OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Topic started by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 01:54:28 AM

Title: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 01:54:28 AM
 28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?



Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: SolEX01 on November 01, 2010, 02:06:38 AM
The Children of Israel didn't eat swine because swine was unclean.

The demon possessed swine ran into water and perished  ... just like the Egyptians chasing the children of Israel and just as the unclean are baptized and become clean

Christ reminded the Children of Israel that He fulfilled the Law that Moses gave them and the Children of Israel refused to listen.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: LBK on November 01, 2010, 02:12:05 AM
So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 01, 2010, 02:13:53 AM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?




Sorry, you don't get to set the rules here.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 02:20:52 AM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?




Sorry, you don't get to set the rules here.

I'm not setting rules at all, its called apologetic...I can prove sola scriptura superior to any other methodology for truth.

An analogy:

41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them,
 42 Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David.
 43 He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying,
 44 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?
 45 If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?
 46 And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.
 (Mat 22:41-46 KJV)

That proved Christ's divine insight, He knew the answers to such mysteries, the Pharisees, with their traditions, did not:

It is even so written, those who follow the traditions of men, cannot understand scripture:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)


The swine drowning in the sea is a parable, if you know the mystery of God, you can interpret it. If your traditions reveal God's mysteries, then it should present no problem for you:

 11 And He said to them, "To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, (Mar 4:11 NKJ)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: LBK on November 01, 2010, 02:27:52 AM
So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 02:29:40 AM
The Children of Israel didn't eat swine because swine was unclean.

The demon possessed swine ran into water and perished  ... just like the Egyptians chasing the children of Israel and just as the unclean are baptized and become clean

Christ reminded the Children of Israel that He fulfilled the Law that Moses gave them and the Children of Israel refused to listen.


But they weren't chasing Christ and His disciples, they were in fear:

 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)

AND running into the water would cause the swine to die, but not them.

So why did this happen. Jesus didn't command it, and it would appear the demons wanted to possess the swine:

 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine." (Mat 8:31 NKJ)

Why would they hurl themselves into the water and lose their new "homes?"

This is a mystery indeed.

Surely your tradition can explain it.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 01, 2010, 02:32:00 AM
Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game. ::)

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it. ::)

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 02:32:41 AM
So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: SolEX01 on November 01, 2010, 02:35:14 AM
The Children of Israel didn't eat swine because swine was unclean.

The demon possessed swine ran into water and perished  ... just like the Egyptians chasing the children of Israel and just as the unclean are baptized and become clean

Christ reminded the Children of Israel that He fulfilled the Law that Moses gave them and the Children of Israel refused to listen.


But they weren't chasing Christ and His disciples, they were in fear:

 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)

AND running into the water would cause the swine to die, but not them.

So why did this happen. Jesus didn't command it, and it would appear the demons wanted to possess a living body:

 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine." (Mat 8:31 NKJ)

Why would they hurl themselves into the water and lose their new "homes?"

This is a mystery indeed.

Surely your tradition can explain it.


Should I give you a Tradition based, non "Bible Inerrancy" Answer?  Last paragraph from this site (http://www.stgeorgeserbian.us/bepa/no-597.htm), quoted below:

Quote
The life in Christ entails a complete commitment at Holy Baptism and at every moment of time thereafter. Being a Christian is not for the weak of faith. Being a Christian involves every fiber of the person's being...every thought...every action...every decision...every portion of food. Every decision is a decision pleasing to God or an alienation from God. The time of life is to be used with courageous faith directed toward the Kingdom of God.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 02:38:14 AM
Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game. ::)

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it. ::)

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

Incorrect. BUT any correct interpretation will actually explain this, and not change the subject.

It is a fair test, this is a parable, and if one's methodology results in the Bible being a sealed book, then clearly that methodology is wrong.

Scripture says those who follow traditions of men will not be able to understand the Word of God, the book will be sealed to them:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)

AND finally, in answer to your doubts, I'm not the only one reading the replies. If a poster's reply satisfies you all its correct, there is little chance my objection will carry the day.

BUT when I explain the parable, you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request


Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.





Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: SolEX01 on November 01, 2010, 02:38:35 AM
So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.

IMHO, your tone is becoming taunting.  Kindly reconsider your position.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 01, 2010, 02:49:02 AM
I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.  ::) 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 03:04:56 AM
So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.

IMHO, your tone is becoming taunting.  Kindly reconsider your position.

No taunt in that at all.

Therefore your reply appears strategic---debate strategy, claim offense where none exists, to evade,  to obfuscate, to misdirect.


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 03:06:16 AM
I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.  ::) 

If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Dart on November 01, 2010, 03:07:48 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itslef accepting Tradition.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 03:23:46 AM
Scripture says those who follow traditions of men will not be able to understand the Word of God, the book will be sealed to them:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)


BUT when I explain the parable, you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.

I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Dart on November 01, 2010, 03:28:41 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Quinault on November 01, 2010, 03:33:45 AM
I am fairly sure you are reaching Alfred. You seem like such a caricature, you must be a pseudonym for the Devils Advocate of an Orthodox poster on here.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Quinault on November 01, 2010, 03:39:44 AM
I was part of a Protestant Christian message board called "Midrash" at one point (I was also on "Babble-on" and "Babble-rash"). One of the pastors at Mars Hill had a bone to pick with certain issues (specifically masculinity) so he came up with a "character" called "William Wallace II." We ferreted out his real identity fairly fast. Alfred, I imagine your real connection will become apparent soon.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Dart on November 01, 2010, 03:42:46 AM
I was part of a Protestant Christian message board called "Midrash" at one point (I was also on "Babble-on" and "Babble-rash"). One of the pastors at Mars Hill had a bone to pick with certain issues (specifically masculinity) so he came up with a "character" called "William Wallace II." We ferreted out his real identity fairly fast. I imagine your real connection will become apparent soon.

This is my only identity.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Quinault on November 01, 2010, 03:45:05 AM
I was part of a Protestant Christian message board called "Midrash" at one point (I was also on "Babble-on" and "Babble-rash"). One of the pastors at Mars Hill had a bone to pick with certain issues (specifically masculinity) so he came up with a "character" called "William Wallace II." We ferreted out his real identity fairly fast. I imagine your real connection will become apparent soon.

This is my only identity.
Trying to eliminate yourself from contention for having a Devils Advocate? :D Or did you think I was directing that comment at you. I should have prefaced that it was meant for Alfred, sorry for any confusion.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 03:56:20 AM
Trying to eliminate yourself from contention for having a Devils Advocate? :D Or did you think I was directing that comment at you. I should have prefaced that it was meant for Alfred, sorry for any confusion.

I find the Bible infinitely more perspicacious than your writing. I don't believe sound methods of interpretation will actually work with your writing.

Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what the heck you are saying...I'm already convinced it won't be worth my time, so prove me wrong.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Quinault on November 01, 2010, 04:07:00 AM
If the Bible is more interesting, then go read it. I don't claim to write anything even close to the quality of scripture. But I will clarify; you are obviously a caricature. At some point who you are will be clear. Either you are an Orthodox poster playing Devils Advocate, or you are a poster that "left" the board after being caught acting like an idiot and being banned/muted or otherwise ignored. In either case it appears you are having fun. Your bombastic writing voice is slightly amusing. But I don't have the attention span to play anymore, I hope you find another playmate :D
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Dart on November 01, 2010, 04:13:17 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 04:30:09 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 04:32:58 AM
If the Bible is more interesting, then go read it. I don't claim to write anything even close to the quality of scripture. But I will clarify; you are obviously a caricature. At some point who you are will be clear. Either you are an Orthodox poster playing Devils Advocate, or you are a poster that "left" the board after being caught acting like an idiot and being banned/muted or otherwise ignored. In either case it appears you are having fun. Your bombastic writing voice is slightly amusing. But I don't have the attention span to play anymore, I hope you find another playmate :D

I'm not playing.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Dart on November 01, 2010, 05:04:12 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.


Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tigran on November 01, 2010, 05:51:28 AM
Hey Alfred,

I'm a new member of this website. Since I saw your post about the Sola Scriptura and you are rejecting the Holy Tradition. I suggest you to watch at my video about the Holy Tradition before you make comment. Thanks

about the Holy Tradition, the link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYJ44Jz-UWA

In Christ,
Tigran dpir
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 01, 2010, 05:56:16 AM
I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.  ::) 

If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.



This sounds very familiar to another poster who has just recently revealed his wisdom to us from on high...
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 01, 2010, 06:02:22 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Michał on November 01, 2010, 06:13:08 AM
a)why they ran into the lake

Quote from: St. John Chrysostom
But for what intent did the devils destroy the swine? Everywhere they have labored to drive men to dismay, and everywhere they rejoice in destruction. This, for instance, the devil did with respect to Job, although in that case too God suffered it, but neither in that case as complying with the devil, but willing to show His own servant the more glorious, cutting off from the evil spirit all pretext for his shamelessness, and turning on his own head what was done against the righteous man. Because now also the contrary of what they wished came to pass. For the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed, and the wickedness of the demons, from which He delivered those possessed by them, was more plainly indicated; and how they want power to touch even swine, without permission from the God of all.
And if any would take these things in a hidden sense, there is nothing to hinder. For the history indeed is this, but we are to know assuredly, that the swinish sort of men are especially liable to the operations of the demons. And as long as they are men that suffer such things, they are often able yet to prevail; but if they are become altogether swine, they are not only possessed, but are also cast down the precipice. And besides, lest any should suppose what was done to be mere acting, instead of distinctly believing that the devils were gone out; by the death of the swine this is rendered manifest.
And mark also His meekness together with His power. For when the inhabitants of that country, after having received such benefits, were driving Him away, He resisted not, but retired, and left those who had shown themselves unworthy of His teaching, having given them for teachers them that had been freed from the demons, and the swine-herds, that they might of them learn all that had happened; whilst Himself retiring leaves the fear vigorous in them. For the greatness withal of the loss was spreading the fame of what had been done, and the event penetrated their mind. And from many quarters were wafted sounds, proclaiming the strangeness of the miracle; from the cured, and from the drowned, from the owners of the swine, from the men that were feeding them.
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html



b)what happened to them after they did

Quote from: St. John Chrysostom
. . .the devils destroy[ed] the swine. . .
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html



c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Quote from: St. John Chrysostom
Now, should any one say, “And wherefore did Christ fulfill the devils’ request, suffering them to depart into the herd of swine?” this would be our reply, that He did so, not as yielding to them, but as providing for many objects thereby. One, to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine, unless even in their calamity they had enjoyed much of God’s providential care. For that they hate us more than the brutes is surely evident to every man. So then they that spared not the swine, but in one moment of time cast them all down the precipice, much more would they have done so to the men whom they possessed, leading them towards the desert, and carrying them away, unless even in their very tyranny the guardian care of God had abounded, to curb and check the excess of their violence. Whence it is manifest that there is no one, who doth not enjoy the benefit of God’s providence. And if not all alike, nor after one manner, this is itself a very great instance of providence; in that according to each man’s profit, the work also of providence is displayed.
And besides what hath been mentioned, there is another thing also, which we learn from this; that His providence is not only over all in common, but also over each in particular; which He also declared with respect to His disciples, saying, “But the very hairs of your head are numbered.” And from these demoniacs too, one may clearly perceive this; who would have “been choked” long before, if they had not enjoyed the benefit of much tender care from above.
For these reasons then He suffered them to depart into the herd of swine, and that they also who dwelt in those places should learn His power. For where His name was great, He did not greatly display Himself: but where no one knew Him, but they were still in an insensible condition, He made His miracles to shine out, so as to bring them over to the knowledge of His Godhead. For it is evident from the event that the inhabitants of that city were a sort of senseless people; for when they ought to have adored and marvelled at His power, they sent Him away, and “besought Him that He would depart out of their coasts.”
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Iconodule on November 01, 2010, 08:14:07 AM
I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.  ::) 

If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.



This sounds very familiar to another poster who has just recently revealed his wisdom to us from on high...

You've definitely got a point there.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 01, 2010, 08:28:02 AM
Yay, another thread! Yay! Oh, wait a minute...

 :-\

 :'(
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on November 01, 2010, 08:46:28 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.


Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.


Dart is correct. Alfred is positing a false dichotomy between Scripture and Tradition. Scripture and Holy Tradtion come in and through the Church. Sola Scripturists sever the branches (Scripture) from the roots (The Church). Apart from their Life-giving source, the Scriptures become malleable to the subjective interpretations of the individual and individual sects- all claiming to have the proper "hermeneutical principles." We must not forget that satan himself was a skilled biblical apologist.


Selam
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 01, 2010, 09:25:59 AM

Quote
The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

The illogic of your position is that if it's not written in the Bible, it is not from God. While you would disagree, I think that makes the Bible into God, if not in fact, then at least in effect. 

But in fact He did say to follow tradition coequally with scripture, so it matters not.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 01, 2010, 09:31:03 AM
I am fairly sure you are reaching Alfred. You seem like such a caricature, you must be a pseudonym for the Devils Advocate of an Orthodox poster on here.

You would think so, but Alfred K. Persson's views have found their way elsewhere. As much of a caracature he is, I'm pretty sure he's legit.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Fr. David on November 01, 2010, 10:06:12 AM
Greetings, Alfred.  I'm a bit late in coming, but welcome to the forum.

I'll simply post the commentary of a prominent commentator on the Scriptures, Theophylact of Ochrid, followed by a word of my own:

Quote from: Bl. Theophylact
]Re: vv. 26-33:

"See how the demon is torn between two wicked passions: impudence and fear. When he says, What have I to do with Thee? he shows the impudence of a shameless slave; when he says, I beseech Thee, he shows his fear. He was dwelling among the tombs because he wanted to instill in men the false suspicion that the souls of those who have died become demons. The demons ask not to be cast into the abyss, but that they be permitted to remain a while longer upon the earth. The Lord permits them to remain upon the earth so that they might fight and contend with men, and thus render men tested veterans. If man had no adversaries, there would be no struggles and contests; and if there were no contests, there would be no crowns of victory. There is a more spiritual sense which you should learn as well: the man who has demons within him and wears no garment and makes his home outside the house, is anyone who does evil and demonic deeds, who has stripped himself of his baptismal robe, and dwells outside the Church. Such a man is not worthy to enter into the Church, but instead he lives in the tombs of dead and rotting deeds, for example, in brothels and in the chambers of publicans and graft. These are indeed tombs of iniquity."

Re: vv. 34-39:

"When those who had been feeding the swine fled into the city, it became an opportunity for salvation for the Gadarenes, but they did not understand. They ought to have marvelled at the Saviour’s power and believed in Him. The Evangelist says that they besought Him to depart from them, instead of calling upon Him in supplication. They did this out of fear of suffering another loss like that of the swine. But the man who had been healed shows indisputable proof of his healing. That he had been healed in his mind is shown by the fact that he now both recognizes Jesus and begs His permission to be with Him. For he was afraid, it would seem, that the demons would again easily assault him when he was separated from Jesus. But the Lord shows him that even if he is not with Jesus, the Lord’s grace can shelter him from demonic attack. The Lord says to him, Return to thine own house, and tell what great things God hath done unto thee. By not saying, "what great things I have done unto thee," the Lord gives us an example of humility and teaches us that we should attribute all our accomplishments to God. But though the Lord had commanded him to tell what things God had done for him, he told instead what things Jesus had done for him, so great was his gratitude. Therefore when you do something good for someone, do not desire it to become public knowledge; but he who is the beneficiary of that good deed ought to be moved by gratitude to tell it to others, even though you do not want him to do so."

SOURCE: http://www.chrysostompress.org/gospel-commentary-pentecost23

A further note:

Your questions seem to betray a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning.  As can be seen, the commentaries of Chrysostom Mike quoted and the commentary of Theophylact stress different parts of the pericope and go about explaining it differently; I would ask whether or not you think the Scriptures so shallow that they bear only one interpretation: the one you claim to be able to exegete for us.  I would say that the Scriptures are in inexhaustible fount of divine wisdom, fully able to provide myriad interpretations for the faithful on literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical levels. 

Thus, the waters that drowned the pigs could be seen as:


Thank you for participating here.  Let us not seek to insult or run to our own conclusions here, nor to treat each other preemptively as those who are hopelessly and inevitably doomed to arrive at error, but in Christian charity, let us assume the image of God to be at least present, and sensitive to illumination that this conversation may, potentially, give.

Peace.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: GreekChef on November 01, 2010, 10:21:16 AM
I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith

Why would we listen to a word you say when you obviously don't even know what a parable is?  This PERICOPE is NOT a parable.  It actually happened.  A PARABLE is a story that is told in order to illustrate a truth, but did not actually happen, such as that of the Prodigal Son.  Looks like you need to go back to basics.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Orthodoc on November 01, 2010, 11:14:29 AM
Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game. ::)

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it. ::)

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

Incorrect. BUT any correct interpretation will actually explain this, and not change the subject.

It is a fair test, this is a parable, and if one's methodology results in the Bible being a sealed book, then clearly that methodology is wrong.

Scripture says those who follow traditions of men will not be able to understand the Word of God, the book will be sealed to them:

 9 Pause and wonder! Blind yourselves and be blind! They are drunk, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with intoxicating drink.
 10 For the LORD has poured out on you The spirit of deep sleep, And has closed your eyes, namely, the prophets; And He has covered your heads, namely, the seers.
 11 The whole vision has become to you like the words of a book that is sealed, which men deliver to one who is literate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I cannot, for it is sealed."
 12 Then the book is delivered to one who is illiterate, saying, "Read this, please." And he says, "I am not literate."
 13 Therefore the Lord said: "Inasmuch as these people draw near with their mouths And honor Me with their lips, But have removed their hearts far from Me, And their fear toward Me is taught by the commandment of men,
 14 Therefore, behold, I will again do a marvelous work Among this people, A marvelous work and a wonder; For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, And the understanding of their prudent men shall be hidden."
 (Isa 29:9-14 NKJ)

AND finally, in answer to your doubts, I'm not the only one reading the replies. If a poster's reply satisfies you all its correct, there is little chance my objection will carry the day.

