Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

[Scotth1960]

Friends, Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

For example, Can you say which of these controversies are interesting to you, and which of these controversies you don't know about or care anything about?

Calvinism versus Arminianism

Roman Catholicism versus the various Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian-Reformed, Methodist)

speaking in tongues Pentecostalism/charismatic renewal versus cessationism of spiritual gifts

infant baptism versus Baptist beliefs

pre-tribulation rapture versus mid tribulation or post-tribulation rapture

dispensationalism versus covenant theology

justification by faith alone versus justification by faith which worketh by love (faith and works)

Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism (or versus Protestantism)

seven sacraments versus two sacraments

single procession of the Holy Spirit versus double procession of the Spirit (Filioque)

single predestination versus double predestination (Calvinism)

existence or non-existence of free will

existence of God and proofs for this, versus believing in God without needing proofs

the truth or falsity of the Shroud of Turin

the truth or falsity of the visions of Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Medjugorje

Sunday worship versus Sabbatarianism (Seventh-day Adventist belief)

creationism and intelligence design versus evolutionism and even theistic evolutionism

the age of the earth young versus old

the six days of creation 24 hours or long evolutionary periods?

icons religious artwork versus no icons

how many books in the Bible 66 only, or 76/77 including the so-called Apocrypha

nephilim the children and Seth's sons and Cain's daughters, or children of humans and fallen angels (demons)

the papal infallibility versus no papal infallibility

Scripture alone versus Scripture and (in) Tradition

Jesus Christ is God versus Jesus Christ is not God

God the Holy Trinity versus Oneness of God

capital punishment versus no capital punishment

just war tradition versus pacifism

born again by water baptism (baptismal regeneration) versus born again by personal decision for Christ (decisional regeneration)

Eastern Orthodox versus Oriental Orthodox controversy

traditional Christianity versus non-Christian cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongism, etc.)

Any other controversy you are actually interested, or do you try to avoid all controversies?

Or do you admit that somebody is bound to find some Christian belief or claimed to be Christian belief controversial or uncertain?

God bless you.

In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington

 

[selenah]

Friends, Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

For example, Can you say which of these controversies are interesting to you, and which of these controversies you don't know about or care anything about?

Calvinism versus Arminianism No idea what Arminianism is so it isn't controversial to me.

Roman Catholicism versus the various Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian-Reformed, Methodist) This debate is very intersting, I don't like to think of it as controversial too much.

speaking in tongues Pentecostalism/charismatic renewal versus cessationism of spiritual gifts This one is definitely controversial.

infant baptism versus Baptist beliefs I am completely against infant baptism so this one's pretty controversial.

pre-tribulation rapture versus mid tribulation or post-tribulation rapture Very controversial (usually avoided subject) in my family.

dispensationalism versus covenant theology No idea what that is so doesn't really bother me

justification by faith alone versus justification by faith which worketh by love (faith and works) We are all as filthy rags. How can we justify our selves. No man is righteous. So yeah, that one's pretty controversial.

Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism (or versus Protestantism) Interesting, not controversial to me though.

seven sacraments versus two sacraments Uhhhh yeah I definitely need more Bible study

single procession of the Holy Spirit versus double procession of the Spirit (Filioque) Yeah....

single predestination versus double predestination (Calvinism)

existence or non-existence of free will This one almost made me reject God. Very confusing topic.

existence of God and proofs for this, versus believing in God without needing proofs I think the two go together. They compliment each other.

the truth or falsity of the Shroud of Turin ???

the truth or falsity of the visions of Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Medjugorje Wow thy have cool names, but that's about as controversial as that one gets for me.

Sunday worship versus Sabbatarianism (Seventh-day Adventist belief) I don't think it really matters.

creationism and intelligence design versus evolutionism and even theistic evolutionism Very very controversial topic that I don't think is going to be resolved any time soon.

the age of the earth young versus old Again, very very controversial, probably without any resolution until the end of time.

the six days of creation 24 hours or long evolutionary periods?Like the others, controversial.

icons religious artwork versus no icons Awww what's wrong with art? I never knew this was a controversy.

how many books in the Bible 66 only, or 76/77 including the so-called Apocrypha Intersting subject. This would be very controversial in my family.

nephilim the children and Seth's sons and Cain's daughters, or children of humans and fallen angels (demons) Heard about that one. It's more of a mystery than a controversy I would say.

the papal infallibility versus no papal infallibility No idea

Scripture alone versus Scripture and (in) Tradition I think the Scripture alone is sufficient, but I have no problem with tradition.

Jesus Christ is God versus Jesus Christ is not God Jesus and the Father (God) are one and the same, in my opinion. I really do not see how anyone could say differently, but they do so yeah that one's controversial.

God the Holy Trinity versus Oneness of God God is one being in the form of a trinity. It's confusing.
c
apital punishment versus no capital punishment Not sure on the issue. I try to avoid it.

just war tradition versus pacifism We have to fight. DO NOT get me started on this one.

born again by water baptism (baptismal regeneration) versus born again by personal decision for Christ (decisional regeneration) Salvation is not by works. Yep, that would be a very lively conversation.


Eastern Orthodox versus Oriental Orthodox controversy Sounds intersting.

traditional Christianity versus non-Christian cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongism, etc.) I don't really like cults. They are fascinating though.

Any other controversy you are actually interested, or do you try to avoid all controversies?

Or do you admit that somebody is bound to find some Christian belief or claimed to be Christian belief controversial or uncertain?

God bless you.

In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington

I think we're all bound to disagree on one doctrine of another. It seems like it all comes down to searching the Bible for yourself.

 

[Meridoc]

Friends, Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

For example, Can you say which of these controversies are interesting to you, and which of these controversies you don't know about or care anything about?

Calvinism versus Arminianism stupid argument created by people applying the bible to their 'truth', not allowing the bible to teach them Truth

Roman Catholicism versus the various Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian-Reformed, Methodist) The Roman Catholic in its basic core doctrine is not christian as it does not believe in the finished work of Christ(requirement of confession and mass, purgatory, etc) and they have idol worship Mary and the saints.

speaking in tongues Pentecostalism/charismatic renewal versus cessationism of spiritual gifts Paul says to desire spiritual gifts with no expiry date, conservatism is a tool of the devil to try and keep christians from experiencing true christianity.

infant baptism versus Baptist beliefs Infant baptism isn't biblical it is a practice that started during the black plague

pre-tribulation rapture versus mid tribulation or post-tribulation rapture Firstly it doesn't matter, secondly another thing that people try and fit the bible to their 'truth'

dispensationalism versus covenant theology Arguing over nothing

justification by faith alone versus justification by faith which worketh by love (faith and works) Bible is very clear. Salvation comes by faith, faith brings about obedience

Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism (or versus Protestantism) same thing as above, denominations are an evil created by people, designed by satan

seven sacraments versus two sacraments Childish argument over which things are important enough to be called sacraments, but all are useful and biblical so stop arguing over nothing.

single procession of the Holy Spirit versus double procession of the Spirit (Filioque) There is One God so no argument

single predestination versus double predestination (Calvinism) This is just dumb, predestination is used in the bible that means something very different from what people try to make it mean.

existence or non-existence of free will If we do not have free will to accept God's gift or not, then we are nothing better than robots programmed to be saved and our worship and love for God has no value and there is no real relationship despite God's desire to have one.

existence of God and proofs for this, versus believing in God without needing proofs Also very dumb argument, there is nothing wrong with apologetic work to help those that consider christianity to be a group of uneducated idiots, to understand you can have a brain and believe. The Apostle John was the first apologist, so unless you consider his books useless then you don't really believe apologetics to be useless.

the truth or falsity of the Shroud of Turin Who cares, the cloth Jesus has no extra value, is not to be honoured or worshiped. It is just cloth.

the truth or falsity of the visions of Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Medjugorje The only questions that matter is does these vision edify the body of believers or just lead to saint worship AND are any messages consistant with what the Bible teaches? If they don't edify AND aren't biblically consistent then they are satanic.

