/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

It's a problem of protestantism being a false doctrine forged by the devil

>>560397

>Is it a problem of legalism

>Miaphysite

>>560416

Also the primitive baptists did actually believe in predestination.

>>560397

most Calvinists don't use the kjv tho…

>>560425

>study sacred tradition

The key concept in >>560397 argument was the use of Sola Scriptura, as having scripture be clear to the reader. Sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine, and then arriving at different conclusions.

The same argument used against tradition doesn't work.

>>560425

What was a political schism with over exaggerated theological/liturgical differences

>>560397

Couple things here. First off, most Calvinists use something like the ESV.

And, without the Holy Spirit it's a lost cause as well. Only by the Spirit can it be known. As 1 Thess. 2:13 says, the word of God works effectually in all those that believe.

Also, nobody is infallible, we don't believe in Popes. Each of us needs the word of God and the Holy Spirit to gain understanding, there is no cheap substitute for these.

>>560397

>christotokos

>miaphysite / dyophysite

>filioque

>papal supremacy

>unleavened vs leavened bread

>water in wine

>purgatory

>papal infallibility

>sedevacantism

>genuine/true orthodox

>old roman catholics

>old believers

Apostolics are not so much better off especially when they are schism'd while protestants are still united (invisible church) despite their differences.

>>560404

Hey we just inked an agreed statement with the copts, they ok just using different words for same ideas

every prot is his own pope

>>560402

this tbqh

>>560425

>>560478

>No arguments whatsoever

Now that's just weak. It's like the foundation of your faith is completely subjective.

>>560528

Tu quoque is a type of argument, but it has its limitations. Mainly the fact that it doesn't directly address the question (my post does though), instead it raises the question of why the OP did not first think to ask himself whether his own church was subject to the very same problems that he projects onto others.

It's a problem of "interpret things your own way :) " mentality. The Bible has no guide on how to interpret it, so when you have sola scriptura you can pretend certain things mean something completely different and change the basic theology of it completely. Notice also that Mormons and Jehovah's Witness use the Bible. This is why there must be some authority to interpret it.

>>560425

>totally contradicting conclusions

except this is false, as catholic and orthodox teaching are more or less identical to each other, especially in serious matters, not so much in minor cultural matters.

>>560545

Do you doubt the gift of discernment? I don't understand what you mean by that screencap

>>560397

>What method do Calvinists and Baptists use to read the kjv bible, sola scriptura, yet they arrive at totally contradicting conclusions to each other?

Because most people pick and choose what parts of the bible they will and will not believe

>>560562

>I don't understand what you mean by that screencap

guess you don't have the gift of discernment

>>560568

1 Cor 12:4-11

You posted the image without context, and asking about it is not a matter of discerning spirits as it is about charitable discussion

How do you discern another's gift of discernment without discerning your own gift first? If you can say I do not have the gift, another can say your discernment of me is wrong too.

1 Cor 2:10

>just let the hippie pope and the institution that established indulgences tell you what to think, brah

>BRB, gonna go pray to Mary the co-redemptrix

Also:

>protestants are one group

>protestants are all kjv-onliests

Lol

>>560530

The point is that you are making Sola Scriptura as a doctrine look like a fraudulent doctrine by not being able to answer his question. It makes me mad.

>>560576

>implying saying Calvinists and Baptists means he was referring to all protestants and not just Calvinists and Baptists

>there are more disagreements within protestant sects than just the differences between Calvinists and Baptists

You're not helping your case here.

>>560624

>still implying that protestants are one group

The difference between Calvanist and Baptists is about the same as Catholics and Orthodox, or Catholics and Lutherans. "Protestant" isn't a church, you ignoramus, it's a categorization of different church institutions.

>>560539

>The Bible has no guide on how to interpret it

Wrong again. You denied the Holy Spirit.

John 16:13

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

>>560620

Before you get mad try reading my first post. >>560470

>>560708

Jesus is all truth. The bible is just documents that tell us about him, the bible is not all truth or dictated by god. It is profitable for teaching.

>>560761

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. 2 Timothy 3:16-17

We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Peter 1:19-21

>>560708

>for he shall not speak of himself

I seriously wish he would, though. The idea that the Holy Spirit is a impersonal force seems false to me, but I understand why people think its true.

>>560765

When it says he shall not speak of himself, it doesn't mean he shall not speak about the subject of Himself (after all, the Holy Spirit himself is in Scripture), when it says "not of himself" it means he is telling of what the Word already says rather than some new thing.

John 14:26

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

>>560764

> 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Yes, like was said " It is profitable for teaching."

>but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

yes they were moved by it, and they interpreted visions and feelings as best they could, in their humanly manner….they were not compelled to transcript, perfect dictations of perfect truth linguistically. God does not limit his "truth" to the mere grunts and burps of human language.

>>560782

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Romans 10:17

But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. 1 Peter 1:25

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17

I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2

And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God. Luke 4:4

It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. John 6:63

>>560788

None of those say the bible is the word. But that truth and good news (gospel) and all manner of good comes by the Word of God, which is not the bible.

The word of god was with God and was god and became flesh (not papyri) and dwelt among us.