BUT when I explain the parable, you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request


Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.







Gee I can't wait!!!!!

Orthodoc
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 11:47:03 AM
I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith

Why would we listen to a word you say when you obviously don't even know what a parable is?  This PERICOPE is NOT a parable.  It actually happened.  A PARABLE is a story that is told in order to illustrate a truth, but did not actually happen, such as that of the Prodigal Son.  Looks like you need to go back to basics.

Who told you its impossible God tell a parable, using actors on His stage?

This event teaches lessons, but only to those who are His, those on the outside, look but cannot see...can make no sense of it.

So, tell us:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 11:56:12 AM
Greetings, Alfred.  I'm a bit late in coming, but welcome to the forum.

I'll simply post the commentary of a prominent commentator on the Scriptures, Theophylact of Ochrid, followed by a word of my own:

Quote from: Bl. Theophylact
]Re: vv. 26-33:

"See how the demon is torn between two wicked passions: impudence and fear. When he says, What have I to do with Thee? he shows the impudence of a shameless slave; when he says, I beseech Thee, he shows his fear. He was dwelling among the tombs because he wanted to instill in men the false suspicion that the souls of those who have died become demons. The demons ask not to be cast into the abyss, but that they be permitted to remain a while longer upon the earth. The Lord permits them to remain upon the earth so that they might fight and contend with men, and thus render men tested veterans. If man had no adversaries, there would be no struggles and contests; and if there were no contests, there would be no crowns of victory. There is a more spiritual sense which you should learn as well: the man who has demons within him and wears no garment and makes his home outside the house, is anyone who does evil and demonic deeds, who has stripped himself of his baptismal robe, and dwells outside the Church. Such a man is not worthy to enter into the Church, but instead he lives in the tombs of dead and rotting deeds, for example, in brothels and in the chambers of publicans and graft. These are indeed tombs of iniquity."

Re: vv. 34-39:

"When those who had been feeding the swine fled into the city, it became an opportunity for salvation for the Gadarenes, but they did not understand. They ought to have marvelled at the Saviour’s power and believed in Him. The Evangelist says that they besought Him to depart from them, instead of calling upon Him in supplication. They did this out of fear of suffering another loss like that of the swine. But the man who had been healed shows indisputable proof of his healing. That he had been healed in his mind is shown by the fact that he now both recognizes Jesus and begs His permission to be with Him. For he was afraid, it would seem, that the demons would again easily assault him when he was separated from Jesus. But the Lord shows him that even if he is not with Jesus, the Lord’s grace can shelter him from demonic attack. The Lord says to him, Return to thine own house, and tell what great things God hath done unto thee. By not saying, "what great things I have done unto thee," the Lord gives us an example of humility and teaches us that we should attribute all our accomplishments to God. But though the Lord had commanded him to tell what things God had done for him, he told instead what things Jesus had done for him, so great was his gratitude. Therefore when you do something good for someone, do not desire it to become public knowledge; but he who is the beneficiary of that good deed ought to be moved by gratitude to tell it to others, even though you do not want him to do so."

SOURCE: http://www.chrysostompress.org/gospel-commentary-pentecost23

A further note:

Your questions seem to betray a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning.  As can be seen, the commentaries of Chrysostom Mike quoted and the commentary of Theophylact stress different parts of the pericope and go about explaining it differently; I would ask whether or not you think the Scriptures so shallow that they bear only one interpretation: the one you claim to be able to exegete for us.  I would say that the Scriptures are in inexhaustible fount of divine wisdom, fully able to provide myriad interpretations for the faithful on literal, allegorical, moral, and anagogical levels.  

Thus, the waters that drowned the pigs could be seen as:

  • The literal ceasing of those demons' tormenting of creation at that time (literal)
  • The casting out of the unclean spirits being trampled down in the waters of baptism (allegorical, as per the Serbian Orthodox page you quoted)
  • A warning to the faithful to avoid the unclean, alienating passions which would take us from the right mind in Christ and enslave us to unclean, destructive passions (moral)
  • A reminder that the Lord will subject the demons and all ungodliness to Himself at the end of days, just as He has subjected "many waters" (including the primordial waters that were often objects of Near Eastern Deity habitation, hence the reference to the sea in the pericope) under Him as the inferior, created reality that it is (anagogical).

Thank you for participating here.  Let us not seek to insult or run to our own conclusions here, nor to treat each other preemptively as those who are hopelessly and inevitably doomed to arrive at error, but in Christian charity, let us assume the image of God to be at least present, and sensitive to illumination that this conversation may, potentially, give.

Peace.

Very interesting, I will return for more comment later, right now I must attend to business.

But while I am gone, perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Answer that, and later I will address your post more fully, later.

cya
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on November 01, 2010, 11:58:43 AM
Hi Alfred,

 You sure seem to be a great student of the Reformation, I'll give you that.  Though the Reformation certainly is to be admired (when in it's proper historical context) when placed alongside the Holy Traditions of the Orthodox Church it is easily shown to be quite erroneous.   One of the problems in accepting our position over the Reformation is one of (seemingly) betrayal.  In accepting our position over your own is to (seemingly, from your POV) to wound our savior.  I know that you have a great love for Jesus Christ, and that you are here only to show His love to us.  That is to be commended.  

 We, too, Alfred, love Jesus Christ.  Not only as God, but as our King and our Lord.  We constantly pray to Him, giving thanks and asking for His help.  In fact, one of our most loved prayers is known as the Arrow Prayer, or, more commonly as the Jesus Prayer:
 
 
"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

 The first part of this prayer is one of acknowledgment:  Jesus is the Son of God and He is Lord over our lives.  The second half is one of supplication.  In acknowledging Who He is, we now ask that He forgives us sinners.

 If you can accept the fact that we acknowledge who Jesus is and that we also love Him and struggle to obey Him, then we can go forward with the discussion.  If you feel that we do not, then I'm not so sure that you will be able to hear our message.  Never-the-less, we will continue and try.

 Rather than re-post the article, I'll give you the URL and let you read it at your leisure.

 1. Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?  By Fr. James Bernstein

      http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/whichcamefirst.aspx

 2. Sola Scriptura: In the Vanity of Their Minds By Fr. John Whiteford
  
     http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx

 3. On Holy Scripture By Elder Cleopa of Romania

     http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_scripture.aspx

 4. On Holy Tradition By Elder Cleopa of Romania

     http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/ec_holy_tradition.aspx

  
 If you are as serious as you present yourself to be (as I believe you are) and not just another lazy armchair apologist, you will give these publications serious considerations.  

 

  

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 01, 2010, 12:19:26 PM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Dart on November 01, 2010, 12:30:30 PM
The reason for the development of Sola Scriptura was as a defense against the claims of the Pope as being infallible. We fully agree with the Protestant Tradition in the regard to the Pope's heresy. But you must also see that claiming for yourself infallibility is also equally in error. Infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ said when two or more are gathered in my name. Not an individual and not when we are gathered for our own glorification and pride.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 01, 2010, 12:39:30 PM
The reason for the development of Sola Scriptura was as a defense against the claims of the Pope as being infallible. We fully agree with the Protestant Tradition in the regard to the Pope's heresy. But you must also see that claiming for yourself infallibility is also equally in error. Infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ said when two or more are gathered in my name. Not an individual and not when we are gathered for our own glorification and pride.

Well said.   :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 01, 2010, 12:52:34 PM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?




Sorry, you don't get to set the rules here.

I'm not setting rules at all, its called apologetic...I can prove sola scriptura superior to any other methodology for truth.
Actually, yes you are setting the rules here. You have already determined what the "correct" interpretation of this passage of Scripture is. You have already determined that those who don't interpret this passage as you do are wrong. You have therefore concluded that if our Tradition cannot lead us to interpret this passage of Scripture as you do, our Tradition must not be inspired and sola scriptura (i.e., Alfred Perssonism) wins. You're essentially asking us to search our Tradition to see if it can empower us to read your mind. Hopefully now you can see the game so many of us have chosen not to play.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on November 01, 2010, 01:05:13 PM

 

Sorry, you don't get to set the rules here.

I'm not setting rules at all, its called apologetic...I can prove sola scriptura superior to any other methodology for truth.
Actually, yes you are setting the rules here. You have already determined what the "correct" interpretation of this passage of Scripture is. You have already determined that those who don't interpret this passage as you do are wrong. You have therefore concluded that if our Tradition cannot lead us to interpret this passage of Scripture as you do, our Tradition must not be inspired and sola scriptura (i.e., Alfred Perssonism) wins. You're essentially asking us to search our Tradition to see if it can empower us to read your mind. Hopefully now you can see the game so many of us have chosen not to play.
[/quote]
Well said, PeterTheAleut! 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: GreekChef on November 01, 2010, 01:21:29 PM
I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith

Why would we listen to a word you say when you obviously don't even know what a parable is?  This PERICOPE is NOT a parable.  It actually happened.  A PARABLE is a story that is told in order to illustrate a truth, but did not actually happen, such as that of the Prodigal Son.  Looks like you need to go back to basics.

Who told you its impossible God tell a parable, using actors on His stage?
That's exactly my point!  This is not a story that God told.  It is an actual event that He participated in which was later relayed by the Evangelist Matthew.  So, unless you think the entire Gospel is a fictional story(or that God didn't/doesn't exist, or that he was just an actor), this pericope is NOT a parable.

Quote
This event teaches lessons, but only to those who are His, those on the outside, look but cannot see...can make no sense of it.
If, sir, you are implying that I am one of those on the outside who are not His and thus cannot understand, then I would reply by saying that you probably need to read the Gospels a little more carefully yourself, and take to heart the passages about passing judgment on others.

Quote
So, tell us:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request


I believe someone infinitely more patient than myself has already answered this with passages by Chrysostom (a post to which you did not reply).  I would have posted the same thing, had I the inclination to engage in your ridiculous and academically dishonest discussions... Which I don't.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:03:31 PM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?





Another stray and tangled thread. What a suprise.

As to the title, since Scripture tells us to hold fast to Tradition, but the scripture does not teach sola scriptura, the answer should be self evident. We all know why it isn't to you.

Are you a member of P.E.T.A., and that's why you are worried about the swine?

Can you explain how answering a fool in his folly would prove anything, particularly that Tradition is inspired by God? Only an evil generation seeks a sign.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:06:51 PM
So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.

LOL. Prove it to whom? The worthless?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:11:36 PM
Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game. ::)

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it. ::)

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

Incorrect. BUT any correct interpretation will actually explain this, and not change the subject.

It is a fair test, this is a parable, and if one's methodology results in the Bible being a sealed book, then clearly that methodology is wrong.

Scripture says those who follow traditions of men will not be able to understand the Word of God, the book will be sealed to them:
Including the man Alfread Persson, who seems to have a following of two, he and himself.

As for those who stand fast and hold to the Traditions received of the Apostles, as St. Paul wrote to the Thessalonians, of course know this beforehand, and beware lest they also fall from their own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked, but grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as St. (II) Peter (3) writes.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:13:25 PM
I don't want to commit an ad hominem, but you are more than a little egomaniacal.

Yes please, come down from the mountain like Moses and share with us unwashed masses the mind of God, O enlightened one.  ::) 
Did Alfred and Dattaswami go up the same mountain but fallen down different sides?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:14:24 PM
So, what's your interpretation of this passage, Alfred?

*bump*

Its too early for that...I must give you folks reasonable time to research this in your tradition, and prove its worth.

IMHO, your tone is becoming taunting.  Kindly reconsider your position.

No taunt in that at all.

Therefore your reply appears strategic---debate strategy, claim offense where none exists, to evade,  to obfuscate, to misdirect.
...no arguing there: you're the master.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:20:14 PM
Trying to eliminate yourself from contention for having a Devils Advocate? :D Or did you think I was directing that comment at you. I should have prefaced that it was meant for Alfred, sorry for any confusion.

I find the Bible infinitely more perspicacious than your writing.

The Bible is our writing.


Quote
I don't believe sound methods of interpretation will actually work with your writing.

Since you use unsound ones, how can you tell?

Quote
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to what the heck you are saying...I'm already convinced it won't be worth my time, so prove me wrong.
" rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you" Mat. 15:7 et alia.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 01, 2010, 02:26:35 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:32:39 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
As I have often said, I don't do it for Alfred.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 02:39:26 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.


Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.

The church canonized the word of God in scripture, so we know what it is precisely.

Why didn't they canonize the word of God in tradition, so we know what it is precisely?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Fr. George on November 01, 2010, 02:41:07 PM
For the benefit of those actually wondering about the passage (versus those who likely don't care *cough* OP *cough*), here's one position from Peter Chrysologus (c. 380-450), Archbishop of Ravenna:

Quote from: Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament Ia, Matthew 1-13; Manlio Simonetti, ed.; pp. 171-172
"He said to them, 'Go!'"  The foul-smelling animals are delivered up, not at the will of the demons but to show how savage the demons can become against humans.  They ardently seek to destroy and dispossess all that is, acts, moves, and lives.  They seek the death of people.  The ancient enmity of deep-rooted wrath and malice is in store for the human race.  Demons do not give up easily unless they are forcibly overcome.  They are doing the harm they are ordered to do.  Therefore the foul-smelling animals are delivered up that it may be made clear to the demons that they have permission to enter the swine but not to enter humans.  It is by our vices that we empower them to do harm.  Similarly, by our power of faith we tread on the necks of demons.  They become subject to us under Christ who is triumphant.

- Sermons 16:8 - Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina.  Turnhouse, Belgium: brepols, 1953-.  24:101
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 02:43:16 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
As I have often said, I don't do it for Alfred.

I prefer your long eloquent posts filled with icons, they were impressive as I scrolled down to the next post.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 02:47:27 PM
I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.


And this will be a sign from God sola scriptura is the right methodology for establishing the doctrines of the Christian faith

Why would we listen to a word you say when you obviously don't even know what a parable is?  This PERICOPE is NOT a parable.  It actually happened.  A PARABLE is a story that is told in order to illustrate a truth, but did not actually happen, such as that of the Prodigal Son.  Looks like you need to go back to basics.

Who told you its impossible God tell a parable, using actors on His stage?
That's exactly my point!  This is not a story that God told.  It is an actual event that He participated in which was later relayed by the Evangelist Matthew.  So, unless you think the entire Gospel is a fictional story(or that God didn't/doesn't exist, or that he was just an actor), this pericope is NOT a parable.

Quote
This event teaches lessons, but only to those who are His, those on the outside, look but cannot see...can make no sense of it.
If, sir, you are implying that I am one of those on the outside who are not His and thus cannot understand, then I would reply by saying that you probably need to read the Gospels a little more carefully yourself, and take to heart the passages about passing judgment on others.

Quote
So, tell us:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request


I believe someone infinitely more patient than myself has already answered this with passages by Chrysostom (a post to which you did not reply).  I would have posted the same thing, had I the inclination to engage in your ridiculous and academically dishonest discussions... Which I don't.

God makes history to reveal truth:

 3 Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him. (Joh 9:3 NKJ)

Its no wonder you can't answer

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request


You can't even see the kingdom when its right in front of you.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 01, 2010, 02:52:27 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
As I have often said, I don't do it for Alfred.
Seriously, though, what does it benefit us?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 02:57:27 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
As I have often said, I don't do it for Alfred.

I prefer your long eloquent posts filled with icons, they were impressive as I scrolled down to the next post.
Since you scroll past them, what difference is it to you what is in them, as, as I said, I don't do them for you anyway?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 01, 2010, 02:58:25 PM
You can't even see the kingdom when its right in front of you.

This kind of vitriole is unacceptable.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on November 01, 2010, 03:00:18 PM

The church canonized the word of God in scripture, so we know what it is precisely.


Which 'church' are you talking about?  Which 'word of God' are you talking about?  I'm afraid you're about to step in it now, boy!  :D  
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 01, 2010, 03:02:18 PM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup runneth under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" means precisely that, but can figuratively be saying "God's blessing has been so great, its more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 01, 2010, 03:03:02 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)

The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.


Tradition is the Word of God. Scripture is only that part of Tradition which was written down and accepted by the Church as being true. Accepting scripture is accepting Tradition.

He did say so. You only know what the Church wrote you do not know what He said. Only the Church does.

The church canonized the word of God in scripture, so we know what it is precisely.
Actually, the Church didn't canonize the word of God in Scripture so we could know precisely what the word of God is. They canonized the Scriptures to separate these apostolic writings from the many other writings that purported to be apostolic but were not. It was kinda like saying, "This writing we recognize as coming from the hand of the Apostle Paul; that writing is inconsistent with anything the Apostles ever taught us."
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 03:05:28 PM

The church canonized the word of God in scripture, so we know what it is precisely.


Which 'church' are you talking about?

Not the one founded by Alfred Persson, two millenium after Christ.

Quote
Which 'word of God' are you talking about?

It would seem the Orthodox one.

Quote
I'm afraid you're about to step in it now, boy!  :D  
Well, the Fathers warn about going about into slippery places. LOL.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 01, 2010, 03:05:45 PM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup is stands under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" is meant precisely that, but it can be figuratively saying "God's blessing has been so great, its like I have more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.


Who's this WE? Me, myself, and I? ???
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 03:12:51 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
As I have often said, I don't do it for Alfred.

I prefer your long eloquent posts filled with icons, they were impressive as I scrolled down to the next post.

I admit it. I laughed.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 01, 2010, 03:25:54 PM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup is stands under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" is meant precisely that, but it can be figuratively saying "God's blessing has been so great, its like I have more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.