Sunday worship versus Sabbatarianism (Seventh-day Adventist belief) God asks us to have a day of rest, check the meaning of the word sabbath. God did not set a day for christians to come together, this was created by men. We should be coming together regularily for fellowship and worship, whether it is sunday or saturday is not important.

creationism and intelligence design versus evolutionism and even theistic evolutionism Research work done and reported by apologetics.com(I think thats the website), evolution has all but been disproven. As well look at our universe to believe the complexity of it all happened by accident takes more faith than believing in God

the age of the earth young versus old The bible doesn't include this information and thus isn't important. We don't know that God who has no need for time used specifically a literal six 24 hour days or not. We also don't know if Adam's listed years is the totality of his lifespan as before man was kicked out of the garden time had no meaning.

the six days of creation 24 hours or long evolutionary periods? Again only God knows, but God created and said it was good so evolution as mankind claims(despite it being basically disproved) isn't true.

icons religious artwork versus no icons Icons are basically idols for many so not good.

how many books in the Bible 66 only, or 76/77 including the so-called Apocrypha 66, check the extra books and you will find inconsistencies with the 66 thus they are not God breathed as only books inspired by God can be consistent and true.

nephilim the children and Seth's sons and Cain's daughters, or children of humans and fallen angels (demons) Pointless argument, that isn't important.

the papal infallibility versus no papal infallibility There was only one perfect man that was the God-man Jesus Christ our Saviour. Take a look at the state of the Roman Catholic church over the years they often apologize for previous popes choices and rules, so yea.

Scripture alone versus Scripture and (in) Tradition Scripture stands alone as God's word, to claim that man-made traditions are as important is evil and laughable.

Jesus Christ is God versus Jesus Christ is not God The Bible is very clear that Jesus is God, John was particularly clear on this. Also if he is not God then he was not perfect as he would then have been born into sin, thus no salvation, no christianity and no debate.

God the Holy Trinity versus Oneness of God God is one, but three. Just because with our pitiful human brains can't quite grasp how this works that doesn't mean we shouldn't take God's word for it.

capital punishment versus no capital punishment Remember when the Jews brought Jesus a woman to be stoned, Jesus said "let the one without sin cast the first stone", seems God desires mercy to be shown to the world.

just war tradition versus pacifism An unimportant secondary issue of christianity. I am a pacifist as I believe we should be men and woman of peace. But don't argue with those christians who voluntarily serve in the military.

born again by water baptism (baptismal regeneration) versus born again by personal decision for Christ (decisional regeneration) Also a stupid argument. Read John 3, belief is all that is asked. Baptism is a outward sign of an inward belief.

Eastern Orthodox versus Oriental Orthodox controversy The only question is either or both of their teachings truly biblical. Not them applying the Bible to what they think is true. Again denominations are a man-made disaster.

traditional Christianity versus non-Christian cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongism, etc.) Christianity based on a biblical truth. AGAIN denominations are man-made and fallible.

Any other controversy you are actually interested, or do you try to avoid all controversies?

Or do you admit that somebody is bound to find some Christian belief or claimed to be Christian belief controversial or uncertain?

God bless you.

In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

Friends, Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

For example, Can you say which of these controversies are interesting to you, and which of these controversies you don't know about or care anything about?

Calvinism versus Arminianism stupid argument created by people applying the bible to their 'truth', not allowing the bible to teach them Truth/ Meridoc, I agree with you on this. SRH

Roman Catholicism versus the various Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian-Reformed, Methodist) The Roman Catholic in its basic core doctrine is not christian as it does not believe in the finished work of Christ(requirement of confession and mass, purgatory, etc) and they have idol worship Mary and the saints. /Meridoc, I am not Roman Catholic, but I would say Rome believes in the finished work of Christ, but adds non-Biblical requirements. I do not believe they are idol worshippers, but they have a wrong doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary, which is a false idea. SRH

speaking in tongues Pentecostalism/charismatic renewal versus cessationism of spiritual gifts Paul says to desire spiritual gifts with no expiry date, conservatism is a tool of the devil to try and keep christians from experiencing true christianity/ Meridoc, The real question is not whether or not there are spiritual gifts, but which gifts are valid gifts, and what is the true meaning of speaking in tongues: identifiable human languages, or nonsense psychological gibberish. SRH
infant baptism versus Baptist beliefs Infant baptism isn't biblical it is a practice that started during the black plague/ Meridoc, that is perfectly absurd. Where do you get that idea? In the book of Acts, whole households were baptize, and there is no presumption against households holding infants. It is wrong to presume that the word "household" in Acts by necessity excludes children, especially when Christ said, "Let the little children come unto Me, and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of heaven." SRH

pre-tribulation rapture versus mid tribulation or post-tribulation rapture Firstly it doesn't matter, secondly another thing that people try and fit the bible to their 'truth'/ Meridoc, Of course it does matter. False doctrine is always false, and it is always bad to believe a false doctrine, even if the matter seems small. It is true, people try to make the Bible say this false doctrine, but this doctrine was not taught until the late 1700s and really not much before 1830 AD SRH
dispensationalism versus covenant theology Arguing over nothing
Meridoc, I would say these two are probably much ado about nothing, you may be right about that. SRH

justification by faith alone versus justification by faith which worketh by love (faith and works) Bible is very clear. Salvation comes by faith, faith brings about obedience/ Meridoc, that is true, but you did not explain whether or not or why the word "alone" is required, and you and I need to remember James 2:24 when we look at where the Bible says "faith alone", it says justification is NOT by faith alone. SRH

Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism (or versus Protestantism) same thing as above, denominations are an evil created by people, designed by satan/ Meridoc, This is typical bigotry, and does not account for the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy is in no doctrinal error, whereas there are major errors in Protestantism and Catholicism. SRH
seven sacraments versus two sacraments Childish argument over which things are important enough to be called sacraments, but all are useful and biblical so stop arguing over nothing.
/ Meridoc, You didn't answer the question. SRH

single procession of the Holy Spirit versus double procession of the Spirit (Filioque) There is One God so no argument/ Meridoc, There is not doubt what the Scripture says (single procession) if you care to read and pay attention to Jesus Christ's our LORD's words in John 15:26! That's the Gospel of God! SRH

single predestination versus double predestination (Calvinism) This is just dumb, predestination is used in the bible that means something very different from what people try to make it mean. / Meridoc, You got this right, if you realize that double predestination is not taught by the Bible, but predestination is a Biblical concept. SRH

existence or non-existence of free will If we do not have free will to accept God's gift or not, then we are nothing better than robots programmed to be saved and our worship and love for God has no value and there is no real relationship despite God's desire to have one. /Meridoc, Amen, free will is a gift from God Himself. SRH

existence of God and proofs for this, versus believing in God without needing proofs Also very dumb argument, there is nothing wrong with apologetic work to help those that consider christianity to be a group of uneducated idiots, to understand you can have a brain and believe. The Apostle John was the first apologist, so unless you consider his books useless then you don't really believe apologetics to be useless. / Meridoc, While it is true, we must be humble before God and always realize that human minds are finite and cannot hope to understand the essence and nature of God in Himself; we can know He exists, but we can't comprehend God. He is known in His attributes, but we can't know everything there is to know about God. SRH

the truth or falsity of the Shroud of Turin Who cares, the cloth Jesus has no extra value, is not to be honoured or worshiped. It is just cloth. / Meridoc, Without Church tradition, you will not know how to find the correct answer to this; with Church tradition, we can know the Shroud of Turin is a genuine relic and gives us an actual picture of what the face of Christ looks like. SRH

the truth or falsity of the visions of Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Medjugorje The only questions that matter is does these vision edify the body of believers or just lead to saint worship AND are any messages consistant with what the Bible teaches? If they don't edify AND aren't biblically consistent then they are satanic. / Meridoc, I would agree with you that these visions are false and therefore it's not a stretch to say they are satanic in origin. SRH

