tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post4604177425761371133..comments2024-03-29T11:42:22.427-04:00Comments on Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Jesus' prayer for unity in John 17James Swanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16136781934797867593noreply@blogger.comBlogger152125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-37187119276620743822009-12-28T21:07:51.760-05:002009-12-28T21:07:51.760-05:00"But if you assert it is not ridiculous, then..."But if you assert it is not ridiculous, then the EO wackos belong to you.<br />Remember, if it was not for you guys stating the various denominations which use SS prove SS is invalid, there would be no need for us to bring up WO EOs."<br /><br />The trouble is, JWs bring up various verses to prove their doctrine, such that they have had no problem sucking in a lot of people, some of them even quite intellectual. And these interpretations can't be entirely blamed on the WTS, since many of them gained traction in the Arian dispute.<br /><br />However, no woman in the history of the church up until the most recent of times has claimed to be ordained a priest in the church, so nobody can claim this is part of the tradition.<br /><br />So how can you equate a scriptural interpretation that many find plausible, with a church that claims tradition, but has zero traditional support for WO? They just don't compare.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42898994504169838292009-12-28T17:40:59.332-05:002009-12-28T17:40:59.332-05:00...and as I stated, my argument is not rhetorical.......and as I stated, my argument is not rhetorical. <br /><br />Now could You please stop ducking the question and enlighten us as to why exactly the method employed by the JWs is not sola scriptura? <br /><br />Thank You.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-33701652968841490482009-12-28T16:45:19.016-05:002009-12-28T16:45:19.016-05:00John,
"How would you define subjective? As f...John,<br /><br />"How would you define subjective? As far as I see it is interpretations you don't agree with. I don't know that we can give you a free pass on JWs because you seem to make the same claims about the interpretations of the Fathers which EO hold to."<br /><br />We don't need a "free pass", because the idea is ridiculous. But if you assert it is not ridiculous, then the EO wackos belong to you.<br />Remember, if it was not for you guys stating the various denominations which use SS prove SS is invalid, there would be no need for us to bring up WO EOs. As I stated to Lvka, it is not a principled argument but a rhetorical one. One used to avoid real issues in favor of a lot of hand waving. I am sure you have a litany of "exceptions" for your own divisions, that is how a sophist works. It would be wise for the AS churches to get a big issues like the trinity or even As itself straight before pointing fingers. You may also simply say your church is "the" church, but anyone can do that. <br /><br />Oh, I suppose you are not Lutheran or RC because *you* don't agree with what they teach. Of course, that is different...Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-42033094327015816972009-12-28T16:23:43.903-05:002009-12-28T16:23:43.903-05:00"I don't have a problem with you dismissi..."I don't have a problem with you dismissing the WO EOdox churches."<br /><br />Ok. Well one wonders if there is any bight left in this Jn 17 claim then.<br /><br />"you don't know what Reformation SS is, and have a cartoon view of it as subjective interpretation of Scripture"<br /><br />How would you define subjective? As far as I see it is interpretations you don't agree with. I don't know that we can give you a free pass on JWs because you seem to make the same claims about the interpretations of the Fathers which EO hold to.<br /><br />"Basically, there are levels of authority in which Scripture is supreme."<br /><br />We could go along with that, except that we say something similar and you don't agree with us. So it seems like your subjective interpretations in real life trump any other level when it suits you.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-9778012421469817092009-12-28T12:37:32.035-05:002009-12-28T12:37:32.035-05:00Ed,
I've asked You repeatedly to take the ti...Ed, <br /><br />I've asked You repeatedly to take the time to explain to me where I go wrong with believing that Protestant faiths like the JWs, Oneness Pentecostals & Unitarians employ Sola Scriptura as their hermeneutical tool.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-76244834071710948892009-12-28T09:52:56.049-05:002009-12-28T09:52:56.049-05:00Lvka,
"The point of my former comment, in ca...Lvka,<br /><br />"The point of my former comment, in case You haven't noticed, wasn't to show the divisiveness of Protestantism, but rather the inconsistency in Your understanding of what sola scriptura means."<br /><br />I don't think you know what protestantism means, nor do you know what SS means. You have, like John, a cartoon version of both which happily for you fits into your pre-conceived notions and polemical purposes. <br /><br />I have repeatedly shown that no one is in fellowship with JWs, and you yourself admitted they don't use SS, as your own words show. It is not my fault you tripped on your words. Perhaps in the future you should look to understand your opponent instead of going for the cheap rhetorical victory.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-82009297749295796822009-12-28T09:48:42.648-05:002009-12-28T09:48:42.648-05:00John,