Who's this WE? Me, myself, and I? ???

Apparently he has a mouse in his pocket.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 01, 2010, 03:28:37 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
As I have often said, I don't do it for Alfred.

I prefer your long eloquent posts filled with icons, they were impressive as I scrolled down to the next post.

I admit it. I laughed.

I laugh at Alfred's posts all the time.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Michał on November 01, 2010, 03:35:38 PM
Its no wonder you can't answer

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487734.html#msg487734
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 03:40:23 PM
Isa, Alfred doesn't need any more incentive, so stop feeding him.
As I have often said, I don't do it for Alfred.

I prefer your long eloquent posts filled with icons, they were impressive as I scrolled down to the next post.

I admit it. I laughed.

I laugh at Alfred's posts all the time.

He is so rarely intentionally funny, I felt I have to give him his due.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 01, 2010, 03:42:48 PM
Its no wonder you can't answer

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487734.html#msg487734

Alfred can't be bothered with such an inconvenient response.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ComingHome on November 01, 2010, 03:58:23 PM
I'm just wondering how we can trust an interpretation of this "parable" when the "all-sufficient Sola Scriptura" does not interpret it for us nor does it call it a parable.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tzimis on November 01, 2010, 04:02:59 PM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup runneth under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" means precisely that, but can figuratively be saying "God's blessing has been so great, its more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.



The problem is that scripture reviles what is needed for us at the time of reading it. Maybe it's time to look at ourselves first rather than the words, and over time the words will take on a new meaning. :angel:
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 01, 2010, 08:48:32 PM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup runneth under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" means precisely that, but can figuratively be saying "God's blessing has been so great, its more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.



The problem is that scripture reviles what is needed for us at the time of reading it. Maybe it's time to look at ourselves first rather than the words, and over time the words will take on a new meaning. :angel:
Reviles or reveals? To revile something is to speak contemptuously or abusively of it, which I don't think you meant to say in this context.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: orthonorm on November 01, 2010, 09:49:58 PM
Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game. ::)

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it. ::)

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

I don't see why you all keep biting.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: orthonorm on November 01, 2010, 10:00:02 PM
Always find it strange when Christians of what ever stripe call the "Bible" the Word of God or are referred to as people of the "Book", when it seems to me the Word of God is Jesus Christ and Christian are people of the Christ Jesus.

But what do I know?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tzimis on November 01, 2010, 10:01:27 PM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup runneth under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" means precisely that, but can figuratively be saying "God's blessing has been so great, its more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.



The problem is that scripture reviles what is needed for us at the time of reading it. Maybe it's time to look at ourselves first rather than the words, and over time the words will take on a new meaning. :angel:
Reviles or reveals? To revile something is to speak contemptuously or abusively of it, which I don't think you meant to say in this context.
Ah yes. Sorry for the typo. I have bin praying for your new job to keep you busy enough to overlook such trifle details but I guess I haven't prayed hard enough. :laugh:
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 02, 2010, 12:13:12 AM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup runneth under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" means precisely that, but can figuratively be saying "God's blessing has been so great, its more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.



The problem is that scripture reviles what is needed for us at the time of reading it. Maybe it's time to look at ourselves first rather than the words, and over time the words will take on a new meaning. :angel:
Reviles or reveals? To revile something is to speak contemptuously or abusively of it, which I don't think you meant to say in this context.
Ah yes. Sorry for the typo. I have bin praying for your new job to keep you busy enough to overlook such trifle details but I guess I haven't prayed hard enough. :laugh:
I've been sick the last couple of days. :P With a proper medical diagnosis (mild case of pluerisy) and the means to fight back for my good health (a week's supply of antibiotics to kill the infection and some ibuprofen to manage the pain), I should be back to work tomorrow.

Of course, I do have to return home some time, and I am a stickler for such "minor" details, especially when they're not so minor details as the difference between "revile" and "reveal". (http://www.ity.eu/link/smileys/devil-smiley-03)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 01:46:01 AM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?



26 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
 27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.
 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water.
 33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.
 34 And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region.
 (Mat 8:26-34 NKJ)

This is revelation Jesus is God, nothing less. With a word He rebukes the wind and sea, and these obey Him (27). Verse 28 continues the revelation, the demoniacs go out to meet Jesus thinking to victimize Him, but suddenly in terror realize He the LORD Almighty, not a helpless victim.  

They ask:: "Have you come to torment us before the time."

Yes, that is precisely what Jesus will do.

Thinking they can bargain their escape, they beg to trade the swine for the men.

Jesus seems to agree, He says "Go!"

To their horror they are captured in swine flesh, and driven headlong into the sea, prefiguring what will occur in the Last Day when these are clothed in hideous flesh, and hurled headlong into the Lake of Fire, where they will weep and gnash their teeth like their human brethren.

God reigns in Hell, not any devil. These are impotent in death, just like vile humanity raised up in the very bodies they misused for sin, that now communicate the terrible wrath of God, in the form of physical pain like unto liquid fire that cannot be quenched, like unto a corrupting worm that dieth not.

Weeping and gnashing of teeth being indicative of great physical pain.


Tartaroo is where these went, to be reserved for judgment.


Just as men pay for misusing God's vessel for sin, and therefore suffer corruption of the flesh, so also will fallen angels, be trapped in swine flesh causing everlasting shame, which will communicate tribulation and anguish upon every devil.


***

The Exegesis:

They went thinking they had another helpless victim.

28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him (ὑπήντησαν) two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.


To their Horror, it was the LORD, and in their terror they exclaim what is the most likely purpose of Jesus:

And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)


They spy swine in the distance and hope to extricate themselves via a unholy bargain:

30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 (Mat 8:30-31 NKJ)

Thinking  Jesus agreed, they rush out into the swine, and are immediately rendered powerless, like the wind and sea, Jesus commands they hurl themselves into the Lake, prefiguring what He will do in the Last Day:

32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:32 NKJ)

This explains why Judgment Day seems broken up into two parts:

10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

 (Rev 20:10-1 NKJ)

Those destined for life are judged in  verses 11-12, those not written in the book of life in verses 13f. The reason the Sea is mentioned with Death and Hades is because it contains the realm of Tartarus, which in Greek mythology, was the lowest abyss beneath the earth where waters originate, beneath "Oceanus."

These spirits reserved for judgment were separated from the human dead in "Death and Hades,"

NKJ  2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (2Pe 2:4 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; (Jud 1:6 NKJ)

This is where the hybrid human/angel souls were imprisoned when they died in the flood:

NKJ  Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
 (Gen 6:1-2 NKJ)

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
 (1Pe 3:18-20 NKJ)

The scales of Justice would be unbalanced if these fallen angels didn't suffer for their corporeal sins just as men do, in a divine reversal where the bodies which formerly communicated sinful pleasure, now communicate the terrible wrath of God.

43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
 44 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
 (Mar 9:43-44 NKJ)


As your tradition was unable to reveal these things, its clear its of no benefit when learning the doctrines of God. The Holy Spirit filled believer requires an objective test of all doctrine, and that is what the Bible is written to do. Anything that contradicts it, cannot be from God.


Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura, the believer takes in counsel from all the teachers God in His grace has provided the church. He listens to discover every possible interpretation, then decides which conforms best to scripture. As truth is conformity with fact, any exegesis that conforms to the syntax and grammar of Scripture is the truth.

Jesus Himself did the same:

 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.
 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.
 (Luk 2:46-47 NKJ)


It is written to all who follow the traditions of men rather than the word of God:

11 Look, all you who kindle a fire, Who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled-- This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isa 50:11 NKJ)



20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20 NKJ)


 28 "The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?" says the LORD.
 29 "Is not My word like a fire?" says the LORD, "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
 (Jer 23:28-29 NKJ)

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 02, 2010, 02:21:06 AM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?



26 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
 27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.
 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water.
 33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.
 34 And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region.
 (Mat 8:26-34 NKJ)

This is revelation Jesus is God, nothing less. With a word He rebukes the wind and sea, and these obey Him (27). Verse 28 continues the revelation, the demoniacs go out to meet Jesus thinking to victimize Him, but suddenly in terror realize He the LORD Almighty, not a helpless victim.  

They ask:: "Have you come to torment us before the time."

Yes, that is precisely what Jesus will do.

Thinking they can bargain their escape, they beg to trade the swine for the men.

Jesus seems to agree, He says "Go!"

To their horror they are captured in swine flesh, and driven headlong into the sea, prefiguring what will occur in the Last Day when these are clothed in hideous flesh, and hurled headlong into the Lake of Fire, where they will weep and gnash their teeth like their human brethren.

God reigns in Hell, not any devil. These are impotent in death, just like vile humanity raised up in the very bodies they misused for sin, that now communicate the terrible wrath of God, in the form of physical pain like unto liquid fire that cannot be quenched, like unto a corrupting worm that dieth not.

Weeping and gnashing of teeth being indicative of great physical pain.


Tartaroo is where these went, to be reserved for judgment.


Just as men pay for misusing God's vessel for sin, and therefore suffer corruption of the flesh, so also will fallen angels, be trapped in swine flesh causing everlasting shame, which will communicate tribulation and anguish upon every devil.


***

The Exegesis:

They went thinking they had another helpless victim.

28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him (ὑπήντησαν) two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.


To their Horror, it was the LORD, and in their terror they exclaim what is the most likely purpose of Jesus:

And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)


They spy swine in the distance and hope to extricate themselves via a unholy bargain:

30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 (Mat 8:30-31 NKJ)

Thinking  Jesus agreed, they rush out into the swine, and are immediately rendered powerless, like the wind and sea, Jesus commands they hurl themselves into the Lake, prefiguring what He will do in the Last Day:

32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:32 NKJ)

This explains why Judgment Day seems broken up into two parts:

10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

 (Rev 20:10-1 NKJ)

Those destined for life are judged in  verses 11-12, those not written in the book of life in verses 13f. The reason the Sea is mentioned with Death and Hades is because it contains the realm of Tartarus, which in Greek mythology, was the lowest abyss beneath the earth where waters originate, beneath "Oceanus."

These spirits reserved for judgment were separated from the human dead in "Death and Hades,"

NKJ  2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (2Pe 2:4 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; (Jud 1:6 NKJ)

This is where the hybrid human/angel souls were imprisoned when they died in the flood:

NKJ  Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
 (Gen 6:1-2 NKJ)

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
 (1Pe 3:18-20 NKJ)

The scales of Justice would be unbalanced if these fallen angels didn't suffer for their corporeal sins just as men do, in a divine reversal where the bodies which formerly communicated sinful pleasure, now communicate the terrible wrath of God.

43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
 44 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
 (Mar 9:43-44 NKJ)


As your tradition was unable to reveal these things, its clear its of no benefit when learning the doctrines of God. The Holy Spirit filled believer requires an objective test of all doctrine, and that is what the Bible is written to do. Anything that contradicts it, cannot be from God.


It is written:

11 Look, all you who kindle a fire, Who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled-- This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isa 50:11 NKJ)



20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20 NKJ)


 28 "The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?" says the LORD.
 29 "Is not My word like a fire?" says the LORD, "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
 (Jer 23:28-29 NKJ)


Yup. Just as I expected. Another one of your games where you stack the deck to make sure you always win. My cousin once did that in a game of Mille Bornes by secretly dealing himself all the safety cards. Grandma caught wind of that stunt and gave him a whuppin' for cheating. The exegesis of that story: Cheating shows the world nothing except that you're a cheater.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 02, 2010, 02:31:54 AM
I honestly don't understand this whole thread.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Asteriktos on November 02, 2010, 02:39:39 AM
I honestly don't understand this whole thread.

As I said before... ;)

(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7812/alfredz.jpg)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 02:45:27 AM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?



28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?



26 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
 27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.
 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water.
 33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.
 34 And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region.
 (Mat 8:26-34 NKJ)

This is revelation Jesus is God, nothing less. With a word He rebukes the wind and sea, and these obey Him (27). Verse 28 continues the revelation, the demoniacs go out to meet Jesus thinking to victimize Him, but suddenly in terror realize He the LORD Almighty, not a helpless victim. 

They ask:: "Have you come to torment us before the time."

Yes, that is precisely what Jesus will do.

Thinking they can bargain their escape, they beg to trade the swine for the men.

Jesus seems to agree, He says "Go!"

To their horror they are captured in swine flesh, and driven headlong into the sea, prefiguring what will occur in the Last Day when these are clothed in hideous flesh, and hurled headlong into the Lake of Fire, where they will weep and gnash their teeth like their human brethren.

God reigns in Hell, not any devil. These are impotent in death, just like vile humanity raised up in the very bodies they misused for sin, that now communicate the terrible wrath of God, in the form of physical pain like unto liquid fire that cannot be quenched, like unto a corrupting worm that dieth not.

Weeping and gnashing of teeth being indicative of great physical pain.


Tartaroo is where these went, to be reserved for judgment.


Just as men pay for misusing God's vessel for sin, and therefore suffer corruption of the flesh, so also will fallen angels, be trapped in swine flesh causing everlasting shame, which will communicate tribulation and anguish upon every devil.


***

The Exegesis:

They went thinking they had another helpless victim.

28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him (ὑπήντησαν) two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.


To their Horror, it was the LORD, and in their terror they exclaim what is the most likely purpose of Jesus:

And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)


They spy swine in the distance and hope to extricate themselves via a unholy bargain:

30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 (Mat 8:30-31 NKJ)

Thinking  Jesus agreed, they rush out into the swine, and are immediately rendered powerless, like the wind and sea, Jesus commands they hurl themselves into the Lake, prefiguring what He will do in the Last Day:

32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:32 NKJ)

This explains why Judgment Day seems broken up into two parts:

10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

 (Rev 20:10-1 NKJ)

Those destined for life are judged in  verses 11-12, those not written in the book of life in verses 13f. The reason the Sea is mentioned with Death and Hades is because it contains the realm of Tartarus, which in Greek mythology, was the lowest abyss beneath the earth where waters originate, beneath "Oceanus."

These spirits reserved for judgment were separated from the human dead in "Death and Hades,"

NKJ  2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (2Pe 2:4 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; (Jud 1:6 NKJ)

This is where the hybrid human/angel souls were imprisoned when they died in the flood:

NKJ  Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
 (Gen 6:1-2 NKJ)

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
 (1Pe 3:18-20 NKJ)

The scales of Justice would be unbalanced if these fallen angels didn't suffer for their corporeal sins just as men do, in a divine reversal where the bodies which formerly communicated sinful pleasure, now communicate the terrible wrath of God.

43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
 44 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
 (Mar 9:43-44 NKJ)


As your tradition was unable to reveal these things, its clear its of no benefit when learning the doctrines of God. The Holy Spirit filled believer requires an objective test of all doctrine, and that is what the Bible is written to do. Anything that contradicts it, cannot be from God.


Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura, the believer takes in counsel from all the teachers God in His grace has provided the church. He listens to discover every possible interpretation, then decides which conforms best to scripture. As truth is conformity with fact, any exegesis that conforms to the syntax and grammar of Scripture is the truth.

Jesus Himself did the same:

 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.
 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.
 (Luk 2:46-47 NKJ)


It is written to all who follow the traditions of men rather than the word of God:

11 Look, all you who kindle a fire, Who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled-- This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isa 50:11 NKJ)



20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20 NKJ)


 28 "The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?" says the LORD.
 29 "Is not My word like a fire?" says the LORD, "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
 (Jer 23:28-29 NKJ)

Yup. Just as I expected. Another one of your games where you stack the deck to make sure you always win. My cousin once did that in a game of Mille Bornes by secretly dealing himself all the safety cards. Grandma caught wind of that stunt and gave him a whuppin' for cheating. The exegesis of that story: Cheating shows the world nothing except that you're a cheater.

How did I cheat?

Explain please.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2010, 02:48:52 AM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?



26 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
 27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.
 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water.
 33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.
 34 And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region.
 (Mat 8:26-34 NKJ)

This is revelation Jesus is God, nothing less. With a word He rebukes the wind and sea, and these obey Him (27). Verse 28 continues the revelation, the demoniacs go out to meet Jesus thinking to victimize Him, but suddenly in terror realize He the LORD Almighty, not a helpless victim.  

They ask:: "Have you come to torment us before the time."

Yes, that is precisely what Jesus will do.

Thinking they can bargain their escape, they beg to trade the swine for the men.

Jesus seems to agree, He says "Go!"

To their horror they are captured in swine flesh, and driven headlong into the sea, prefiguring what will occur in the Last Day when these are clothed in hideous flesh, and hurled headlong into the Lake of Fire, where they will weep and gnash their teeth like their human brethren.

God reigns in Hell, not any devil. These are impotent in death, just like vile humanity raised up in the very bodies they misused for sin, that now communicate the terrible wrath of God, in the form of physical pain like unto liquid fire that cannot be quenched, like unto a corrupting worm that dieth not.

Weeping and gnashing of teeth being indicative of great physical pain.


Tartaroo is where these went, to be reserved for judgment.

Tartaroo? Isn't that the planet that Luke Skywalker is from?

Quote
Just as men pay for misusing God's vessel for sin, and therefore suffer corruption of the flesh, so also will fallen angels, be trapped in swine flesh causing everlasting shame, which will communicate tribulation and anguish upon every devil.


***

The Exegesis:

They went thinking they had another helpless victim.

28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him (ὑπήντησαν) two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.


