Why do you only let protestants be moderators?

[prayerpower]

I believe the bible is the word of God! I certainly don't write it off. Please read what I wrote. What I reject is the idea the bible is the only authority. That's a man-made idea, there's nothing about it in the bible!

What other "authorities" are you talking about? Christian books, lost scrolls, ??????

 

[stray bullet]

I believe the bible is the word of God! I certainly don't write it off. Please read what I wrote. What I reject is the idea the bible is the only authority. That's a man-made idea, there's nothing about it in the bible!

What other "authorities" are you talking about? Christian books, lost scrolls, ??????

Most Christians also go by Holy Tradition (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans and Anglicans, etc). Tradition existed even before the bible existed and is what brought souls to salvation in the first century.

Tradition is beliefs like salvation comes through faith and works. In the bible, we see Paul saying that we are saved by faith, yet James saying we are saved by works. If you go by the bible alone, this is a contradiction. However, if you go by Tradition, then you know both are right and compliment each other.

Orthodox and Catholics also believe in the authority of the Church, as it is apostolic. For example, the Pope is the successor Peter, therefore the Holy Spirit can speak through him on matters of faith, just as He did through the early apostles.

The authority of the bible comes from the authority of the Church. The authority of the Church comes through the authority of the apostles. The authority of the apostes comes from Jesus Christ.

The authority of the bible can't come from Jesus directly because He wasn't walking to Earth when it was written, let alone canonized in the 4th century. The bible thus gets its authority through the apostles and their successors.

I follow the teachings of the apostles (Tradition), their writings (Scripture), the canon of the writings put together by the Church (Magisterium), and the successors of the apostles (Magisterium).

I don't pick and choose what I want from the apostles, I take it all.

 

[antitox]

I believe the bible is the word of God! I certainly don't write it off. Please read what I wrote. What I reject is the idea the bible is the only authority. That's a man-made idea, there's nothing about it in the bible!

Well, that's what the mormons do. That's what the JW's do. That's what many pseudo-christian cults do. That's what the muslims do. It leaves the stage wide open for error.

 

[stray bullet]

I believe the bible is the word of God! I certainly don't write it off. Please read what I wrote. What I reject is the idea the bible is the only authority. That's a man-made idea, there's nothing about it in the bible!

Well, that's what the mormons do. That's what the JW's do. That's what many pseudo-christian cults do. That's what the muslims do. It leaves the stage wide open for error.

On what basis do you call the bible authoritative then?

Where in the bible does it say the bible is the only authority? Before you go and link the vast majority of Christians to cults and non-Christians, how about you at least back up that such a belief is wrong?

What sets the stage for error is only going by the bible. First of all, because that is a man-made belief. Second, there is no way to interpret it infallibly as a regular Christian- that's why there are thousand of denominations and so much disagreement.

You have set yourselves up for fallibility and error, not I. I follow the apostles, not the beliefs I make up for myself.

 

[Gary]

Do we need "tradition" to solve this so called contradiction?

Tradition is beliefs like salvation comes through faith and works. In the bible, we see Paul saying that we are saved by faith, yet James saying we are saved by works. If you go by the bible alone, this is a contradiction. However, if you go by Tradition, then you know both are right and compliment each other.

stray bullet, you only need the Bible and some reading of the Bible to understand this so-called "contradiction".

Are we saved by grace or works?
Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16
and James 2:24; Matthew 19:16-17

Saved by grace

• (Ephesians 2:8-9) - "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, that no one should boast."
  (Romans 3:20 Romans 3:28) - "because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin...28For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law."
  (Galatians 2:16) - "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."

Saved by works

• (James 2:24) - "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
  (Matthew 19:16-17) - "And behold, one came to Him and said, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain eternal life?" 17And He said to him, "Why are you asking Me about what is good? There is only One who is good; but if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments."

God does not want a faith that is empty and hypocritical. James 2 is talking about those who "say" that they have faith but have no works. Therefore, people cannot tell if they are true believers or not, because there is no fruit. That kind of a faith is useless and is not a saving faith. True faith results in true works.