I don't have a problem with you dismiss...John,<br /><br />I don't have a problem with you dismissing the WO EOdox churches. What I object to is the attempt to force e.g. JWs into the protestant camp, where they do not belong. I think this is because you don't know what Reformation SS is, and have a cartoon view of it as subjective interpretation of Scripture. Basically, there are levels of authority in which Scripture is supreme. Thus it is OK to quote councils, ECFs, theologians etc. as authorities, but they don't have the same kind of authority as Scripture. The closest analogy I can think of for EOdox is that some ECFs say things which are not Orthodox, but it does not mean that said fathers have no authority. Also, the decrees of councils have more authority than the canons of the councils, because the decrees are still followed but not all the canons are. For instance, if an EOdox has a Jewish doctor, he would violate the canon of one of the councils. But this does not mean the canons have no authority at all. As to the councils themselves, they do not establish dogma, but teach what was always taught. IOW they do not have the same kind of authority as the _kerugma_ itself.<br /><br />So, this means it is consistent for a prot who follows Reformation SS to exclude JWs, no matter how many times Lvka trues to tack them on. And the reason they don't fit is the same reason WO EOdox don't fit, they violate the Rule of Faith. (BTW, Arianism violates more than SS, but the very teaching of how who Christ is because of what he did--a creature could not do such a thing.)Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66385719422936725642009-12-28T09:37:22.930-05:002009-12-28T09:37:22.930-05:00Alex,
There is a distinction in Lutheran theology...Alex,<br /><br />There is a distinction in Lutheran theology between churches which teach the pure Gospel, and churches which teach the Gospel but add or subtract from it. Under God's grace even those churches which add or subtract from the gospel still contain Christians. The key i snot a proper ecclesiology but whether or not the doctrine handed down by the Apostles is there. So, for instance, the RCC is still church because she still have Baptism and Holy Communion, and preaches the gospel of forgiveness of sins and new life in Jesus Christ, though she does so unclearly.<br /><br />So, we would agree with you that those who add or subtract from the gospel are heterodox, hereitcs etc. But we do not say that because an ecclesial organization teaches error it ceases to be church. The RCC and EOC do so based on their respective, and contradictory, ecclesiologies.<br /><br />So where is the visible unity? It is in the preaching of the Gospel.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67908307676088140292009-12-28T08:35:04.373-05:002009-12-28T08:35:04.373-05:00What divisions? I've yet to hear any divisions...<i>What divisions? I've yet to hear any divisions stated.</i><br /><br />You <b>just quoted</b> one - new Calendar vs old Calendar. Sheesh. What does it take, a sledgehammer? <br /><br />Besides, this debate is not about whether there are divisions within your own church. That is beyond question. The real point here is Sola Scriptura vs Scripture + Tradition - does either produce INSTITUTIONAL unity. Clearly the answer is also no. THAT is the big picture. Think, people.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-78509729719076065922009-12-28T02:14:55.523-05:002009-12-28T02:14:55.523-05:00" Lots of things are POSSIBLE, but they are s..." Lots of things are POSSIBLE, but they are so unlikely that for practical purposes they are impossible. Arianism is one example, as is justifying womens' ordination. "<br /><br />Which way do want to run on this? On the one hand you want to be able to just dismiss Arianism and women's ordination as contrary to sola scriptura (despite various scriptural arguments that have been put forward over the years).<br /><br />On the other hand, when we as EO wanted to dismiss papism as clearly outside the tradition, (which you actually agree on), and thus not required for us to defend, you still insist on lumping us with them as "AS", and needing to defend them.<br /><br />So which way do you want to run on this? Are you willing to let us rule out churches with teachings that we both agree are outside the tradition, or do you want to be left holding the bag with sola scriptura Arianism and women's ordination? It's high time you said something in this exchange that was actually internally consistent.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-66136216658768525012009-12-28T01:25:07.027-05:002009-12-28T01:25:07.027-05:00"Also, are the Old Calanderists right or the ..."Also, are the Old Calanderists right or the New Calendarists?<br /><br />More unity."<br /><br />?????<br /><br />Canonical old and new calendar churches are in unity. What sort of silliness is this now? We didn't say that to be in unity you have to have no differences. Nobody made that claim.<br /><br />"you have not addressed the divisions within your own communion "<br /><br />What divisions? I've yet to hear any divisions stated.<br /><br />"as well as within the AS churches in general"<br /><br />We don't need to address that, because AS is not our rule of faith, any more being a scripturaist means you need to defend Muslims.<br /><br />"An analogy for the EOC is the patristic revival vs. the trads. Or how about ecumenists vs. non-ecumenists?"<br /><br />These are not even issues out in the field. But let's say for the sake of argument they are issues. That doesn't mean we don't have unity.<br /><br />Now if you're willing to have your children baptised when you visit a baptist church, or vice versa if you are a baptist visiting a presbyterian church, renounce your baptism, then we might have something to discuss. Otherwise it has no comparison to various opinions that may exist among people. We have our dogma and our areas in the realm of opinion, and for you to confuse the two doesn't help your case.