Sunday worship versus Sabbatarianism (Seventh-day Adventist belief) God asks us to have a day of rest, check the meaning of the word sabbath. God did not set a day for christians to come together, this was created by men. We should be coming together regularily for fellowship and worship, whether it is sunday or saturday is not important. /Meridoc, The real question is still what the Bible says, but we can worship God on both Saturday and Sunday. SRH

creationism and intelligence design versus evolutionism and even theistic evolutionism Research work done and reported by apologetics.com(I think thats the website), evolution has all but been disproven. As well look at our universe to believe the complexity of it all happened by accident takes more faith than believing in God / Meridoc, Yes, Amen. Evolution is false; creation by God is true. SRH

the age of the earth young versus old The bible doesn't include this information and thus isn't important. We don't know that God who has no need for time used specifically a literal six 24 hour days or not. We also don't know if Adam's listed years is the totality of his lifespan as before man was kicked out of the garden time had no meaning.
Meridoc, I think you may be right about this. It's unknown in any case. SRH
the six days of creation 24 hours or long evolutionary periods? Again only God knows, but God created and said it was good so evolution as mankind claims(despite it being basically disproved) isn't true. Meridoc, Amen, I agree with this. SRH

icons religious artwork versus no icons Icons are basically idols for many so not good. Meridoc, Absolutely and unequivocally false, as the person who wrote the Gospel of St. Luke, St. Luke, made the first icon of the Mother of God. It's iconoclastic bigotry to reject sacred icons. Since God made matter sacred by becoming a man in Christ, we can make pictures of Christ and His saints, as matter has been redeemed by the Incarnation of Christ the LORD. Since Christ is a man, He can be depicted visually. His Divinity shows through His humanity, and is inseparable from it. SRH

how many books in the Bible 66 only, or 76/77 including the so-called Apocrypha 66, check the extra books and you will find inconsistencies with the 66 thus they are not God breathed as only books inspired by God can be consistent and true.
Meridoc, Faulty logic. The 66 books don't tell us that there are only 66; this is Protestant, man-made tradition that follows Judaism for its canon, and Judaism rejects Jesus Christ. How would the unbelieving Jews know what the real Bible is? SRH

nephilim the children and Seth's s and Cain's daughters, or children of humans and fallen angels (demons) Pointless argument, that isn't important. / Meridoc, It is important that we don't believe that fallen angels can mate with humans, and it is important not to believe that! It is very false to believe these sensationalistic myths of fundamentalists who say these things. SRH

the papal infallibility versus no papal infallibility There was only one perfect man that was the God-man Jesus Christ our Saviour. Take a look at the state of the Roman Catholic church over the years they often apologize for previous popes choices and rules, so yea. /Meridoc, Amen, only Jesus Christ our LORD GOD and Saviour is perfect. All Christians can make errors of some kind. SRH

Scripture alone versus Scripture and (in) Tradition Scripture stands alone as God's word, to claim that man-made traditions are as important is evil and laughable./ Meridoc, Scripture alone does not say the Bible alone is all that Christians go by, and the Bible itself refers to and commands our allegiance to spoken apostolic traditions (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). SRH

Jesus Christ is God versus Jesus Christ is not God The Bible is very clear that Jesus is God, John was particularly clear on this. Also if he is not God then he was not perfect as he would then have been born into sin, thus no salvation, no christianity and no debate. / Meridoc, Yes, you're correct on this; Jesus is GOD and LORD and the Bible says that clearly in John, etc. SRH

God the Holy Trinity versus Oneness of God God is one, but three. Just because with our pitiful human brains can't quite grasp how this works that doesn't mean we shouldn't take God's word for it./ Meridoc, Amen, we can't comprehend the Mystery of the Trinity, only believe God as He is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, believe it with the faith and trust of our hearts. SRH

capital punishment versus no capital punishment Remember when the Jews brought Jesus a woman to be stoned, Jesus said "let the one without sin cast the first stone", seems God desires mercy to be shown to the world. / Meridoc, Amen. I agree with you completely on this. SRH

just war tradition versus pacifism An unimportant secondary issue of christianity. I am a pacifist as I believe we should be men and woman of peace. But don't argue with those christians who voluntarily serve in the military./ Meridoc, You're write Christians should seek peace. But absolute pacifism isn't required of Christians. Nor is military service. SRH

born again by water baptism (baptismal regeneration) versus born again by personal decision for Christ (decisional regeneration) Also a stupid argument. Read John 3, belief is all that is asked. Baptism is a outward sign of an inward belief.
Meridoc, Some people make a big thing about altar calls. If that's being saved, why doesn't the Bible say that coming forward in a church or Billy Graham Crusade is all that's necessary for Christians? SRH

Eastern Orthodox versus Oriental Orthodox controversy The only question is either or both of their teachings truly biblical. Not them applying the Bible to what they think is true. Again denominations are a man-made disaster. /Meridoc, These two traditions are so close that the difference may largely be one of terminology and language difficulty, and not of any actual difference in the substance of their faith, which may be the same Faith. SRH

traditional Christianity versus non-Christian cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongism, etc.) Christianity based on a biblical truth. AGAIN denominations are man-made and fallible. / Meridoc, Cults twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. SRH

Any other controversy you are actually interested, or do you try to avoid all controversies?

Or do you admit that somebody is bound to find some Christian belief or claimed to be Christian belief controversial or uncertain?

God bless you.

In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington

 

[zone]

Friends, Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

For example, Can you say which of these controversies are interesting to you, and which of these controversies you don't know about or care anything about?

Calvinism versus Arminianism
interesting, not a controversy for me.
calvinism gets a bad rap (tho hyper-cals are over the top) and arminianism is full of holes as well.

Roman Catholicism versus the various Protestant denominations (Lutheran, Anglican, Presbyterian Reformed, Methodist)


speaking in tongues Pentecostalism/charismatic renewal versus cessationism of spiritual gifts


infant baptism versus Baptist beliefs
i think dedicating one's child to Christ is a good thing, asking His blessing and hedging in. when Jesus said forbid not the little children, the word could be infants..very young children. the disciples tried to shoo them away but Jesus blessed them.
not a controversy for me.

pre-tribulation rapture versus mid tribulation or post-tribulation rapture
Second Advent.

dispensationalism versus covenant theology


justification by faith alone versus justification by faith which worketh by love (faith and works)
loaded question Scott.
Sola Fide, which produces good works.

Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism
it's just a temporary squabble.

seven sacraments versus two sacraments
two

single procession of the Holy Spirit versus double procession of the Spirit (Filioque)
One God One Spirit One Faith.
not much of an issue for anybody apparently (except OC).

single predestination versus double predestination (Calvinism)
inaccurate: does not compute.

existence or non-existence of free will
free will to do what?

existence of God and proofs for this, versus believing in God without needing proofs
once you believe what do you need proof of?
God said he has made himself known, and no one has an excuse.
men supress the knowledge of Him, hiding, like Adam.

the truth or falsity of the Shroud of Turin
fake.
the "napkin" that covered His face was separate and folded already.

the truth or falsity of the visions of Our Lady of Lourdes or Our Lady of Fatima or Our Lady of Medjugorje
fake

Sunday worship versus Sabbatarianism (Seventh-day Adventist belief)
unless the SDAs are hebrews and still under the Old Covenant the 7th day wasn't given to them anyways.

if it's the LAW and you break one, yer dun...if you don't stone offenders, you broke that Law.

if it's by choice and desire, any day...every day.

creationism and intelligence design versus evolutionism and even theistic evolutionism
how come intelligent design is included with creationism?
G.A.O.T.U. isn't our God.

the age of the earth young versus old
young.

the six days of creation 24 hours or long evolutionary periods?
God said days. however long that is to Him i do not know.

Genesis 2
but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.

Genesis 5:5
So all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

icons religious artwork versus no icons
no icons

how many books in the Bible 66 only, or 76/77 including the so-called Apocrypha
66 in mine.

nephilim the children and Seth's sons and Cain's daughters, or children of humans and fallen angels (demons)
the bad guys did something here...don't know what.
whatever it was it was nasty.
today the bad humans are genetically engineering stuff so who knows.

the papal infallibility versus no papal infallibility


Scripture alone versus Scripture and (in) Tradition


Jesus Christ is God versus Jesus Christ is not God
Jesus Christ is God

God the Holy Trinity versus Oneness of God
Triune God

capital punishment versus no capital punishment
no capital punishment but no freedom for dangerous weirdos.
humane treatment regardless.
vengence belongs to God.

just war tradition versus pacifism
neither one works because the psychos run both sides.
pacifism if possible.

born again by water baptism (baptismal regeneration) versus born again by personal decision for Christ (decisional regeneration)
loaded question.
no one chooses God.
he who believes will be baptised (if at all possible)

Eastern Orthodox versus Oriental Orthodox controversy
fill me in (unless it's single procession of the Holy Spirit versus double procession of the Spirit (Filioque)

traditional Christianity versus non-Christian cults (Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Armstrongism, etc.)
yep. always versus.

