

You are the loving father of the prodigal son. The loving shepherd who leaves his flock to search for the one lost sheep. Who searches tirelessly for the one lost coin.

I love you so much. Thank you God for everything. But most of all for Jesus Christ.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.

---

Knowing people who are EO outside of this forum, I'm not so sure. When they study the Bible, they look to their priests to interpret it for them, rather than reading it together and sharing their thoughts. The individualistic aspect of this, instead of being a communal thing, would not only be foreign to our forefathers, but perhaps anathema.

Edit: this is not to make the EO the guiding light, but to illustrate the communal identity of early Christians where they gather to read and be taught, instead of thinking it something where each is his own authority.

---

This is incorrect. Orthodox don't debate the meaning of scripture as it has been handed down to us from Church Fathers etc…
It's a closed matter.

Everyone's personal feelings and "what it means to me" is really silly to me.

---

Perhaps aim first next time? And then fire?

The Banned said:

---

The Calvinist heresy arose on the same timeline as sola scriptura. The idea that we can sit down, read it and all arrive at the same conclusion has been proven 100% inaccurate. It's why Jesus left a church and not a book. The same church that protected the early Christians from Arianism, nestorianism, and many, many more heresies.

Sola scriptura is problematic and has been since the beginning of its usage.

---

I could could come up with Dermdocism.

Seriously, it does get problematic.

And now when you create a new heresy, you can make tons of money!

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

Calvin was working out his theology at the same time as Luther. It isn't some development hundreds of years later. Calvin agreed with faith alone and monergistic salvation, just like Luther. He simply took it to its logical end, where Luther couldn't go that far. That should have been a wake up call for Luther, but sadly it was not.

Arminius joins the chat a hundred plus years later to do away with monergism for this very reason. It has to be synergism or else God is the one intentionally sending people to hell with no hope. Essentially he brought Catholic teaching back into Protestant circles but kept the Protestant trappings.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

Calvin was working out his theology at the same time as Luther. It isn't some development hundreds of years later. Calvin agreed with faith alone and monergistic salvation, just like Luther. He simply took it to its logical end, where Luther couldn't go that far. That should have been a wake up call for Luther, but sadly it was not.

Arminius joins the chat a hundred plus years later to do away with monergism for this very reason. It has to be synergism or else God is the one intentionally sending people to hell with no hope. Essentially he brought Catholic teaching back into Protestant circles but kept the Protestant trappings.

---

The RCC has its own trappings, such as Gratian? compiling what comes to be cannon law and picking and choosing what to keep based on his idea of natural law, no? And then there's aquinas too, so we should disabuse ourselves of the RCC not having its own accretions that are now accepted as fact.

In fact, did not the compilation of cannon law preference some fathers over the others? I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs but I've read so.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

Calvin was working out his theology at the same time as Luther. It isn't some development hundreds of years later. Calvin agreed with faith alone and monergistic salvation, just like Luther. He simply took it to its logical end, where Luther couldn't go that far. That should have been a wake up call for Luther, but sadly it was not.

Arminius joins the chat a hundred plus years later to do away with monergism for this very reason. It has to be synergism or else God is the one intentionally sending people to hell with no hope. Essentially he brought Catholic teaching back into Protestant circles but kept the Protestant trappings.

---

The RCC has its own trappings, such as Gratian? compiling what comes to be cannon law and picking and choosing what to keep based on his idea of natural law, no? And then there's aquinas too, so we should disabuse ourselves of the RCC not having its own accretions that are now accepted as fact.

In fact, did not the compilation of cannon law preference some fathers over the others? I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs but I've read so.

---

That is not something I'm familiar with. I'll have to read into it.

What I can say at this point is that development of doctrine in the Catholic Church is allowed (obviously the details matter). As long as it's done correctly (again, long list of details on how that works) then developments are a part of the authority granted by Christ Himself to Peter and, to slightly lesser degree, the apostles. Canon law especially, since canon law is about governance, not theology.

