Civil Religious Discussions : all things Christianity II

[foszoe]

The word church is mentioned more than 100 times in the New Testament.
It is translated from the Greek term ekklesia which is formed from two Greek words meaning "an assembly" and "to call out" or "the called out ones."
The New Testament church is a body of believers that has been called out from the world by God to live as his people under the authority of Jesus Christ.

The church, is not a place. It's not the building, it's not the location, and it's not a denomination.
God's people who are in Christ Jesus, and received the Holy Spirit are the church, the assembly that is called out.

I think we just agreed.

 

[45sRfun]

This was asked in regards to Apostolic Succession.

The shortest answer is that you have a Bible to begin with.

In another post you stated that there is a lot of evidence that by AD 70 the canon was complete. The complication is that there is a difference between being written and being recognized as scripture. The Church decided what books were in the Bible and what ones were left out. The Bible itself has no list of books that belong in the Bible so I would ask you your own question. Show me proof from the Bible what books belong in the Bible.

There is internal evidence within the Bible that verifies the cannon. Pastor Cascione's research in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts shows a unifying pattern underlying the entire Bible that is not found in the extra-Biblical writings. See his book,

In Search of the Biblical Order -- Patterns in the Text Affirming Divine Authorship from Revelation to Genesis​

I will review the rest of your message later.

 

[DadSmith]

There is internal evidence within the Bible that verifies the cannon. Pastor Cascione's research in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts shows a unifying pattern underlying the entire Bible that is not found in the extra-Biblical writings. See his book,

In Search of the Biblical Order -- Patterns in the Text Affirming Divine Authorship from Revelation to Genesis​

I will review the rest of your message later.

Thanks for the book reference.

 

[DragonGunner]

Helping my father in law at his church today and saw this there. A guy did this to a huge black cherry tree they took down. Probably 15’ high. This county and our fellow man sure need to be reminded of prayer.

 

[DadSmith]

Helping my father in law at his church today and saw this there. A guy did this to a huge black cherry tree they took down. Probably 15’ high. This county and our fellow man sure need to be reminded of prayer. View attachment 311232

Wow that's talented.

 

[45sRfun]

. . .
This was asked in regards to Apostolic Succession.
The shortest answer is that you have a Bible to begin with.

In another post you stated that there is a lot of evidence that by AD 70 the canon was complete. The complication is that there is a difference between being written and being recognized as scripture. The Church decided what books were in the Bible and what ones were left out. The Bible itself has no list of books that belong in the Bible so I would ask you your own question. Show me proof from the Bible what books belong in the Bible.

To begin showing evidence for Apostolic Succession from the Bible.

I am willing to look outside scripture for guidance to the Truth, with one very important caveat, whatever Truth is expressed can not contradict scripture. Contradict is an important concept and I use it in almost a strict logical sense. If scripture is silent on a belief professed as truth then it is not necessarily a falsity especially if the belief is rooted in antiquity and held by a church with roots that can be traced to antiquity. All of that said, I sure felt more comfortable accepting a teaching if it had at least some support from scripture however minute.

In other words, I believe that Tradition is on an equal footing with scripture and in fact scripture is the product of Tradition and would not have existed without Tradition. This was not the view of the tradition in which I was raised. So I will briefly cover what led me to hold this position as it really is based on two precepts. One, that any scripture in the new testament that refers to scripture must necessarily refer to the old testament. Two, the church or the body of believers through the guidance of the Holy Spirit decided at some point what books to include in the new testament well after the gospels and epistles were written, discarding some and including others. The first position is rather easily accepted. The second required a change for me in my fundamental beliefs, namely that the Church is visible and can be found on earth with the senses natural to man and is not just made up of saints who are known only to God. Notice the word just. Here is the first appearance to me of a contrived contradiction. The answer does not have to be either/or but has a possibility of both/and. In the following I use Church capitalized to refer to the visible institution.

