an heresy that stated that Jesus wasn't God but a being created in a point of time

Yeah

originated somewhere in Egypt iirc

Absolutely

Yeah

Gnostics as well

followers of Arius

Pelagius

And many others spreading false teachings

Which is why we have Eccumenial Councils, to solidify interperations of Scripture

Yes, but in that sense, the council doesn't replace scripture, nor should it discourage personal reading of it.

It never replaced Scripture

I know i know

But it determines the interperation of it

because misinterperations are easy, especially in something like an English translation *especially* if it's KJV

But some people rely too heavily upon what their church or denomination has said to believe about some passages in scripture

I especially think you're correct

I'm not a fan of the KJV

Relying on the Church is completely normal

What's you vs a clergy? Clergy aren't infallible but are most likely more correct than an normal individual

The KJV was politcal through and through

You are correct to a point. You should be able to trust your church elders and deacons and wiser and more mature people in their faiths

But that doesn't mean you shouldnt explore the bible for yourself

The KJV was based on manuscript basis that is no longer as authorative

You should, but preferably ask clergy on interperation or get a Study Bible

And its translation of the words into Bishop as opposed to Overseer

Which is more literal

Yes, absolutely

Which translation do you use btw?

...NKJV. But I swears I only listen to commentary as according to my Study Bible

I still prefer ESV

Yeah

I use the ESV

Awesome translation

But I am still unanswered, how does the Reformed determine infallibility of an interperation of Scripture?

"The general rule of interpreting Scripture is this: the literal sense of every text is to be taken, if it be not contrary to some other texts: but in that case the obscure text is to be interpreted by those which speak more plainly. Wesley, Letters, 3:129; 5:328."

In some ways though, a literal translation is not prefereable, like for instance where poetical or allegorical language is used

But for the most part, most if not the vast majority of passages of scriputre are pretty obviously meant to be taken literally

this is just method, who declares it?

Because I'm a protestant I will be honest, its up to the church and their theolgical statements.

which church?

However, I think we can differ on secondary and tertiary matters

I thought you said you were reformed when I asked if you're protestant

However, when it comes to primary matters, such as the ressurection, the gospel and whatnot those are non-negotiable

I am protestant bro

The reformed camp is from the protestant tradition

>Because I'm a protestant I will be honest, its up to the church and their theolgical statements.
literally moral relativism

Well not exactly man

The Bible stands as the single authorative, infallible inerrant piece of scripture

Interepretion thereof is not divine

It's relativist if interperation cannot be infallible

The Bible as it stands, is the anchor and the foundation, along with the Holy Spirit man

Well, not really

I think that mis characterises quite of lot of Christianity man

I mean have you been granted the gift of infallibility?

No, that's why we have Eccumenial Councils

The early church tooks years to hammer out the doctrines on the trinity and the person of christ

In that sense those councils were helpful

yes, they determine what is heresy or not

But it is authorative because it is derived from what has been said in scripture

yes, and you're saying we let fractured churched determine theological matters

They are not authorative because some bishop was like, 'meh, screw it.. that verse means this'

that's not how the Councils worked

Its authorative because they all were knoweledagble and debated like crazy about the passages

and looked at the scriputres in context and in reference to other parts of scripture

yes, so they deserve to determine what is heretical or not

Protestant churches haven't really decided much on primary matters man. Not much of the very central primary stuff has change, if at all

Protestant churches differ on secondary matters that don't determine whether someone is saved or not

They didn't declare sola fide as infallible truth, because they read the Book of John and declared that faith without works is dead

Yes

Yes, the primary stuff *has* changed

such as how to get to heaven

Along with the books of James man

Faith without works is dead

James 2:14-17

Faith is there, but for me at least and the reformed tradition

It is on God to plant that seed of faith, as god draws those whom he has elected to salvation purely out of his grace and goodness, not because we deserve it and whatnot

But once that faith is there, we should be doing those works anyway, as a showing of the fruth of the spirit at work

Consider the fact that the protestants broke away from the catholics who broke away from the Orthodox by rejecting an Eccumenial Council, it's only logical to determine that the Orthodox are the original branch
Also, it's completely possible to have faith while not doing works

“by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9)

I forgot what's Eph

Ephesians bro

Protestants broke away form the catholic church because they though that papacy was silly and too political and whatnot.. plus indulgences was like the biggest scam ever

They went back to basics

the bare basics which isn't enough

Went back to scripture, instead of just relying on Priests saying that we need to attend mass and participate in the eurcharist to achieve salvation

But Jesus is our High Priest, as you would know, from Hebrews

Basics, as in Sola Scriptura

Actually, let me tell you how 2:8-10 should be interperated

instead of Scripture, plus what the popes had to say plus like gazillion different saints and authors who had stuff to say

Plus your local priest

But you have to remeber, a lot of this had to do with the free spread of information.. due to the printing press. It wasn't just some priest reading form a gold leaf handwritten bible written in Latin, being read and interepreated to a crowd of mostly uneducated peasants (literally)

That in turn sparked with lutther and his theses.. giving the pope the finger

Protestant theologians drove the quest to go back to the original greek and hebrew manuscirpts and have bibles in languages that people could speak and read man

They were sick of the Latin Vulgate and the forbidding of any bible not in latin

''How can one get to the one kingdom to the other (vv1-7)? By the unity of grace, faith and works (v.9). Not that these are equal, for grace is uncreated and infinite, whereas our faith is limited and can grow; good works good works flow out of authentic faith. Works cannot earn us this great treasure-it is a pure gift-but those who recieve this gift do good. We are not saved *by* good works but for good works''

Actually Sola Scriptura is exactly that, clumsy misinterperation

I agree with all of that man

Papal infallibility was the replacement of Eccumenial Councils

You haven't said anything that the protestants disagree with