Posted on 02/08/2011 11:08:38 AM PST by Gamecock
The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.
Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.
Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.
The Council of Trent in the 16th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.
This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not.
The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.
The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.
It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.
Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.
In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [1]
Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.
Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:
"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." [2]The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the Early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:
"The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis". [3]Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church:
"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". [4]
The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.
He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.
"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [5]
"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". [6]
Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.
It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.
Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [7]
These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:
Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.
Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.
Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.
Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations. By the end of the 3rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.
It is true that the Early Church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.
An example of this is found early on in the 2nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.
Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a certain Church Father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles.
There are numerous practices in which the Early Church engaged which it believed were of Apostolic origin (listed by Basil the Great), but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.
The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle".
Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.
Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God's revelation from the Apostles.
What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?
We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.
This was the belief and practice of the early Church
. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.
The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.
Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.
"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.
What does the Bible teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer
Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414. [up]
I can see that this conversation has come to a dead end. Anything further would just be repetitious.
As always, thank you for the thoughtful exchange. :)
**but, let me ask you, when Jesus was baptized by John, who’s voice was it that was heard saying “this is my son.....” was Jesus throwing His voice like a ventriliquist?**
Even trinitarians believe that Jesus Christ has two natures: human (mind, soul, and body), and divine. I, and those like minded, believe, that the Father IN Christ was the source of all things divine. Was John the baptist to accept the Christ’s word without a supernatural sign? It is surely childs play for the only God there has ever been to do three things at once. I mean looks at a TV: it has an physical existance, can produce sound, and an image, but is useless without electricity, which is invisible (unless it is burning or powering something).
John 1:1 states that ‘IN THE BEGINNING was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God’. God does not have a ‘beginning’, but his magnificent plan did. That chapter 1 intro culminates with John 1:14 (the Word was made flesh) is to be read with the understanding of the mystery of the Godhead, and there is a multitude of other scriptures that harmonize with it.
That verse is explaining that God’s Spirit, God’s mind, even his very righteous plan for mankind, was made audibly and visibly manifest to man (audibly and visibly; remember the TV analogy), by meeting mankind on their very mortal level. The physical house (”destroy this temple, and I will raise it up”) was mortal. The Father GAVE the Christ power to take his body up. The main theme repeated over and over in John is the fact that the Father (Spirit) is in the Son (flesh w/a soul, created by God), and that the FATHER is the source of ALL things divine.
God is Christ, only if you’re referring to the Father dwelling in him, which is undeniable fact. Most notably in John chapters 5, 8, 10, 14, 15, and 16, Jesus Christ spoke a great deal about ‘the Father’ in him, teaching him all things, telling him what to say, doing the ‘works’, etc. When speaking of God dwelling in himself, the Christ calls him the Father, not the Holy Ghost. (As we know, the Holy Ghost is “..the Comforter..which PROCEEDETH FROM the Father..”. John 15:26)
IN those chapters are some very clear claims by the Christ:
John 5:19 “..the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do..” The Man that God SENT (God doesn’t need to be sent anywhere, he’s already omnipresent) received instruction on EVERYTHING. God doesn’t need instruction on anything, for he knows ALL things.
John 5:26 “For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he GIVEN to the SON to have life in himself.” God can’t be given anything he doesn’t already have. God is the giver of life, not the receiver.
John 5:27 “And hath GIVEN him (the SON) AUTHORITY to execute judgement also, because he is the Son of man.” God is the GIVER of authority, not the receiver.
John 6:37 “All that the Father hath GIVEN me shall come to me..”.
John 8:28 “..as my Father hath TAUGHT me, I speak these things.”
John 10:27-30 “My sheep hear my voice.... My Father, which GAVE them me is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand. I and my Father are one (by now you should see the flow of power consistantly coming from the Father to the Son)
John 14 is the ‘heavy iron’ of this revelation of the Godhead. “I am the way, the truth ,and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye KNOW him. and have SEEN him.......he that hath SEEN me hath SEEN the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the WORDS (REMEMBER JOHN 1:1??) that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that DWELLETH IN ME(HELLLOOOO?), he doeth the works.” vss 6-10.