In Matthew 19:16-17, Jesus was speaking to a Lawyer who was self-righteous since he wanted to put Jesus to the test (Luke 10:25). He asked what he must do in order to obtain eternal life and Jesus responded with the requirements of keeping the commandments. If a person keeps all of the commandments, it would seem that they could obtain eternal life. However, nobody can keep all of the commandments. Therefore, Jesus' comments to this man show this man that justification can only be by faith since no one can keep all of the commandments. This is why it says in Ephesians 2:8 that we are saved by grace through faith. Also, Romans 3:20, Romans 3:28 and Galatians 2:16 tells us that no one is justified in the sight of God by the law; that is, by the works that he can do.

There is no contradiction at all when we examine the contexts. We are justified by faith but that faith must be alive (James 2). The Law cannot save us because we are incapable of keeping it (Matthew 19:16-17).

Therefore, salvation is by faith through grace.

Read more:
http://www.carm.org/questions/faithorworks.htm

.

 

[stray bullet]

I find it interesting that rather than actually addressing the subject of this topic, you want to go into a tangent about faith and works, which was only used as an example in telling someone about Tradition.

A discussion of faith and works is not helpful to this topic... this is about sola scriptura being inserted into your statement of faith.

Is this an admission that your site's beliefs consist of man-made beliefs that are not found in the bible?

Gary, you seem so good at cut and paste.. show me where in the bible the bible is the ONLY authority?

Even better, how about instead of cut and pasting from other sites like you all often do, why not make your own response?

 

[Gary]

stray bullet, I believe I have shown you that you did not need RCC "tradition" to solve a so-called contradiction. Read the verses for yourself in context. The contradiction does not exist.

What you claimed was exactly what the RCC did to its members centuries ago... the RCC claimed that only they knew what the Bible taught. That is patently wrong.

So your example of why we need tradition and the teaching magisterium as an authority greater than the Bible does not hold water.

YOU claim that you need an authority higher than the Bible. The onus is on you to prove that proposition.

 

[stray bullet]

stray bullet, I believe I have shown you that you did not need RCC "tradition" to solve a so-called contradiction. Read the verses for yourself in context. The contradiction does not exist.

My example was one I just pulled out of the air to tell him about Tradition. It has nothing to do with the subject of the topic, I was answering another question.

What you claimed was exactly what the RCC did to its members centuries ago... the RCC claimed that only they knew what the Bible taught. That is patently wrong.

That's incorrect. The Catholic Church, as an apostolic church, has the authority to interpret scripture.

You do not, that is why you and everyone else here have different believes about Christianity and the bible.
If the Catholic Church was wrong, then everyone would be able to interpret scripture infallibly.
Are you infallible? Unless you are, then you can't interpret scripture, because you will be wrong.

So your example of why we need tradition and the teaching magisterium as an authority greater than the Bible does not hold water.

YOU claim that you need an authority higher than the Bible. The onus is on you to prove that proposition.

The bible is from God. All information that comes from God is equal because it comes from God and does not contradict itself.

If you would like to continue this discussion, then let's please create another topic.

This topic is for the discussion of the man-made belief of sola-scriptura being in your statement of faith and excluding the vast majority of Christians as a result.

Again, if it is true, which it is not because I already showed it was invented in the 16th Century, then surely it is in the bible. If it is, then show me!

Otherwise you need to admit that:
-You got that line in your statement of faith from another source, which you did
-The second part of that line is sola scriptura
-Sola Scriptura was made up in the 16th Century
-Sola Scriptura is not biblically founded
-Sola Scriptura has no place in a forum that goes by the bible

 

[Gary]

Let us analyse stray bullet's issue.

The statement of faith of this forum says:

The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.

The RCC at Vatican II in the document Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) in #21 says:

The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures...... etc

She has always maintained them and continues to do so, together with Sacred Tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the Word of God himself without change.....

and #24 says:

Sacred theology rests on the written Word of God, together with sacred Tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation....

So we agree on the role of the Bible. YOU have to prove that it is also true for "sacred Tradition" however and wherever that is defined.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Can you or can you not show me where in your statement of faith the idea that the bible is the ONLY authority?

Surely, you wouldn't let a man-made belief slip into your statement of faith unless it was biblically supported. You wouldn't have something in your statement of faith unless it was in the bible right? So where is it?