Any other controversy you are actually interested, or do you try to avoid all controversies?


In Erie PA USA Scott R. Harrington

...........

 

[zone]

pre-tribulation rapture versus mid tribulation or post-tribulation rapture Firstly it doesn't matter, secondly another thing that people try and fit the bible to their 'truth'/ Meridoc, Of course it does matter. False doctrine is always false, and it is always bad to believe a false doctrine, even if the matter seems small. It is true, people try to make the Bible say this false doctrine, but this doctrine was not taught until the late 1700s and really not much before 1830 AD

these are the same eschatological systems scott: they go together and both have the same source.

if one is important so is the other. pretribulation rapture IS dispensationalism.

dispensationalism versus covenant theology Arguing over nothing
Meridoc, I would say these two are probably much ado about nothing, you may be right about that. SRH

Eastern Orthodoxy versus Roman Catholicism (or versus Protestantism) same thing as above, denominations are an evil created by people, designed by satan/ Meridoc, This is typical bigotry, and does not account for the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy is in no doctrinal error, whereas there are major errors in Protestantism and Catholicism.

um....if the papacy is fallible how come the patriarchs aren't?
you may have errors in this very post scott.

the truth or falsity of the Shroud of Turin Who cares, the cloth Jesus has no extra value, is not to be honoured or worshiped. It is just cloth. / Meridoc, Without Church tradition, you will not know how to find the correct answer to this; with Church tradition, we can know the Shroud of Turin is a genuine relic and gives us an actual picture of what the face of Christ looks like.

supposedly one whole cloth.

but:

New International Version(©1984)
as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.


New Living Translation(©2007)
while the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.

English Standard Version(©2001)
and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

(the folded napkin was a sign from the Master).

icons religious artwork versus no icons Icons are basically idols for many so not good. Meridoc, Absolutely and unequivocally false, as the person who wrote the Gospel of St. Luke, St. Luke, made the first icon of the Mother of God. It's iconoclastic bigotry to reject sacred icons. Since God made matter sacred by becoming a man in Christ, we can make pictures of Christ and His saints, as matter has been redeemed by the Incarnation of Christ the LORD. Since Christ is a man, He can be depicted visually. His Divinity shows through His humanity, and is inseparable from it. SRH

some people literally worship the relics and everybody knows it.
there's no excuse for kissing pictures or bones, for keeping human remains in church etc.

how many books in the Bible 66 only, or 76/77 including the so-called Apocrypha 66, check the extra books and you will find inconsistencies with the 66 thus they are not God breathed as only books inspired by God can be consistent and true.
Meridoc, Faulty logic. The 66 books don't tell us that there are only 66; this is Protestant, man-made tradition that follows Judaism for its canon, and Judaism rejects Jesus Christ. How would the unbelieving Jews know what the real Bible is? SRH

what's missing scott?

the papal infallibility versus no papal infallibility There was only one perfect man that was the God-man Jesus Christ our Saviour. Take a look at the state of the Roman Catholic church over the years they often apologize for previous popes choices and rules, so yea. /Meridoc, Amen, only Jesus Christ our LORD GOD and Saviour is perfect. All Christians can make errors of some kind. SRH

so how are PURE doctrines handed down orally?

Eastern Orthodoxy is in no doctrinal error.

Scripture alone versus Scripture and (in) Tradition Scripture stands alone as God's word, to claim that man-made traditions are as important is evil and laughable./ Meridoc, Scripture alone does not say the Bible alone is all that Christians go by, and the Bible itself refers to and commands our allegiance to spoken apostolic traditions (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15). SRH.

the NT was still being revealed when paul was alive Scott...naturally they had traditions that were authoritative: they had apostles and prophets.

creeds are great but they are not authoritative scott.

~

 

[Fire7]

This is a very good thread, because I have wondered the same thing. I, at one time, had listed as many as I could think of it it came out to about 20 or more different issues that were controversial or caused divisions. I'm not a bible scholar so I was not aware of some of the things you listed.

You might also want to add getting tattoos to that list.

But this is why although I'm not an atheist, I still question the validity of Christianity and the gospel. Truth is something that I believe shuld have a solid consistency. Yet it seems christianity, like other religions and philosophies is ever-wavering. What then is the difference between christianity and any other belief system if it has just as many inconsistencies, hypocrisies, double standards and holes as any other? Can someone answer me this? Because the "scripture is open to interpretation" and "men aren't perfect" (which is a cop out) argument doesn't fly.

 

[contemplative]

But this is why although I'm not an atheist, I still question the validity of Christianity and the gospel. Truth is something that I believe shuld have a solid consistency. Yet it seems christianity, like other religions and philosophies is ever-wavering. What then is the difference between christianity and any other belief system if it has just as many inconsistencies, hypocrisies, double standards and holes as any other? Can someone answer me this? Because the "scripture is open to interpretation" and "men aren't perfect" (which is a cop out) argument doesn't fly.

I compare it to mathematics, which I teach. The truth is known and can even be proven. Nevertheless, there are misconceptions, errors, and egos in a discipline where there should be precisely none. People of a certain caliber who have dedicated themselves to the study and practice of mathematics can eventually understand the proofs, but dilettantes usually fail hard.

... so you'd think the amateurs would keep their opinions to themselves, right? In fact, no. For every valid mathematical statement humanity produces, it produces at least ten times as many invalid mathematical statements. I can swear to you that in a classroom somewhere, a student has just written 2 + 3 = 4. I don't see why this wouldn't be worse in religion, in which there are no proofs any mathematician would accept.

Why are we ok with this in mathematics? It's because we recognize that different people have different exposures to the truth, different levels of dedication to the truth, different levels of training, etc. We let them commit errors so that they can learn to avoid them in the future. We certainly don't take them as experts simply because they express opinions.

It requires a little flexibility in our thinking. We have to recognize that the people who are so sure of themselves are just students. Some possess more or less of the truth. All require more practice and study. Neither religion nor mathematics should be considered tarnished because unsophisticated practitioners use them poorly. We have to honor their struggle, not be disheartened by it.

 

[Scotth1960]

...........

Dear Zone, Eastern Orthodox versus Oriental Orthodox is more of a controversy of semantics than of substance, as both believe Christ is true God and true man. But the EOC says two nature while the OOC says one nature. In Erie Scott

 

[Scotth1960]

these are the same eschatological systems scott: they go together and both have the same source.

if one is important so is the other. pretribulation rapture IS dispensationalism.





um....if the papacy is fallible how come the patriarchs aren't?
you may have errors in this very post scott.

supposedly one whole cloth.

but:

New International Version(©1984)
as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.


New Living Translation(©2007)
while the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.

English Standard Version(©2001)
and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

(the folded napkin was a sign from the Master).



some people literally worship the relics and everybody knows it.
there's no excuse for kissing pictures or bones, for keeping human remains in church etc.



what's missing scott?



so how are PURE doctrines handed down orally?





the NT was still being revealed when paul was alive Scott...naturally they had traditions that were authoritative: they had apostles and prophets.

creeds are great but they are not authoritative scott.

~

[/quoteDear Zone,]How do you know the Nicene Creed is not authoritative? Do you have a Creed that tells you it is not so? Then, you have a Creed that says no Creeds, don't you?
You must have some standard (tradition) by which you interpret Scripture, yes?/ In Erie, Scott

 

[Meridoc]

um....if the papacy is fallible how come the patriarchs aren't?
you may have errors in this very post scott.

Umm have you read the old testament the patriarchs were very fallible. Abraham may have been the father of the faith, but he was not in anyway perfect.

so how are PURE doctrines handed down orally?

People don't get the strength of oral teaching in ancient times. Nowadays we have trouble making the effort memorizing a couple of verses, back then there we people that could quote word for word whole books of the bible. We don't get it because we are lazy and too reliant on technology.