To their Horror, it was the LORD, and in their terror they exclaim what is the most likely purpose of Jesus:

And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?" (Mat 8:29 NKJ)


They spy swine in the distance and hope to extricate themselves via a unholy bargain:

30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 (Mat 8:30-31 NKJ)

Thinking  Jesus agreed, they rush out into the swine, and are immediately rendered powerless, like the wind and sea, Jesus commands they hurl themselves into the Lake, prefiguring what He will do in the Last Day:

32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:32 NKJ)

This explains why Judgment Day seems broken up into two parts:

10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
 11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them.
 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books.
 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

 (Rev 20:10-1 NKJ)

Those destined for life are judged in  verses 11-12, those not written in the book of life in verses 13f. The reason the Sea is mentioned with Death and Hades is because it contains the realm of Tartarus, which in Greek mythology, was the lowest abyss beneath the earth where waters originate, beneath "Oceanus."

These spirits reserved for judgment were separated from the human dead in "Death and Hades,"

NKJ  2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment; (2Pe 2:4 NKJ)

NKJ  Jude 1:6 And the angels who did not keep their proper domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in everlasting chains under darkness for the judgment of the great day; (Jud 1:6 NKJ)

This is where the hybrid human/angel souls were imprisoned when they died in the flood:

Since angels have no bodies, how could they mate?  Indeed, Christ Himself states angels are not given in marriage.

Quote
NKJ  Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.
 (Gen 6:1-2 NKJ)

18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive by the Spirit,
 19 by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison,
 20 who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water.
 (1Pe 3:18-20 NKJ)

The scales of Justice would be unbalanced if these fallen angels didn't suffer for their corporeal sins just as men do, in a divine reversal where the bodies which formerly communicated sinful pleasure, now communicate the terrible wrath of God.

43 "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
 44 "where`Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
 (Mar 9:43-44 NKJ)


As your tradition was unable to reveal these things, its clear its of no benefit when learning the doctrines of God. The Holy Spirit filled believer requires an objective test of all doctrine, and that is what the Bible is written to do. Anything that contradicts it, cannot be from God.

As Tuesday's child points out, you are not often intentionally funny, but unintentionally you always are.

Reminds me of skit where a guy writes an "X" on a map, and thereby expects to find a treasure there, unaware that you first have to find the treasure, then mark its spot on a map.

Quote
Sola Scriptura is not Solo Scriptura, the believer takes in counsel from all the teachers God in His grace has provided the church. He listens to discover every possible interpretation,

Then why don't you try that for a change?

Quote
then decides which conforms best to scripture.


You seem to have studied under Dr. Seuss for your eisogesis: if you want to know the truth, make it up.

Quote
As truth is conformity with fact, any exegesis that conforms to the syntax and grammar of Scripture is the truth.

Unfortunatlely it's Greek to you.

Quote
Jesus Himself did the same:

 46 Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions.
 47 And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.
 (Luk 2:46-47 NKJ)

LOL. Its not your "understanding" that astonishes us. More the lack thereof.


Quote
It is written to all who follow the traditions of men rather than the word of God:

11 Look, all you who kindle a fire, Who encircle yourselves with sparks: Walk in the light of your fire and in the sparks you have kindled-- This you shall have from My hand: You shall lie down in torment. (Isa 50:11 NKJ)

Thus is the fate of those who fall prey to the traditions of Alfred Persson and embrace Perssonism.


Quote
20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isa 8:20 NKJ)


 28 "The prophet who has a dream, let him tell a dream; And he who has My word, let him speak My word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat?" says the LORD.
 29 "Is not My word like a fire?" says the LORD, "And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?
 (Jer 23:28-29 NKJ)

Do you aim for incoherence?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2010, 02:54:03 AM
I honestly don't understand this whole thread.

As I said before... ;)

(http://img72.imageshack.us/img72/7812/alfredz.jpg)

Yes, he has been weighed in the scales and found wanting.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: dcommini on November 02, 2010, 05:18:16 AM
Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

Also, did anybody note the time that Alfred decided to post his "translation"? Did he give us the full amount of time he promised? I am honestly asking since I do not know how this time for a post thing works...

:Edit:
I noted the time I posted was aprox 0518 EST where as Alfred posted aprox 0145 EST... perhaps I am reading that wrong but it would appear that it was not 0001 PST
:Edit:
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 02, 2010, 08:42:47 AM
Yup. Just as I expected. Another one of your games where you stack the deck to make sure you always win. My cousin once did that in a game of Mille Bornes by secretly dealing himself all the safety cards. Grandma caught wind of that stunt and gave him a whuppin' for cheating. The exegesis of that story: Cheating shows the world nothing except that you're a cheater.

How did I cheat?

Explain please.


Refer back to Reply #46 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487873.html#msg487873).
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 02, 2010, 08:50:11 AM
Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

Also, did anybody note the time that Alfred decided to post his "translation"? Did he give us the full amount of time he promised? I am honestly asking since I do not know how this time for a post thing works...

:Edit:
I noted the time I posted was aprox 0518 EST where as Alfred posted aprox 0145 EST... perhaps I am reading that wrong but it would appear that it was not 0001 PST
:Edit:
Indeed, you are correct. The time stamp of his post was 2246 Monday night Pacific Time (local time for Alfred and for me), not 0001 Tuesday morning as he promised.

Alfred, you want evidence that you cheated. I give you Exhibit A.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 09:34:41 AM
Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

Also, did anybody note the time that Alfred decided to post his "translation"? Did he give us the full amount of time he promised? I am honestly asking since I do not know how this time for a post thing works...

:Edit:
I noted the time I posted was aprox 0518 EST where as Alfred posted aprox 0145 EST... perhaps I am reading that wrong but it would appear that it was not 0001 PST
:Edit:


While I posted a little early, I was tired...you can still post...so I've deprived you of nothing.

What remains is your grasping for the slimiest straw to accuse me of something, anything, to distract from the fact your tradition fails to interpret this text correctly.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 09:36:21 AM
Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

Also, did anybody note the time that Alfred decided to post his "translation"? Did he give us the full amount of time he promised? I am honestly asking since I do not know how this time for a post thing works...

:Edit:
I noted the time I posted was aprox 0518 EST where as Alfred posted aprox 0145 EST... perhaps I am reading that wrong but it would appear that it was not 0001 PST
:Edit:
Indeed, you are correct. The time stamp of his post was 2246 Monday night Pacific Time (local time for Alfred and for me), not 0001 Tuesday morning as he promised.

Alfred, you want evidence that you cheated. I give you Exhibit A.

Where did I say your time is up? If you have anything, post it now, post it tomorrow...you have nothing.

Only ad hominem against me, as usual.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Michał on November 02, 2010, 09:38:52 AM
If you have anything, post it now, post it tomorrow...you have nothing.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487734.html#msg487734
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 09:40:24 AM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?




Sorry, you don't get to set the rules here.

I'm not setting rules at all, its called apologetic...I can prove sola scriptura superior to any other methodology for truth.
Actually, yes you are setting the rules here. You have already determined what the "correct" interpretation of this passage of Scripture is. You have already determined that those who don't interpret this passage as you do are wrong. You have therefore concluded that if our Tradition cannot lead us to interpret this passage of Scripture as you do, our Tradition must not be inspired and sola scriptura (i.e., Alfred Perssonism) wins. You're essentially asking us to search our Tradition to see if it can empower us to read your mind. Hopefully now you can see the game so many of us have chosen not to play.

No I did not. I will review the various attempts at interpreting the text given, but if they don't address the precise three questions I listed, then the interpretation failed.

That isn't setting the rules, its preventing others from misdirecting away from the fact they have nothing.

To illustrate, If I challange folks to solve "2+2" and they respond with a thesis on math, but not the answer "4", they failed.

That's not setting the rules, that is identifying what must be answered.

Again with the ad hominem...its time you try a different approach.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 02, 2010, 10:07:23 AM
When I look at your replies #90 and #91, PeterTheAleut, I'm not sure what to think. I do agree with #90, because it often does appear that Alfred sets up a "heads I win, tails you lose" set of rules. However #91 is really being a bit nitpicky - not necessarily a bad thing - I can be as guilty...no, change that...more guilty than others in that.

We've just had municipal elections here in Ontario, and I know that in the US, elections are underway today. I read an opinion article in my local newspaper yesterday in which the writer pointed out that very few people, if any, are truly swayed by newspaper articles when it comes to voting.

I must agree with him. I usually vote for people whom I have met personally, or for those who have shown the kind of integrity that I value. For example, there's one provincial politician who gets my vote because of who he is. I don't agree with many of his stands, and I'm actually rather surprised that I vote for him since we are in such disagreement on many issues. But I have known him to be honest - you know exactly where he stands. And he does care about people as individuals. I have seen that many times. I would rather vote for someone I can trust - even when I know I have disagreements - than with someone who might say the right things, but does not have the record of standing by his word. ("He" is generic - I've cast votes for female candidates many times!)

So that brings me to Alfred. No, I don't agree with him. I've told him so - and I'm going to get to more of that in a minute. But I think I know where he stands. He is consistent as has been pointed out.

Alfred is going to win no one to his set of beliefs through arguments, especially here. No one here is going to win Alfred to the Orthodox faith through arguments. However, Alfred is making me a better Orthodox Christian. For that I am thankful. How so? Because his questions force me to check out my beliefs - and each and every time I find myself affirmed by what I continue to learn about my faith and about myself.

I realized that this morning as I was reading the Epistle for the day (I Thes 3:9-13). I was struck by how the Apostle Paul encouraged the Christians of Thessalonica. It wasn't by telling them to dig deeper into the Scriptures (even though we are fully aware that he held the Scriptures in very high regard), but rather to affirm the very personal relationship he had with them. And that is the Apostle's general pattern in his epistles. Notice how often he would commend persons to one another. The Christian faith is all about relationships - with each other, and with God. The Orthodox faith teaches very clearly that that concept has its origin in the loving relationship of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity and that our earthly relationships derive from that original one. That's the core of our faith - not a working out of some divine riddle, or following certain rituals.

We have accused Alfred of being alone in his faith, over-focused on his study of the Scriptures. We Orthodox can easily fall into the same isolation of dropping into church for Communion and keeping the saying of our prayers private, believing that we have thus done our duty. I don't say that to accuse anyone here. I recognize my own shortcomings in this area and I beg your prayers.

I suppose I'm getting frustrated with the circles that we are running here. I noticed the title of this thread and it proves my point. If Alfred had really been listening, he would have labelled it "Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture within Orthodox Tradition".

I'd like to say that's my rant for the day, but it's still early :) !
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2010, 10:13:08 AM
GIBBERISH
MORE GIBBERISH

I don't think more proof was needed that you are talking to yourself, Alfred.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 02, 2010, 10:17:32 AM
We have accused Alfred of being alone in his faith, over-focused on his study of the Scriptures.

Not to detract from anything else you have said, but Alfred accused himself of the above here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29483.msg484435.html#msg484435 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29483.msg484435.html#msg484435)

"Accused" is not quite the right word.  He revels in it.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2010, 10:19:22 AM
Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

Also, did anybody note the time that Alfred decided to post his "translation"? Did he give us the full amount of time he promised? I am honestly asking since I do not know how this time for a post thing works...

:Edit:
I noted the time I posted was aprox 0518 EST where as Alfred posted aprox 0145 EST... perhaps I am reading that wrong but it would appear that it was not 0001 PST
:Edit:
Indeed, you are correct. The time stamp of his post was 2246 Monday night Pacific Time (local time for Alfred and for me), not 0001 Tuesday morning as he promised.

Alfred, you want evidence that you cheated. I give you Exhibit A.

he can't read the signs of the times, so I'm not suprised he can't tell time.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 10:34:11 AM
a)why they ran into the lake

Quote from: St. John Chrysostom
But for what intent did the devils destroy the swine? Everywhere they have labored to drive men to dismay, and everywhere they rejoice in destruction. This, for instance, the devil did with respect to Job, although in that case too God suffered it, but neither in that case as complying with the devil, but willing to show His own servant the more glorious, cutting off from the evil spirit all pretext for his shamelessness, and turning on his own head what was done against the righteous man. Because now also the contrary of what they wished came to pass. For the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed, and the wickedness of the demons, from which He delivered those possessed by them, was more plainly indicated; and how they want power to touch even swine, without permission from the God of all.
And if any would take these things in a hidden sense, there is nothing to hinder. For the history indeed is this, but we are to know assuredly, that the swinish sort of men are especially liable to the operations of the demons. And as long as they are men that suffer such things, they are often able yet to prevail; but if they are become altogether swine, they are not only possessed, but are also cast down the precipice. And besides, lest any should suppose what was done to be mere acting, instead of distinctly believing that the devils were gone out; by the death of the swine this is rendered manifest.
And mark also His meekness together with His power. For when the inhabitants of that country, after having received such benefits, were driving Him away, He resisted not, but retired, and left those who had shown themselves unworthy of His teaching, having given them for teachers them that had been freed from the demons, and the swine-herds, that they might of them learn all that had happened; whilst Himself retiring leaves the fear vigorous in them. For the greatness withal of the loss was spreading the fame of what had been done, and the event penetrated their mind. And from many quarters were wafted sounds, proclaiming the strangeness of the miracle; from the cured, and from the drowned, from the owners of the swine, from the men that were feeding them.
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html



b)what happened to them after they did

Quote from: St. John Chrysostom
. . .the devils destroy[ed] the swine. . .
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html



c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Quote from: St. John Chrysostom
Now, should any one say, “And wherefore did Christ fulfill the devils’ request, suffering them to depart into the herd of swine?” this would be our reply, that He did so, not as yielding to them, but as providing for many objects thereby. One, to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine, unless even in their calamity they had enjoyed much of God’s providential care. For that they hate us more than the brutes is surely evident to every man. So then they that spared not the swine, but in one moment of time cast them all down the precipice, much more would they have done so to the men whom they possessed, leading them towards the desert, and carrying them away, unless even in their very tyranny the guardian care of God had abounded, to curb and check the excess of their violence. Whence it is manifest that there is no one, who doth not enjoy the benefit of God’s providence. And if not all alike, nor after one manner, this is itself a very great instance of providence; in that according to each man’s profit, the work also of providence is displayed.
And besides what hath been mentioned, there is another thing also, which we learn from this; that His providence is not only over all in common, but also over each in particular; which He also declared with respect to His disciples, saying, “But the very hairs of your head are numbered.” And from these demoniacs too, one may clearly perceive this; who would have “been choked” long before, if they had not enjoyed the benefit of much tender care from above.
For these reasons then He suffered them to depart into the herd of swine, and that they also who dwelt in those places should learn His power. For where His name was great, He did not greatly display Himself: but where no one knew Him, but they were still in an insensible condition, He made His miracles to shine out, so as to bring them over to the knowledge of His Godhead. For it is evident from the event that the inhabitants of that city were a sort of senseless people; for when they ought to have adored and marvelled at His power, they sent Him away, and “besought Him that He would depart out of their coasts.”
Source: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.XXVIII.html

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Under   a)why they ran into the lake  you cite Chrysostom's explanation they rejoice in destuction.

Chrysostom is clearly wrong, the devils BEGGED to be in the swine, not destroy them, they wanted a place to dwell if Jesus cast them out:

31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine." (Mat 8:31 NKJ)

He also misunderstood the argument regarding Job, it wasn't about Job per se, it was about God's statement regarding Job, in effect Satan claimed God was wrong about Job:

8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?"
 9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing?
 10 "Have You not made a hedge around him, around his household, and around all that he has on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his possessions have increased in the land.
 11 "But now, stretch out Your hand and touch all that he has, and he will surely curse You to Your face!"
 (Job 1:8-11 NKJ)

Satan's plan is evident, prove God made a mistake, then according to God's own standards, He is not God and would "step down" and allow Satan and his angels space to do as they please.

This text implies what happened to the Devil. He saw in himself a selfish motive for every act, and concluded God erred in creating free will creatures who would live with Him in true love. As every act has a selfish motive at its core, true love does not exist. Satan "projected" his defect on everyone, a mistake evil beings often make:

14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you. (Eze 28:14-15 NKJ)

But I digress, while Chrysostom correctly interprets the power of Christ is being illustrated, he failed to connect the dots...that therefore the "swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea" (Mat 8:32) by the power of Christ, the devils had no choice in the matter.

His next is also wrong: "they want power to touch even swine, without permission from the God of all."

On the contrary, they begged for and got God's permission, Jesus is God the Son:

31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." (Mat 8:31-32 NKJ)  


The rest of this paragraph is irrelevant.

Under  b)what happened to them after they did;  you cite Chrysostom explanation "they devils destroy[ed] the swine."

That  doesn't fit the facts---no one begs for a home, to destroy it, and they clearly entered the swine willingly.

BUT the main reason to reject Chrysostom's explanation is the elementary fact the devils didn't have Jesus' have permission to destroy the swine, therefore it cannot be them doing it: The devils acting without God's permission would contradict the manifest reason Matthew is relating this incident here, to reveal Christ's power and authority:

31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go."
So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:31-32 NKJ)

The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.

Jesus who just commanded the wind and sea, now commanded the Devils illustrating His Might, and to prefigure His commanding them into the Lake of Fire in the Day of the LORD Jesus (Rev 20:13ff).


Under   c)why Jesus agreed to their request  you cite Chrysostom's explanation to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine.


NOTHING in this context suggests this is about devils and their malice toward the living. Rather, as Chrysostom himself said, "the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed" by this event.

Its all about Jesus, His power, He not only commands the wind and the sea, even the devils are subject to Him.


Chrysostom's interpretation fails to conform to the details in the text, therefore it is wrong.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tikhon.of.Colorado on November 02, 2010, 10:39:27 AM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 10:52:26 AM
Hey Alfred,

I'm a new member of this website. Since I saw your post about the Sola Scriptura and you are rejecting the Holy Tradition. I suggest you to watch at my video about the Holy Tradition before you make comment. Thanks

about the Holy Tradition, the link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYJ44Jz-UWA

In Christ,
Tigran dpir

Don' t know sign language...you should consider adding captions viewers can read. Its odd you thought this would inform me about anything.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: theistgal on November 02, 2010, 10:56:24 AM
Haven't you folks learned yet? Alfred (like dattaspammi) is the only one who knows the Truth.  He is never, ever, EVER wrong.  Tremble before him!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 02, 2010, 11:03:18 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Bump.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 11:05:37 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God manifested it to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God committed to the church.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 02, 2010, 11:12:02 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Chrysostom's interpretation fails to conform to the details in the text, therefore it is wrong.

