Why I am not a theological liberal.

[jasonc]

I guess one has never gone out to convince mothers nor to abort their unborn ,that is a spiritual battle

for we war not against flesh and blood .. I can't do that because of my ptsd.but u have seen it .

the deathscort ,the callous fathers and mothers cursing and mocking us knowing it is a child

 

[Quantrill]

Sure it is. What Luke was writing down was the beliefs handed down to him by witnesses. This is the very definition of tradition.

---> https://www.dictionary.com/browse/tradition

Yes, it most certainly is an oxymoron. Hence the Church is called the Catholic Church. The term, "Roman Catholic" was a term given to the Roman Church by the Anglicans, in an attempt to distinguish the difference between the "Church of England" and the Catholic Church.

Everyone has the Scriptures to know and study and to determine the true from the false. Arius did and he was a Scripture scholar.

Who go to decide if he was right or wrong?

No. Luke was writing down eyewitness accounts. Not eyewitness beliefs. What a perversion of language you use.

Concerning the 'oxymoron', then glad to hear you consider me a Catholic. I certainly support the Catholic Church. The Roman church however is filled with false teaching. And of course I know you wouldn't support that.

Not 'everyone'. The Roman church doesn't have the Scripture to go to in order to determine the true from the false. The Roman church must let the priesthood of the Roman church decide for them. And, that decision is based upon some documents never declared as Scripture. So, you are mistaken in your statement 'everyone'. Perhaps you would like to correct it.

I already told you who decides who is right or wrong.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

OzSpen
Why does it have to be a battle? Haven't we had that as a problem here on this forum long enough?
I know it's probably just a figure of speech, but with all the problems forums have had, and having to "BAN SEVERAL PEOPLE permanently on this forum recently, I think you could use a better choice of words, that sounds a bit kinder.
PLEASE!!!

Seasoned by Grace

Because it is a battle. (Eph. 6:12-20)

The use of the 'ban' on forums is, in most cases, to silence those who disagree with the moderators or the owners of the forum. No big secret.

But, in the spiritual realm, of truth and lie, God and satan, it is a fight to the death, no surrender allowed. No white flags. If you lose, you die.

Point being: go ahead and use the ban as a threat to silence your opponent. But, just who are you silencing?

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

No. Luke was writing down eyewitness accounts. Not eyewitness beliefs. What a perversion of language you use.

Luke was writing down what was handed on to him. The tradition existed before the written. Here again are his words...

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

The eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered and passed on the message orally. This is the very definition of tradition.

Tradition = the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice

This tradition was put down into what he was writing, his Gospel.

Concerning the 'oxymoron', then glad to hear you consider me a Catholic. I certainly support the Catholic Church.

No, what I said was the term "Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron. It was started as a pejorative by Anglicans.

I do not consider you to be a Catholic because you are not a Catholic.

The Roman church however is filled with false teaching. And of course I know you wouldn't support that.

Says who? This goes back to my original post. Who decides what is or is not a heresy? Who decides what is or is not the Christian faith?

And no, I certainly don't support false teaching.

Not 'everyone'. The Roman church doesn't have the Scripture to go to in order to determine the true from the false.

The Roman Church, along with all the other Churches which comprise the Catholic Church, certainly has the Scriptures. In fact if you have 27 books in your New Testament, you can thank the Catholic Church for that.

The Roman church must let the priesthood of the Roman church decide for them. And, that decision is based upon some documents never declared as Scripture. So, you are mistaken in your statement 'everyone'. Perhaps you would like to correct it.

The Scriptures were written in the context of her tradition. (See again Luke 1:1-4 where St. Luke states exactly this.) Thus you cannot interpret Scripture apart from the tradition in which it was written.

I already told you who decides who is right or wrong.

Quantrill

You answered Scripture alone if I recall. If that is the case, let's put it to the test. Two of the largest denominations the United States are the Southern Baptists and Lutherans. Both believe in sola Scriptura. Yet here are their diametrically opposed teachings on baptism:

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)


Using the Scriptures alone, tell me who is correct and who is in error? Which one is the actual Christian faith?

 

[Quantrill]

Luke was writing down what was handed on to him. The tradition existed before the written. Here again are his words...

"Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught." (Luke 1:1-4)

The eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered the message orally. This is the very definition of tradition.

Tradition = the handing down of statements, beliefs, legends, customs, information, etc., from generation to generation, especially by word of mouth or by practice

This tradition was put down into what he was writing, his Gospel.


No, what I said was the term "Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron. It was started as a pejorative by Anglicans.

I do not consider you to be a Catholic because you are not a Catholic.