Jesus didn't give anyone a bible. He didn't tell anyone to write a bible. He told the apostles to go forth and spread the good news. The written word was a part of that, not the goal.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

Calvin was working out his theology at the same time as Luther. It isn't some development hundreds of years later. Calvin agreed with faith alone and monergistic salvation, just like Luther. He simply took it to its logical end, where Luther couldn't go that far. That should have been a wake up call for Luther, but sadly it was not.

Arminius joins the chat a hundred plus years later to do away with monergism for this very reason. It has to be synergism or else God is the one intentionally sending people to hell with no hope. Essentially he brought Catholic teaching back into Protestant circles but kept the Protestant trappings.

---

The RCC has its own trappings, such as Gratian? compiling what comes to be cannon law and picking and choosing what to keep based on his idea of natural law, no? And then there's aquinas too, so we should disabuse ourselves of the RCC not having its own accretions that are now accepted as fact.

In fact, did not the compilation of cannon law preference some fathers over the others? I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs but I've read so.

---

That is not something I'm familiar with. I'll have to read into it.

What I can say at this point is that development of doctrine in the Catholic Church is allowed (obviously the details matter). As long as it's done correctly (again, long list of details on how that works) then developments are a part of the authority granted by Christ Himself to Peter and, to slightly lesser degree, the apostles. Canon law especially, since canon law is about governance, not theology.

Jesus didn't give anyone a bible. He didn't tell anyone to write a bible. He told the apostles to go forth and spread the good news. The written word was a part of that, not the goal.

---

It was mentioned in Holland's Dominion.

But going around rooting out heresy with the inquisition, setting universities apart from church (bishop) oversight for free inquiry, these things challenge the idea that the romish church herself has arrived at this place from the teachings of the apostles. At some point, the powers and deeds of leaders of a church become part of its fabric and one cannot say, "those things were wrong, and not the church's doing," while accepting doctrine that has evolved in lockstep.

The question in my mind is, where is the line between what was done and what should have been done, and what humility does one have when evaluating one's own church's beliefs in light of that.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

Calvin was working out his theology at the same time as Luther. It isn't some development hundreds of years later. Calvin agreed with faith alone and monergistic salvation, just like Luther. He simply took it to its logical end, where Luther couldn't go that far. That should have been a wake up call for Luther, but sadly it was not.

Arminius joins the chat a hundred plus years later to do away with monergism for this very reason. It has to be synergism or else God is the one intentionally sending people to hell with no hope. Essentially he brought Catholic teaching back into Protestant circles but kept the Protestant trappings.

---

The RCC has its own trappings, such as Gratian? compiling what comes to be cannon law and picking and choosing what to keep based on his idea of natural law, no? And then there's aquinas too, so we should disabuse ourselves of the RCC not having its own accretions that are now accepted as fact.

In fact, did not the compilation of cannon law preference some fathers over the others? I'm not familiar with all the ins and outs but I've read so.

---

That is not something I'm familiar with. I'll have to read into it.

What I can say at this point is that development of doctrine in the Catholic Church is allowed (obviously the details matter). As long as it's done correctly (again, long list of details on how that works) then developments are a part of the authority granted by Christ Himself to Peter and, to slightly lesser degree, the apostles. Canon law especially, since canon law is about governance, not theology.

Jesus didn't give anyone a bible. He didn't tell anyone to write a bible. He told the apostles to go forth and spread the good news. The written word was a part of that, not the goal.

---

It was mentioned in Holland's Dominion.

But going around rooting out heresy with the inquisition, setting universities apart from church (bishop) oversight for free inquiry, these things challenge the idea that the romish church herself has arrived at this place from the teachings of the apostles. At some point, the powers and deeds of leaders of a church become part of its fabric and one cannot say, "those things were wrong, and not the church's doing," while accepting doctrine that has evolved in lockstep.

The question in my mind is, where is the line between what was done and what should have been done, and what humility does one have when evaluating one's own church's beliefs in light of that.

---

Even Jesus said to Jewish people to do as the Pharisees say, not as they do. He acknowledged that a teaching authority can exist regardless of the righteousness of the teachers. I can easily accept that Catholic prelates did plenty of bad things. Some have even taught bad things. But the Church has not. The Church is the bride of Christ, not the individual members that it is comprised of. And thank God for that, because the people that make it up are very fallible.