 :D :D :D :D

Now, that's funny. Because Alfred's two-minute microwave analyses are better than those of the Archbishop of Constantinople, of blessed memory.  ::)  (/sarcasm)

On to better things: here's something interesting St. John Chrysostom (http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom) once had to say.

"Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets predicted and which the facts have proved? But why should this surprise me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against obvious facts." (Homily V, XII, 1)

(bold added)

 ;D

Sounds familiar...
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 11:14:17 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Chrysostom's interpretation fails to conform to the details in the text, therefore it is wrong.

 :D :D :D :D

Now, that's funny. Because Alfred's two-minute microwave analyses are better than those of the Archbishop of Constantinople, of blessed memory.  ::)  (/sarcasm)

On to better things: here's something interesting St. John Chrysostom (http://orthodoxwiki.org/John_Chrysostom) once had to say.

"Do you not see that you are condemned by the testimony of what Christ and the prophets predicted and which the facts have proved? But why should this surprise me? That is the kind of people you are. From the beginning you have been shameless and obstinate, ready to fight at all times against obvious facts." (Homily V, XII, 1)

(bold added)

 ;D

Sounds familiar...

If it was funny, you would cite precisely where it is humorously wrong.

What is funny is thinking such ad hominem is competent.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 02, 2010, 11:17:45 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2010, 11:21:08 AM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

Don't worry, pure gold fears no fire, and Alfred doesn't even have a spark.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 11:23:24 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.

Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tzimis on November 02, 2010, 11:28:37 AM
perhaps you can answer this one question, re "a position wherein a passage of Scripture has a single, solitary meaning."

So, rather than "make sense of Scripture," you say "make senses of it."

If you asked me where I was at 10am yesterday, and I gave you multiple locations, in effect making senses of your question, did you learn anything useful?

Your analogy is flawed. A person cannot physically be in two places at once. But a story can have meaning on multiple different levels. Even ones that seem contradictory on the surface, at times. Orthodoxy is not a western-rational philosophy of forensic discovery and reconstruction. We definitely have no problem with paradox, as our beliefs are full of it. As I've said all along, the problem is with your expectations, not our answers.

I know someone (a "Jewish Christian" type) who went to Hebrew University in Israel, and studied under some rabbis while he was there, and they told him "Every passage has 70 facets." That means every verse can mean multiple different things simultaneously. Jews recognize this, Orthodox Christians recognize this.

That you believe every passage has one and only one meaning, and you know what it is, shows that you do not understand Eastern Religion, which Christianity is.

Not an analogy, it was an example. People write to say one thing, not multiple things.

A multiple answer to every question, makes truth impossible to know, then one is in a quantum mechanical world where everything is correct simultaneously. You can't live that way.

Here is another example. "My cup runneth over."

If we make senses of this, then we have "My cup leaketh"; "My cup does not run over"; "My cup sloshes over"; "My cup runneth under" etc.

Clearly making senses of "My cup runneth over" is to turn it into babble.

What you gents are confusing, is while a statement means what it says in context, it may imply or figuratively refer to many different things.

"My cup runneth over" means precisely that, but can figuratively be saying "God's blessing has been so great, its more than I can handle =my cup runneth over"

Or "My cup runneth over" to imply the server is being too generous, providing more than what can be consumed.

But even in figurative sayings, the statement itself means only  "my cup runneth over."

Making words mean different things simultaneously is making them babble, no court of law would allow multiple answers be right, for the same question.

Neither can we. Only someone wanting to make scripture teach what it does not say, believes in making senses of scripture, rather than sense of it.



The problem is that scripture reviles what is needed for us at the time of reading it. Maybe it's time to look at ourselves first rather than the words, and over time the words will take on a new meaning. :angel:
Reviles or reveals? To revile something is to speak contemptuously or abusively of it, which I don't think you meant to say in this context.
Ah yes. Sorry for the typo. I have bin praying for your new job to keep you busy enough to overlook such trifle details but I guess I haven't prayed hard enough. :laugh:
I've been sick the last couple of days. :P With a proper medical diagnosis (mild case of pluerisy) and the means to fight back for my good health (a week's supply of antibiotics to kill the infection and some ibuprofen to manage the pain), I should be back to work tomorrow.

Of course, I do have to return home some time, and I am a stickler for such "minor" details, especially when they're not so minor details as the difference between "revile" and "reveal". (http://www.ity.eu/link/smileys/devil-smiley-03)

No problem PTA. I hope you feel better.  :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Michał on November 02, 2010, 11:29:16 AM
The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.

So you are saying that what actually happend is the exact thing which SolEX01 described in reply #1 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487667.html#msg487667): the demons ran right into Jesus' trap just like the Egyptians ran right into the Lord's trap. It looks like we passed your little test in about 12 minutes but you didn't want to admit it.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 11:34:40 AM
The reason for the development of Sola Scriptura was as a defense against the claims of the Pope as being infallible. We fully agree with the Protestant Tradition in the regard to the Pope's heresy. But you must also see that claiming for yourself infallibility is also equally in error. Infallibility comes from the Holy Spirit. Jesus Christ said when two or more are gathered in my name. Not an individual and not when we are gathered for our own glorification and pride.

The only man who is infallible is Jesus Christ. There is only One God the Father, and One infallible Teaching Authority, Jesus Christ:

 9 "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.
 10 "And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.
 (Mat 23:9-10 NKJ)

Even the apostles made errors:

 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?
 (Gal 2:11-14 NKJ)

NET renders vs 11

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he had clearly done wrong. (Gal 2:11 NET)


Scripture is inerrant because God is co-author, not because its apostolic.


Paul could not say this if the apostles were infallible:

 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:8 NKJ)



Hence the Bereans are commended for their practice of sola scriptura, and not reprimanded for not believing in the infallibility of the apostles:

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Act 17:11 NKJ)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 02, 2010, 11:42:35 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.

Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

First, you evaded the question: "Prove to us how this statement is incorrect."

Second, you set up a straw man, "preempting" a response that no one argued.  Fallacy.

Third, Vatican I states that the Scriptures are sacred and canonical by virtue of divine inspiration, but nevertheless, "she subsequently approved them by her authority" (i.e. selection), having already been "committed to the church" (i.e. tradition).
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 02, 2010, 12:20:19 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

So you are attempting to bolster 'your opinion' with church tradition in order to validate it. Do you see what you're doing here, Alfred? You're relying on the very thing you condemn. You seem to be caught in a circular argument here, and unfortunately you're arguing with yourself.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

Well apparently now it's your opinion bolstered by the Vatican Council. A known fact, eh? That is so easy to say when you have the new testament canon neatly gift wrapped for you, handed down by Church who was inspired and protected by God to do so, yet you bite the very hand that fed it to you. What you call a 'known fact' is the witness of the early church affirming the inspiration of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit acting and working through it. This witness was preserved and handed down to you today through, you guess it, TRADITION.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.
Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

Tradition has everything to do with it! The fact that you affirm that God was working through the Church to canonize the New Testament affirms Church Tradition! Therefore, you are ultimately relying on the Tradition of the Church to determine what scripture is valid, the same Tradition which affirms that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'd like to help you out a bit Alfred, because I sympathize with your predicament. In order for you to get out of this argument with yourself, you're going to have to rely on your trusty tenants of sola scriptura and stay away from those pesky 'traditions of men'. That is, your task is to show us why the new testament canon we have today is indeed the correct canon, inspired by God, by using only scripture itself. This means you must also be able to show us why certain writings were excluded from the NT, and you may only use valid scripture to determine this. Good luck!

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 12:21:40 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.

Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

First, you evaded the question: "Prove to us how this statement is incorrect."

Second, you set up a straw man, "preempting" a response that no one argued.  Fallacy.

Third, Vatican I states that the Scriptures are sacred and canonical by virtue of divine inspiration, but nevertheless, "she subsequently approved them by her authority" (i.e. selection), having already been "committed to the church" (i.e. tradition).

1)A direct answer to your argument is not evasion.

2)Preempting an argument is NOT a straw man. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."-Wikipedia

3)"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

Your interpretive skills have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 01:06:59 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

So you are attempting to bolster 'your opinion' with church tradition in order to validate it. Do you see what you're doing here, Alfred? You're relying on the very thing you condemn. You seem to be caught in a circular argument here, and unfortunately you're arguing with yourself.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

Well apparently now it's your opinion bolstered by the Vatican Council. A known fact, eh? That is so easy to say when you have the new testament canon neatly gift wrapped for you, handed down by Church who was inspired and protected by God to do so, yet you bite the very hand that fed it to you. What you call a 'known fact' is the witness of the early church affirming the inspiration of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit acting and working through it. This witness was preserved and handed down to you today through, you guess it, TRADITION.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.
Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

Tradition has everything to do with it! The fact that you affirm that God was working through the Church to canonize the New Testament affirms Church Tradition! Therefore, you are ultimately relying on the Tradition of the Church to determine what scripture is valid, the same Tradition which affirms that the Church was founded by Jesus Christ and guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'd like to help you out a bit Alfred, because I sympathize with your predicament. In order for you to get out of this argument with yourself, you're going to have to rely on your trusty tenants of sola scriptura and stay away from those pesky 'traditions of men'. That is, your task is to show us why the new testament canon we have today is indeed the correct canon, inspired by God, by using only scripture itself. This means you must also be able to show us why certain writings were excluded from the NT, and you may only use valid scripture to determine this. Good luck!




1 & 2)Not an attempt, I succeeded in documenting "my opinion" is not unique to me, its what is known to any who research this, the Vatican just one of many I could have cited, but considering the Ad Hominem that would likely greet a Protestant authority, I thought it best to cite a Catholic authority.

I am NOT citing church tradition as if tradition were authoritative, I am citing an authority that says the same thing I did about the canon being committed to the church and no discovery of theirs.

3)God acting in history is NOT your tradition to me.

It happened to MY church, that  you claim the same church as yours, doesn't make it "your tradition" to me.

Its God acting in history.

There is no self contradiction in my argument, but there is in yours, its a straw man to misrepresent what God does, as your tradition.

Neither you or OUR church had anything to do with it happening.

That  it happened to OUR church doesn't make YOU its arbiter.

Lots of things happen to people, that doesn't mean they define what it is.



Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 01:20:10 PM
The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.

So you are saying that what actually happend is the exact thing which SolEX01 described in reply #1 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487667.html#msg487667): the demons ran right into Jesus' trap just like the Egyptians ran right into the Lord's trap. It looks like we passed your little test in about 12 minutes but you didn't want to admit it.

THEY didn't run, Christ DROVE them into the lake.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 01:23:07 PM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

Don't worry, pure gold fears no fire, and Alfred doesn't even have a spark.

Do either of you realize how close he came to typing a "t" in "digussing"?

How's that for a spark?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 01:37:45 PM
Another text proving the superiority of relying upon scripture for doctrine, and not tradition + scripture.

The Orthodox don't know what these texts are saying, they find them unclear...but all who know the scriptures, find them completely clear:

30 "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.
 31 "And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
 (Mat 24:30-31 NKJ)

 15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord will by no means precede those who are asleep.
 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
 17 Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord.
 (1Th 4:15-17 NKJ)

 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed--
 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
 (1Co 15:51-52 NKJ)

 14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and on the cloud sat One like the Son of Man, having on His head a golden crown, and in His hand a sharp sickle.
 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, "Thrust in Your sickle and reap, for the time has come for You to reap, for the harvest of the earth is ripe."
 16 So He who sat on the cloud thrust in His sickle on the earth, and the earth was reaped.
 (Rev 14:14-16 NKJ)

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 02, 2010, 02:14:47 PM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
The Orthodox don't know what these texts are saying, they find them unclear...

You know all 250 million Orthodox Christians in the world? Wow. That's some feat. When did you have time to go out and meet them?

Quote
but all who know the scriptures, find them completely clear:

You have said that no denomination believes what the Apostles wrote, as written. Therefore, there is no "all who." There is just you in your treehouse.

I hate to burst your bubble, but your last post quoted the New King James Version of the Bible. The Orthodox Study Bible uses the New King James Version New Testament as its NT.

You lose again.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 02, 2010, 02:15:26 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.

Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

First, you evaded the question: "Prove to us how this statement is incorrect."

Second, you set up a straw man, "preempting" a response that no one argued.  Fallacy.

Third, Vatican I states that the Scriptures are sacred and canonical by virtue of divine inspiration, but nevertheless, "she subsequently approved them by her authority" (i.e. selection), having already been "committed to the church" (i.e. tradition).

1)A direct answer to your argument is not evasion.

2)Preempting an argument is NOT a straw man. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."-Wikipedia

3)"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

Your interpretive skills have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.


1 & 2) Conceded. I was over-zealous and misread it. I apologize.

3) According to the quote you supplied, the Scriptures are sacred (true) and canonical (true) by virtue of divine inspiration (true), not by approval (true).  But these truths do not address the statement: "The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition."

According to the quote you supplied, the Church "subsequently approved (i.e. selected, to the exclusion of other writings that were not approved) by her authority."  That is, recognizing the divinely-inspired origin and worthiness of the Scriptures, and "as such committed to the church" by those who preceded, the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, the Church approved them.

In other words, the Church received the Scriptures, recognized them for what they are, approved them, and as we know, preserved them for us.  That's what tradition means: received, approved, preserved, and passed on.

But you seem to be saying something very similar: "They recognized the canon God ordained in the church," and "it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church."  So the word "canon" appears to be the sticking point.  How do you define "canon" in this context?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: orthonorm on November 02, 2010, 02:19:17 PM
LOL @ First Tag.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 02:29:48 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.

Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

First, you evaded the question: "Prove to us how this statement is incorrect."

Second, you set up a straw man, "preempting" a response that no one argued.  Fallacy.

Third, Vatican I states that the Scriptures are sacred and canonical by virtue of divine inspiration, but nevertheless, "she subsequently approved them by her authority" (i.e. selection), having already been "committed to the church" (i.e. tradition).

1)A direct answer to your argument is not evasion.

2)Preempting an argument is NOT a straw man. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."-Wikipedia

3)"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

Your interpretive skills have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.


1 & 2) Conceded. I was over-zealous and misread it. I apologize.

3) According to the quote you supplied, the Scriptures are sacred (true) and canonical (true) by virtue of divine inspiration (true), not by approval (true).  But these truths do not address the statement: "The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition."

According to the quote you supplied, the Church "subsequently approved (i.e. selected, to the exclusion of other writings that were not approved) by her authority."  That is, recognizing the divinely-inspired origin and worthiness of the Scriptures, and "as such committed to the church" by those who preceded, the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, the Church approved them.

In other words, the Church received the Scriptures, recognized them for what they are, approved them, and as we know, preserved them for us.  That's what tradition means: received, approved, preserved, and passed on.

But you seem to be saying something very similar: "They recognized the canon God ordained in the church," and "it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church."  So the word "canon" appears to be the sticking point.  How do you define "canon" in this context?

I capitalized the one word that pulls the foundation out from your argument:
"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

I'll use ellipsis and brackets to pinpoint what I am arguing from this:

"These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical... because...[God] committed [them] to the church."

They are not sacred and canonical because they were approved, but because God approved them in the church.

So they are not being selected by church Tradition.


They became canon because God inspired us to use them and that universal usage was recorded in a list of what is canon.


So the canon is NOT a teaching in the church, its an act of God the church noted in a list.

A parallel:

8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
 9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
 (Act 15:8-9 NKJ)

This is not church tradition, its God acting in the church.

If you define this as church tradition, I object to the equivocation.

For then you argue an act of God confirms acts of men.

That is equivocation fallacy EVEN IF you define acts of God as tradition, because what God does, is an act of God, and not an act of men.

You are still crediting your tradition with the preservation of scripture, my argument is God is preserving scripture, and caused men to act.

Like putting the cart after the horse, while you reverse it.

The canon are those books the early church universal accepted as scripture. While there was some dispute about a few books, in the main everyone agreed on the 27 books we have today.

I don't accept the canon because of the list, I accept it for the same reason they became canon, because God bore these particular books witness and they were used universally in the early church.

So there is no contradiction in my sola scriptura argument, I don't identify scripture using extra biblical tradition, for example, the early list of canon compiled by the church.

I identify scripture, by God's identifying it in the church universal, NOT because of a list made centuries later.


AND the bottom line is, the Holy Spirit bears witness to my spirit, these particular books are scripture.


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: FormerReformer on November 02, 2010, 02:36:56 PM



That  doesn't fit the facts---no one begs for a home, to destroy it, and they clearly entered the swine willingly.


Demons do.  Every instance we are given of demonic possession shows that the demons have no respect for their abode.  Demon possessed boys cast themselves into fire (Matt 17:14-21, Mark 9:17-18, Luke 9:39), demon possessed men have to be chained up for their own safety (the Lukan account of your little proof-text, Lk 8:29).  It is the very nature of the demonic to seek destruction.

To put it another way, demons are to human bodies what rock stars are to hotel rooms.

Quote

BUT the main reason to reject Chrysostom's explanation is the elementary fact the devils didn't have Jesus' have permission to destroy the swine, therefore it cannot be them doing it: The devils acting without God's permission would contradict the manifest reason Matthew is relating this incident here, to reveal Christ's power and authority:

31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go."
So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:31-32 NKJ)

The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.


The natural interpretation is the one St Chrysostom gives us.  Nowhere in the text does it state that Christ "drove the pigs into the sea".  The demons were given permission to destroy the swine by the permission that they were given to inhabit the beasts.  It's simply what demons do.