Red letter bibles show ‘the words of Christ’ in red, but don’t differentiate when he speaks as a man, or when he speaks as the Almighty God. For example, as mortal man: “ I thirst”, “I of mine own self do nothing..”, and “But of that day and hour knoweth....my Father only” (the ‘2nd and 3rd persons’ don’t know??); but as God the Father: “ I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven”.
The Father and the Son are fused. Also, after the resurrection, there are no mortal man comments (”take this cup from me”, a cry indicating the limits of the flesh). Christ’s will of the flesh died and did not ‘resurrect’. Jesus Christ did NOT correct Thomas for calling him “My Lord and my God”. He, along with the other disciples, were enlightened 6 chapters earlier; thoroughly taught that the Father was in him and he in the Father, and that they were one.
Matthew 28:19, “..baptizing them in the name (singular) of the Father (comma) and of the Son (comma) and of the Holy Ghost..”, is often used as the scriptural ‘centerpiece’ of trinitarianism.
What is the NAME? Read on.
Jesus Christ was addressing his disciples. They KNEW who he was. And they KNEW that the NAME (singular) was one.
Jesus made it clear that he INHERITTED his name, saying that he came in his “Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his OWN name, him ye shall receive” (John 5:43).
“...as he hath by INHERITANCE obtained a better name than they.” Heb. 1:4
Jesus Christ declared that the Holy Ghost would be sent in HIS name. John 14:26
That’s why the apostles baptized in the NAME of JESUS.
**you don’t realize that the Catholic Church received the doctrine of the Trinity directly from the Apostles, as the Church Fathers testify.**
The original apostles didn’t teach ‘three persons in the Godhead’; never used the terms ‘first person’, ‘second person’, or ‘third person’. They didn’t repeat the command of Matt. 28:19 when they baptized: they obeyed the command, BECAUSE they knew the name was Jesus.
**what do you believe happened to the true Church from the 1st century to the 19th century - didn’t anyone understand who God was all that time?**
Just like the scribes and Pharisees controlled the temple, the mainstream religious media has controlled much of the teaching, probably within just decades after the death of the apostles. The devil wasn’t going to be called an ‘angel of light’ and not take credit for anything even remotely ‘Christian’. The ‘7 churches’ in Revelation make it clear such great trials were nearly overwhelming, with only two where repentance is not mentioned, and of those two, Smyrna indicates a literal threat of the saints being martyred.
All through the centuries there has been ‘the few there be that find it’, the ‘sheep that hear my voice’. Even a Catholic missionary in the dark ages (circa 1100; can’t remember his name) came across some people in central Europe, saying, “they are unwarlike people, some of which could quote the entire gospel of John from memory”. ( my wife took our old ‘60s era encyclopedia set to Goodwill, leaving me without that reference).
When you state that "Catholic tradition is that Mary had no other children BY Jesus" you have committed a sin against the Spirit by alleging Jesus and Mary had an incestuous relationship. This is absurd and blasphemous.
Such a remark clearly demonstrates your view of Christianity is one of sexual perversion and demands the strongest rebukes. The Lord will have you answer for this hatred of Christianity exhibited in your post. I bet some of your pagan brethren feel no shame at your remark and support your blasphemy.
Catholic Tradition denies the Authority and In-errancy of the Scriptures. Let alone to deny the primacy of Scripture itself.
Thus the goddess of Maryanaism will come back, along with others as more and more Scriptures are Abandoned.
Good Day, and Goodbye
The salient fact you need to grasp is to see that our discussion involves a journey to eternal salvation not some imaginary debate which has captured your imagination.
The Church under the inspiration of e Holy Spirit complied scripture for the unwashed to study and the Tradition compliments the scripture.
This magisterium allows for interpretation free from sinful prideful error which inundates the apostate interpretations exhibited by your ilk.
thank you for your response.
i seem to pick up in your answer that Jesus was not really a man, but the Father occupying a human body. am i correct? does Jesus exist now, or is He back to being the Father since He is in heaven?