Are millions of history books wrong, including encyclipedias and dictionaries? Books which point out the historical truth the sola scriptura, (which means only by (or soley) scripture), was a belief men made in the 16th Century?

If you want to get into a tangent about the authority of Tradition and Magisterium, in addition to Scipture, that's fine. However, that would side tract from the fact your statement of faith still has sola scriptura in it.

Oh, so you mean man made doctrines like the Co-Redemptrix or the rampant icon worship of Orthodox are perfectly fine then? :-? Scripture Please.

I will be honest enough to say it is not clearly spelled out by the Bible. However Stray, through out Pauls second letter to Timothy the teaching comes forth. I agree that Scripture is not the only way to learn of God, but that does not take away from Scripture being the only book divinly given and preserved by God. Which is what is being said in the ToS. Not even all protestants agree on just what Sola Scriptura includes, but one can scripturally derive the doctrine by doing as Paul taught in 2 Timothy 2:15, discerning the Word of truth. Paul said word singular, which context clearly points to the Bible. Is it the only way God teaches, no, but it sure is the best.

 

[peace4all]

well, As long as neither quath nor I , nor rezn are mods, it is good :-P that would spark some problems.


BTW

STOVEBOLTS for MOD!

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Can you or can you not show me where in your statement of faith the idea that the bible is the ONLY authority?

Surely, you wouldn't let a man-made belief slip into your statement of faith unless it was biblically supported. You wouldn't have something in your statement of faith unless it was in the bible right? So where is it?

Are millions of history books wrong, including encyclipedias and dictionaries? Books which point out the historical truth the sola scriptura, (which means only by (or soley) scripture), was a belief men made in the 16th Century?

If you want to get into a tangent about the authority of Tradition and Magisterium, in addition to Scipture, that's fine. However, that would side tract from the fact your statement of faith still has sola scriptura in it.

Oh, so you mean man made doctrines like the Co-Redemptrix or the rampant icon worship of Orthodox are perfectly fine then? :-? Scripture Please.

"Rampant icon worship." Ahh, what a gloriously impartial statement.
Icon worship would not be permitted, nor is it practiced in the Orthodox faith.

This seems to me to be nothing more than a knee jerk response on your part to being called on the absence of sola scriptura from the historical ledger. Perhaps you could answer Stray Bullet's questions, rather than speak nonsense out of ignorance?

I will be honest enough to say it is not clearly spelled out by the Bible. However Stray, through out Pauls second letter to Timothy the teaching comes forth. I agree that Scripture is not the only way to learn of God, but that does not take away from Scripture being the only book divinly given and preserved by God. Which is what is being said in the ToS. Not even all protestants agree on just what Sola Scriptura includes, but one can scripturally derive the doctrine by doing as Paul taught in 2 Timothy 2:15, discerning the Word of truth. Paul said word singular, which context clearly points to the Bible. Is it the only way God teaches, no, but it sure is the best.

Sadly, Protestants cannot successfully defend that which is correct about their insistence on the scriptures, which is that scripture is the rule and measure of truth and faith.

We know divorce is disallowed because of Christ's words in the gospel. We know also that sex is only for those who are married because of the teaching of Christ and Paul (and the Torah). We know that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, though not expressly stated in scripture, because the Holy Trinity is found implicitly in the scripture.

It IS the measure, the plumbline, the standard.
But it does not interpret itself. You have stated that, to arrive at 'sola scriptura,' one must find it in scripture. We call this interpretation. Sola Scriptura is the interpretation of the Reformed churches. because of this, Protestants have referred to the bible as the final authority. But they have acted as the final authority by caling the scriptures final authority, when scripture does not state that it is (explicitly).


The reason why there are no moderators who are Catholic or Orthodox is because modding orthodox or Catholic would give credibility to our respective traditions, and that would not fly with the fire-breathing Tennessee snake handler core here.

Fortunately, there are a couple of moderators here who show discretion and impartiality; were it not for them, I would leave this site in a New York second.