Quote

Under   c)why Jesus agreed to their request  you cite Chrysostom's explanation to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine.


NOTHING in this context suggests this is about devils and their malice toward the living. Rather, as Chrysostom himself said, "the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed" by this event.

Its all about Jesus, His power, He not only commands the wind and the sea, even the devils are subject to Him.


Chrysostom's interpretation fails to conform to the details in the text, therefore it is wrong.



St Chrysostom's interpretation takes into account the whole context of the Bible, not limiting itself to a few specific verses specified by some self-proclaimed prophet with an axe to grind.  The Bible is not some I-ching given us for divination, but a message that must be read in it's fullness, must be absorbed into one's heart, that our minds should steep in for our own benefit and salvation.  

One flake of a tea leaf in hot water does not make tea, it takes a whole bag (or a teaspoon of leaves if you're fortunate enough to get quality loose-leaf tea).  Dip the bag in once and you still only have hot water.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 02, 2010, 02:41:06 PM
Here's what I'm not understanding:  Alfred pits the two against each other (Sola Scriptura vs. Scripture + Tradition) because he finds some aspect of Orthodox Tradition to go against the Scriptures?  Otherwise, what's he getting at?

What is it that you don't agree with Alfred?  What do Orthodox believe and practice that was not an obvious part of the early Church and that cannot be found in, and supported by, the Scriptures?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 02, 2010, 02:41:58 PM
Quote from: FormerReformer
The Bible is not some I-ching given us for divination, but a message that must be read in it's fullness, must be absorbed into one's heart, that our minds should steep in for our own benefit and salvation.  

One flake of a tea leaf in hot water does not make tea, it takes a whole bag (or a teaspoon of leaves if you're fortunate enough to get quality loose-leaf tea).  Dip the bag in once and you still only have hot water.

 ;D  :angel:

November post of the month already?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: dcommini on November 02, 2010, 03:07:32 PM



That  doesn't fit the facts---no one begs for a home, to destroy it, and they clearly entered the swine willingly.


Demons do.  Every instance we are given of demonic possession shows that the demons have no respect for their abode.  Demon possessed boys cast themselves into fire (Matt 17:14-21, Mark 9:17-18, Luke 9:39), demon possessed men have to be chained up for their own safety (the Lukan account of your little proof-text, Lk 8:29).  It is the very nature of the demonic to seek destruction.

To put it another way, demons are to human bodies what rock stars are to hotel rooms.

Quote

BUT the main reason to reject Chrysostom's explanation is the elementary fact the devils didn't have Jesus' have permission to destroy the swine, therefore it cannot be them doing it: The devils acting without God's permission would contradict the manifest reason Matthew is relating this incident here, to reveal Christ's power and authority:

31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go."
So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:31-32 NKJ)

The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.


The natural interpretation is the one St Chrysostom gives us.  Nowhere in the text does it state that Christ "drove the pigs into the sea".  The demons were given permission to destroy the swine by the permission that they were given to inhabit the beasts.  It's simply what demons do.

Quote

Under   c)why Jesus agreed to their request  you cite Chrysostom's explanation to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine.


NOTHING in this context suggests this is about devils and their malice toward the living. Rather, as Chrysostom himself said, "the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed" by this event.

Its all about Jesus, His power, He not only commands the wind and the sea, even the devils are subject to Him.


Chrysostom's interpretation fails to conform to the details in the text, therefore it is wrong.



St Chrysostom's interpretation takes into account the whole context of the Bible, not limiting itself to a few specific verses specified by some self-proclaimed prophet with an axe to grind.  The Bible is not some I-ching given us for divination, but a message that must be read in it's fullness, must be absorbed into one's heart, that our minds should steep in for our own benefit and salvation.  

One flake of a tea leaf in hot water does not make tea, it takes a whole bag (or a teaspoon of leaves if you're fortunate enough to get quality loose-leaf tea).  Dip the bag in once and you still only have hot water.

Well said, bro!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: tuesdayschild on November 02, 2010, 03:16:37 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.

Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

First, you evaded the question: "Prove to us how this statement is incorrect."

Second, you set up a straw man, "preempting" a response that no one argued.  Fallacy.

Third, Vatican I states that the Scriptures are sacred and canonical by virtue of divine inspiration, but nevertheless, "she subsequently approved them by her authority" (i.e. selection), having already been "committed to the church" (i.e. tradition).

1)A direct answer to your argument is not evasion.

2)Preempting an argument is NOT a straw man. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."-Wikipedia

3)"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

Your interpretive skills have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.


1 & 2) Conceded. I was over-zealous and misread it. I apologize.

3) According to the quote you supplied, the Scriptures are sacred (true) and canonical (true) by virtue of divine inspiration (true), not by approval (true).  But these truths do not address the statement: "The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition."

According to the quote you supplied, the Church "subsequently approved (i.e. selected, to the exclusion of other writings that were not approved) by her authority."  That is, recognizing the divinely-inspired origin and worthiness of the Scriptures, and "as such committed to the church" by those who preceded, the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, the Church approved them.

In other words, the Church received the Scriptures, recognized them for what they are, approved them, and as we know, preserved them for us.  That's what tradition means: received, approved, preserved, and passed on.

But you seem to be saying something very similar: "They recognized the canon God ordained in the church," and "it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church."  So the word "canon" appears to be the sticking point.  How do you define "canon" in this context?

I capitalized the one word that pulls the foundation out from your argument:
"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

I'll use ellipsis and brackets to pinpoint what I am arguing from this:

"These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical... because...[God] committed [them] to the church."

They are not sacred and canonical because they were approved, but because God approved them in the church.

So they are not being selected by church Tradition.

The
They became canon because God inspired us to use them and that universal usage was recorded in a list of what is canon.


So the canon is NOT a teaching in the church, its an act of God the church noted in a list.


A parallel:

8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
 9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
 (Act 15:8-9 NKJ)

This is not church tradition, its God acting in the church.

If you define this as tradition, then I object to the equivocation.

You are arguing what Orthodox teach (Tradition) as necessary, but are pointing to an act of God as though that is "what Orthodox teach."

That is equivocation fallacy EVEN IF you define acts of God as tradition, because what God does, is an act of God, and not an act of man.

That one word NOT does not undermine the argument. You make too much of it.

I defined "tradition." I will add, however, that Holy Tradition involves "God acting in the Church," inspiring authorized men (i.e. first apostles, then bishops) to approve, preserve, and pass on that which they have received.

"What God does, is an act of God, and not an act of man."  No, the Incarnation says otherwise.

If I understand you, I think that we agree on this: The Scriptures were authentic (canon) and authoritative (canon) before they were "subsequently approved," that is, selected and sanctioned (canon) by the Church, to become what we now call the Canon.  Maybe we should just leave it at that.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Michał on November 02, 2010, 03:42:01 PM
The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.

So you are saying that what actually happend is the exact thing which SolEX01 described in reply #1 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487667.html#msg487667): the demons ran right into Jesus' trap just like the Egyptians ran right into the Lord's trap. It looks like we passed your little test in about 12 minutes but you didn't want to admit it.

THEY didn't run, Christ DROVE them into the lake.

28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

The two situations - drowning of the Egyptians and drowning of the demon-possessed swine - are obviously analogical: there is God, there are God's enemies, there is a bait (for the Egyptians: the Israelites, for the demons: the swine), and there is death in waters.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 02, 2010, 03:49:16 PM



That  doesn't fit the facts---no one begs for a home, to destroy it, and they clearly entered the swine willingly.


Demons do.  Every instance we are given of demonic possession shows that the demons have no respect for their abode.  Demon possessed boys cast themselves into fire (Matt 17:14-21, Mark 9:17-18, Luke 9:39), demon possessed men have to be chained up for their own safety (the Lukan account of your little proof-text, Lk 8:29).  It is the very nature of the demonic to seek destruction.

To put it another way, demons are to human bodies what rock stars are to hotel rooms.

Quote

BUT the main reason to reject Chrysostom's explanation is the elementary fact the devils didn't have Jesus' have permission to destroy the swine, therefore it cannot be them doing it: The devils acting without God's permission would contradict the manifest reason Matthew is relating this incident here, to reveal Christ's power and authority:

31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go."
So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:31-32 NKJ)

The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.


The natural interpretation is the one St Chrysostom gives us.  Nowhere in the text does it state that Christ "drove the pigs into the sea".  The demons were given permission to destroy the swine by the permission that they were given to inhabit the beasts.  It's simply what demons do.

Quote

Under   c)why Jesus agreed to their request  you cite Chrysostom's explanation to teach them that are delivered from those wicked tyrants, how great the malice of their insidious enemies: another, that all might learn, how not even against swine are they bold, except He allow them; a third, that they would have treated those men more grievously than the swine.


NOTHING in this context suggests this is about devils and their malice toward the living. Rather, as Chrysostom himself said, "the power of Christ was gloriously proclaimed" by this event.

Its all about Jesus, His power, He not only commands the wind and the sea, even the devils are subject to Him.


Chrysostom's interpretation fails to conform to the details in the text, therefore it is wrong.



St Chrysostom's interpretation takes into account the whole context of the Bible, not limiting itself to a few specific verses specified by some self-proclaimed prophet with an axe to grind.  The Bible is not some I-ching given us for divination, but a message that must be read in it's fullness, must be absorbed into one's heart, that our minds should steep in for our own benefit and salvation.  

One flake

LOL. Indeed
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Fr. George on November 02, 2010, 04:06:46 PM
LOL.  I can't believe you pass this drivel off as actual scholarship, Alfred.

"That  doesn't fit the facts---no one begs for a home, to destroy it, and they clearly entered the swine willingly."

Quote from: Mark 9 NKJV
14 And when He came to the disciples, He saw a great multitude around them, and scribes disputing with them. 15 Immediately, when they saw Him, all the people were greatly amazed, and running to Him, greeted Him. 16 And He asked the scribes, “What are you discussing with them?”
17 Then one of the crowd answered and said, “Teacher, I brought You my son, who has a mute spirit. 18 And wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to Your disciples, that they should cast it out, but they could not.”
19 He answered him and said, “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him to Me.” 20 Then they brought him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth.
21 So He asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?”
And he said, “From childhood. 22 And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”

Just in case you prefer one gospel over another:

Quote from: Matthew 17 NKJV
14 And when they had come to the multitude, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying, 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic[c] and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 So I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not cure him.”
17 Then Jesus answered and said, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour.

I still can't believe you would say the above despite the fact that Matthew and Luke attest to the demon-possessed man being driven to the tombs and desert by the demon - both places that lead to, or contain, death.  Demons desire the death of all that is living, to cut short the time of repentance (and, for those remaining, to lead to fear and despair) and lead us to an unfavorable judgment, mistakenly thinking that God's mercy will be thus limited.  The demons don't need a human body as a home - they only use to to accomplish their task of driving people away from the Lord our God.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 04:25:49 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


Before proceeding any further, Alfred, you must prove to us how this statement is incorrect.

Who told you canon was decided by tradition? God made them manifest to the church:

These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her authority after they had been composed by unaided human skill, not simply because they contain revelation without error, but because, being written under the inspiration of the holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and were as such committed to the church.-First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 2.


The church didn't ordain the canon, they recognized the canon God ordained in the church.

Oops. So you claim not to rely on tradition, yet you defer to Tradition (Roman Catholic, no less) in order to declare that your scripture is authentic? So do you accept Papal Infallibility as well now, Alfred? You have alot of work ahead of you to try and get out of this conundrum, I must say.

Incorrect, I thus preempted your "that's ONLY YOUR opinion" response.

Its not just my opinion, its known fact even the Vatican acknowledges.

The Orthodox church didn't dictate what is canon, it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church.

Your nebulous tradition had nothing to do with it.

First, you evaded the question: "Prove to us how this statement is incorrect."

Second, you set up a straw man, "preempting" a response that no one argued.  Fallacy.

Third, Vatican I states that the Scriptures are sacred and canonical by virtue of divine inspiration, but nevertheless, "she subsequently approved them by her authority" (i.e. selection), having already been "committed to the church" (i.e. tradition).

1)A direct answer to your argument is not evasion.

2)Preempting an argument is NOT a straw man. "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position."-Wikipedia

3)"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

Your interpretive skills have been weighed in the balances and found wanting.


1 & 2) Conceded. I was over-zealous and misread it. I apologize.

3) According to the quote you supplied, the Scriptures are sacred (true) and canonical (true) by virtue of divine inspiration (true), not by approval (true).  But these truths do not address the statement: "The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition."

According to the quote you supplied, the Church "subsequently approved (i.e. selected, to the exclusion of other writings that were not approved) by her authority."  That is, recognizing the divinely-inspired origin and worthiness of the Scriptures, and "as such committed to the church" by those who preceded, the Apostles and their successors, the bishops, the Church approved them.

In other words, the Church received the Scriptures, recognized them for what they are, approved them, and as we know, preserved them for us.  That's what tradition means: received, approved, preserved, and passed on.

But you seem to be saying something very similar: "They recognized the canon God ordained in the church," and "it learned what was canon, by God's activity in the church."  So the word "canon" appears to be the sticking point.  How do you define "canon" in this context?

I capitalized the one word that pulls the foundation out from your argument:
"NOT because she subsequently approved them by her authority".

I'll use ellipsis and brackets to pinpoint what I am arguing from this:

"These books the church holds to be sacred and canonical... because...[God] committed [them] to the church."

They are not sacred and canonical because they were approved, but because God approved them in the church.

So they are not being selected by church Tradition.

The
They became canon because God inspired us to use them and that universal usage was recorded in a list of what is canon.


So the canon is NOT a teaching in the church, its an act of God the church noted in a list.


A parallel:

8 "So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us,
 9 "and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
 (Act 15:8-9 NKJ)

This is not church tradition, its God acting in the church.

If you define this as tradition, then I object to the equivocation.

You are arguing what Orthodox teach (Tradition) as necessary, but are pointing to an act of God as though that is "what Orthodox teach."

That is equivocation fallacy EVEN IF you define acts of God as tradition, because what God does, is an act of God, and not an act of man.

That one word NOT does not undermine the argument. You make too much of it.

I defined "tradition." I will add, however, that Holy Tradition involves "God acting in the Church," inspiring authorized men (i.e. first apostles, then bishops) to approve, preserve, and pass on that which they have received.

"What God does, is an act of God, and not an act of man."  No, the Incarnation says otherwise.

If I understand you, I think that we agree on this: The Scriptures were authentic (canon) and authoritative (canon) before they were "subsequently approved," that is, selected and sanctioned (canon) by the Church, to become what we now call the Canon.  Maybe we should just leave it at that.


The incarnation is an act of God, Jesus (who is God the Son) chose to add to Himself human nature.

However I note you are uniting God's acts in the church with your tradition.

You also have scripture as an act of God in the church, so that it also is one with your tradition.

The logical inconsistency I see in that proposition is, scripture was here first, independently of the church.

Israel is NOT the church, the church came into existence in time, and is built by Christ on a specific Rock that didn't exist before His earthly ministry, YET scripture certainly did exist before that time.

Therefore Scripture is not part of church tradition, its separate, has a separate existence having come into existence BEFORE the church.

So its beginning is different than tradition in the church, and it is independent of the church.



Also its end is different.

The canon is closed, there are no new Bible books being written.

Yet the Orthodox church continues, its tradition continues growing independently of scripture.

Therefore Scripture is not part of church tradition, its separate, has a separate existence.


In other words, the Orthodox believe scripture is part of its tradition.

But scripture was here before the Orthodox, and its canon ceased before the Orthodox have, therefore its clearly independent of the Orthodox.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 04:40:29 PM
The natural interpretation is they ran right into Jesus' trap, completely outmaneuvered.

So you are saying that what actually happend is the exact thing which SolEX01 described in reply #1 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,30939.msg487667.html#msg487667): the demons ran right into Jesus' trap just like the Egyptians ran right into the Lord's trap. It looks like we passed your little test in about 12 minutes but you didn't want to admit it.

THEY didn't run, Christ DROVE them into the lake.

28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

The two situations - drowning of the Egyptians and drowning of the demon-possessed swine - are obviously analogical: there is God, there are God's enemies, there is a bait (for the Egyptians: the Israelites, for the demons: the swine), and there is death in waters.

While there are some parallels, the analogy breaks down where you require it for your argument to be sound.

When I said THEY didn't run, they didn't.

The swine feet ran under the command of Christ, not the devils.

The devils were no longer in control, much to their horror and dismay.

The destruction ect, destroyed them, they ended up in Tartarus (which is the implication of their rushing into the sea).

That you won't find in your Exodus analogy rendering it not analogical to this Exorcism.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 04:49:06 PM
LOL.  I can't believe you pass this drivel off as actual scholarship, Alfred.

"That  doesn't fit the facts---no one begs for a home, to destroy it, and they clearly entered the swine willingly."

Quote from: Mark 9 NKJV
14 And when He came to the disciples, He saw a great multitude around them, and scribes disputing with them. 15 Immediately, when they saw Him, all the people were greatly amazed, and running to Him, greeted Him. 16 And He asked the scribes, “What are you discussing with them?”
17 Then one of the crowd answered and said, “Teacher, I brought You my son, who has a mute spirit. 18 And wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to Your disciples, that they should cast it out, but they could not.”
19 He answered him and said, “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him to Me.” 20 Then they brought him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth.
21 So He asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?”
And he said, “From childhood. 22 And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”

Just in case you prefer one gospel over another:

Quote from: Matthew 17 NKJV
14 And when they had come to the multitude, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying, 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic[c] and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 So I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not cure him.”
17 Then Jesus answered and said, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour.

