[Tj3]

There’s a problem here. If we aren’t to rely on any traditions or any teachings outside of the Bible, then Christ is not King.

So, you say that if we don't add manmade doctrines to God's word, that we deny Jesus? Wow. That is quite a claim. I do agree that I may be denying the jesus made up by whoever added their manmade teachings, but I will be submitting myself to the true Jesus.

[Wondergirl]

First, I disagree with your premise. I know many Christians who are in concert with each other.

I added "sola scriptura" while you were penning your answer. Sola scriptura Christians. Although it's very possible there are not two Christians who agree on everything.

In such cases they have altered the standard from being scripture alone and have put man in a position of judgment over God's word.

Well, it's mankind who reads and interprets/understands it. There is no way to get around that.

[Tj3]

I added "sola scriptura" while you were penning your answer. Sola scriptura Christians. Although it's very possible there are not two Christians who agree on everything.

My response remains.

Well, it's mankind who reads and interprets/understands it. There is no way to get around that.

We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences. Because once you say that (contrary to what scripture itself says), then someone will step forward and say that only they or only their church can interpret scripture rightly. Then it is downhill from there.

[JoeT777]

Tj:

Do answer the question.

Then why do no two ***ADDED sola scriptura*** Christians believe exactly the same thing?

JoeT

[Tj3]

Tj:

Do answer the question.

Joe,

Do read my answer which was already posted.

[Wondergirl]

My response remains.

Do you belong to a church? If you ask ten members in it to list their beliefs re ten topics, I'm betting you will find differences.

We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences.

So which church understands the Bible as it should be understood?

[JoeT777]

My response remains.

Your response?

We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences. Because once you say that (contrary to what scripture itself says), then someone will step forward and say that only they or only their church can interpret scripture rightly. then it is downhill from there.

What you've said here is to ignor interpretation and just believe as TJ tells you to.

That's downhill for sure!

JoeT

[redhed35]

PEOPLE,YE ARE WREAKING MY HEAD!
And yes I'm shouting.

Come as little children.come with the faith and hearts of little children. No amount of argueing will make GOD or anyone answer your questions.

Be still and know I am GOD.

Listen.

Hear.

Know.

[Tj3]

We can get around the "interprets" part. This false belief that we cannot avoid interpretation is a key part of the problem with doctrinal differences. Because once you say that (contrary to what scripture itself says), then someone will step forward and say that only they or only their church can interpret scripture rightly. then it is downhill from there.


What you've said here is to ignor interpretation and just beleive as TJ tells you to.

That's downhill for sure!

Sorry - I missed mentioning when people feel that they must turn on anyone who dares disagree with them. That is not a doctrinal issue but a behavioural issue, but it can become a doctrinal issue because people who decide to make a doctrinal discussion a personal issue typically do so as a way to force people into accepting their (pr their denomination's) private interpretation.

Thanks for giving such an excellent demonstration by your own behaviour.

[Alty]

Sorry - I missed mentioning when people feel that they must turn on anyone who dares disagree with them. That is not a doctrinal issue but a behavioural issue, but it can become a doctrinal issue because people who decide to make a doctrinal discussion a personal issue typically do so as a way to force people into accepting their (pr their denomination's) private interpretation.

Does anyone else notice that Tom just described himself to a Tee? Interesting that he can't see it in himself.

[Tj3]

Does anyone else notice that Tom just described himself to a Tee? Interesting that he can't see it in himself.

Alty,

Have you come to make personal demeaning comments or come to contribute to the discussion?

[Alty]

Alty,

Have you come to make personal demeaning comments or come to contribute to the discussion?

Just pointing out the obvious Tom. Why do you find it demeaning?

The truth does hurt at times, but it will set you free.

As for the discussion, I'm just watching, reading, taking it all in. That is allowed, nes pas?

[Tj3]

Just pointing out the obvious Tom. Why do you find it demeaning?

The truth does hurt at times, but it will set you free.

Because, Alty, I am trying to discuss the topic, and you and a few others on this site take it upon themselves to turn everything into a personal dispute, which results in abuse and subsequently each thread where that happens gets shut down.

Truth is one thing, abuse is something else. You have not given us truth, you have simply continued what you do on every thread where you find me, you come on and start trouble.

As for the discussion, I'm just watching, reading, taking it all in. That is allowed, nes pas?

