shadeyinka:


There are just three classes of Doctrines/Tradition
1. Scripture Based
2. Heretic
3. Placebo

then allow me to add the last class you seem not to know of

4. in conformity with scriptures, witnessed by tradition and believed in the church from antiquity

JMAN05:


How can you say that the church never taught it while it was Pope Leo X that authorized its sell?

Pope Leo never authorized a sale... the Catholic church considered a sin to sell spiritual things that is simony. what was authorized and indulgenced was almsgiving... if you still feel Pope Leo authorized a sale then I'll ask you to quote the papal bull

There beneficial traditions, but when this so called tradition contradict the bible, it is thrown away. What happened in Jesus day shows that tradition can't have the same authority as the scriptures. And that errors can easily creep in if scripture is not used to filter so called traditions.

lol

who determines that the tradition is contradictory? for Zwingli the Lutheran tradition that Jesus is in the bread and wine contradicts scriptures, from Luther the zwinglian tradition that the bread and wine are mere symbols totally contradict scriptures... who among them determine what truly contradict scriptures.

for pastor chris the idea that only 144000 people will go heaven contradict scriptures, for jw the pastor Chris idea that all the saved will go to heaven contradict scriptures, so who decides what contradict scriptures among them.

I'm sure for you Catholic doctrines contradict scriptures, for them it doesn't, who are you to determine what is contradictory?

Ubenedictus:
then allow me to add the last class you seem not to know of

4. in conformity with scriptures, witnessed by tradition and believed in the church from antiquity

Placebo has taken care of that. It means not spiritually damning yet not scriptural. There are several traditions like that.

Ubenedictus:
and like any country, the history of Protestantism has taught us that a constitution without an authoritative interpreter is a junk document of good ideas because everyone will interpret his junk into the document. imagine that Nigeria is a country with a constitution alone and every body is to interpret it according to his patriotic spirit... the truth is that we will have anarchy. but we have a constitution, a supreme court to interpret it etc, when the apostles wrote the new testament, they had already taught the tradition in which context it is rightly understood and had a church capable of authoritatively interpreting the document. a Bible alone Christianity as history has shown us is simply Protestantism in anarchy.

of course the early church was instrumental in the Canon, but do you know that the canon was not composed as an exegesis material but actually as a liturgical work? the canon was simply the books to be read in liturgy... not a compendium of doctrines and practice, in fact the opposite was the case the bishops of apostolic churches were the custodian and surety for correct practices Iraeneus of Lyons makes the points clearly... I understand you may not want to hear it so I won't quote...the scriptures were profitable for those things but if you weren't reading them with the church then you're doing your own thing.

funny enough the stuff you named is supported if scriptures is read in the early church, but if you are reading them according to your 21 century today ideas then you will imagine as you do now that they are unbiblical, whereas the only problem is that you have refused to interpret the scriptures in their context.

the so-called erring on the side of safety is an error, the Bible, the early church has given us the template for reading scriptures, it says hold the written and the unwritten, it shows us how to recognise the true unwritten, it says it was conferred to leaders in the churches and those were to teach other faithful men, it shows the church as a teaching authority... for me that is the safe side, the unbiblical idea of Bible alone causing thousands of denomination is for me the exact unsafe bet a rather big error.

It seems to me that you are saying that all traditions are valid expressions of the teachings of the apostles!?

Are there traditions that have no basis with the Apostles.

Are there writings of some Apostles that were not canonized?

If these traditions were so important how come ALL writer of the New Testament missed them?

If Apostle Peter was sharply corrected by Paul, does it not invalidate the fact that the Pope is infallible?

If Mary was that important, how come ALL the letters missed it?

Was the veneration of the saints commanded by the Apostles? If yes, which of the apostles commanded it? (Even Stephen was not venerated as the first martyr)

It looks like most of the traditions came well after the death of the Apostles.

shadeyinka:

It seems to me that you are saying that all traditions are valid expressions of the teachings of the apostles!?

Are there traditions that have no basis with the Apostles.

Are there writings of some Apostles that were not canonized?

If these traditions were so important how come ALL writer of the New Testament missed them?

If Apostle Peter was sharply corrected by Paul, does it not invalidate the fact that the Pope is infallible?

If Mary was that important, how come ALL the letters missed it?

Was the veneration of the saints commanded by the Apostles? If yes, which of the apostles commanded it? (Even Stephen was not venerated as the first martyr)

It looks like most of the traditions came well after the death of the Apostles.

