Ken Temple

So, Why did Allah substitute an innocent animal in the place of Abraham's son? apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2016/10/21/so-… via @wordpressdotcom

@whpub Athanasius-Discorse 2 Against the Arians, section 7, "...the Word, as Aaron his robe, so did He take earthly flesh, having Mary for the Mother of His Body as if virgin earth, that, as a High Priest, having as others an offering, He might offer Himself to the Father...

Mary was the mother of His body. (According to St. Athanasius of Alexandria)

@swamthetiber25 This part is true: "In perfect love and obedience He willingly took the cross. He willingly took the consequence on sin- death- and defeated it. He made atonement for our sins through a superabundant act of love, obedience, and self-offering." Not the rest of your statement

He was not ‘punished’ by the Father in our place as though bearing transferred guilt or divine wrath. In perfect love and obedience He willingly took the cross. He willingly took the consequence on sin- death- and defeated it. He made atonement for our sins through a superabundant act of love, obedience, and self-offering. All the while the Father looked down in love and pride, not hate and wrath.

@swamthetiber25 But the Lord was pleased To crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a guilt offering, He will see His offspring, He will prolong His days, And the good pleasure of the Lord will prosper in His hand. Isaiah 53:10

@swamthetiber25 "The LORD was pleased to crush Him, if He would render Himself a guilt offering" Isaiah 53:10 Jesus the Son Voluntarily took the justice/wrath for us. John 10:18 Galatians 3:10-13

@LeoHaydock @MPloughboy @CapturingChrist Ignatius' view is a congregational overseer/bishop, not area /diocese over many churches; & definitely no hint of a Papacy- Cyprian & 86 bishops in 257 AD -"no one has the right to call himself bishop of bishops"

@LeoHaydock @MPloughboy @CapturingChrist Clement also (96AD) used presbyters & bishops interchangeably-1 Clement 42-44, which reflects earlier clear teaching in Scripture-Titus 1:5-7; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 20:17, 28; Philippians 1:1; 1 Tim. 3. They all earlier than Ignatius. (Congregational overseer, like a senior pastor)

"Without [bishops, deacons, and presbyters], no group can be called a church." -St. Ignatius, Letter to the Trallians, circa 107AD

@BreeSolstad @nerdadampunx the early "catholic" (universal) church of 0-500 AD is not the same entity as the Roman Catholic Church. Adding dogmas of 787 (veneration of icons), 1215, 1302(Unam Sanctum), 1545-1563 (Council of Trent), 1854, 1870, 1950 made it a false church.

@nerdadampunx Why do you celebrate it on the day the Church you deny sets it?

Does anyone know why reformed, calvinists, evangelicals, etc. all celebrate Easter? The date of Easter is set by the Catholic Church. Why would they follow a Church they call pagan, the harlot, the seat of the anti-Christ, and the synagogue of satan? This really perplexes me.

@BreeSolstad Because we aren’t against all tradition. The tradition of celebrating Easter is a good one and part of our heritage, too.

@BreeSolstad It’s part of our history too. We don’t think tradition that aligns with scripture is bad. Jesus died and rose, the Bible says so. Mary wasn’t assumed or sinless, the Bible doesn’t say so. It’s not rocket science, Bree

This question demonstrates a misunderstanding of sola Scriptura. No Reformer or Reformed theologian argued that Christians may only believe or practice what is explicitly stated in Scripture. Rather, sola Scriptura teaches that Scripture is the only infallible authority: not the only authority. The church may establish traditions, practices, and calendars (like Good Friday), so long as they are consistent with and derived from Scripture, not imposed as binding doctrine apart from it. So yes, Protestants observe Good Friday and the same date as the entirety of the Western church. Not because Scripture specifies this date, but because Scripture clearly teaches the event: Christ’s atoning death. The church, in wisdom, sets aside a day to remember what Scripture reveals. That is categorically different from doctrines that must be believed for salvation yet lack clear grounding in Scripture. So, the issue is not tradition vs. no tradition. The issue is which traditions are faithful to Scripture, and which claim authority equal to it. That is the dividing line the Reformers drew, and it remains the dividing line between Roman Catholics and Protestants today.

@BreeSolstad "pagan, the harlot, the seat of the anti-Christ, & the synagogue of satan" not all modern Protestants hold to those names for the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church became apostate at Trent (1545-1563), not before. the church existed in all generations-Eph. 3:21

@BreeSolstad Because we celebrate the meaning of the crucifixion/death/atonement of Christ, and the powerful resurrection of Christ from the dead. Protestants agree with early church history, the 3 ancient creeds, Trinity, NT canon. (0-500 AD= catholic=Universal)