The Orthodox claim of being the true visible Church established by Christ can at first seem to contradict the view that the church is made up of all the saints known only to God. The contradiction seems to spring from the belief that the church is the body of Christ which is made up of believers that are heaven bound. Therefore, if members of the visible church seem to be living in error, they can not be members of the Church. Turning to some scriptures:

“But if I tarry long, that you may know how you ought to behave yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

The church is defined as the pillar and ground of truth. If I ask two different believers what to believe and receive two different answers, then only one has the possibility of being truth. This for me immediately discounts the theory that the church is an invisible body of believers.

How do you know the last clause of 1 Tim 3:15 "the pillar and ground of truth" is defining the church vs. more likely is defining God as "the pillar and ground of truth." This latter understanding would be in conformity to how God is described throughout the Bible. The Church, being made up of imperfect people, cannot be a pillar of truth, but must stand on God, the true pillar of truth.

“And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matt. 16:18-19)

Whether Jesus was referring to Peter or Peter's confession as the "rock" upon which His church would be built is debatable. Was Peter such a rock when a few verses later Jesus had to say to him, "Get behind me Satan"? Nonetheless, the Bible does say that the church is built on "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20). That is apostles and prophets. No successors mentioned. That is why we stand on the Bible. It is the foundation of the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT).

If for a second in time the church ceases to exist then the gates of hell prevail but by scripture we are guaranteed that this will not happen.

“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.” (John 17:20,21)

Christ prays that we all may be one.

“Another parable put he forth to them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened to a man which sowed good seed in his field: But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. So the servants of the householder came and said to him, Sir, did not you sow good seed in your field? from where then has it tares? He said to them, An enemy has done this. The servants said to him, Will you then that we go and gather them up? But he said, No; lest while you gather up the tares, you root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather you together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn. (Matt. 13:25-30)

Often understood by early writers as indicative of the church where saints and sinners are together.

It is directly contradictory to the Word of God to think the wheat and tares is about the church when verse 38 of the same chapter says the field (of wheat and tares) is the world. I believe the church applies the field to the church to justify having a lot of sinners in their midst and not encouraging their parishioners to strive to live a life of holiness. Yes tares get into the church but the church should strive to prevent that, not misinterpret the text to justify it.

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.” (Col 1:18)

Here is where the two join. Inside the Church, as in on the membership roles, there are saints and sinners. The saints make up the body of Christ, but that does not negate the possibility of a visible Church which is also the Body of Christ for the teaching of this Church is without error. I did not see these as contradictory but rather that there is a visible Church to which the seeker can turn in assurance that what it teaches is true and complete and that within that visible Church there resides an invisible church which makes up the body of believers and as such the body of Christ. Can evidence supporting a visible church be found in scripture?

I am not aware of any church that is free of error. Evidence of a visible church? How about Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits." so that right there negates any idea of a church filled with wheat and tares.

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.” (Acts 20:28)

The word overseers could also be translated bishops.

“Therefore, brothers, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word, or our letter.” (2 Thess. 2:15)

A verse indicating the following of some oral tradition.

Of course the inspired teachings of the apostles would be passed along by word-of-mouth. I don't think that implies an "oral tradition" just that the apostolic teachings were promulgated by letters and verbally. The word "tradition" has a variety of meanings including that of beliefs, so really those traditions being handed down were the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

“This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Likewise must the deacons be grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found blameless. Even so must their wives be grave, not slanderers, sober, faithful in all things. Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well. For they that have used the office of a deacon well purchase to themselves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 3:1-13)

This seems to lay out specific guidelines for choosing heads of a visible church.

And he arose and went: and, behold, a man of Ethiopia, an eunuch of great authority under Candace queen of the Ethiopians, who had the charge of all her treasure, and had come to Jerusalem for to worship, Was returning, and sitting in his chariot read Esaias the prophet. Then the Spirit said to Philip, Go near, and join yourself to this chariot. And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understand you what you read? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.The place of the scripture which he read was this, He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth: In his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray you, of whom speaks the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached to him Jesus.” (Acts 8:27-35)

Finally, I can not conceive of a God who would draw me to him without giving me someone to guide me. This alone for me necessitates a visible church.