1.2. nope, some people founded their own tradition and even their own scriptures and got excommunicated as heretics, not every tradition is right tradition... but there is tradition committed to the church, that the whole church bears witness to... the church itself was very quick in anathematizing false opinions of men and transmitting right tradition.
3. actually there are some which were lost and never made it to the canon, besides none of those letters were meant as a catalog of all Christian doctrines

4. because none of the new testament writers was trying to form a compendium of every important stuff, and even the important stuff they wrote will make no meaning to you unless you know the context in which they were writing... I gave you an example with the communion issues, it is in the Bible yet for Luther it is the presence of Jesus a most important issue while for Zwingli is was just a mere symbol. even what is there in ink makes different meaning to different Protestant the moment it is divorced from its context.

5. no sir, popes get corrected all the time that is normal for every human, even the apostles. a Pope in himself isn't infallible, Catholics don't believe that. instead it is his magisterium that is. so when he declares what is believed in the whole church for all times from the apostles then that teaching is infallible.... not the man, but the apostolic teaching he is confessing. I don't know if you get it... Peter wasn't always well behaved but whenever he is teaching that which he received from the lord like in act 15 or in 1 pt and 2nd pt he is teaching infallible doctrine.
6. what if it is right there in the letters but you missed it because you don't have the eyes to see it.

7. to this I'll answer yes and all the apostles teaching it because all the Christian churches both Rome, Ephesus, Antioch etc all honored the saints st Paul. adds remember your leaders those who preached the word to you, remember the outcome of their lives.

these practices were seen in all churches from antiquity not invented in some place as Protestant doctrines

shadeyinka:

Placebo has taken care of that. It means not spiritually damning yet not scriptural. There are several traditions like that.

no I mean implicitly scriptural,

Ubenedictus:
no I mean implicitly scriptural,

Ok

Ubenedictus:

1.2. nope, some people founded their own tradition and even their own scriptures and got excommunicated as heretics, not every tradition is right tradition... but there is tradition committed to the church, that the whole church bears witness to... the church itself was very quick in anathematizing false opinions of men and transmitting right tradition.
3. actually there are some which were lost and never made it to the canon, besides none of those letters were meant as a catalog of all Christian doctrines

4. because none of the new testament writers was trying to form a compendium of every important stuff, and even the important stuff they wrote will make no meaning to you unless you know the context in which they were writing... I gave you an example with the communion issues, it is in the Bible yet for Luther it is the presence of Jesus a most important issue while for Zwingli is was just a mere symbol. even what is there in ink makes different meaning to different Protestant the moment it is divorced from its context.

5. no sir, popes get corrected all the time that is normal for every human, even the apostles. a Pope in himself isn't infallible, Catholics don't believe that. instead it is his magisterium that is. so when he declares what is believed in the whole church for all times from the apostles then that teaching is infallible.... not the man, but the apostolic teaching he is confessing. I don't know if you get it... Peter wasn't always well behaved but whenever he is teaching that which he received from the lord like in act 15 or in 1 pt and 2nd pt he is teaching infallible doctrine.
6. what if it is right there in the letters but you missed it because you don't have the eyes to see it.

7. to this I'll answer yes and all the apostles teaching it because all the Christian churches both Rome, Ephesus, Antioch etc all honored the saints st Paul. adds remember your leaders those who preached the word to you, remember the outcome of their lives.

these practices were seen in all churches from antiquity not invented in some place as Protestant doctrines

I will ask that we allow this matter to rest. We could go on and on and both of us will not shift ground.

For me, the most important thing is that at death a Christian is not ashamed to stand in the presence of God.

We all know that there is no denomination recognized in heaven. Only the assembly of saints purchased by the Blood of Christ (the Church) are recognized and are clothed in White.