I still can't believe you would say the above despite the fact that Matthew and Luke attest to the demon-possessed man being driven to the tombs and desert by the demon - both places that lead to, or contain, death.  Demons desire the death of all that is living, to cut short the time of repentance (and, for those remaining, to lead to fear and despair) and lead us to an unfavorable judgment, mistakenly thinking that God's mercy will be thus limited.  The demons don't need a human body as a home - they only use to to accomplish their task of driving people away from the Lord our God.

1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.
If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."


An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 02, 2010, 05:05:08 PM
I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 02, 2010, 07:07:09 PM
Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   ::)

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMatthewEvangelist.jpg)

St. Mark
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMarkEvangelist.jpg)

St. Luke
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StLukeEvangelist.jpg)

St. John
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJohnEvangelist.jpg)


And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPaulicon.jpg)

St. James (Iakovos)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJameseldericon.jpg)

St. Peter
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPetericon.jpg)

St. Jude
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJudeicon.jpg)


Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev)  ;D
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/HolyTrinityicon.jpg)

That clears that up, then.  8)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: FormerReformer on November 02, 2010, 07:16:46 PM
Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   ::)

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMatthewEvangelist.jpg)

St. Mark
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMarkEvangelist.jpg)

St. Luke
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StLukeEvangelist.jpg)

St. John
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJohnEvangelist.jpg)


And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPaulicon.jpg)

St. James (Iakovos)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJameseldericon.jpg)

St. Peter
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPetericon.jpg)

St. Jude
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJudeicon.jpg)


Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev)  ;D
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/HolyTrinityicon.jpg)

That clears that up, then.  8)

How could Mr Persson recognize them?  He scrolls right past our icons on the forum and flees from our churches!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: GabrieltheCelt on November 02, 2010, 07:53:52 PM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

He'd of been escorted off the stage over at Monachos.  He's lucky our boys (and ladies) are a little more patient. 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Melodist on November 02, 2010, 08:19:27 PM
And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with the Bible. It's about the Church.

If sola scriptura is wrong, then the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and has the authority to interpret the Scriptures and teach with authority.

If sola scriptura is right, then the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit and has no authority to interpret the Scriptures or teach with authority.

This is part of what you have to prove in order to prove sola scriptura.

If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So you think if a person reads something enough times,they are bound to get it right eventually by relying on their own understanding?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tzimis on November 02, 2010, 08:31:46 PM

Quote
1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

You missed this.    Mark 9

21 So He asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?”
And he said, “From childhood. 22 And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”
Quote

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.
They wanted to destroy there host.


Quote
Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.
They torment to destroy there victims.

Quote
Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.
No, it shows that man is at odds with the devil. So the battle ensues.

Quote
AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

It would prove that the demon has won in that instance.

Quote
For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

Devoid of life isn't clear enough.




Quote
That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

They are about the destruction of man, but for you to see that you must take up your cross.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 09:41:38 PM
I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?

What is unclear is why haven't you exerted yourself to know how to disprove an interpretation, even though that is clearly an ability you desire.

Usually one works for what they desire, they understand blaming others for their lack of effort, is inappropriate.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 02, 2010, 09:50:35 PM
Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   ::)

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMatthewEvangelist.jpg)

St. Mark
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMarkEvangelist.jpg)

St. Luke
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StLukeEvangelist.jpg)

St. John
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJohnEvangelist.jpg)


And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPaulicon.jpg)

St. James (Iakovos)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJameseldericon.jpg)

St. Peter
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPetericon.jpg)

St. Jude
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJudeicon.jpg)


Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev)  ;D
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/HolyTrinityicon.jpg)

That clears that up, then.  8)

Having studied those images, its clear they better remain indoors when the wind acts up.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: FormerReformer on November 02, 2010, 09:57:26 PM


Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.


I hope you don't mind me not going over the entire post, Mr Persson, but this one phrase seems to dominate your misunderstanding on this particular issue.

Demons do not desire corporeal pleasures.  Pleasure is something that they use to entice us, the pleasure of lust, the pleasure of indulgent wrath, or the pleasure of gluttony.  Demons desire nothing more or less than the entire destruction of this thing called "Man".  Demons seek to devour us like a ravenous lion, taking us from sin to sin until the damnation of our souls is secured.  Whatever pleasure we perceive is useful to them only so long as it damns us.

I would suspect that demonic possession is much like hypnosis, in a way.  Certainly the accounts we are given are rather similar.  Both involve trance-like states, both can get people to act in ways that are out of character, yet not totally antithetical to the person being controlled.  I think with demonic possession the end-game is most likely to cause a person to enter into such a state of sin that spiritual depression drives such a person to that which the demon desires most: the total annihilation of the being.  With humans this could be a long process, I suspect pigs do not have quite so many blocks in place.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 02, 2010, 10:11:00 PM
Hey Alfred,

I'm a new member of this website. Since I saw your post about the Sola Scriptura and you are rejecting the Holy Tradition. I suggest you to watch at my video about the Holy Tradition before you make comment. Thanks

about the Holy Tradition, the link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYJ44Jz-UWA

In Christ,
Tigran dpir

Don' t know sign language...you should consider adding captions viewers can read. Its odd you thought this would inform me about anything.

Click on the little box with "cc" in it.  It should inform you about quite a bit.   :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 02, 2010, 10:12:28 PM
Hey Alfred,

I'm a new member of this website. Since I saw your post about the Sola Scriptura and you are rejecting the Holy Tradition. I suggest you to watch at my video about the Holy Tradition before you make comment. Thanks

about the Holy Tradition, the link is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYJ44Jz-UWA

In Christ,
Tigran dpir

Welcome to the forum, Tigran!  I love your videos:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25886.msg407977.html#msg407977

Բարի եկաք։
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Fr. George on November 02, 2010, 10:39:01 PM
1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.

If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.

If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.

Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).

Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.

Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.

AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.

For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.

That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.

An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Gebre Menfes Kidus on November 02, 2010, 10:49:56 PM
Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   ::)

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMatthewEvangelist.jpg)

St. Mark
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StMarkEvangelist.jpg)

St. Luke
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StLukeEvangelist.jpg)

St. John
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJohnEvangelist.jpg)


And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPaulicon.jpg)

St. James (Iakovos)
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJameseldericon.jpg)

St. Peter
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StPetericon.jpg)

St. Jude
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/StJudeicon.jpg)


Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Rublev)  ;D
(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/HolyTrinityicon.jpg)

That clears that up, then.  8)


Perfect! ;)


Selam
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 02, 2010, 11:01:02 PM
Thank you.   :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 03, 2010, 12:11:03 AM
I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?

What is unclear is why haven't you exerted yourself to know how to disprove an interpretation, even though that is clearly an ability you desire.

Usually one works for what they desire, they understand blaming others for their lack of effort, is inappropriate.


No, this isn't about me, it's about you.  Your entire premise is that you hold the correct interpretation and yet you can only claim to do so on your own authority, and this confuses me.  Why is your interpretation the correct one and to what authority do you appeal to prove it?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 03, 2010, 07:01:22 AM
I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?

What is unclear is why haven't you exerted yourself to know how to disprove an interpretation, even though that is clearly an ability you desire.

Usually one works for what they desire, they understand blaming others for their lack of effort, is inappropriate.


No, this isn't about me, it's about you.  Your entire premise is that you hold the correct interpretation and yet you can only claim to do so on your own authority, and this confuses me.  Why is your interpretation the correct one and to what authority do you appeal to prove it?

Incorrect. There are Orthodox apologists on the net you could learn from, rather than accuse me of crap.

I post a claim, the reasons for my claim. If you reject the claim, then you post reasons why my reasons are unsound.

Accusing me of making a claim I believe in, is not only immature, its boorish. Of course I believe what I say, if I didn't, I wouldn't say it.

Perhaps you just don't realize how stupid such an accusation is...

You expect I will post an interpretation believing it wrong, that everyone else is right, and that is "normal" to you?

Do you do that? Where, when, copy paste it now here, now. I want to see if you follow your own advice, live by your own rules, practice what you preach.

Or you could consult with your fellow Orthodox apologists on the NET, and learn apologetics, and stop embarrassing yourself.


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 03, 2010, 09:05:04 AM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.
Actually, Trevor, this Orthodox-Other Christian section of the forum IS to some degree a Protestant board, which, to SOME degree, IS a place for Orthodox to dialogue with Protestants and maybe even act on the sometimes vain hope that we can convince a Protestant to abandon his heresies and become Orthodox.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 03, 2010, 09:30:17 AM
Incorrect. There are Orthodox apologists on the net you could learn from, rather than accuse me of crap.

I'm really not sure how to make myself any more clear, Alfred.  I have not accused you of a single thing, I have asked you simple questions because I'm genuinely confused by your posts.  If you won't answer them, then why are you here???

Quote
I post a claim, the reasons for my claim. If you reject the claim, then you post reasons why my reasons are unsound.

You didn't post a claim, you posted that you held the key to the only interpretation of a passage and all I was asking you was to what authority you appeal to give your interpretation its stamp of approval, because I genuinely do not understand how it's anyone other than yourself.  If you could just answer that instead of accusing me of accusing you of things, we could get on with things...

Quote
Accusing me of making a claim I believe in, is not only immature, its boorish. Of course I believe what I say, if I didn't, I wouldn't say it.

This didn't happen.  Whose posts are you reading???

Quote
Perhaps you just don't realize how stupid such an accusation is...

Had I made an accusation at all this might make sense.

Quote
You expect I will post an interpretation believing it wrong, that everyone else is right, and that is "normal" to you?

Nope, but I would expect you to at least answer my question about the authority to which you appeal for your interpretation.

Quote
Or you could consult with your fellow Orthodox apologists on the NET, and learn apologetics, and stop embarrassing yourself.
 
My questions are not about my own apologetics, they are about yours.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 03, 2010, 09:33:50 AM
1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.

If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.

If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.

Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).

Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.

Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.

AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.

For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.

That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.

An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.

1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.


Of course demons are not omnipotent. Of course they need God's "concurrence" to do anything in this matrix, we all do.

Satan had nothing to gain by killing him, his goal was to get Job to curse God, and God knew Satan would go to any lengths to accomplish that, and probably go too far. So God protects Job with that warning :

6 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life." (Job 2:6 NKJ)

In other words, Satan didn't ask for permission to kill Job, but God knew he likely would in his mad quest to prove himself right, so God forbade it.

So this text is irrelevant to your conclusion "its their desire and their goal to destroy all they possess." You have NO proof of that here, or frankly, from anywhere else.

You portray the evil spirits as irrational, and scripture does not, it portrays them as evil, not irrationally self destructive.

Their causing hurt to those they possess and others is likely because they enjoy watching others or experiencing pain,  because they are evil and masochistic. They aren't destroying others for no reason, they have their reasons, sick evil reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

***

2) The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.


No, the swine perished in the water, the devils went to Tartarus:
NKJ  2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell (ταρταρώσας) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;
 (2Pe 2:4 NKJ)

Christ was in complete control. The devils thought Jesus agreed to their bargain, He didn't. He was there to torment them before their time, just as they feared. When Christ said "Go", they rushed into the swine believing they were free, to their horror, they were made to run into the lake, as a prefigure of what will be in the Day of Christ, when they rush headlong into the Lake of fire.

As you know, if Christ didn't send them to Tartarus, then they went free. But then the text does not glorify Christ, then He is liable to various charges of wanton destruction of life, the swine.

The context is glorifying Christ, He commands the wind and sea, now the devils. This must be interpreted consistent with Matthew's purpose of putting it here, THAT is the context:
26 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
 27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.
 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:26-32 NKJ)

The devils are terrified, they are not in control, they are powerless before Christ. They are standing before the LORD Almighty, before the Form of God the angels behold in heaven(Phi 2:6), there is no question who is in authority  here at all. Jesus is "the Son of God" and they know it. They are begging not to be thrown into the abyss, compare:

31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss. (Luk 8:31 NKJ)

Jesus did precisely that, He was there to torment them before their time, He did command them to go into the abyss.


Getting rid of the swine was "getting two evils with one stone." It violated the law of Moses to be herding swine for food (Deu 14:8), that is why the herders were terrified of Jesus:

33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.
 34 And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region. (Mat 8:33-34 NKJ)

So according to the law of both God and man, Jesus is beyond reproach, nothing wrong occurred here, everything was done right.

***

3) If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.


See #2 above, I agree they have NO control over the situation, they were standing before the LORD GOD Almighty, completely at His mercy.

I argued a counterpoint, they could "fly away" without the swine if that is what they wanted to do...against your saying they wanted the swine to perish so they could fly away. You  are arguing Christ would let them do that, you can't then deny He would let them do that without first entering the swine.

I am arguing that doesn't make sense because if they were allowed to do it, they would have done it before approaching Christ, they were terrified of Him and of what He might do. It doesn't make sense they would go near Christ, beg to enter the swine to make their escape, and that Christ would allow that. If that is the case, then they could have fled BEFORE getting so close to Christ they had to beg.

I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic, It was a counter  point, not a claim.

My claim is they had no control whatsoever, and when the swine rush into the sea, its Jesus who is making them do it, they are not running away at all, they are being tormented before their time.


***

4) If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.


Yes, see above.

***

5) Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).



I do not agree, this is not revelation about devils...no one in the Gospels seem ignorant about them, and they do nothing in this context that is new.

Christ fooled them into thinking they struck a bargain, and they release their captives willingly without harming them, they rush into the swine and to their horror, are "tormented them before their time" revealing He truly is the Son of God, that everything is under His control, not just the wind and sea.

***

6) Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.


Incorrect, and here is one of many texts proving they do lust after physical pleasures:

NKJ  Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. (Gen 6:1-2 NKJ)


These are "incorporeal" NOW, because God evidently decreed it after the flood, but they weren't before.


People think of heaven as immaterial, but that is pagan, not Scriptural revelation. The Bible shows Mount Zion to be a place, and angels certainly seem quite material to each other.  Recall Enoch, Moses and Elijah are in heaven physically, they aren't spirits.

Nothing in the description of heaven makes it "immaterial," it exists in different dimensions than our sphere of existence, an "alternate reality" as it were, but scripture does not say its immaterial. Its material in its dimension of existence.


Scripture shows they can "materialize forms" or appear in their own form, materially, in our sphere of existence:

2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
 3 and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.
 4 "Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
 5 "And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant." They said, "Do as you have said."
 6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes."
 7 And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it.
 8 So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. (Gen 18:2-8 NKJ)


When Christ appeared in the locked room, the text does not say He walked through walls or the door:

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (Joh 20:19 KJV)


"Came Jesus and stood in their midst" (ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον Joh 20:19), Jesus stepped into our dimension, remaining as phyiscal as He is in the heavenly dimension, the TELEIOS ( 1 Cor 13:10), aka "kingdom of God"  (Mark 9:1ff) met our dimension, and Moses and Elijah speaks to Jesus.

They are physical in God's Dimension, not immaterial. Angels are immaterial in  ours, when they want to be. Demons, no doubt because of what they did that forced God to flood the earth and cleanse if of their children, evidently are NOT allowed to take physical form in our realm of existence.

But that will change:

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
 (2Th 2:9-12 NKJ)

It seems God will  allow the devils take physical form to decieve the entire earth...likely that UFOs have landed and will give us alien technology:

4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" (Rev 13:4 NKJ)

That is speculation, but it would explain why Satan has gone through so much trouble perfecting his "alien encounters" throughout history. UFO reports make perfect sense when they are seen as "trial runs" getting the "kinks" out of the deception.


But I admit UFO play a part in the strong delusion is speculation, not explicit scripture teaching, so it could be wrong.


Demons were once angels in the army of God, who LEFT their proper habitation, and are not allowed to take physical form now, because of what happened in Genesis. God had to destroy all humanity (except Noah and family whose DNA was not corrupted with angelic DNA Gen 6:9), to cleanse the earth of the abomination, the image of God in man was corrupted with the image of angels.

It was a satanic plot to stop the seed of the Woman from arriving to "bruise them" in the head (Gen 3:15).

After the flood, these fallen angels do what they want, possess people for pleasure etc. No doubt Satan orders them around as needed, but in general, they are on their own, satisfying their evil lusts and doing as much evil as they find pleasurable to do.

They do derive pleasure from physical forms, that desire is what propelled their fall.

Notice the association Jude makes, these are guilty of the same sinful lusts as found in Sodom, they go after "strange flesh":

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jud 1:6-7 KJV)


Scripture alone is 100% accurate information on the spirit world, not the testimony of men, the ability of spirits to deceive is too great for man to overcome on his own. ONLY in scripture will you find the uncorrupted truth.




7) Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.



Compare #1 above, I dispute that. Tormenting Job was not for pleasure, it was argument Satan was making to the sons of God in heaven:


6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
 7 And the LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" So Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."
 8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?"
 9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing?
 (Job 1:6-9 NKJ)


God made a claim, that none on earth were like Job, he loved God with true love, blameless.

Satan counter argues in vs 9, "Does Job fear God for nothing?"

This isn't about Job per se, its about God, He made a claim, Satan is saying God is wrong = God then is not God according to His own standards, therefore God must allow Satan and his angels live apart from God.

Collaborating this is what the incarnation did to make demons choke on the words "Jesus came in the flesh."

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
 (1Jo 4:2-3 NKJ)

Compare:

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 (Phi 2:5-11 NKJ)

Christ proved "true love for the Father" exists when He "sold all He owned" in heaven, adding to Himself human nature, to die a horrible death worse than any man received, on earth.

Leaving INFINITE riches, because Jesus loved the Father above all = true love exists, Satan's argument every act has a selfish motive, even  acts of devotion to God, is wrong.

Satan lost the argument forever, when Christ became flesh. Therefore the devils choke on the words, they cannot say them.


Job was tormented in a test of God's perfection, to see if He made a mistake about Job.




8) AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.



That is a counter claim, not a "nice one" sophistry.