Says who? This goes back to my original post. Who decides what is or is not a heresy? Who decides what is or is not the Christian faith?

And no, I certainly don't support false teaching.


The Roman Church has the Scriptures. In fact if you have 27 books in your New Testament, you can thank the Roman Church for that.

Once again this is a non-sequitur. The Church interprets Scripture in light of her tradition. For once again, the Scriptures were written in the context of her tradition. You cannot interpret Scripture apart from the tradition in which it was written.

Actually you never did. I'm still waiting on that answer.

Is the Gospel of Luke inspired Scripture? If so, it goes beyond just 'tradition'. Please pay attention to what has been said.

Why am I not Catholic? I am part of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Says who? Says me and millions of other Protestants since the Reformation. Says Scripture.

If you don't support false teaching then you are against many doctrines in the Roman church. Correct?

Scripture decides who the false teachers are. Rome set herself up there. It is easy to detect. Scripture.

No, I thank God for the 27 inspired books of the New Testament. Not the Roman church. Just like I thank God for the 39 books of the Old Testament. Not Israel. You are really short sighted.

Well, that is my point. The Roman church interprets for its followers. The Romanist cannot interpret the Scripture. He must rely on his church, his priest, his whoever. May as well take the Bible and chunk it.

Actually I did. See post #(125). You're not waiting. You're ignoring.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

Is the Gospel of Luke inspired Scripture? If so, it goes beyond just 'tradition'. Please pay attention to what has been said.

Yes, of course the Gospel of Luke is inspired Scripture. But as the Scriptures clearly state, the Word of God is not confined to Scripture alone. Again, even St. Luke opens his Gospel stated what he is putting down was first received orally.

Here are a few other examples stating the word of God is not confined to the written word:

1 Thessalonians 2:23 ---> And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ---> So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.


Luke 10:16 ---> Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.


Hebrews 13:7 ---> Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you...

Why am I not Catholic? I am part of the Church of Jesus Christ.

You are not a Catholic because you do not profess the Catholic faith!

Says who? Says me and millions of other Protestants since the Reformation. Says Scripture.

And who says you are right and they are wrong?

Again, Catholics have the Scriptures too.

If you don't support false teaching then you are against many doctrines in the Roman church. Correct?

No, I am a Catholic. I do not believe the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines. If I did, I would cease to be Catholic.

Once again, how do you know the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines? Who makes that decision?

Scripture decides who the false teachers are. Rome set herself up there. It is easy to detect. Scripture.

Prove it. See my example at the end.

No, I thank God for the 27 inspired books of the New Testament. Not the Roman church. Just like I thank God for the 39 books of the Old Testament. Not Israel. You are really short sighted.

I'm so short-sighted that the 27 books you have just so happen to be the same exact books, in the same exact order that the Catholic Church declared nearly 1700 years ago? The fact is you simply copied her list.

Well, that is my point. The Roman church interprets for its followers. The Romanist cannot interpret the Scripture. He must rely on his church, his priest, his whoever. May as well take the Bible and chunk it.

Why would the Church chunk the Scriptures?

And once again, the Church interprets the Scriptures in light of her tradition, for it is her tradition that is the context in which they were written.

Actually I did. See post #(125). You're not waiting. You're ignoring.

Quantrill

I am still waiting, as I posed this question to test your ability to use Scripture alone to determine what is error and what is or is not the Christian faith...

Two of the largest denominations the United States are the Southern Baptists and Lutherans. Both believe in sola Scriptura. Yet here are their diametrically opposed teachings on baptism:

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)


Using the Scriptures alone, tell me who is correct and who is in error? Which one is the actual Christian faith?

 

[Seasoned by Grace]

Because it is a battle. (Eph. 6:12-20)

Quantrill my brother.
It is a battle . Always have been. Always will be.
But God's emphasis all through scripture is the attitude you fight your battle.
There is a terrible accepted mindset that you can do battle with a brother, and rip his Christian heart out and feel nothing, because your behind your computer and I'm tired of it.

We are to communicate, lovingly with anyone with a different opinion, and GOD DEMANDS IT.

So battle all you want, but do it in a spirit of love, being informative, uplifting, and encouraging.
We are in the world, but not of the world.

Be loving and kind to all !!!

Don't justify ungodly behavior !!

 

[Quantrill]

Yes, of course the Gospel of Luke is inspired Scripture. But as the Scriptures clearly state, the Word of God is not confined to Scripture alone. Again, even St. Luke opens his Gospel stated what he is putting down was first received orally.

Here are a few other examples stating the word of God is not confined to the written word:

1 Thessalonians 2:23 ---> And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15 ---> So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.