Stay blessed

Hiswordxray:
We need to recall that when the early church gathered together, they had
no scrolls in their laps. They came together and shared the rivers of living
water flowing from Christ through them. They had no written texts in front
of them, but the Living Christ was expressing Himself through each
believer. Note: even though the early believers brought no Book to the
gatherings, every person who came was a living letter written by Christ,
not in ink, but by the Spirit of the living God. Is it possible that our fixation
on a printed Book has contributed significantly to our not hearing Christ
through the living epistles gathered together? Are we aware of the fact that
even the idea of each person having their own copy of a Bible is a very
recent historical phenomenon? (See F.F. Bruce, The History of the English
Bible, 3rd Edition).
Doesn’t a lot of our problem stem from the fact that when we read certain
words and phrases in the Writings, we assume that “the Bible” is in view?
For example, when Jesus said, “sanctify them through Your truth, Your
Word is truth,” do we assume that Jesus was talking about “the Bible”?
Many take “the word of God” in Hebrews 4:12 as referring to “the Bible,”
yet the context shows that a Person is in view, not a Book. Keep in mind,
“the Bible” as we know it did not exist as an entity until 400AD. Do we not
know that Jesus Christ Himself is the Truth, that He is the Word of God?
A spin-off from our fixation on the Bible is that there is the real possibility
that we will become letter-oriented instead of Spirit-led. The Spirit inspired
the Scriptures, but if the Bible is not approached and handled in a Christ-
centered way, it becomes a dangerous tool that is used to justify abuse,
create division and false teaching. We must recall that during the most
explosive period of the body of Christ, 30-50AD, they did not have a Book
to bring to the meetings. In fact, from 250AD to 1800AD, it would have been
ludicrous and laughable for the person up front to say to those assembled,
“Turn in your Bibles to Mark, chapter six.” Haven’t most of us assumed
that in the course of church history people had access to the Bible just like
we do, when in fact before 1800 such access was rare and very limited in
scope?
The Scriptures are important. The problems are with how the Bible is used,
not with the Bible itself. Father has Spirit-inspired them, and their sole
purpose is to reveal the Son. T.C. Moore gets to the point:
The key to the Bible is Jesus. The point of the Bible
is Jesus. The God of the Bible is Jesus. Any
discussion of the Bible that does not lead to a
discussion of Jesus misses the point.
For people to proudly confess “Sola Scriptura ” has proven for centuries to
resolve nothing at all. In fact, the slogan has contributed in no small way to
the multiplication of divisions. It has been repeated as a mantra for a long
time now, and all we have is a jumbled mess and a pie cut up into 25,000
pieces.
Why can’t we begin and end with Solo Christo – Christ alone?
– Jon Zens, January 1, 2015

Too long nah. Who will have the time to read all these? We no get work?

Hiswordxray:
It's time we break free from Bible worship

What do you mean 'Bible worship' pls? You mean we shd free ourselves from the Word of God?

Let me call some people in here.

Bro Muttleylaff and Butterfly1ion. Maybe i don't get it, pls you guys shd help me here.

godisgood200:

What do you mean 'Bible worship' pls? You mean we shd free ourselves from the Word of God?

Let me call some people in here.

Bro Muttleylaff and Butterfly1ion. Maybe i don't get it, pls you guys shd help me here.

What is the word of God, a book or a person?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1).

Pick your answer carefully,
what is the word of God?

godisgood200:

Too long nah. Who will have the time to read all these? We no get work?

It's this attitude that makes people like you remain ignorant. Anyway, nobody is forcing you to read, so just pass by.

Hiswordxray:

What is the word of God, a book or a person?
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (John 1:1).

Pick your answer carefully,
what is the word of God?

And where do we get to know this person/Word if not in the Bible?

godisgood200:

And where do we get to know this person/Word if not in the Bible?

Where did Abraham get to know the person?
Where did Moses get to know the person?
Where did Paul get to know the person?

Let me give you Paul's own words
"Who also hath made us able, ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life." (2Cor 3:6).

The true New Testament is the one that is Spirit and life, it is a person, a personality that the Apostle came to know even though he never met Jesus before he died.

Ubenedictus:
Pope Leo never authorized a sale... the Catholic church considered a sin to sell spiritual things that is simony. what was authorized and indulgenced was almsgiving... if you still feel Pope Leo authorized a sale then I'll ask you to quote the papal bull

You don't need to read a papal bull. This is history. We read:

addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter's; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the "Indulgences for the Dead" became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

You can quote a papal bull contradicting your encyclopedia.

lol

who determines that the tradition is contradictory? for Zwingli the Lutheran tradition that Jesus is in the bread and wine contradicts scriptures, from Luther the zwinglian tradition that the bread and wine are mere symbols totally contradict scriptures... who among them determine what truly contradict scriptures.

for pastor chris the idea that only 144000 people will go heaven contradict scriptures, for jw the pastor Chris idea that all the saved will go to heaven contradict scriptures, so who decides what contradict scriptures among them.

I'm sure for you Catholic doctrines contradict scriptures, for them it doesn't, who are you to determine what is contradictory?

The bible is clear on what the wine and bread stands for. That was not the focus of my comment. The distraction you want to cause is unfortunately against you and your religion.