Sola scriptura, a well intentioned doctrine that in reality has made men into their own pope, but I am willing to accept an entity outside myself as authoritative. This of course does not mean that I ignore the role of the Holy Spirit in my Christian walk but rather I begin to trust him to lead me into unfamiliar territory while still trying to use my intellect as a guide. But which Church could be this entity?

Someone to guide you can be an individual. It does not have to be a church body. And those individuals or church bodies are not perfect, but if they have the Gospel then can advance the Kingdom of God.

I also applied the same line of contradictory reasoning to my search for commonalities among the various denominations. Once saved always saved is directly contradictory to the possibility of backsliding. One cannot believe both without some mental gymnastics. One cannot be both Trinitarian and nonTrinitarian in their theology. Using a synergistic approach, we look for commonalities and begin to trace them back to find their earliest expressions. While doing so, if a theological system violated a single tenet of my test for truth, it had to be discounted. I will not profess to remember all the questions I attempted to answer at the time, but I will highlight the ones that led me to where I am today.

First in abstract terms, many of the churches of this day and age have reduced salvation to a simple formula that technically doesn't need the rest of the bible for it to occur with the view that daily reading of the bible will then strengthen the new Christian instead of the Bible being a roadmap to salvation. This happened because salvation had changed from being a lifetime process to being a crisis experience occurring at a set point in time. It is not uncommon to hear the expression I was saved on such and such a date. Once this occurs the door is open to debate on whether one's salvation can be lost or not. Schism or division in the Body of Christ is unscriptural and if one causes schism or creates an atmosphere favorable to schism, I would not want to be in that persons shoes at judgment. I further believe that the use of the words only, never, and always should almost be banned from theology.

Agree one can lose their salvation and one is not saved on a decision or any other event if they do not nurture their God-given faith: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil. 2:12) Obedience to God is necessary. Those who accept Jesus as their Savior and then go on living as they please, not obeying God, are on thin ice. Of course we are not perfect in this world so our obedience will not be perfect, but we should fear wilful premeditated disobedience.

The Church is visible.
Apostolic succession guards the Christian Tradition within the Church.

I don't see it at all. What guards the Christian Tradition (truths) is the Bible and those ministers of God's Word who stick to the Bible truths.

 

[DragonGunner]

I have never seen Jesus saying that Peter the “rock” was the church. As I read it Peter had the revelation from the Father of who Jesus was. The rock was the revelation. Christ builds his church on this very revelation of who He is. Not a church after a man or any organization but on the revelation of Jesus Christ. Read all of that chapter and it’s clear, when Jesus asks, “who do men say I am?” The true church isn’t Catholic, it’s not Peter, it’s no organization though many want that claim. It’s the revelation of Christ that comes into our lives to know who this Jesus is. The same revelation Peter received from the Father.

 

[DadSmith]

1 Tim 3:15 has so many opinions on it and has many different beliefs based on it.
As Humans we will see it in different light.

Some say to Timothy, who is called the pillar, etc., because left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers; and is so called for the same reason that Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God. Galatians 2:9.

Others suppose that the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of God; and that ὁς εστι, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to Θεος, God, just before. By this mode of interpretation the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, Who Is (ὁς εστι ) the pillar and ground of the truth.

Others think that the words should be understood of the Church of the living God; and in this case the feminine relative ἡτις εστι, which is, must be repeated immediately after εκκλησια, the Church. The house of God is the Church of the living God; Which (Church) Is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Others refer the whole to το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον, the mystery of godliness; and translate the clause thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of the truth; and, without controversy, a great thing. This gives a very good sense, but it is not much favored by the arrangement of the words in the original. - Adam Clarke

 

[foszoe]

There is internal evidence within the Bible that verifies the cannon. Pastor Cascione's research in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts shows a unifying pattern underlying the entire Bible that is not found in the extra-Biblical writings. See his book,

In Search of the Biblical Order -- Patterns in the Text Affirming Divine Authorship from Revelation to Genesis​

I will review the rest of your message later.