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-88774410788411586512009-12-28T01:10:28.067-05:002009-12-28T01:10:28.067-05:00" The rule of faith is the Gospel proclamatio..." The rule of faith is the Gospel proclamation, which we find in the Scriptures by the prophets and Apsotles."<br /><br />I don't see a distinction between "the scriptures" and "the gospel as found in the scriptures by the apostles". That's trying to create a distinction where there is none. But there is a distinction between the succession and the tradition and the EO rule of faith. They are three separate and distinct categories.<br /><br />"ou really need to bone up on Reformation Christianity, as your lack of knowledge is pretty stunning."<br /><br />What am I supposed to lack knowledge on? That Reformed Christians consider the gospel as found in the bible to be their rule of faith? Please. Throwing out ad-hominem, especially on such a gratuitous basis does not help your case.<br /><br />"Unless you are willing to say only EOs are Christians, then this simply falls apart"<br /><br />The classification of John 17 isn't "Christians". The bible only knows about the disciples in the Church, which you are not. What you are, I cannot say, but you are not in the biblical categories and not in the category of those who are "one".<br /><br />"the Lutheran teaching on this, we believe that wherever people are gathered around Christ and his word, we find the Church."<br /><br />It must be more nuanced than that, since that includes Bahai, JWs and Mormons.<br /><br />"As Jesus himself said "wherever to or three are gathered in my name..." So you would also have to assert that non Orthodox cannot gather in Jesus' name. "<br /><br />Well, the question is whether you are willing to go reductionist here and include Bahai, JWs and Mormons. What say you? If you want to, go ahead.<br /><br />"Oh yeah, unless just believe your assertion your church as *the* Church your church fails the unity test, too"<br /><br />Ahh, but I and we do believe it, which is the point.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02977287092917957220noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-8583041147908599632009-12-28T00:03:23.712-05:002009-12-28T00:03:23.712-05:00Ed,
you agreed that at least trinitarian Protest...<i>Ed, <br /><br />you agreed that at least trinitarian Protestants use Sola Scriptura... and yet their beliefs vary with regard to (for instance) baptismal regeneration, real presence, the office of a bishop, and predestination. Obviously, Scripture can't teach all of them, can it? So, according to You then, not even trinitarian Protestants use Sola Scriptura. And yet You agreed that they do. </i><br /><br />I’ve decided to sit on the sidelines and watch how Rhology and especially Edward fail time and again to grasp the big picture. This is exactly what Edward, Rhology et al conveniently overlook. They claim that each believer who holds to the radically contradicting confessions/doctrines/creeds from each of these denominations are all part of the true church. Setting aside EO’s position on this, speaking as a Catholic, at least my Church states that if you do not believe in the <i>de fide</i> teachings of the Church, the unity of faith, you are a heretic, and if you separate yourself from the unity of communion, you are in schism. We are called to one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism (Our Lord and Scripture continuously make reference to this 1 Cor. 1:10). Unity of Faith and Unity of Communion is what the Catholic Church (and Scripture) teaches. The Protestants following their <i>sola scriptura</i> theological fantasy, and knowing the incompatibility of their functionally-at-odds rule of faith due to their unwillingness to profess Scripture’s clear teaching of unity by instead teaching doctrinal minimalism in mere agreement in the basic truths of faith only (whatever their fallible certainty tells them that this is, these fundamental articles of faith change from person to person, or denomination to denomination as the “spirit” leads them), all find its end in truly reducing the Body of Christ (the Church) to doctrinal epilepsy. If we held to the outrageous claims of Edward and the rest of the Protestants, the Body of Christ cannot possibly function. The Protestants collectively do not have one Faith as Irenaeus claimed that the Church throughout the world would proclaim (Adv. Haer. V 20, 1). It is incumbent upon Edward to enlighten us on how the framework of varying confessions/doctrines/creeds can exist side by side in the Body of Christ, or he must label those who disagree with him doctrinally as heretics. Apostolic succession is one of the proofs or marks of the true Church. If you cannot show apostolic succession (for instance, Protestants cannot show apostolic succession), then we can dismiss your claims immediately.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08353069946995823072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-67531694793809920972009-12-28T00:01:04.736-05:002009-12-28T00:01:04.736-05:00I didn't contradict myself, Ed. But You did. (...I didn't contradict myself, Ed. But You did. (The point of my former comment, in case You haven't noticed, wasn't to show the divisiveness of Protestantism, but rather the inconsistency in Your understanding of what sola scriptura means). <br /><br /><br />And since there haven't been any women ordained to the priesthood in Christian history, there can be no talk of women-ordination within the realm of tradition.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-28807002766643688772009-12-27T23:45:29.106-05:002009-12-27T23:45:29.106-05:00Lvka,
Two reversible arguments in one post!