An action that would please not a few, I suppose.
Petting the cat against the grain
James

 

[lovely]

Hi everyone in this thread. I am not moderator of General talk, so forgive me if I am out of line. To answer straybullet's first post. Your question should be presented to the administrator, Logan, privately according to the TOS number 5. As the administrator, his word is final.

The Lord bless you all today.

 

[stray bullet]

Let us analyse stray bullet's issue.

The statement of faith of this forum says:

The bible is the inspired, infallible, and only authoritative Word of God.

The RCC at Vatican II in the document Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation) in #21 says:
[quote:f4d56]The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures...... etc

She has always maintained them and continues to do so, together with Sacred Tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the Word of God himself without change.....

and #24 says:

Sacred theology rests on the written Word of God, together with sacred Tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation....

So we agree on the role of the Bible. YOU have to prove that it is also true for "sacred Tradition" however and wherever that is defined.

[/quote:f4d56]

I don't need to prove anything. The forum took a line from another source for its statement of faith, which included a statement that we all agree on:
Scripture is inerrant and from God, which the bible says
and added sola scriptura, 'the only authority', which the bible does not say.

You can look into any encyclipedia, dictionary or history book and find sola scriptura and the history of it. It is not from the bible but a man-made idea from the Reformation during the 16th Century.


You can accuse me of being wrong with Holy Tradition all day long, but you need to face the fact that you believe in man-made traditions, which sola-scriptura is.

Is sola scriptura in the bible or not? That's the question you refuse to answer because you can't, because it isn't. You can go around in circles all day long but at least answer this-
Is sola scriptura in the bible or not?
or, Can you not find sola scriptura in the bible?
*sola scriptura being the notion that the bible is the only authority.

 

[stray bullet]

BTW- Please do not take any of this topic as being harsh towards this site or its staff. I asked why you had sola scriptura in your statement of faith, but it seemed to get into a heated debate following that

 

[Vic C.]

Since your statement of faith deliberately excludes Catholics and Orthodox, wouldn't it be more accurate to call this protestantforums.net?

The Statement of Faith, as it is written, excludes no one, deliberately that is. It wasn't written to include only Prots. I myself, have NO idea of the denomination of most of the Mods here.

I stumbled upon this site two & 1/2 years ago. Logan had a thread looking for Mods much like the one he has up now. The requirements were that you be a believer (NO specific denomination required) and have at least 50 posts. Though I had only three at the time, I inquired. I did it because I had plenty of Admin and PHPBB experience and I assumed Logan "hired" me 8-) based on those attributes.

This whole thread is a waste of our Forum's time and space, IMO.

"Me thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much"

Vic

 

[stray bullet]

Since your statement of faith deliberately excludes Catholics and Orthodox, wouldn't it be more accurate to call this protestantforums.net?

The Statement of Faith, as it is written, excludes no one, deliberately that is. It wasn't written to include only Prots. I myself, have NO idea of the denomination of most of the Mods here.

I stumbled upon this site two & 1/2 years ago. Logan had a thread looking for Mods much like the one he has up now. The requirements were that you be a believer (NO specific denomination required) and have at least 50 posts. Though I had only three at the time, I inquired. I did it because I had plenty of Admin and PHPBB experience and I assumed Logan "hired" me 8-) based on those attributes.

This whole thread is a waste of our Forum's time and space, IMO.

"Me thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much"

Vic

Do you think it is a waste of time to ask why a site has a statement of faith that prevents honest Catholics, Orthodox, Anglican and Lutheran Christians from applying?

Don't you consider them to be your brethen in Christ? Wouldn't you want them to feel included? Wouldn't their applying be a form of personal dishonesty?

I suspect the statement of faith was copied partially from another source and that's fine!
I just bring it up to ask if it is done deliberately or not and whether or not they realize they are blocking most Christians from being moderators here.

 

[Soma-Sight]

I'm not a Protestant, and I do agree with what Nikki said.

How are you not a protestant?

 

[Scott]

Considering that I know more about myself than you do, the burden of proof is on you to prove contrary to what I said.

 

[Soma-Sight]

Considering that I know more about myself than you do, the burden of proof is on you to prove contrary to what I said.

Dont take it the wrong way!

I am just curious that is all!

I know you are an avid Sunday worshipper and just figured you were Protestant because of all the scripture you use.