I am not sure what this shows or how to respond. It is a book written by a modern day scholar.

My position is that the Church, in council, decided the canon in the first few centuries. For a book to be published in the last 50 years that shows an internal consistency would, to me, simply support the Church made the correct decision, at least for the NT. The Bible itself does not list what Books belong in the Bible, or that when the NT refers to scriptures, it is referring to the OT. For example, when the Bereans searched the scriptures, they didn't have a NT.

 

[foszoe]

I have never seen Jesus saying that Peter the “rock” was the church. As I read it Peter had the revelation from the Father of who Jesus was. The rock was the revelation. Christ builds his church on this very revelation of who He is. Not a church after a man or any organization but on the revelation of Jesus Christ. Read all of that chapter and it’s clear, when Jesus asks, “who do men say I am?” The true church isn’t Catholic, it’s not Peter, it’s no organization though many want that claim. It’s the revelation of Christ that comes into our lives to know who this Jesus is. The same revelation Peter received from the Father.

The true Church is catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I believe, as you, the rock is the confession of St Peter, not on St Peter himself.

Without meaning offense, my memory is not great, are you Trinitarian?

 

[foszoe]

1 Tim 3:15 has so many opinions on it and has many different beliefs based on it.
As Humans we will see it in different light.

Some say to Timothy, who is called the pillar, etc., because left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers; and is so called for the same reason that Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God. Galatians 2:9.

Others suppose that the pillar and ground of the truth is spoken of God; and that ὁς εστι, who is, should be supplied as referring immediately to Θεος, God, just before. By this mode of interpretation the passage will read thus: That thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, Who Is (ὁς εστι ) the pillar and ground of the truth.

Others think that the words should be understood of the Church of the living God; and in this case the feminine relative ἡτις εστι, which is, must be repeated immediately after εκκλησια, the Church. The house of God is the Church of the living God; Which (Church) Is the pillar and ground of the truth.

Others refer the whole to το της ευσεβειας μυστηριον, the mystery of godliness; and translate the clause thus: The mystery of godliness is the pillar and ground of the truth; and, without controversy, a great thing. This gives a very good sense, but it is not much favored by the arrangement of the words in the original. - Adam Clarke

Yes.

As humans, we will see it in a different light but what should we do with it?

It reminds me of the 2nd amendment. As humans we see it in a different light. So how would you go about telling someone how they should interpret the 2nd amendment today?

 

[foszoe]

https://apnews.com/article/pope-tyler-bishop-strickland-removed-0f9f0be7d5938b36d6e7ead8c33e5150

Pope forcibly removes a leading US conservative, Texas bishop Strickland

How would a church leader be removed in your congregation?

 

[DragonGunner]

The true Church is catholic, just not Roman Catholic. I believe, as you, the rock is the confession of St Peter, not on St Peter himself.

Without meaning offense, my memory is not great, are you Trinitarian?

Was many years and no matter how much I studied it I could never understand it. After much prayer and Bible study and history searching all the way back to 80 AD I no longer believe or follow that doctrine. I’m now called a heretic going to hell. I do not call trinity believers heritics, so it’s sad. But I thank God always for the truth when I asked. I’m a saved sinner that all I want to be called. I believe God the father is an invisible Spirit, that manifested himself in the flesh to die on a cross because as spirit he had no blood to shed. And the Holy Ghost isn’t a 3rd person or god. But the manifested spirit of Christ in us, Jesus said I send the comforter, “I will come to you”. And who is the Christ? He is the Lord, and who is the Lord? Psalms, “Know ye not that the Lord, he is God?” The Bible is easier for me to understand than man trying to figure out if there are 3 persons or 3 gods. When trinatarians hear I don’t believe in trinity they jump to condemn me, if they let me explain they aren’t so quick to judge, even if they don’t understand. “What shall you liken me to, or whom shall be my equal?” Some choose a trinity theology, I have seen errors in it, and do not anymore.