The most recent example of this is the death penalty. I am 100% convinced Francis (and maybe even JP2) would love to condemn it as evil, but the Church has bound them to believe otherwise. The biggest change they can make to that teaching is the prudential judgement that "we don't need it anymore". It's also why the Catholic Church is the only denomination left (at least of any size) that condemns contraception in all its forms. Plenty of bishops lobbied for the change of teaching, but the Church was protected from it. Not by its individuals, but by the Holy Spirit.

I do agree that a bit of humility is needed to be a Catholic. The church has been around a long time with plenty of bad people doing bad things. I wish it wasn't so, but ultimately God gave free will to all people, and that includes Church officials. A stain free body of believers will never exist in this life

https://donbryant.wordpress.com/2010/04/30/how-many-christians-are-calvinists/

The elect seem to be a very small number. And I firmly believe they love it that way.

And how you can read the entire Bible and the first century plus writings of the church and come up with Calvinism/Reformed theology admittedly astounds me.

dermdoc said:

---

And how you can read the entire Bible and the first century plus writings of the church and come up with Calvinism/Reformed theology admittedly astounds me.

---

But we can use that for plenty of beliefs, including the idea of universal reconciliation. When every man reads the Bible and whatever church fathers he chooses, but ultimately relies on his own conclusion on what it all must mean, the result of bad theology is inevitable.

I'll state plainly that I am a Catholic precisely because the topic is too big. It's too old. I don't have access to everything, nor does anyone else. It's sort of a form of Gnosticism to say that we can do our own research and know the fullness of truth. Or even just "enough" truth. No pope or bishop was capable of doing it. St Thomas Aquinas knew he was not capable of it. Only a divine source is capable of such a thing, and I believe the Catholic Church is the recipient of a divine gift.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And how you can read the entire Bible and the first century plus writings of the church and come up with Calvinism/Reformed theology admittedly astounds me.

---

But we can use that for plenty of beliefs, including the idea of universal reconciliation. When every man reads the Bible and whatever church fathers he chooses, but ultimately relies on his own conclusion on what it all must mean, the result of bad theology is inevitable.

I'll state plainly that I am a Catholic precisely because the topic is too big. It's too old. I don't have access to everything, nor does anyone else. It's sort of a form of Gnosticism to say that we can do our own research and know the fullness of truth. Or even just "enough" truth. No pope or bishop was capable of doing it. St Thomas Aquinas knew he was not capable of it. Only a divine source is capable of such a thing, and I believe the Catholic Church is the recipient of a divine gift.

---

I agree for the most part. How do you completely get rid of free will when it had been a dominant teaching of Christianity for centuries?

My only question, as you know, is whether God allows man's free will to trump God's desires that all people be saved.

I honestly do not know.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

And how you can read the entire Bible and the first century plus writings of the church and come up with Calvinism/Reformed theology admittedly astounds me.

---

But we can use that for plenty of beliefs, including the idea of universal reconciliation. When every man reads the Bible and whatever church fathers he chooses, but ultimately relies on his own conclusion on what it all must mean, the result of bad theology is inevitable.

I'll state plainly that I am a Catholic precisely because the topic is too big. It's too old. I don't have access to everything, nor does anyone else. It's sort of a form of Gnosticism to say that we can do our own research and know the fullness of truth. Or even just "enough" truth. No pope or bishop was capable of doing it. St Thomas Aquinas knew he was not capable of it. Only a divine source is capable of such a thing, and I believe the Catholic Church is the recipient of a divine gift.

---

I agree for the most part. How do you completely get rid of free will when it had been a dominant teaching of Christianity for centuries?

My only question, as you know, is whether God allows man's free will to trump God's desires that all people be saved.

I honestly do not know.

---

And they would say free will isn't taken away. It's "limited" free will. We can choose bad but aren't capable of choosing good until God intervenes and changes us without our consent.