The shroud of turin

Again as I said, its just a piece of cloth why does it even matter. Also Jesus' body was in the tomb 3 days and yet somehow imprinted his face so fully on a piece of fabric. . WHAT?!?! Don't even try to say well his face would have been bloody or some such nonsense. Jesus died long before being taken down from the cross and they would have cleaned his face and the dead don't bleed, so no blood on the face to stain the cloth. And even if it did we aren't to worship any graven images and I believe that would very much include Jesus' human face. Because as it says in Phillipians 2 Jesus was found in human likeness not in his heavenly likeness.

How do you know the Nicene Creed is not authoritative? Do you have a Creed that tells you it is not so? Then, you have a Creed that says no Creeds, don't you?
You must have some standard (tradition) by which you interpret Scripture, yes?

No you must not have some standard/tradition by which you interpret. When I read the scriptures I ask that God teach me truth from it. I don't go looking for ways that the bible fits what I already believe.

 

[Scotth1960]

um....if the papacy is fallible how come the patriarchs aren't?
you may have errors in this very post scott.

Umm have you read the old testament the patriarchs were very fallible. Abraham may have been the father of the faith, but he was not in anyway perfect.

so how are PURE doctrines handed down orally?

People don't get the strength of oral teaching in ancient times. Nowadays we have trouble making the effort memorizing a couple of verses, back then there we people that could quote word for word whole books of the bible. We don't get it because we are lazy and too reliant on technology.

The shroud of turin

Again as I said, its just a piece of cloth why does it even matter. Also Jesus' body was in the tomb 3 days and yet somehow imprinted his face so fully on a piece of fabric. . WHAT?!?! Don't even try to say well his face would have been bloody or some such nonsense. Jesus died long before being taken down from the cross and they would have cleaned his face and the dead don't bleed, so no blood on the face to stain the cloth. And even if it did we aren't to worship any graven images and I believe that would very much include Jesus' human face. Because as it says in Phillipians 2 Jesus was found in human likeness not in his heavenly likeness.

How do you know the Nicene Creed is not authoritative? Do you have a Creed that tells you it is not so? Then, you have a Creed that says no Creeds, don't you?
You must have some standard (tradition) by which you interpret Scripture, yes?

No you must not have some standard/tradition by which you interpret. When I read the scriptures I ask that God teach me truth from it. I don't go looking for ways that the bible fits what I already believe.[/quote ] Dear Meridoc, How do you know you are'nt reading the Scripture according to some belief you already have? Scott
Dear Meridoc,ISTM someone who rejects the Shroud of Turin is following a tradition that it can't be true because of how you read Scripture. But how do you know you are reading Scripture correctly? Also, we don't know how the image was made. It is not necessarily made by the blood of Christ on the Cross. It is logical to have as an axiom that it is a supernatural image. As for blood on the Shroud, there is no way of knowing whose blood it is. It could be a contaminated Shroud. This is logical, it was stolen by the Crusaders. It could have gotten someone else's blood other than the holy blood of Jesus. As Jesus shed all of His blood on the Cross, none of His blood would have gotten on the Shroud. Take care. In Erie Scott

 

[zone]

um....if the papacy is fallible how come the patriarchs aren't?
you may have errors in this very post scott.

Umm have you read the old testament the patriarchs were very fallible. Abraham may have been the father of the faith, but he was not in anyway perfect..

meridoc:
the leaders of the orthodox church go by the title patriarch: that's what i was referring to in the post to scott who is OC.

i asked him why if the papacy is fallible, are not the OC "patriarchs".

so how are PURE doctrines handed down orally?

People don't get the strength of oral teaching in ancient times. Nowadays we have trouble making the effort memorizing a couple of verses, back then there we people that could quote word for word whole books of the bible. We don't get it because we are lazy and too reliant on technology..

i'm not talking about that.
i was asking scott about the 'traditions" of the OC, which they claim are without error and authoritative.

The shroud of turin

Again as I said, its just a piece of cloth why does it even matter. Also Jesus' body was in the tomb 3 days and yet somehow imprinted his face so fully on a piece of fabric. . WHAT?!?! Don't even try to say well his face would have been bloody or some such nonsense. Jesus died long before being taken down from the cross and they would have cleaned his face and the dead don't bleed, so no blood on the face to stain the cloth. And even if it did we aren't to worship any graven images and I believe that would very much include Jesus' human face. Because as it says in Phillipians 2 Jesus was found in human likeness not in his heavenly likeness. .

are you asking me this?
i know you said it doesn't matter; i was answering scott's questionnaire like you did.
in order to ask him a second set of questions i used a dialogue you had with him, but was concerned with his remarks, not yours.

i was not remarking on any of your thoughts.

i said its fake.
i denounce relics and icons.
i was asking scott why OC traditions claim it is genuine.

How do you know the Nicene Creed is not authoritative? Do you have a Creed that tells you it is not so? Then, you have a Creed that says no Creeds, don't you?
You must have some standard (tradition) by which you interpret Scripture, yes?

No you must not have some standard/tradition by which you interpret. When I read the scriptures I ask that God teach me truth from it. I don't go looking for ways that the bible fits what I already believe.

"I don't go looking for ways that the bible fits what I already believe"
ya i know. you've said that many times. that's cool.

my remark was to scott, concerning the INSPIRED level of authority that a creed or tradition has compared to the scriptures....the subject was the OC elevation of extra-biblical stuff as authoritative. if you think oral traditions and creeds are authoritative in the same was the holy scriptures are i just disagree.

i like the creeds. i said as much.

 

[zone]

supposedly one whole cloth.

but:

New International Version(©1984)
as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

New Living Translation(©2007)
while the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was folded up and lying apart from the other wrappings.

English Standard Version(©2001)
and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself.

How do you know the Nicene Creed is not authoritative? Do you have a Creed that tells you it is not so? Then, you have a Creed that says no Creeds, don't you?
You must have some standard (tradition) by which you interpret Scripture, yes?/ In Erie, Scott

semantics scott.
i know your report is that OC is without error.
my replies are that traditions handed down orally can no more be called INSPIRED and authoritative than a creed.

they may be faithful, they may be accurate, and they may be right: but they are not inspired as scripture is, agree?

also: what about the fact that the cloth that wrapped the Lord's face was a separate piece of cloth and was folded, and lying away and apart from the other burial clothes?
how does the turin shroud claim to be a single unfolded piece of cloth?

 

[Scotth1960]

supposedly one whole cloth.

but:

New International Version(©1984)


as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was

folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

New Living Translation(©2007)

while the cloth that had covered Jesus' head was folded up and lying apart

from the other wrappings.

English Standard Version(©2001)

and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen

cloths but folded up in a place by itself.


semantics scott.

i know your report is that OC is without error.

my replies are that traditions handed down orally can no more be called INSPIRED and

authoritative than a creed.


Dear Zone, traditions handed down can not be called inspired?

2 Thessalonians 2:15 says otherwise.

Tradition comes from the Holy Spirit. Scripture comes from the

Holy Spirit. Oral Church tradition, like written Tradition

(Scripture) comes from God. We are talking here about the

Apostolic Tradition, the Tradition of God, not the traditions of

men which Scripture warns against. Since Christ promised the

Holy Spirit would lead His Church into all truth (John 16:13),

what else is written (Scripture) and oral tradition but the voice

of the Holy Spirit in the Church? Some written tradition besides

Scripture also qualifies, as in the Apostolic Fathers, the writings

of the Church Fathers. This same Spirit which inspires Scripture

testifies through Church Tradition to the Shroud of Turin. If we

accept the Scriptures, which comes from the Church, we should

accept Church Tradition, which comes from the Church (1 Tim.

3:15, 2 Thess. 2:15). Take care. God bless you! In Erie PA

June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

they may be faithful, they may be accurate, and they may be right: but they are not

inspired as scripture is, agree?

also: what about the fact that the cloth that wrapped the Lord's face was a separate

piece of cloth and was folded, and lying away and apart from the other burial clothes?

how does the turin shroud claim to be a single unfolded piece of cloth?

 

[zone]

hi scott.