 

[foszoe]

Was many years and no matter how much I studied it I could never understand it. After much prayer and Bible study and history searching all the way back to 80 AD I no longer believe or follow that doctrine. I’m now called a heretic going to hell. I do not call trinity believers heritics, so it’s sad. But I thank God always for the truth when I asked. I’m a saved sinner that all I want to be called. I believe God the father is an invisible Spirit, that manifested himself in the flesh to die on a cross because as spirit he had no blood to shed. And the Holy Ghost isn’t a 3rd person or god. But the manifested spirit of Christ in us, Jesus said I send the comforter, “I will come to you”. And who is the Christ? He is the Lord, and who is the Lord? Psalms, “Know ye not that the Lord, he is God?” The Bible is easier for me to understand than man trying to figure out if there are 3 persons or 3 gods. When trinatarians hear I don’t believe in trinity they jump to condemn me, if they let me explain they aren’t so quick to judge, even if they don’t understand. “What shall you liken me to, or whom shall be my equal?” Some choose a trinity theology, I have seen errors in it, and do not anymore.

Every Christian who is serious about early church history and doctrine owes it to themselves to read this book. Don't let the word Catholic mislead you. Its not written by a Roman Catholic but a Lutheran scholar. He is using catholic as in universal.

Amazon product ASIN 0226653714
It is a clear and concise history of doctrine and it covers all the early heresies and resolutions.

I can't recommend it highly enough. It is highly footnoted if someone wants to go to original sources and full of scripture references. Buy the paperback and make it easier to use the extensive footnotes, bibliography, and scripture references. Any Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant of any stripe that is serious about understanding doctrine should read that book. Even if one disagrees with a doctrine, they will know why the doctrine itself exists.

I would force every one in this forum to read it if I could

 

[bmbutch]

Was many years and no matter how much I studied it I could never understand it. After much prayer and Bible study and history searching all the way back to 80 AD I no longer believe or follow that doctrine. I’m now called a heretic going to hell. I do not call trinity believers heritics, so it’s sad. But I thank God always for the truth when I asked. I’m a saved sinner that all I want to be called. I believe God the father is an invisible Spirit, that manifested himself in the flesh to die on a cross because as spirit he had no blood to shed. And the Holy Ghost isn’t a 3rd person or god. But the manifested spirit of Christ in us, Jesus said I send the comforter, “I will come to you”. And who is the Christ? He is the Lord, and who is the Lord? Psalms, “Know ye not that the Lord, he is God?” The Bible is easier for me to understand than man trying to figure out if there are 3 persons or 3 gods. When trinatarians hear I don’t believe in trinity they jump to condemn me, if they let me explain they aren’t so quick to judge, even if they don’t understand. “What shall you liken me to, or whom shall be my equal?” Some choose a trinity theology, I have seen errors in it, and do not anymore.

Exceptionally well stated.
May Jesus smile upon you, may His face shine upon you, be Blessed.

 

[foszoe]

How do you know the last clause of 1 Tim 3:15 "the pillar and ground of truth" is defining the church vs. more likely is defining God as "the pillar and ground of truth." This latter understanding would be in conformity to how God is described throughout the Bible. The Church, being made up of imperfect people, cannot be a pillar of truth, but must stand on God, the true pillar of truth.

Basically by looking at the Greek. Relying on English can sometimes be deceiving. In fact translators with an agenda can also play a role.

Whether Jesus was referring to Peter or Peter's confession as the "rock" upon which His church would be built is debatable. Was Peter such a rock when a few verses later Jesus had to say to him, "Get behind me Satan"? Nonetheless, the Bible does say that the church is built on "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone" (Ephesians 2:20). That is apostles and prophets. No successors mentioned. That is why we stand on the Bible. It is the foundation of the prophets (OT) and apostles (NT).