I disagree with this, but if you read the Bible with the wrong lens and squint hard enough, you can find it. That's why I find the idea of "perspicuity of scripture" to be so flawed.

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

Calvin was working out his theology at the same time as Luther. It isn't some development hundreds of years later. Calvin agreed with faith alone and monergistic salvation, just like Luther. He simply took it to its logical end, where Luther couldn't go that far. That should have been a wake up call for Luther, but sadly it was not.

Arminius joins the chat a hundred plus years later to do away with monergism for this very reason. It has to be synergism or else God is the one intentionally sending people to hell with no hope. Essentially he brought Catholic teaching back into Protestant circles but kept the Protestant trappings.

---

What about the people who see problems within their church, sit down in true prayer and humility and open the Word for themselves, and earnestly ask the Lord for understanding? Then they find themselves in understanding and come to realize there are others with the same understanding? As they seek and search the scriptures they come to understanding they have prayed the Lord to show them? Not everyone is out there just believing whatever their parents or church told them to believe.

And to all the people thinking it's just crazy that people could be damned to hell on their own volition and their only hope is grace from God - if Adam couldn't do it, not sure why you think you can.

Zobel said:

---

Because those same scriptures say you're supposed to be in obedience to those over you, and that not everyone is called to be an apostle or a teacher. We are all called to submit, but submission is anathema to American individualists.

---

Absolutely not everyone is called to be a teacher (certainly not apostles…). I'm fine submitting to my pastor and going through a formal process for that very thing.

Where does the scripture prescribe a formal process for such a thing?

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

---

Scripture clearly states God desires all mankind to be saved.

So how do they come up with the premise of your last sentence? Especially if they believe Sola Scriptura? Actual Scripture clearly refutes their theology.

Zobel said:

---

Where does the scripture prescribe a formal process for such a thing?

---

I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a sense of order in one's church…I can't imagine a Catholic disagreeing with that thought. We have formal processes for many serious things.

Scripture does lay out a formal process for discipline and becoming part of my church you are agreeing to submit to such biblical discipline.

dermdoc said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

---

Scripture clearly states God desires all mankind to be saved.

So how do they come up with the premise of your last sentence? Especially is they believe Sola Scriptura? Actual Scripture clearly refutes their theology.

---

Great question! Makes absolutely no sense to me. But I also don't subscribe to a monergistic view of salvation. I believe we actively accept or reject, and continue to actively accept or reject the rest of our days.

But if we remove the idea that we can actively accept or reject based on certain scripture verses that emphasize God's sovereignty or the verses that are taken to mean "faith alone", then it's easier to arrive at the idea of "all *kinds* of men" interpretation that Calvinists will use. And since there is no authority structure to act as judge, who are we to say they're wrong?

Again, this is a perfect rebuttal to the perspicuity of scripture. The fact that good natured people that believe Jesus died for them can read the Bible this way should show us all that we are assenting to some sort of interpretive lens and no one is truly sola scriptura.

You are describing searching the scriptures and coming to a consensus of leaving your church. Or changing it. Or correction of your church. There is no scripture that supports that.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

The Banned said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

I understand the need for ridding the church of corruption.

I do not understand the radical change in theology.

---

That's why I've been on my question grind here recently. We all read the Bible through a lens. I have come to believe that if you read the Bible through a true faith ALONE lens, you're going to end up with a Calvinist or a cheap Grace type of theology. When you add in the idea that we don't have anything to do with our salvation, you're going to end up with God as the sole driver in the equation. Therefore, if someone isn't saved, it's because God didn't want to save them.

Calvin was working out his theology at the same time as Luther. It isn't some development hundreds of years later. Calvin agreed with faith alone and monergistic salvation, just like Luther. He simply took it to its logical end, where Luther couldn't go that far. That should have been a wake up call for Luther, but sadly it was not.

Arminius joins the chat a hundred plus years later to do away with monergism for this very reason. It has to be synergism or else God is the one intentionally sending people to hell with no hope. Essentially he brought Catholic teaching back into Protestant circles but kept the Protestant trappings.