Dear Zone, traditions handed down can not be called inspired? 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says otherwise.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

παραδοσεις noun - accusative plural feminine
paradosis par-ad'-os-is: transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law -- ordinance, tradition.

is there a second witness for oral traditions that would be inspired and authoritative equal to canon unless they came from the Apostles?

CONUNDRUM: because i guess what i see here is that Paul and the others (to whom the actual WILL AND WORDS of GOD were STILL BEING REVEALED...not yet complete...they didn't know everything...still more to come...they were still alive....foundation not yet laid...) said they were to hold to the TRANSMISSION of something that THEY (paul and the others then...in his day) taught - either THEIR SPOKEN WORD (paul and the others then...in his day) or THEIR letter.

so really, that says to me that since Paul is not alive speaking directly to me, i only have his letters (which i either believe are completely authoritative and inspired, or i do not because i place other words and letters in an equal position).

it clearly says in 2:15 (when Paul was alive and speaking and writing under the direct inspiration of The Lord):

the traditions that you were taught:
by us,
either by
our
spoken word or by
our
letter.

that those to whom he wrote the letter were to HOLD TO the traditions that THEY (Paul and the others...back THEN) gave them.

i would need evidence that we have leters from Paul or the other Apsotles that aren't in canon. then i might consider that tradition authoritative and inspired (but i would want to know why the Holy Spirit didn't ensure it was canonized).

Tradition comes from the Holy Spirit. Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit.

Oral Church tradition, like written Tradition (Scripture) comes from God.

that's what The Pharisees said Scott....they turned out to be wrong.

not saying the EO Patriarchs are Pharisees (tho they kinda dress like the Temple guys), but there's already a problem with one oral tradition in particular. that's the shroud of Turin. i wouldn't even think twice about it, except that when Tyndale and Luther and those guys get slammed for trying to hold to what the words actually meant....i ask myself, well what's so wrong with dogma and tradition? cultural flair is a good thing: no prob.

but....if it is established that the institution (whichever one it is) is infallible (no diff if he wears a mitre and says i am infallible or if he is nameless in a cassock and says the institution is infallible), and their extra-biblical traditions are infallible, why do i even need scripture? i don't. i just believe anything someone tells me...so i'm back at Rome again: or, oddly, where you say protestants are! relying on someone else - THEMSELVES!

i guess i need a little more info on exactly what Traditions you mean. because things like waving censers and snipping locks of hair, heads on plates, bones in glass cases, churches dedicated to saints i've never heard of that are portrayed with animal heads in iconography and stuff.

and kissing pictures and chanting and facing east - i'm not sure the Holy Spirit is telling me to do that. i'm not sure those things are inspired and infallible.

things like graduated initiates (and that's what they are called) move on into the mysteries of the ever-virginity of mary and stuff. dunno. don't see any of that in scripture scott.

the whole thing could just revert to RC before Luther if that's preferable....a ceremony of rituals (that LOOK pagan but aren't) in a language i do not understand (for some reason) and mysteries i don't get to know about (unless someone tells me verbally or opens a vault and get to look at secret stuff).

what is that? Christianity? or a mysterious religion? not sure.

anyways.

i wanted to ask a little OC history:

when did the spilt between OC and Rome happen again? because i wonder why Luther had to stand all alone against a gigantic machine and face possible death, and then go into hiding and translate the entire Bible from one language to another while trying to remain faithful to what they were never allowed to see to begin with?

kind of a hard task and for one guy. and he just gets slammed continually for being an ideologue and a revolutionary and stuff. but WHY? he was willing to keep most the other dogma - just that one thorny issue:

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

anyways....where was OC at that time? was OC going toe to toe with Rome on all the odd doctrines that they now disagree with? or were they quiet? what about the people (masses) at that time?

and why is Luther demonic for the word ALONE which does zero to change the meaning of the verse NADA (unless there has to be a reason for works righteousness unto salvation...James doesn't say that so let's leave him in agreement with the rest of Scripture, k?)

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

what did OC do about Rome changing the Ten Commandments? did any EO patriarch make a stand and get stabbed strangled and burned at the stake like my brother William?

~

anyways..

so, let's say we have our Patriarchs who we trust and believe have perfectly preserved true and pure and INSPIRED doctrine in an unbroken line of apostolic oral traditions (preserved in rituals also) - what happens if a TRADITION we are told is inspired and authoritative CONTRADICTS what the Scriptures say?

which one trumps?[/quote]

anyways....like - what do i do about The Shroud of Turin (which isn't an issue for me because of what JOHN said.

Dear jonathanbchristian. I agree with you 100 percent. Jesus did die for all people and He loves all people. He loves Calvinists, too, who believe that Jesus did not die for all people, but only for the elect, and that God does not, therefore, love all people, but that He hates some people. That is the venomous essence of Calvinism, and it is anti-Biblical and does not rightly teach what the Bible teaches, but teaches a rationalistic Augustinian philosophy, a dualism and double predestinarianism that is from the spirit of Antichrist, that is, of heresy, and not of the Spirit of Christ. It is simply wrong. Many Calvinists are fine, good people, but their Augustinian theology of Calvin and the Reformed Reformers is a very false theology. Take care. In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

supposedly one whole cloth.

and supposedly OC (and Rome?) says is inspired and authoritative tradition that this relic is genuine.

but...when i rely on scripture and read for myself here's what i see:

John 20:5-10
And stooping to look in, he saw the linen cloths lying there, but he did not go in. Then Simon Peter came, following him, and went into the tomb. He saw the linen cloths lying there, and the face cloth, which had been on Jesus’ head, not lying with the linen cloths but folded up in a place by itself. Then the other disciple, who had reached the tomb first, also went in, and he saw and believed; for as yet they did not understand the Scripture, that he must rise from the dead. Then the disciples went back to their homes.

so, something that didn't matter to me much before now matters a great deal because the same people that say Luther and Tyndale and the Reformers are demonic and antichrist, tell me that orally transmitted decisions made from a heirarchy of Patriarchs are INSPIRED and INFALLIBLE even when they contradict scripture.

help me out on this scott because i must be missing something. i hope its okay to discuss, because the OP is:

Re: Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

thank you.
zone

 

[Scotth1960]

Dear zone, Martin Luther was reacting against the "traditions of men" that Roman Catholicism was teaching. So he was justified in rejecting them. Eastern Orthodoxy also rejected them much earlier in 1054 AD. One of the traditions of men papal Rome taught since 1014 AD was the phrase "and the Son" (Filioque). While professing to believe in Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther himself never bothered to check the Scriptures on this matter. He followed and obeyed Augustinian Roman Catholic traditions of men. He apparently did not pay attention to John 15:26, and this Scripture alone would have taught him to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. John Wycliffe was not really the first Protestant. The first Protestant was the pope of Rome in 1014 AD, who claimed the authority for himself to say what the Scripture means, and to change the teaching of the Scripture for his own private interpretation. Nowhere does Scripture say "and the Son", but the popes of Rome ignore John 15:26 and teach against Monopatrism. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic, didn't change the Roman Catholic error. Go figure. Thus, he really didn't follow the "Scripture alone" that he so boldly professed. He followed the tradition of Augustine of Hippo, for he, Martin Luther, was, at one time, an Augustinian monk. Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

hi scott.



2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.

παραδοσεις noun - accusative plural feminine
paradosis par-ad'-os-is: transmission, i.e. (concretely) a precept; specially, the Jewish traditionary law -- ordinance, tradition.

is there a second witness for oral traditions that would be inspired and authoritative equal to canon unless they came from the Apostles?