Luke 10:16 ---> Whoever listens to you listens to me, and whoever rejects you rejects me, and whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.


Hebrews 13:7 ---> Remember your leaders, those who spoke the word of God to you...

You are not a Catholic because you do not profess the Catholic faith!


And who says you are right and they are wrong?

Again, Catholics have the Scriptures too.

No, I am a Catholic. I do not believe the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines. If I did, I would cease to be Catholic.

Once again, how do you know the Catholic Church teaches false doctrines? Who makes that decision?


Prove it. See my example at the end.

I'm so short-sighted that the 27 books you have just so happen to be the same exact books, in the same exact order that the Catholic Church declared nearly 1700 years ago? The fact is you simply copied her list.

Why would the Church chunk the Scriptures?

And once again, the Church interprets the Scriptures in light of her tradition, for it is her tradition that is the context in which they were written.

I am still waiting, as I posed this question to test your ability to use Scripture alone to determine what is error and what is or is not the Christian faith...

Two of the largest denominations the United States are the Southern Baptists and Lutherans. Both believe in sola Scriptura. Yet here are their diametrically opposed teachings on baptism:

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)


Using the Scriptures alone, tell me who is correct and who is in error? Which one is the actual Christian faith?

The only written Word of God is the Bible. When I say Bible, I am speaking of the 66 books of the Bible. If one is speaking, teaching, preaching, on behalf of God, it can be said he is presenting the Word of God. But, only if he is speaking, teaching, preaching, correctly. One can equally be misusing the Word of God. Perverting the Word of God, through 'tradition'. Luke was not presenting tradition. He was presenting eyewitness accounts of those who were still alive.

Tradition cannot always be trusted. The written Word of God can. See (John 21:21-23) Tradition can be used wrongfully and it is not on the same level as the written Word of God. Tradition can be declared but that is no guarantee it is correct. No guarantee it is the will of God.

I do profess the Catholic faith. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour and accept Him as my Lord and Saviour. I don't profess the Roman faith. See, it is you who conflates the Roman faith with the Catholic faith. The Roman church is not Catholic. It wants to be, but it is not. I and every other born-again Christian is part of the Catholic, the Universal Church of Christ.

The Bible says. Much of Roman teaching is contrary to the Bible. I also can and do say much of what Protestant churches today are teaching is contrary to the Bible. I can do that because I have the Bible. No tradition trumps the Bible.

Prove it? I am not going to go throughout the whole of the false doctrine that the Roman church teaches. That would take books. The Roman church has gotten so far away from the Bible that she is almost void of the Christian witness. I realize the Roman church is Christian in it's origin. And, that there are Christians in it. But, it has been taken over by the 'Mystery of Iniquity' and bears that witness more than a Christian witness.

I just told you why one in the Roman church may as well chunk the Scripture. He must rely on the Roman church to interpret it. Thus the Roman church has a double edge sword forged for heresy. Tradition, and no one can interpret Scripture but me. That's a handy weapon don't you think.

Well, if you're Christian then you're Catholic. You're not Catholic because you belong to the Roman church. And I have already told you how I know the Roman church teaches much heresy. I have the Bible. Pretty basic.

The Roman church didn't give me the Bible. God gave me the Bible. There was no Protestant or Roman distinction in those first years of the Church. The canonization process was a long moving process from God. The final word as to what books found their way into the canon of Scripture came from the people of God. Not any church council. When left to a church council to decide, the Roman church added the Apocrypha. Council of Trent.

The Roman church interprets Scripture in light of her tradition. True. Hence the problem. Scripture is that which defines true or false tradition. Rome has it backwards.

Martin Luther is correct. Baptism saves. Southern Baptist's are correct, baptism doesn't make one a believer.

Quantrill

 

[Quantrill]

Quantrill my brother.
It is a battle . Always have been. Always will be.
But God's emphasis all through scripture is the attitude you fight your battle.
There is a terrible accepted mindset that you can do battle with a brother, and rip his Christian heart out and feel nothing, because your behind your computer and I'm tired of it.

We are to communicate, lovingly with anyone with a different opinion, and GOD DEMANDS IT.

So battle all you want, but do it in a spirit of love, being informative, uplifting, and encouraging.
We are in the world, but not of the world.

Be loving and kind to all !!!

Don't justify ungodly behavior !!

Perhaps more exclamation marks would prove that 'love'. I'm not feelin it.

You remind me of an old commercial. This woman was at the breakfast table hollering at her husband there with her. She was just in a robe, hair in curlers and a mess. She was screaming what all he should be doing, and then she hollars out, 'and once in a while you need to tell me you love me'. Yeah, that is going to make it happen.

