We protestants call this "worship":
Posted on 08/14/2006 11:19:14 AM PDT by Gamecock
Excellent posting! I'm saving this for future reference.
Sincerely
You guys never seem to see this little nugget when you interpret Paul into the 21st century:
Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law
You really ought to read the article posted above. It really lays out the coherence of the Bible. For this ridiculous contention that the Law is dead tol be true, a whole lot of Bible has to be false.
Mat 7:23 And then I will say to them I never knew you! Depart from Me, those working lawlessness
2Co 6:14 Do not be unequally yoked together with unbelievers; for what fellowship does righteousness have with lawlessness? And what partnership does light have with darkness?
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already working, only he is now holding back until it comes out of the midst.
1Jo 3:4 Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, for sin is lawlessness.
I'm sorry, I have no idea what he meant by what he wrote. Could someone please explain it to me?
See post #46.
Some argue that "fallible men" cannot interpret what others write.
Ack! More written communication! Will the confusion never end?!
A good rule of thumb: Whatever diminishes the vicarious atonement of Christ Jesus on behalf of the sin of the world ought to be treated as suspect, to say the least. It is our nature to introduce "extras" where they are not necessary or helpful. What part of "It is finished" don't we understand?
In general we do well to have an eye toward all of history and not be like Democrats who think it begins this morning. That means decency and order where the biblical texts are dispensed, contemplated, and received for what they are: God's own dealing with us graciously despite our terrible inclinations, attitudes, and actions.
My response is based upon the thread title alone. Will try to wade through the body as time and opportunity allow.
Since you seem to want to hijack this thread into a 7th Day Adventists dream of promoting Sabath worship, let me ask you a few questions....
Did Christ acquire a sinful nature?
Is it possible for anyone to have the assurance of salvation?
Why is it that nine of the commandments are reiterated in the New Testament, but the "duty" to keep the seventh day as Sabath is not mentioned ONCE?
When the New Testament lists sins, why is Sabath breaking absent?
Why does Ephesians 1:13 and 4:30 say that the seal of God is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and not the keeping of the Sabath?
Do you keep the Sabath by observing from sunset to sunset? No burden carried? No fire kindled (Would that include fire in the engine of your car)? And no cooking?
Do you then enforce these violations by death? (Numbers 15)
These are just a few of the many conflicts that I can post on the conflict of trying to put Sabath Keeping as a requirement for salvation. Please post your answers with Scriptural references.
Sincerely
Protestants have their own traditions, so the debate is more than a bit moot.
The article lists 10 Catholic traditions which clearly contradict scripture.
Can you name any protestant traditions that clearly contradict scripture?
The issue is not the existence of traditions, but whether or not a tradition is in direct contadiction to the revealed word of God in the scriptures.
You want to debate that issue?
If you are consistent with that method you must be an aethist, because Scripture clearly shows:
Deuteronomy 32:39 ...there is no god...
2 Kings 1:3 ...there is no God...
1 Corinthians 8:4 ....there is no God...
So there you have it, there is no God! And Scripture attests to that 15 times.
Language, itself, is tradition.
The bible did not come with pictures and demonstrations. We can only know the meanings of the words because they are passed onto us by traditions. The disagreement between Protestants and Catholics are what books comprise the canon, and what meanings words have.
We protestants call this "worship":
Sola Sciptura
To which we have tradition and the Magisterium in addition to scripture to rely upon. Protestants have their tradition, their pastors, teachers, writers...
I think the question resolves to authority.
You would first have to determine what constitutes contradiction - including exegesis. And you'd have to get over the hurdle of sola scripture (no merely contradicting, but not addressed in scripture.)
But I am glad to hear the issue is not tradition vs. no tradition - or the canard "traditions of men."
The Eucharist for example was changed (by some) after 1400 years of tradition. Scripture did not change.
So again, you come to whose tradition and what authority. [Using scripture as your sola authority is a circular argument.]
You said, "Again, 2nd Timothy 3:16-17 states that scripture is sufficient, which is the Catholic view."
Again, if that is true, where does the doctrine of praying to Mary come from? I can't find a single scripture that supports it in the Bible...can you enlighten me?
If you can't trust Scripture, as below:
2 Timothy 3:15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
...why should I trust man?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.