Not sure I follow.
"So you would agree with our first term of communion from our church:
"An acknowledgment of the Old and New Testament to be the Word of God, and the alone infallible rule of faith and practice."
Where in scritpure do you find communion or interrelation between local churches?
A commentary can be fallible, but a comment can be either fallible or infallible. A commentary is an extended interpretation, a comment may be a verbatim quote or a reasonable likeness taken from scritpure.
"If he claims that Jesus Christ is the son of God, then we can say that statement is without error (inerrant) based upon the infallible word of God."
Yes, because it is so written and "clearly defined" in scripture, no wresting or subjective reasoning.
"Is that a fair statement, so man can be without error or with error, but never infallible as claimed by Rome."
If I read a statement from scripture, then that statement is without error. If I interperate that statement, then I am subject to human error. Rome interperates the scriptures and claim "excathedra" which is heresy.
Although human testimony, would you consider this statement to be true or false?
"The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture."
Although it could be written better to more correctly reflect your own personal style or make it easier to understand, my question is whether this would be something you would hold to be true or something that you would consider to be heretical as to the biblical principles of Christianity.
Certainly it is not infallible, but do you believe it to be a subordinate standard that would be agreeable to the scripture and founded upon the scripture if I can give you the proof texts from Scripture to prove it is true.
If he claims that Jesus Christ is the son of God, then we can say that statement is without error (inerrant) based upon the infallible word of God.
Is that a fair statement, so man can be without error or with error, but never infallible as claimed by Rome.
Do you find man's testimony can be subordinate to God's testimony and be without error if it is "agreeable to the Scripture and founded upon the Scripture"?
So you would agree with our first term of communion from our church:
Thanks for the link on Amyraldianism. It does sound quite plausible and close.
Actually it is quite kosher, but not without flaws.
Any system of theology that is attributed to human authorship is not without flaw.
I would not consider any pastor's writings as being divinely inspired or infallible, but divinely illuminated by the Holy Spirit. If the pastor claims that Jesus was born of a virgin, he is basing it on an infallible text of scripture that makes the claim. He is not basing it on his own authority, but on the authority of the written word of God itself.
Very interesting. You wrote:
"Can one hold to sola scriptora, the Holy Scriptures as the "sole" authority for doctrine, faith and practice, but hold to the other writings of men as suboordinate standards, be truly sola scriptora?"
How do you then view any teachings coming from your Pastor or any other human testimony?
If I say, "God is great", "Jesus Christ is the son of God", "Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, etc.
Would you reject this because it is not exactly worded as in the Scripture, and declare yourself only recognizing "sola scriptura" as truth?
Do you know the difference between infallible and inerrant? Please explain if someone speaking can be infallible or someone speaking can be inerrant, or neither?
For what its worth, I hold to all 5 solas, does that make me in anyway "Calvinistic?"
Can one hold to sola scriptora, the Holy Scriptures as the "sole" authority for doctrine, faith and practice, but hold to the other writings of men as suboordinate standards, be truly sola scriptora?
"So how do you justify calling people that reject the possibility of one forfiting or losing one's salvation, whuch is one point of Arminianism, an Arminian."
Wesley, Finney and Moody were all modern day semi-arminians in certain points, just like many are semi-calvinists, but not "true calvinists" as defined by those who subscribe to the TULIP biblical principles. Just like some are classified as "hyper-calvinists" or "semi-calvinists", there are those who are semi-Arminians.
There is a lot of Amyraldianism in your views and teachings as well regarding predestination. You clearly are not a 100% Arminian; as few are 100% Calvinist.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/amyraldi.htm
What pastor? You say you have a pastor, but if you never go to church -- how can you have a pastor? Or a church either, for that matter.
The church you belong to exists in your mind? And yet you want everybody else to join this imaginary, nonexistant church?
Or you just want everybody to quit their churches and not go at all, like you do?
Your posts are all about the perfect church, the perfect form of worship, but yet you don't even go to church.
So what gives here?
You are now bordering on the line of delibertly seeking to offend me and twisting what I try to make clear about our church and its Pastor.
If you are indeed a Pastor like you claim, I would ask that you please act like one.
I wish not to get into a discussion with you on this topic as I think I can see where you are headed and trashing my Pastor or my Sabbath worship is not going to be profitable to any here.
However, I would like to make it very clear that I have no idea of what is a perfect church, nor have ever described one on this site. I have found this site to be profitable to me in that I have learned a lot of distinctions and human testimony on the various meanings and interpretations of Scripture. This has enormously helped me in my own study of Scripture as I compare these arguments with the Scripture speaking with Scripture.
Further, I do openly testify against those Pastors who are teaching false doctrine and heresy, whether in worship, discipline and government. I try to quote their web sites or words on specific issues, and also (like everyone) try to explain what I believe them to mean in their commentaries using my own language.
This is not always easy with people that speak out of both sides of their mouths.
By the way, how's everything "down the bayou" or were you "up the bayou?"
So in order for someone to be an Arminian, they must slodly hold to all 5 points of Arminianism. If one holds to one, two, three or even four points, then technically they aren't Arminians at all, going by your logic.
So how do you justify calling people that reject the possibility of one forfiting or losing one's salvation, whuch is one point of Arminianism, an Arminian. Isn't that double-speak on your part Walt?
That would exclude ALL reformed Baptist since they reject paedobaptism from being Calvinist. Am I not correct?
Page 1 | Jump to Page : 1 [2] 3 4 5 | last