**i seem to pick up in your answer that Jesus was not really a man, but the Father occupying a human body. am i correct?**
As mentioned a previous post, Jesus Christ made it quite clear that the Father was the source of his words, wisdom, and miracles.
Peter does a nice job of explaining the Godhead in his witness to Cornelius and household in Acts 10: “..preaching peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea,... How GOD ANNOINTED Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was WITH him,.....whom they SLEW and hanged on a tree; him GOD raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;....it is he which was ORDAINED of GOD to be the Judge of quick and dead. To him give all the prophets witness, that THROUGH his NAME whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.”
Some important things to notice from that passage:
Jesus Christ was ANNOINTED “with the HOLY GHOST and with POWER”, making it clear that he didn’t have the divine ability to do any of those things on his own. But the man Christ Jesus could and did lament the thought of dying, and did die. (restaining my emotions, this so big)
God doesn’t weaken at all, and thus certainly can’t die. “Him GOD raised up”, “raised up from the dead, by the glory of the Father” (Romans 6:4).
“ORDAINED of God to be the Judge”. An ordination is given.
The Christ RECEIVED the annointing, the resurrection, and the ordination. “All power is GIVEN unto me in heaven and earth.” That’s how Jesus Christ is the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
i’m sorry, can you dissect your belief into plainer language for me. The Church has always taught and believed that Jesus was always fully God and He became fully man when the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin Mary. is this your belief? that, i think can be answered yes or no, just so i don’t misunderstand.
also, do you believe Jesus is eternal, or is He now back to being the Father?
also, who was the one in history that re-discovered this truth about God after the apostacy that crept into the early Church?
thank you for the thoughtful discussion.
Well, I thought Peter’s explanation to Cornelius was simple, but I’ll try to explain in other words.
**The Church has always taught and believed that Jesus was always fully God and He became fully man when the Holy Spirit overshadowed the Virgin Mary. is this your belief?**
To answer that yes or no doesn’t make it clear since I am trying to show you that the divine nature has never been three, separate, eternal beings.
With the almost countless references in scripture of God referring to himself, and prophets referring to him, IN the singular (I’m not going to even try to count the I, me, mine, myself, he, his, himself), anything in the plural form is just making it clear that he is just sharing himself with his creation.
Mary was used to help make the tabernacle of flesh that God would put a soul in (God made that part 100%), and would dwell in (remember,”The Father that dwelleth in me..”). The flesh and soul was not left in the grave (Acts 2:27,31). What Mary helped to make was given an earthly mind like you and me, that would says things such as “take this cup from me..”, “I thirst”, or “my Father is greater than I”. What Mary helped make could not survive the cross, and died. But of course, God raised up Christ and dwells in him again, as he did before the cross.
Jesus Christ is the God-created, sinless man, filled without measure with the one and only Spirit of the living God, and is THE image of that invisible God.
When someone is REALLY and TRULY filled with the Holy Ghost, the recipient has such a supernatural experience that he/she realizes that another ‘force’ has moved in, giving that person a dual nature similar to Jesus Christ. The Lord explains this in John 14:16-26 to his disciples when talking about the coming of the ‘Comforter’ (which is really “Christ in you, the hope of glory”.), with this verse in particular:
“At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I IN YOU”. John 14:20
**also, who was the one in history that re-discovered this truth about God after the apostacy that crept into the early Church?**
The truth has always been available, but few there be that find it. As I said, the 7 churches show a wide range of persecution. Even John Calvin saw it fit to execute a man (who’s actual views, I haven’t studied, but will sometime) that didn’t believe in trinitarian doctrine.
Chaotic church behavior and doctrine muddling didn’t wait long to get started, just look at the rebukes Paul gives in his epistles, 1 Corinthians and Galatians.
Hopefully this makes what I believe somewhat clearer, whether you agree with it or not.
Lord bless
Zuriel,
it does make what you believe clearer. obviously you know i disgree strongly with what you said, but i must compliment you on your willingness to honestly share your faith without name calling and rancor. this attribute is almost unheard of amongst the various trinitariran believers who post on FR. May the Lord bless you as well.
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.