Quantrill

 

[D-D-W]

The Scriptures were written in the tradition of the Church, including that of the Roman Church.

Actually, the New Covenant scriptures were written in the tradition of first century Judaism.

"Church tradition" as differentiated from Judaic tradition, did not start until after the Apostolic texts were written, mid 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt.

 

[Walpole]

Actually, the New Covenant scriptures were written in the tradition of first century Judaism.

"Church tradition" as differentiated from Judaic tradition, did not start until after the Apostolic texts were written, mid 2nd century following the Bar Kochba revolt.

Yes, of course, as the first adherents to Christianity were Jewish.

 

[Walpole]

The only written Word of God is the Bible. When I say Bible, I am speaking of the 66 books of the Bible. If one is speaking, teaching, preaching, on behalf of God, it can be said he is presenting the Word of God. But, only if he is speaking, teaching, preaching, correctly. One can equally be misusing the Word of God. Perverting the Word of God, through 'tradition'. Luke was not presenting tradition. He was presenting eyewitness accounts of those who were still alive.

Tradition cannot always be trusted. The written Word of God can. See (John 21:21-23) Tradition can be used wrongfully and it is not on the same level as the written Word of God. Tradition can be declared but that is no guarantee it is correct. No guarantee it is the will of God.

I do profess the Catholic faith. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and Saviour and accept Him as my Lord and Saviour. I don't profess the Roman faith. See, it is you who conflates the Roman faith with the Catholic faith. The Roman church is not Catholic. It wants to be, but it is not. I and every other born-again Christian is part of the Catholic, the Universal Church of Christ.

The Bible says. Much of Roman teaching is contrary to the Bible. I also can and do say much of what Protestant churches today are teaching is contrary to the Bible. I can do that because I have the Bible. No tradition trumps the Bible.

Prove it? I am not going to go throughout the whole of the false doctrine that the Roman church teaches. That would take books. The Roman church has gotten so far away from the Bible that she is almost void of the Christian witness. I realize the Roman church is Christian in it's origin. And, that there are Christians in it. But, it has been taken over by the 'Mystery of Iniquity' and bears that witness more than a Christian witness.

I just told you why one in the Roman church may as well chunk the Scripture. He must rely on the Roman church to interpret it. Thus the Roman church has a double edge sword forged for heresy. Tradition, and no one can interpret Scripture but me. That's a handy weapon don't you think.

Well, if you're Christian then you're Catholic. You're not Catholic because you belong to the Roman church. And I have already told you how I know the Roman church teaches much heresy. I have the Bible. Pretty basic.

The Roman church didn't give me the Bible. God gave me the Bible. There was no Protestant or Roman distinction in those first years of the Church. The canonization process was a long moving process from God. The final word as to what books found their way into the canon of Scripture came from the people of God. Not any church council. When left to a church council to decide, the Roman church added the Apocrypha. Council of Trent.

The Roman church interprets Scripture in light of her tradition. True. Hence the problem. Scripture is that which defines true or false tradition. Rome has it backwards.

Here is your paradox: Your questioning and rejecting of tradition is itself your tradition.

Martin Luther is correct. Baptism saves. Southern Baptist's are correct, baptism doesn't make one a believer.

Quantrill

You you didn't answer the question. Luther says baptism saves. Southern Baptists say baptism does not save. Again, using Scripture alone, which is correct?

 

[Quantrill]

Here is your paradox: Your questioning and rejecting of tradition is itself your tradition.

You you didn't answer the question. Luther says baptism saves. Southern Baptists say baptism does not save. Again, using Scripture alone, which is correct?

I reject Romes use of 'tradition'. That is not a paradox.

I did answer. Luther is correct, baptism saves. I agree. Scripture says the same. Southern Baptist's say baptism does not make one a believer. I agree. Scripture says the same.

So what is your point? Do you think your 'tradition' has an answer? But I don't need 'tradition' to solve your riddle. Just the Bible.

Quantrill

 

[Walpole]

I reject Romes use of 'tradition'. That is not a paradox.

Which brings us back full circle! You reject Catholic (Rome's) tradition, but accept your own tradition. Just like you accept certain interpretations of Scripture, but reject others.

So...how do we know who is right? Who decides whether your tradition is correct or Rome's?

I did answer. Luther is correct, baptism saves. I agree. Scripture says the same. Southern Baptist's say baptism does not make one a believer. I agree. Scripture says the same.

So what is your point? Do you think your 'tradition' has an answer? But I don't need 'tradition' to solve your riddle. Just the Bible.

Quantrill

Fancy lawyer's trick. You are not answering the question. Lutherans say baptism saves. Southern Baptists say baptism does not save.