CONUNDRUM: because i guess what i see here is that Paul and the others (to whom the actual WILL AND WORDS of GOD were STILL BEING REVEALED...not yet complete...they didn't know everything...still more to come...they were still alive....foundation not yet laid...) said they were to hold to the TRANSMISSION of something that THEY (paul and the others then...in his day) taught - either THEIR SPOKEN WORD (paul and the others then...in his day) or THEIR letter.

so really, that says to me that since Paul is not alive speaking directly to me, i only have his letters (which i either believe are completely authoritative and inspired, or i do not because i place other words and letters in an equal position).

it clearly says in 2:15 (when Paul was alive and speaking and writing under the direct inspiration of The Lord):

the traditions that you were taught:
by us,
either by
our
spoken word or by
our
letter.

that those to whom he wrote the letter were to HOLD TO the traditions that THEY (Paul and the others...back THEN) gave them.

i would need evidence that we have leters from Paul or the other Apsotles that aren't in canon. then i might consider that tradition authoritative and inspired (but i would want to know why the Holy Spirit didn't ensure it was canonized).



that's what The Pharisees said Scott....they turned out to be wrong.

not saying the EO Patriarchs are Pharisees (tho they kinda dress like the Temple guys), but there's already a problem with one oral tradition in particular. that's the shroud of Turin. i wouldn't even think twice about it, except that when Tyndale and Luther and those guys get slammed for trying to hold to what the words actually meant....i ask myself, well what's so wrong with dogma and tradition? cultural flair is a good thing: no prob.

but....if it is established that the institution (whichever one it is) is infallible (no diff if he wears a mitre and says i am infallible or if he is nameless in a cassock and says the institution is infallible), and their extra-biblical traditions are infallible, why do i even need scripture? i don't. i just believe anything someone tells me...so i'm back at Rome again: or, oddly, where you say protestants are! relying on someone else - THEMSELVES!

i guess i need a little more info on exactly what Traditions you mean. because things like waving censers and snipping locks of hair, heads on plates, bones in glass cases, churches dedicated to saints i've never heard of that are portrayed with animal heads in iconography and stuff.

and kissing pictures and chanting and facing east - i'm not sure the Holy Spirit is telling me to do that. i'm not sure those things are inspired and infallible.

things like graduated initiates (and that's what they are called) move on into the mysteries of the ever-virginity of mary and stuff. dunno. don't see any of that in scripture scott.

the whole thing could just revert to RC before Luther if that's preferable....a ceremony of rituals (that LOOK pagan but aren't) in a language i do not understand (for some reason) and mysteries i don't get to know about (unless someone tells me verbally or opens a vault and get to look at secret stuff).

what is that? Christianity? or a mysterious religion? not sure.

anyways.

i wanted to ask a little OC history:

when did the spilt between OC and Rome happen again? because i wonder why Luther had to stand all alone against a gigantic machine and face possible death, and then go into hiding and translate the entire Bible from one language to another while trying to remain faithful to what they were never allowed to see to begin with?

kind of a hard task and for one guy. and he just gets slammed continually for being an ideologue and a revolutionary and stuff. but WHY? he was willing to keep most the other dogma - just that one thorny issue:

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

anyways....where was OC at that time? was OC going toe to toe with Rome on all the odd doctrines that they now disagree with? or were they quiet? what about the people (masses) at that time?

and why is Luther demonic for the word ALONE which does zero to change the meaning of the verse NADA
Dear zone, That is ....
Wrong! Luther changed the meaning of the verse by adding the word "alone". If James 2:24 says "not by faith alone", and Luther adds alone to Romans 3:28, then we have a contradiction here between St. Paul and St. James. Paul also says in Galatians that we are saved by faith "which worketh through love", and in 1 Cor. 13:13 that love is greater than "faith alone". God bless us all. In Erie Scott

(unless there has to be a reason for works righteousness unto salvation...James doesn't say that so let's leave him in agreement with the rest of Scripture, k?)

Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

what did OC do about Rome changing the Ten Commandments? did any EO patriarch make a stand and get stabbed strangled and burned at the stake like my brother William?

Dear Zone,
~In 1472 in Yuriev in Estonia, the Roman Catholics killed Saint Isidore the Hieromartyr and 72 of his companions by drowning them in the icy waters of Estonia, because they would not convert to Roman Catholicism. This was part of Roman Catholicism's Inquisition, and they tried to force these Eastern Orthodox Christians to believe in papism.

anyways..

so, let's say we have our Patriarchs who we trust and believe have perfectly preserved true and pure and INSPIRED doctrine in an unbroken line of apostolic oral traditions (preserved in rituals also) - what happens if a TRADITION we are told is inspired and authoritative CONTRADICTS what the Scriptures say?
Dear Zone, Who says authoritatively what the Scripture says? Is it not true that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation? That is what St. Peter says. Proestantism falsifies Scripture by adding "alone" to Romans 3:28, thus nullifying James 2:24! Eastern Orthodoxy does not falsify Scripture, but keeps the true meaning of John 15:26 and all of the other OT and NT Scriptures. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD

which one trumps?

anyways....like - what do i do about The Shroud of Turin (which isn't an issue for me because of what JOHN said.






so, something that didn't matter to me much before now matters a great deal because the same people that say Luther and Tyndale and the Reformers are demonic and antichrist, tell me that orally transmitted decisions made from a heirarchy of Patriarchs are INSPIRED and INFALLIBLE even when they contradict scripture.

Dear zone, A hierarchy of Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs do not ever contradict Scripture. Do you have any exact quotes from any Eastern Orthodox Patriarch that contradicts, in any what, anything that any Scripture whatsoever says? Who says what the Scriptures mean? In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD PS Of course, there was on Patriarch, Cyril Lucaris, who did contradict Scripture, or at least some person tried to falsely slander him and accuse him of writing the so called Confession of Cyril Lucaris. I guess we will not at any time really know who wrote this Calvinist confession. What is clear is that no real Orthodox Patriarch could ever believe in Calvinism. If he did, he would be apostate, and would not really be Orthodox. So again, whoever endorses the Confesssion alleged to be by Cyril Lucaris affirms the heresies of Calvinism, not the truths of Eastern Orthodoxy. God bless you. In Erie Scott R. Harrington June 2011 AD

help me out on this scott because i must be missing something. i hope its okay to discuss, because the OP is:

Re: Is there anything about Christianity (Christ) that is not controversial?

thank you.
zone

 

[zone]

Dear zone, Martin Luther was reacting against the "traditions of men" that Roman Catholicism was teaching. So he was justified in rejecting them. Eastern Orthodoxy also rejected them much earlier in 1054 AD. One of the traditions of men papal Rome taught since 1014 AD was the phrase "and the Son" (Filioque). While professing to believe in Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther himself never bothered to check the Scriptures on this matter. He followed and obeyed Augustinian Roman Catholic traditions of men. He apparently did not pay attention to John 15:26, and this Scripture alone would have taught him to believe the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone. John Wycliffe was not really the first Protestant. The first Protestant was the pope of Rome in 1014 AD, who claimed the authority for himself to say what the Scripture means, and to change the teaching of the Scripture for his own private interpretation. Nowhere does Scripture say "and the Son", but the popes of Rome ignore John 15:26 and teach against Monopatrism. Martin Luther, as a Roman Catholic, didn't change the Roman Catholic error. Go figure. Thus, he really didn't follow the "Scripture alone" that he so boldly professed. He followed the tradition of Augustine of Hippo, for he, Martin Luther, was, at one time, an Augustinian monk. Take care. God bless you. In Erie PA June 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington

hi scott.
i love the way you sign your posts.
you are a gentleman.

thanks for your reply.

yes, i know Luther was a monk. that's what makes his trip away from that so wonderful.

re: "and the Son" (Filioque)...maybe Luther had something quite a bit more important in mind: Sola Fide. how much can one man do in one lifetime scott...particularly when he was not permitted to search the scriptures himself?

now, as you yourself say almost all the time (sometimes with just a tiny qualifier which i know you don't mean authoritatively) we are indeed saved soley by the Grace of God through faith in the Finished Work of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Great God and Saviour (holding separate for the moment baptism and the Lord's Table, and walking in the works He ordained we should walk in absolutely tied to but not preceeding our regeneration...what unregenerate man says i think i'll be baptised?)

so, if we really truly agree that we are only saved (justified, aquitted) because Our God has shown Grace and Mercy and as the scriptures (and our experience) says has drawn us to Jesus Christ where we receive LIFE from the dead, then i feel Luther's pain... i really do. what's a monk to do?

and if Paul's warnings are authoritative, i.e.:

Galatians 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Romans 9:31
but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.

Luther (and the catholic people) had a problem, and i get it.