&quo...Lvka,<br /><br />Two reversible arguments in one post!<br /><br />"You agreed that at least trinitarian Protestants use Sola Scriptura... and yet their beliefs vary with regard to (for instance) baptismal regeneration, real presence, the office of a bishop, and predestination."<br /><br />AS churches disagree on --AS!!!, the persons of the Trinity and their relation to each other, whether or not grace is created or uncreated, whether or not Mary was born sinless, whether or not God sends people to eternal punishment, whether or not there is one source or two sources for Tradition, whether or not Augustine's theology is good or not, whether or not RC baptisms are valid etc. etc. When you guys over in AS land straighten out your trinitarian theology as well as the other really major differences, maybe I'll listen to you about all that prot division. Until then, no.<br /><br />Again, it is quite obvious this is not a principled argument by you, but a rhetorical one. Or else you would have to proclaim your own "algorithm" invalid. <br /><br />"It's not about "beyond a reasonable doubt", Ed: if someone (anyone!) can show that it is POSSIBLE to read the Scriptures in a certain way (or that the Bible CAN be interrpeted in a certain fashion), then his teaching passes the test of Sola Scriptura: "<br /><br />If someone can show it is POSSIIBLE to ordain woomen from Tradition it passes the Tradition test. POSSIBLE is a weasel word, as you can just assert that this or that is POSSIBLE, just like I can. Lots of things are POSSIBLE, but they are so unlikely that for practical purposes they are impossible. Arianism is one example, as is justifying womens' ordination. The problem is you want an exception for yourself, and I am not willing to give you one.<br /><br />But I have already shown how reversible your arguments are. You also keep moving the goal posts.<br /><br />As Rhology said, yo ukeep proving the point, but you don't seem to realize it.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-47211849880777120842009-12-27T22:58:19.890-05:002009-12-27T22:58:19.890-05:00It's not sloppy to say that Calvinist Baptists...It's not sloppy to say that Calvinist Baptists are Calvinists. <br /><br />Plus, you STILL aren't dealing with the main question, nor are you dealing with the fact that you've already conceded my argument. Maybe you should work on a better set of arguments rather than belaboring this point over and over.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-3709442990876246092009-12-27T22:55:27.822-05:002009-12-27T22:55:27.822-05:00For your point to be true you would have to say th...<i>For your point to be true you would have to say that the Scriptures teach Arianism. If they don't it is obvious the JWs don't use SS. Ut us really as simple as that.</i><br /><br /><br />Ed, <br /><br />you agreed that at least trinitarian Protestants use Sola Scriptura... and yet their beliefs vary with regard to (for instance) baptismal regeneration, real presence, the office of a bishop, and predestination. Obviously, Scripture can't teach all of them, can it? So, according to You then, not even trinitarian Protestants use Sola Scriptura. And yet You agreed that they do. <br /><br /><br /><i>Show me where their doctrine is in Scripture beyond a reasonable doubt and I will believe you. </i><br /><br />It's not about "beyond a reasonable doubt", Ed: if someone (anyone!) can show that it is POSSIBLE to read the Scriptures in a certain way (or that the Bible CAN be interrpeted in a certain fashion), then his teaching passes the test of Sola Scriptura: that's ALL that's needed! -- The fact that someone else may propose an alternative sola-scriptura-view does NOT invalidate the former one as being also sola-scriptura, as long as both can make their cases `fly` within the possible meaning-range of the naked/bare text.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-58786425540858181692009-12-27T22:30:35.060-05:002009-12-27T22:30:35.060-05:00Lvka,
"No, Ed, the Witnesses do not use phil...Lvka,<br /><br />"No, Ed, the Witnesses do not use philosophy: they simply use sola scriptura."<br /><br />Show me where their doctrine is in Scripture beyond a reasonable doubt and I will believe you. For your point to be true you would have to say that the Scriptures teach Arianism. If they don't it is obvious the JWs don't use SS. Ut us really as simple as that.<br /><br />Oh, Irenaeus knocks your case down, too.<br /><br />And you still haven't dealt with the divisions in your own communion, which undermine your whole argument. You want to exclude the church which ordains women because it does not follow tradition. Well, how do we know that? This way of arguing by you makes you look completely arbitrary.Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-31612646236356324992009-12-27T21:56:30.792-05:002009-12-27T21:56:30.792-05:00Ed,