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)

Both use Scripture alone. Just the Bible, as you say. Tell me, who is right?

 

[Quantrill]

Which brings us back full circle! You reject Catholic (Rome's) tradition, but accept your own tradition. Just like you accept certain interpretations of Scripture, but reject others.

So...how do we know who is right? Who decides whether your tradition is correct or Rome's?

Fancy lawyer's trick. You are not answering the question. Lutherans say baptism saves. Southern Baptists say baptism does not save.

Lutheran doctrine: "This is the simplest way to put it: the power, effect, benefit, fruit, and purpose of baptism is that it saves. For no one is baptized in order to become a prince, but as the words say, ‘to be saved.’ To be saved, as everyone knows, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death and the devil, to enter into Christ’s kingdom, and to live with him forever." (Martin Luther, Large Catechism)

Southern Baptist doctrine: "Baptism doesn't make you a believer - it shows that you already believe. Baptism does not "save" you, only your faith in Christ does that. Baptism is like a wedding ring - it's the outward symbol of the commitment you make in your heart." (SBC, How to Become a Christian, Baptism)

Both use Scripture alone. Just the Bible, as you say. Tell me, who is right?

Yes, I reject Romes use of 'tradition' to interpret and add to the Bible. Yes, I reject Romes interpretations of Scripture because of her use of tradition, and because she interprets to give power to the Roman church. Rome doesn't try and study the Bible. She tries to use the Bible for her ends.

I don't use 'tradition' to study or understand the Bible. I use the Bible, and commentators present and past.

I know who is right because I have the Bible. Ask me again and I will tell you the same thing.

Lawyer's trick? It was an honest answer. And it is the answer. You no doubt have used this riddle before and are quite confident of it producing your desired answer. But, I am familiar with Scripture, and the answer is both are correct.

I think you need to find another riddle. This one won't work.

Quantrill

 

[Fastfredy0]

I don't use 'tradition' to study or understand the Bible. I use the Bible, and commentators present and past.

Agreed. Me too.

Seems to me this whole argument boils down to the fact the Walpole does the same thing as you and I when it comes to understanding scripture. The only 2 differences are:

1. the one of the commentators, so to speak, that Walpole uses to determine truth is the R.C. churches' Tradition and
2. Walpole feels that Tradition (a commentator so to speak) is infallible. We ignore it.

 

[Walpole]

Yes, I reject Romes use of 'tradition' to interpret and add to the Bible. Yes, I reject Romes interpretations of Scripture because of her use of tradition, and because she interprets to give power to the Roman church. Rome doesn't try and study the Bible. She tries to use the Bible for her ends.

I don't use 'tradition' to study or understand the Bible. I use the Bible, and commentators present and past.

Not using tradition to study or understand the Bible is your tradition!

I know who is right because I have the Bible. Ask me again and I will tell you the same thing.

You know you are right because you have set yourself up as your own authority.

Lawyer's trick? It was an honest answer. And it is the answer. You no doubt have used this riddle before and are quite confident of it producing your desired answer. But, I am familiar with Scripture, and the answer is both are correct.

I think you need to find another riddle. This one won't work.

Quantrill

Yes, it is a lawyer's trick. You answered a question I did not ask. --> I did not ask if Southern Baptists teach baptism makes one a believer.

I gave you the teaching of the Lutherans and the Southern Baptists on whether baptism is salvific. One says it is, the other says it is not.

---> Who is correct? The Lutherans who use the tradition of using Bible alone, or the Southern Baptists who also use the tradition of using the Bible alone?

 

[grumix8]

Liberal theologist can choose but better than an atheist or agnostics.

 

[Quantrill]

Agreed. Me too.

Seems to me this whole argument boils down to the fact the Walpole does the same thing as you and I when it comes to understanding scripture. The only 2 differences are:

1. the one of the commentators, so to speak, that Walpole uses to determine truth is the R.C. churches' Tradition and
2. Walpole feels that Tradition (a commentator so to speak) is infallible. We ignore it.

Yes. Walpole cannot have an interpretation of his own in Scripture. His must be that of the Roman church.

Quantrill

 

[Fastfredy0]

Yes. Walpole cannot have an interpretation of his own in Scripture. His must be that of the Roman church.

I suppose Walpole can have his own interpretation (tradition); but he must use the doctrine of R.C. tradition and scripture to form his interpretation. He also must integrate supposed infallible tradition to his doctrine to guide his interpretation/tradition.
If R.C. tradition is infallible, it would be advantageous in comparison to our system. The crux of the matter is whether R.C. tradition is infallible ... we obviously don't think so.