~

but: i wondered if i can see where EO actually DID anything about the aberrent teachings of Rome? did they place the ability to read and the understand the scriptures (which are inspired and authoritative and by the Spirit have the power to cut and heal, to make alive and transform) in the hands of their people?

because i see a boatload of traditions and rituals, and lots of greek philosophy, and a claim to apostolic succession by oral tradition mixed in with SOLA FIDE (?). so the natural progression for me there is to say HOLD IT! perhaps it's ALSO SOLA SCRIPTURA.

because i would need to actually see where the scriptures say about initiations and mysteries and chanting and relics and stuff. because i do not see that in the scriptures.

so now i have another problem: i'm good with Sola Fide (which produces good works)...but now i need to know WHY the other things are added to SCRIPTURA as inspired and authoritative.

just because something is ancient does not make it ok. as you know the Arian controversy goes back to the second century! and we don't believe jesus is a created entity: why not? because scripture and The Spirit testify to the contrary.

so i may now also need a foundation of SLOA SCRIPURA (to which i am free to enjoy with my traditions since i know they are just that - traditions and cultural treasures).

see, if Luther hadn't translated a Bible and started something which allowed the people to read the srciptures in their vulgate languages, maybe they would still be bowing down to idols, not knowing any better....hmmm......

anyways, thanks for your reply, and i hope you could address the rituals and traditions i posted on previously because i would like to know how it is we could paint a picture of a creature that has a dog's head, call it a saint, and bring it to church and kiss it?

not adding up for me....

because now i know i was dead and now am alive in Christ because of what He did (Solus Christus) and it was like the WIND....i didn't know where it came from..... and i didn't deserve it or ask for it (Sola Gratia), but now i am able to believe He has Finished everything needed to redeem me (Sola Fide); and now that i know i am permitted and encouraged to study personally because the scriptures are inspired and sufficient and authoritative (Sola Scriptura); i now know that i should not give glory to an idol or a pope or any created entity instead of my God (Soli Deo Gloria).

take care
zone.

p.s: could you help me resolve the Shroud of Turin issue and that the scriptures (JOHN) say Jesus' burial clothes were not one whole cloth and that the napkin that covered His face was folded and set aside?

thanks again scott.

 

[Scotth1960]

hi scott.
i love the way you sign your posts.
you are a gentleman.

thanks for your reply.

yes, i know Luther was a monk. that's what makes his trip away from that so wonderful.

re: "and the Son" (Filioque)...maybe Luther had something quite a bit more important in mind: Sola Fide. how much can one man do in one lifetime scott...particularly when he was not permitted to search the scriptures himself?

now, as you yourself say almost all the time (sometimes with just a tiny qualifier which i know you don't mean authoritatively) we are indeed saved soley by the Grace of God through faith in the Finished Work of Jesus Christ Our Lord and Great God and Saviour (holding separate for the moment baptism and the Lord's Table, and walking in the works He ordained we should walk in absolutely tied to but not preceeding our regeneration...what unregenerate man says i think i'll be baptised?)

so, if we really truly agree that we are only saved (justified, aquitted) because Our God has shown Grace and Mercy and as the scriptures (and our experience) says has drawn us to Jesus Christ where we receive LIFE from the dead, then i feel Luther's pain... i really do. what's a monk to do?

and if Paul's warnings are authoritative, i.e.:

Galatians 5:4
You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.

Romans 9:31
but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.

Luther (and the catholic people) had a problem, and i get it.

~

but: i wondered if i can see where EO actually DID anything about the aberrent teachings of Rome? did they place the ability to read and the understand the scriptures (which are inspired and authoritative and by the Spirit have the power to cut and heal, to make alive and transform) in the hands of their people?

because i see a boatload of traditions and rituals, and lots of greek philosophy, and a claim to apostolic succession by oral tradition mixed in with SOLA FIDE (?). so the natural progression for me there is to say HOLD IT! perhaps it's ALSO SOLA SCRIPTURA.

because i would need to actually see where the scriptures say about initiations and mysteries and chanting and relics and stuff. because i do not see that in the scriptures.

so now i have another problem: i'm good with Sola Fide (which produces good works)...but now i need to know WHY the other things are added to SCRIPTURA as inspired and authoritative.

just because something is ancient does not make it ok. as you know the Arian controversy goes back to the second century! and we don't believe jesus is a created entity: why not? because scripture and The Spirit testify to the contrary.

so i may now also need a foundation of SLOA SCRIPURA (to which i am free to enjoy with my traditions since i know they are just that - traditions and cultural treasures).

see, if Luther hadn't translated a Bible and started something which allowed the people to read the srciptures in their vulgate languages, maybe they would still be bowing down to idols, not knowing any better....hmmm......

Dear Zone, In the Helsinki Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki, Finland, there is a statue of Martin Luther and a statue of Philip Melanchthon! Who is bowing to idols? The Lutheran state "church" of Finland forbids Orthodox icons in its cathedral, but it permits three dimensional statues in its main cathedral. Go figure. Orthodoxy forbids statues in its churches. These are graven images (carved images, statues). ISTM the Orthodox are going by Scripture, whereas the Lutherans, who loudly profess "sola Scriptura", are disobeying it by making a statue of their hero, their leader, their "Reformer", their "prophet", and setting aside the Law of God for their Lutheran tradition. Go figure. In Erie PA USA June 2011 Scott R. Harrington anyways, thanks for your reply, and i hope you could address the rituals and traditions i posted on previously because i would like to know how it is we could paint a picture of a creature that has a dog's head, call it a saint, and bring it to church and kiss it?

not adding up for me....

because now i know i was dead and now am alive in Christ because of what He did (Solus Christus) and it was like the WIND....i didn't know where it came from..... and i didn't deserve it or ask for it (Sola Gratia), but now i am able to believe He has Finished everything needed to redeem me (Sola Fide); and now that i know i am permitted and encouraged to study personally because the scriptures are inspired and sufficient and authoritative (Sola Scriptura); i now know that i should not give glory to an idol or a pope or any created entity instead of my God (Soli Deo Gloria).

take care
zone.

p.s: could you help me resolve the Shroud of Turin issue and that the scriptures (JOHN) say Jesus' burial clothes were not one whole cloth and that the napkin that covered His face was folded and set aside?

 

[zone]

Dear Zone, In the Helsinki Lutheran Cathedral in Helsinki, Finland, there is a statue of Martin Luther and a statue of Philip Melanchthon! Who is bowing to idols? The Lutheran state "church" of Finland forbids Orthodox icons in its cathedral, but it permits three dimensional statues in its main cathedral. Go figure. Orthodoxy forbids statues in its churches. These are graven images (carved images, statues). ISTM the Orthodox are going by Scripture, whereas the Lutherans, who loudly profess "sola Scriptura", are disobeying it by making a statue of their hero, their leader, their "Reformer", their "prophet", and setting aside the Law of God for their Lutheran tradition. Go figure. In Erie PA USA June 2011 Scott R. Harrington

hi scott.
okay, fair enough. a church in Helsinki, Finland has two statues in it.
i would have to disagree with that, of course.

do they bow down to them or kiss them i wonder? pray in front of them (at them)? maybe. in any case, that would not be acceptable to me (any more than a couple of purpose driven churches i've been into that have giant praying hands, 25 foot crosses, and bookstores and latte shops in them - cash registers ringing and all).

~

yes, i know OC gets around the graven images thing by saying icons are two-dimensional, and technically not "carved". it's clever, for sure.

but you didn't address the iconography issue. because i see this in Deuteronomy:

Deuteronomy 5:8
You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.

um....pretty much nothing is left out there. carved or not carved. doesn't that say don't make ANYTHING and call it holy and sacred...it seems to say do not represent anything related to God and heaven in any way whatsoever outside what He already very carefully laid out (i.e: the Temples)?

i would think that means don't bring anything we created to represent God to church also (golden calves were actually called YHVH, weren't they? and Aaron said that was okay didn't he?...he was wrong if i recall)

so i have an issue, then with pictures, bones etc: how is this provided for in the Traditions?

also: are we settled on "the Shroud of Turin infallibly established as genuine" thing? because there's that problem about the grave clothes in John.

thank you.
zone.