it's not about "claiming" to u...Ed, <br /><br />it's not about "claiming" to use an algorithm: the algorithm is known, and anyone can see whether someone uses it or not, based on its contents or definition: and the JWs *DO* use Sola Scriptura: I wouldn't waste your time if I thought they were merely pretending to: I've seen them in action, and that's indeed the method they systematically employ.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-60927740159411540882009-12-27T21:49:20.409-05:002009-12-27T21:49:20.409-05:00No, Ed, the Witnesses do not use philosophy: they ...No, Ed, the Witnesses do not use philosophy: they simply use sola scriptura. <br /><br />And the Arians did not use sola scriptura, they used Greek philosophy. <br /><br />We also believe that everything necessary for salvation is found in the Scriptures, but only when these are understood in the light of holy tradition. <br /><br /><br />------------------------------<br />Rho, <br /><br />Reformed Baptists are Reformed Baptists, and Reformed/Calvinists are Reformed/Calvinists: I'm not saying that You don't have points of convergence, I'm just amazed at Your sloppy use of terms.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-16495436874873948022009-12-27T21:32:19.224-05:002009-12-27T21:32:19.224-05:00Ah now Lvka wants to educate me on whether Reforme...Ah now Lvka wants to educate me on whether Reformed Baptists are Calvinists or not. Nice evasion of the question. You know, you already conceded my point; I'm not sure what you're still doing here.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-6132145583160554352009-12-27T21:30:50.246-05:002009-12-27T21:30:50.246-05:00Lvka,
"Arianism and the JWs --though reachin...Lvka,<br /><br />"Arianism and the JWs --though reaching the SAME conclusion-- DO NOT have the SAME foundations for their beliefs. "<br /><br />None the less, you contradicted your original point. If the JEs base their teachings on philosophy and Scripture, they do not follow SS.<br /><br />Arianism, in what ever form, is a philosophy with some christian overtones. It is an attempt to rationalize the revelation. It says what God can and cannot be according to human understanding. If you want to argue the Scriptures teach Arianism, you are welcome to do so, but I don't want to get into that here as yo useem to bring up arguments willy nilly and stick to them long after they are shown to be rathe ruseless.<br /><br />"What BOTH Greek philosophy AND sola-scriptura have in common is that they're NOT part of Tradition."<br /><br />You need to read St. Irenaeus more closely. He said the Tradition was written down by the Apostles. Also, SS does not say that all that is true is in the Scriptures, but all that is necessary for salvation is in the Scriptures.<br /><br />"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (Against Heresies, 3:1.1, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, p. 414.)<br /><br />Perhaps you have a ready answer, but the point is that your glib claim is not to be taken at face value. <br /><br />"You also haven't told me what part of tradition is used by those who ordain women as an excuse for what they do."<br /><br />After you show me where Arianism is taught in the Scriptures. If yo uwant to use "Sola Scriptura" as refering to anyone who claims to use the principle, the same goes for AS.<br /><br />Pretty soon you will have to use *real* arguments, Lvka. :-)Edward Reisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07099195433395115204noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-64387310268615421872009-12-27T20:46:17.656-05:002009-12-27T20:46:17.656-05:00You also haven't told me what part of traditio...You also haven't told me what part of tradition is used by those who ordain women as an excuse for what they do.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-83761508971525671162009-12-27T20:35:56.924-05:002009-12-27T20:35:56.924-05:00What BOTH Greek philosophy AND sola-scriptura have...What BOTH Greek philosophy AND sola-scriptura have in common is that they're NOT part of Tradition.<br /><br />Traditional Churches haven't yet succumbed into non-trinitarianism; but non-traditional churches have. <br /><br />Still not clear enough?The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19795707.post-18126334688967507962009-12-27T20:29:49.738-05:002009-12-27T20:29:49.738-05:00Ed,
it seems like we have a problem of communica...Ed, <br /><br />it seems like we have a problem of communication here: <br /><br />Arianism and the JWs --though reaching the SAME conclusion-- DO NOT have the SAME foundations for their beliefs. <br /><br />Likewise, [but in an *inverted* manner], JWs and trinitarian Protestants, --though having the SAME hermeneutical system-- DO NOT reach the SAME conclusions. <br /><br />Clearer now?The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.com