Watching is allowed. Constructive, respectful discussion is allowed, but as you ought to know, abusive comments are not.

[Alty]

Because, Alty, I am trying to discuss the topic, and you and a few others on this site take it upon themselves to turn everything into a personal dispute, which results in abuse and subsequently each thread where that happens gets shut down.

Tom, don't you find it odd that to you everyone is turning it into a personal dispute, but you are completely innocent? Really, that should be a clue.

As for threads getting shut down. Well Tom, it is my understanding that when you feel threatened you report the thread and then it's shut down. There's nothing I can do about that, it's all on you.

Watching is allowed. Constructive, respectful discussion is allowed, but as you ought to know, abusive comments are not.

So now the truth is abusive? Since when?

Also, constructive respectful discussion, come on Tom, you can't tell someone else to do something you are unwilling to do.

I'm done. I've said my peace. Something tells me you'll come back with more though. In fact, I'd bet on it.

Bye now.

[Tj3]

Tom, don't you find it odd that to you everyone is turning it into a personal dispute, but you are completely innocent? Really, that should be a clue.

No, Alty, not everyone - there are a few people who seem unable to accept disagreement.

As for threads getting shut down. Well Tom, it is my understanding that when you feel threatened you report the thread and then it's shut down. There's nothing I can do about that, it's all on you.

Alty, I only report abuse. If there was no abuse, no mod would shut down the thread. If you are finding that after you post abuse, threads get shut, don't blame it on others.

So now the truth is abusive? Since when?

The truth isn't. False accusations and turning a thread in a personal attack session is abusive. And I have yet to see you contribute anything to the discussion.

I'm done. I've said my peace.

Time will tell.

[Tj3]

Now, hopefully Alty will keep her personal comments at bay so that the discussion can continue.

Do you belong to a church? If you ask ten members in it to list their beliefs re ten topics, I'm betting you will find differences.

Are you referring to people who hold solely to scripture as their standard of truth? Or just picking attendees at random?

If the latter, you will certainly find differences because there is no guarantee that all these people are saved, or that they hold to scripture as their sole standard. I once belonged to a church where one of the deacons denied that there was any need of acknowledging essentials. So in cases like that, we certainly will find differences.

Amongst those in the former category? I can state for a fact that you will find few if any difference amongst the vast majority who hold to the Bible as the sole standard of truth in doctrine. I have spoken to enough Christians to know this to be true.

So which church understands the Bible as it should be understood?

If you are looking for a denomination to be always right, then you are looking to men. I would not recommend a denomination as the standard. I recommend God's word.

Look for a church whose leadership is submitted to God's word as the sole standard of truth in doctrine, and do not force scripture to bend to their beliefs and theological system, but are willing to have their beliefs bent by the words of scripture.

[Alty]

Now, hopefully Alty will keep her personal comments at bay so that the discussion can continue.

And the demeaning personal comments continue on Toms part. You just can't let it go, can you Tom?

You have proven my point.

On that note.

Happy Easter everyone, have a wonderful weekend. :)

[Tj3]

And the demeaning personal comments continue on Toms part. You just can't let it go, can you Tom?

Alty,

You promised to stop. I went back to the discussion - who is that cannot let it drop? You are just continuing to disrupt the thread.

[Alty]

And Happy Easter to you too Tom. :)

[Tj3]

Let's try one more time and see if Alty will let the thread continue without disruption.

Do you belong to a church? If you ask ten members in it to list their beliefs re ten topics, I'm betting you will find differences.

Are you referring to people who hold solely to scripture as their standard of truth? Or just picking attendees at random?

If the latter, you will certainly find differences because there is no guarantee that all these people are saved, or that they hold to scripture as their sole standard. I once belonged to a church where one of the deacons denied that there was any need of acknowledging essentials. So in cases like that, we certainly will find differences.

Amongst those in the former category? I can state for a fact that you will find few if any difference amongst the vast majority who hold to the Bible as the sole standard of truth in doctrine. I have spoken to enough Christians to know this to be true.

So which church understands the Bible as it should be understood?

If you are looking for a denomination to be always right, then you are looking to men. I would not recommend a denomination as the standard. I recommend God's word.

Look for a church whose leadership is submitted to God's word as the sole standard of truth in doctrine, and do not force scripture to bend to their beliefs and theological system, but are willing to have their beliefs bent by the words of scripture.