I stand in the right foot to ask you those questions above with regards to contradiction amongst Christendom to which your religion belongs. Whether protestant or catholic, you guys are the same. JW don't belong to any. Your church claim to be different, but uses the same 'christain' records as protestants. Jw don't. You belong to CAN, JW don't. You interfaith with Protestants, we don't. Your believes are almost alike, ours differ. Your members join there members in crusade, church service etc and retain there membership. We don't do so. So tell me, who should harp at the contradictions within you churchgoers, aka Christendom?

If we see you as false, whether catholic or protestant, we withdraw without any interfaith whatsoever. On the other hand, since your church interfaith with them, you are part and parcel of them whether you like it or not. Rev 18:4.

So don't point to churches we are never part of. You guys are in fact part of them, and should answer why you guys have contradiction within your rank. I dont even want to go into pointing out the contradictions of your scholars against your church or different groups within your church with different views. After all Galileo's ordeal was based on correct interpretation. Lol

Therefore, stop creating diversions.

Hiswordxray:
It's time we break free from Bible worship

I concur with you 100%...

The Bible holds a fragment of the Truth...and exploring the Truth shouldn't stop within the pages of the Bible...

I'm inclined to imagine that if one of the Apostles letters were excluded from the collection of 66 books (the Bible)...Christians would be conditioned to believe such a letter is not inspired of God...or is unbiblical...

It's sheer ignorance to conclude all the truth in the world is recorded in the Bible alone...

The Holy Spirit...who is the Supreme teacher of Truth...is the word of the ALMIGHTY Himself...

JMAN05:


You don't need to read a papal bull. This is history. We read:

addition the Archbishopric of Mainz and the Bishopric of Hallerstadt, but in return was obliged to collect 10,000 ducats, which he was taxed over and above the usual confirmation fees. To indemnify hiim, and to make it possible to discharge these obligations Rome permitted him to have preached in his territory the plenary indulgence promised all those who contributed to the new St. Peter's; he was allowed to keep one half the returns, a transaction which brought dishonour on all concerned in it. Added to this, abuses occurred during the preaching of the Indulgence. The money contributions, a mere accessory, were frequently the chief object, and the "Indulgences for the Dead" became a vehicle of inadmissible teachings. That Leo X, in the most serious of all the crises which threatened the Church, should fail to prove the proper guide for her, is clear enough from what has been related above.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm

You can quote a papal bull contradicting your encyclopedia.

.

unless you lack understanding and comprehension

the text you quoted simply says pope Leo was unable to guide the Church in the height of the crisis....

it never said the Pope authorized any sales, the archbishop of mainz was authorized to preach that donations to st peters was indulgenced, and his diocese was allowed to receive a percentage... no sale was authorized by Leo,... he was simply unable to guide the church during the crisis..

still waiting for the bull that authorised the sale of indulgence.

Ubenedictus:
unless you lack understanding and comprehension

the text you quoted simply says pope Leo was unable to guide the Church in the height of the crisis....

it never said the Pope authorized any sales, the archbishop of mainz was authorized to preach that donations to st peters was indulgenced, and his diocese was allowed to receive a percentage... no sale was authorized by Leo,... he was simply unable to guide the church during the crisis..

still waiting for the bull that authorised the sale of indulgence.

The article also said..

He created new offices and dignities, and the most exalted places were put up for sale. Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions, yet without avail, as the treasury was ruined.

Telling someone to bring money, to which you grant him a PLENARY indulgence isnt a sale? (If he had asked for a plenary indulgence, without money, will he have granted it?). My Miriam Dictionary must be wrong then.

The money you earn is used to pay you back. You have your percentage. Yet it isn't a sale.

JMAN05:


The article also said..



Telling someone to bring money, to which you grant him a PLENARY indulgence isnt a sale? (If he had asked for a plenary indulgence, without money, will he have granted it?). My Miriam Dictionary must be wrong then.

The money you earn is used to pay you back. You have your percentage. Yet it isn't a sale.

telling someone to give alms to get an indulgence isn't a sale even when part of the alms indemnify the preacher... people still give alms for spiritual benefit even to the alms preacher... that isn't a sale.

if u are unable to give alms, you can pray or do some other good work, those too are indulgenced.

Ubenedictus:
telling someone to give alms to get an indulgence isn't a sale even when part of the alms indemnify the preacher... people still give alms for spiritual benefit even to the alms preacher... that isn't a sale.

if u are unable to give alms, you can pray or do some other good work, those too are indulgenced.

Let's leave it na.