---

What about the people who see problems within their church, sit down in true prayer and humility and open the Word for themselves, and earnestly ask the Lord for understanding? Then they find themselves in understanding and come to realize there are others with the same understanding? As they seek and search the scriptures they come to understanding they have prayed the Lord to show them? Not everyone is out there just believing whatever their parents or church told them to believe.

And to all the people thinking it's just crazy that people could be damned to hell on their own volition and their only hope is grace from God - if Adam couldn't do it, not sure why you think you can.

---

I would flip it and say "what about all of the truly seeking individuals that open the Bible, read it for themselves, pray for understanding and come to different conclusions"? This is a much more accurate description of what sola scriptura has accomplished in Christianity. Church splits are incredibly common, despite all of them being convinced they are using the Bible alone.

And no traditional believer would disagree with your last paragraph as it's written. There is just a ton of questions that arise from that statement that need to be worked through.

Zobel said:

---

You are describing searching the scriptures and coming to a consensus of leaving your church. Or changing it. Or correction of your church. There is no scripture that supports that.

---

Actually no, I think it's a very serious matter to leave one's church, at least it should be, and should be done in only a few circumstances.

My intent in my original comment was to demonstrate that some people come to their beliefs after earnestly praying and searching God's word, not just being told what to believe.

And if that belief is at odds with their church?

Zobel said:

---

And if that belief is at odds with their church?

---

Depends what the belief is.

does it? submission is contingent?

upon what?

AGC said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

AGC said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

The Banned said:

---

RangerAg87 said:

---

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Thoughtful video - thanks for sharing.

Couple things came to immediate mind (and I'm not sure I'm saying much that the video didn't say, but for what it's worth…):

1. Even the apostles had some disagreements and corrections to address. I would not hold the church fathers, beyond the apostles, to an infallible esteem if even the apostles were fallible (as we know all men are).

2 This video feels like a question and emphasis on tradition and not theology. If Paul or Peter walked into our Sunday service, what would they say? Well, I think they'd consider the teaching; they'd ask is what being taught biblical?

---

I am going to stop you right there bucko. They would ask you what the hell you were talking about and referring to a "Bible". They would then also ask you why those scriptures and books take precedence over the others. They would then ask you why that is the only source for your religious doctrine and why you allowed yourself to be pigeon holed by the same group of people you claim today have no valid faith.

I am 1000% percent confident in that.

There was no BIBLE!!!! It is a man made collection of books. The writing may have been divinely inspired. I think it's a leap to assume the collection of them into one book was.

We could use Paul today writing a new letter to the Americans telling them to fall in line. That would make a great addition.

---

You don't think they would think having writings, inspired by God, all in one book?

Also, I believe they would probably let us know what we have correct, and incorrect about their writings and what we think it all means.

It would also be interesting to see what their thoughts on the Pope are. And how much power that one position holds.

And, we would know their thoughts on the reformation....

---

As the literacy rate was hovering around 10%, writing a book for all to read would have been one of the most ineffective ways to get the message out. It's probably why it took almost two decades for the first letter to be written. Then letters that became the books of the NT were there to buttress their oral teachings, not to be the foundation. Which is also why those letters were directed to certain people and groups, not address to all current and future Christians.

---

Correct, that was then, this is now we are talking about. And, I believe they would most likely approve. Most likely, they would find it a great way to get the word out and to allow each of us to read God's word.

---

Knowing people who are EO outside of this forum, I'm not so sure. When they study the Bible, they look to their priests to interpret it for them, rather than reading it together and sharing their thoughts. The individualistic aspect of this, instead of being a communal thing, would not only be foreign to our forefathers, but perhaps anathema.

Edit: this is not to make the EO the guiding light, but to illustrate the communal identity of early Christians where they gather to read and be taught, instead of thinking it something where each is his own authority.

---

This is incorrect. Orthodox don't debate the meaning of scripture as it has been handed down to us from Church Fathers etc…
It's a closed matter.

Everyone's personal feelings and "what it means to me" is really silly to me.

---

Perhaps aim first next time? And then fire?

---

Ughhhh….