I replied to this part already.

It is directly contradictory to the Word of God to think the wheat and tares is about the church when verse 38 of the same chapter says the field (of wheat and tares) is the world. I believe the church applies the field to the church to justify having a lot of sinners in their midst and not encouraging their parishioners to strive to live a life of holiness. Yes tares get into the church but the church should strive to prevent that, not misinterpret the text to justify it.

Here is the passage in context:

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.”
37 He answered and said to them: “He who sows the good seed is the Son of Man.
38 The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the kingdom, but the tares are the sons of the wicked one.
39 The enemy who sowed them is the devil, the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are the angels.
40 Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age.
41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness,
42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear


The New King James Version. 1982. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

We know the Parable is about the Kingdom of Heaven. The Son of Man sows the good seed. The Devil sows the tares. We also know that the the field is the world as you say, which is where the church does its work. As you say wheat and tares are in the church. So I am not sure where you are seeing a contradiction?

I am not aware of any church that is free of error. Evidence of a visible church? How about Matthew 7:16 "Ye shall know them by their fruits." so that right there negates any idea of a church filled with wheat and tares.

Not being aware of something does not preclude its existence. I would agree that to discern that church would mean you will know it by its fruits. We call them saints and martyrs.

Of course the inspired teachings of the apostles would be passed along by word-of-mouth. I don't think that implies an "oral tradition" just that the apostolic teachings were promulgated by letters and verbally. The word "tradition" has a variety of meanings including that of beliefs, so really those traditions being handed down were the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

The word translated tradition has a specific meaning in scripture. It doesn't mean story telling. There is plenty of evidence, especially in illiterate cultures that the ability to pass things down via oral tradition is more accurate than written. In our culture, we think of the game of telephone where the meaning is lost in a matter of 10 people or so. That is why hymns, singing, poetic expression were important. They pass down information from generation to generation.

Regardless, in scripture, the word translated tradition has the meaning of chain of evidence.

Someone to guide you can be an individual. It does not have to be a church body. And those individuals or church bodies are not perfect, but if they have the Gospel then can advance the Kingdom of God.

That individual can also be Jim Jones or David Koresh. It is a much more stringent test if that individual is attached to a church that does not believe in the development of doctrine, but rather teaches what was believed everywhere, by everyone, at all times. The St Vincent of Lerins test.

Agree one can lose their salvation and one is not saved on a decision or any other event if they do not nurture their God-given faith: "Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." (Phil. 2:12) Obedience to God is necessary. Those who accept Jesus as their Savior and then go on living as they please, not obeying God, are on thin ice. Of course we are not perfect in this world so our obedience will not be perfect, but we should fear wilful premeditated disobedience.


I don't see it at all. What guards the Christian Tradition (truths) is the Bible and those ministers of God's Word who stick to the Bible truths.

What guards the integrity of all of that is the Church which produced the Bible and the bishops and presbyters who teach the faithful in a synergistic relationship reflecting the Holy Trinity.

 

[ChristianPatriot]

That’s a lot of words just to say Orthodox Christians are basically just Messianic Jews. All the laws (traditions, same difference) and all the grace.

(This is a lighthearted post btw, not a jab or a gotcha post)

 

[ChristianPatriot]

“Because I love God, I do all these things”

Vs

“I do all these things, therefore I love God”

 

[foszoe]

That’s a lot of words just to say Orthodox Christians are basically just Messianic Jews. All the laws (traditions, same difference) and all the grace.

(This is a lighthearted post btw, not a jab or a gotcha post)

Didn't take it that way.

Your football analysis is better.

 

[JettaKnight]

https://apnews.com/article/pope-tyler-bishop-strickland-removed-0f9f0be7d5938b36d6e7ead8c33e5150

Pope forcibly removes a leading US conservative, Texas bishop Strickland

How would a church leader be removed in your congregation?

Tar and feathers.