It was argued devils destroy for no reason...that would make them insane and perhaps innocent victims of the evil they do.

On the contrary, scripture shows they are evil, which implies they act for selfish motives, and not insanely without reason.



***

9) For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interest.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.



Incorrect, they thought they could win the argument and then God would have to let them have their own kingdom.


People "project," that is, honest people assume others are honest. Thieves project everyone is a thief also. In Job 1:9ff Satan is arguing every act of love for God has a selfish motive, BECAUSE that is true of him:

14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you.
 (Eze 28:14-15 NKJ)

Satan searched his own motives, and found selfishness at the root of every act, and projected that is true for everyone, including Job.

He lost the argument concerning Job, and Christ via the incarnation blasted it away forever. True love exists, therefore when God created all things, to live with other creatures in mutual true love for each other, it wasn't a mistake.

***

10) That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.



My point stands, nothing in scripture shows demons are either 1)unselfish; 2)insane.

They have evil reasons for what they do, they are not innocent victims of insanity, otherwise how could God punishment them? Then He would be unjust.


So if you want to prove your point, you will have to do more than say "Hardly."


Otherwise my point stands.

***

11)An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.



It is certain Matthew's purpose was to reveal Christ has authority over wind, sea and demons, not to show Satan's goals or anything about demons.

Christ makes this serve multiple righteous purposes. 1)Herding Swine for food is forbidden by the Law; 2)Liberating these demon possessed men without the devils harming them was good reason to fool them into thinking they made a bargain with Jesus. They assumed that, He never said He did. 3)This prefigured what will occur in the last day when the devils are driven into the lake of fire. 4)This reveals they will suffer corporeally for their corporeal sins, just as men do. Never will God leave the wicked unpunished.


If you study these things carefully, I think you will agree what is said above is consistent with explicit and implicit teaching of scripture, and not an invention of mine. If any part of it doesn't conform to the Bible, it is wrong. Be certain it doesn't conform, before you reject it.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tikhon.of.Colorado on November 03, 2010, 09:35:07 AM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

He'd of been escorted off the stage over at Monachos.  He's lucky our boys (and ladies) are a little more patient. 
well, if anyone wants to be on the "escort them off" commitee, I'd be happy to petition the moderators  :D
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tikhon.of.Colorado on November 03, 2010, 09:36:49 AM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.
Actually, Trevor, this Orthodox-Other Christian section of the forum IS to some degree a Protestant board, which, to SOME degree, IS a place for Orthodox to dialogue with Protestants and maybe even act on the sometimes vain hope that we can convince a Protestant to abandon his heresies and become Orthodox.
ah, correct, my bad.  sorry, some members can really get under my skin, especially those who call themseves "Christians" and are obsessed with proving everyone else wrong.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 03, 2010, 10:21:17 AM
Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tzimis on November 03, 2010, 12:40:35 PM
I just can't believe how people stumble over the truth as if it was a large crack on the sidewalk and then go beyond it as if the surface was smooth while passing over it. The answer is so simple that it's almost always over looked. It's a delusion that god gives to man that doesn't allow him to see the truth. There is no sense in arguing because they believe in the lie. It's fruitless to all engaged in it. The proof that he sees is real to him. Why should we get in the way of that?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 03, 2010, 12:42:56 PM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.


So writing the rest of the OT after Deuteronomy and the entire New Testament is heresy, and contravention of God's law as set forth in the verse above? The NT is "added words" that came after Deuteronomy, so....

Talk about proof-texting and taking things out of context and contradictions. You are so attached to your pet doctrine that you can't even see how your primary support for the idea is in complete opposition to your premise.

By the way- I'm Orthodox and a former Presbyterian, so I understand exactly how your mind is working. It's all about perspective and paradigm. May God be with you.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: DennyB on November 03, 2010, 05:36:28 PM
28 And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.
 29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
 30 And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.
 32 And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.
 (Mat 8:28-32 KJV)

The drowning of the pigs does not seem to be part of the deal. Why did the swine run into the sea, and perish?

If tradition can reveal such mystery, then its inspired by God. An analogy:

 22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?
 23 Turn you at my reproof: behold, I will pour out my spirit unto you, I will make known my words unto you.[/i]
 (Pro 1:22-23 KJV)


If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So I will give you folks a chance to reveal this mystery using whatever you can, plus your Tradition:

Why did the swine rush into the sea, and perish?





An exegesis of the title of this OP,  The Superiority of Alfred's views of Scripture,over The Faith once delivered to the Saints.

I've already picked which side I'm on, get real Alfred!!!!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ialmisry on November 03, 2010, 05:47:41 PM
PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

He'd of been escorted off the stage over at Monachos.  He's lucky our boys (and ladies) are a little more patient. 
well, if anyone wants to be on the "escort them off" commitee, I'd be happy to petition the moderators  :D
(http://www.behavioradvisor.com/sbWalkPlank.jpg)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 01:15:16 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.


So writing the rest of the OT after Deuteronomy and the entire New Testament is heresy, and contravention of God's law as set forth in the verse above? The NT is "added words" that came after Deuteronomy, so....

Talk about proof-texting and taking things out of context and contradictions. You are so attached to your pet doctrine that you can't even see how your primary support for the idea is in complete opposition to your premise.

By the way- I'm Orthodox and a former Presbyterian, so I understand exactly how your mind is working. It's all about perspective and paradigm. May God be with you.

Incorrect, adding words of men is forbidden, not more words of God.

To suggest Moses would stupidly contradict what he does is hardly exegesis a Presbyterian would propose...they know Bible writers never contradict themselves...it never happens in scripture, and the actual stupidity lies with those who foolishly point to scripture they don't understand, and exclaim "see, a contradiction!"

So I doubt you really are a "former Presbyterian", likely you only attended their churches a few time.

So did I, they are great houses of true worship, but that didn't make me a Presbyterian.

Perhaps they kicked you out? Their boot print wouldn't make you a Presbyterian either.

That was in jest, I only doubt you were a bible thumping Presbyterian, they would never suggest what you did.

AND you don't understand me at all:

"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Joh 3:8 NKJ)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 01:30:28 AM
Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

You  made specific claims for your Tradition:

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

It follows you have this tradition in written form as you claim to know it was never altered, added to or subtracted from in any way...and can prove it was never altered in any way, by citing its text for proof.

It also follows "the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles" would be canonized by an ecumenical council when all the teaching of the faith deposited by Jesus and the apostles, was canonized.

I write this hoping you are not replicating the strong delusion of Roman Catholics who refer to "apostolic tradition" but have never read one word of it their entire lives.

When I ask them to recite a line or two of this tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, they become quite evasive in their response.

They certainly make the claim of having it, just as you:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium

It follows from the Orthodox/Catholic schism not happening for centuries, that their "Holy Tradition from the lips of Christ and apostles" would be precisely the same as yours, given it was never added to, subtracted from or altered in any way.


Please copy paste a section of this Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

Otherwise I don't think you actually have it.

If you fail to present some of the text here, now, or provide a link to the text, I suspect your belief it exists is fantasy, a fable.

Your claims to have tradition deposited by Christ and His apostles, that was never altered, would then be delusion.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 04, 2010, 02:38:06 AM
Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

Also, did anybody note the time that Alfred decided to post his "translation"? Did he give us the full amount of time he promised? I am honestly asking since I do not know how this time for a post thing works...

:Edit:
I noted the time I posted was aprox 0518 EST where as Alfred posted aprox 0145 EST... perhaps I am reading that wrong but it would appear that it was not 0001 PST
:Edit:
Indeed, you are correct. The time stamp of his post was 2246 Monday night Pacific Time (local time for Alfred and for me), not 0001 Tuesday morning as he promised.

Alfred, you want evidence that you cheated. I give you Exhibit A.

Where did I say your time is up? If you have anything, post it now, post it tomorrow...you have nothing.

Only ad hominem against me, as usual.
Actually, no. Criticism of your methods, even if I point out that your method is to cheat, is not an ad hominem and is in fact very important to this discussion, since your methods are the very means by which you conclude all that you post here and even how you play this game. If I can show how your methods are faulty, I don't need to refute your conclusions, since conclusions based on faulty methods are nothing but dust anyway.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 04, 2010, 03:59:36 AM
Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

You  made specific claims for your Tradition:

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

It follows you have this tradition in written form as you claim to know it was never altered, added to or subtracted from in any way...and can prove it was never altered in any way, by citing its text for proof.

It also follows "the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles" would be canonized by an ecumenical council when all the teaching of the faith deposited by Jesus and the apostles, was canonized.

I write this hoping you are not replicating the strong delusion of Roman Catholics who refer to "apostolic tradition" but have never read one word of it their entire lives.

When I ask them to recite a line or two of this tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, they become quite evasive in their response.

They certainly make the claim of having it, just as you:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium

It follows from the Orthodox/Catholic schism not happening for centuries, that their "Holy Tradition from the lips of Christ and apostles" would be precisely the same as yours, given it was never added to, subtracted from or altered in any way.


Please copy paste a section of this Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

Otherwise I don't think you actually have it.

If you fail to present some of the text here, now, or provide a link to the text, I suspect your belief it exists is fantasy, a fable.

Your claims to have tradition deposited by Christ and His apostles, that was never altered, would then be delusion.

The words of Christ and his apostles were preserved in Holy Scripture by the Church. Of course, you take this form of Holy Tradition for granted because you are not aware of the price that was paid by the Church to preserve it. Rome clearly added novel doctrines that were foreign to the early Church. Now, are you going to address my questions?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 07:32:42 AM
Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

Also, did anybody note the time that Alfred decided to post his "translation"? Did he give us the full amount of time he promised? I am honestly asking since I do not know how this time for a post thing works...

:Edit:
I noted the time I posted was aprox 0518 EST where as Alfred posted aprox 0145 EST... perhaps I am reading that wrong but it would appear that it was not 0001 PST
:Edit:
Indeed, you are correct. The time stamp of his post was 2246 Monday night Pacific Time (local time for Alfred and for me), not 0001 Tuesday morning as he promised.

Alfred, you want evidence that you cheated. I give you Exhibit A.

Where did I say your time is up? If you have anything, post it now, post it tomorrow...you have nothing.

Only ad hominem against me, as usual.
Actually, no. Criticism of your methods, even if I point out that your method is to cheat, is not an ad hominem and is in fact very important to this discussion, since your methods are the very means by which you conclude all that you post here and even how you play this game. If I can show how your methods are faulty, I don't need to refute your conclusions, since conclusions based on faulty methods are nothing but dust anyway.

Coloring a claim as "a cheat" and proving it, is what distinguishes ad hominem, from an argument.

Make your argument, and I'll respond.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 07:36:00 AM
Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

You  made specific claims for your Tradition:

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

It follows you have this tradition in written form as you claim to know it was never altered, added to or subtracted from in any way...and can prove it was never altered in any way, by citing its text for proof.

It also follows "the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles" would be canonized by an ecumenical council when all the teaching of the faith deposited by Jesus and the apostles, was canonized.

I write this hoping you are not replicating the strong delusion of Roman Catholics who refer to "apostolic tradition" but have never read one word of it their entire lives.

When I ask them to recite a line or two of this tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, they become quite evasive in their response.

They certainly make the claim of having it, just as you:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium

It follows from the Orthodox/Catholic schism not happening for centuries, that their "Holy Tradition from the lips of Christ and apostles" would be precisely the same as yours, given it was never added to, subtracted from or altered in any way.


Please copy paste a section of this Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

Otherwise I don't think you actually have it.

If you fail to present some of the text here, now, or provide a link to the text, I suspect your belief it exists is fantasy, a fable.

Your claims to have tradition deposited by Christ and His apostles, that was never altered, would then be delusion.

The words of Christ and his apostles were preserved in Holy Scripture by the Church. Of course, you take this form of Holy Tradition for granted because you are not aware of the price that was paid by the Church to preserve it. Rome clearly added novel doctrines that were foreign to the early Church. Now, are you going to address my questions?


So you do not claim to have tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, that is not found in scripture?

I will assume that is precisely what you claim, and will address your questions with that understanding.

Correct it if its wrong.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 07:57:51 AM
Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition.

I do not accept scripture because of church lists of canon, I agree the 27 books are canon for many of the same reasons the church did. Therefore, I am not acknowledging the validity of Church Tradition. In effect, I am making my own decision. I don't deny church acceptance of these particular books was given some weight when making my conclusion, but I do NOT accept church rulings as infallible or even binding.

Moreover I reject the premise NT scripture is not organically one with OT scripture, that requires I also reject the concept of scripture as tradition that came into existence through and by the church and therefore its correct interpretation is within the purview of the church only.

Every time Christ quotes the word of God for doctrine, He establishes scripture is independent of the church He founded built on the Rock of faith in Him, which came into existence AFTER the scripture He cited, did. That proves independence.

Also, the NT is a finite collection of books, its not still being written. Yet the church is still growing, that also identifies scripture as an entity distinguishable from church tradition, and independent of it.

As for canonization, I didn't say the church played no part, I said she evaluated evidences when making the lists of canon. The church didn't "by fiat" rule which books were scripture. The entire process is somewhat hazy, but it appears "apostolicity" was a primary consideration, whether the book was used in the universal church as scripture, from the beginning. Also internal evidences were evaluated.

So I certainly see the church involved in canonization, I do not accept the list of canon because she did it. Anyone could have done it, and I would accept it because I agree with the premises for acceptance.

I would reject the premises if the church (or anyone else) applied them to books that weren't accepted in the days of the apostles by the universal church, but are today.

Thirdly, I do claim the early church is my church, just as you do. We disagree as to what they believe. My claim is just as valid to me, as yours is to you. Every time I cite scripture against an Orthodox doctrine, I prove my claim sound.

AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 04, 2010, 10:24:53 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
So I certainly see the church involved in canonization, I do not accept the list of canon because she did it. Anyone could have done it, and I would accept it because I agree with the premises for acceptance.

No. Anyone could not have done it. Have a look at what happened when 'anyone' tried to do it, without the guidance of the Holy Spirit: the Gnostic writings, which claimed to be Scripture and failed utterly. Collections of them are still available at the library, but all you'll find there are heretical blather such as the 'Gospel of Thomas.' Historically, they bore no fruit.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, however, gave us the New Testament. You are reading something brought to you by an Orthodox Church council.

Then again, Alfred has claimed to be the only person who believes what the Apostles wrote as written, so hearing him claim he could have put together the New Testament is just what one should expect. And it can be dismissed just as quickly.  ::)

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/JesusTemptedintheDesertIcon.jpg)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 04, 2010, 10:57:57 AM
Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


I'm playing. But no one will play with me :(

Incorrect, sola scriptura is the logical consequence of solum verbum dei which Catholics, including the Orthodox, believe.

Where we differ is what we define as the deposit of the faith, i.e., what constitutes the  "word of God," while you include tradition, we do not.

Both both of us can find solum verbum dei in scripture:

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

 2 "You shall add to the word which I command you, not take from it, that you may keep the commandments we command you.


So writing the rest of the OT after Deuteronomy and the entire New Testament is heresy, and contravention of God's law as set forth in the verse above? The NT is "added words" that came after Deuteronomy, so....

Talk about proof-texting and taking things out of context and contradictions. You are so attached to your pet doctrine that you can't even see how your primary support for the idea is in complete opposition to your premise.

By the way- I'm Orthodox and a former Presbyterian, so I understand exactly how your mind is working. It's all about perspective and paradigm. May God be with you.

Incorrect, adding words of men is forbidden, not more words of God.

To suggest Moses would stupidly contradict what he does is hardly exegesis a Presbyterian would propose...they know Bible writers never contradict themselves...it never happens in scripture, and the actual stupidity lies with those who foolishly point to scripture they don't understand, and exclaim "see, a contradiction!"

So I doubt you really are a "former Presbyterian", likely you only attended their churches a few time.

So did I, they are great houses of true worship, but that didn't make me a Presbyterian.

Perhaps they kicked you out? Their boot print wouldn't make you a Presbyterian either.

That was in jest, I only doubt you were a bible thumping Presbyterian, they would never suggest what you did.

AND you don't understand me at all:

"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Joh 3:8 NKJ)


I'll ignore the ad hominem personal attack. For the record I was baptized Presbyterian and attended for 22 years. The local Orthodox parish accepted by Presbyterian baptism.

And I didn't say "see a contradiction!" as to Moses. The contradiction lies with you. Of course Moses didn't contradict himself- the verse doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

I believe it was Shakespeare who said that "the devil can quote scripture for his purposes". Prooftexting and trotting out verses out of context does no one any good.

I actually learned Greek and did some theological grandstanding of my own (quite like you are) before humbing myself and accepting the Church that Christ founded at Pentecost. 

Surely you don't think that God abandoned his church, his Bride, the institution that you trust to put together your canon, which Christ declared the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Surely God would not have tasked the canonization of scripture with a heretical or apostate Church, and surely the holy spirit would not have been with the bishops and hierarchs who accomplished the task, and surely the spirit would not have abandoned those people or that Church thereafter, notwithstanding the promises of scripture and  Christ himself.

Surely it didn't take 1400 years for a rogue monk named Luther to finally figure things out. And surely 20,000+ denominations was not Christ's desire for his one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Surely there were devout Christians who subsisted on faith, tradition, the sacraments, prayer and fasting without ever being literate or being able to read scripture, and surely there were christians during the period after Christ's ascension and the canonization of Scripture. 

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 04, 2010, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: android
Surely you don't think that God abandoned his church, his Bride, the institution that you trust to put together your canon, which Christ declared the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Surely God would not have tasked the canonization of scripture with a heretical or apostate Church, and surely the holy spirit would not have been with the bishops and hierarchs who accomplished the task, and surely the spirit would not have abandoned those people or that Church thereafter, notwithstanding the promises of scripture and  Christ himself.

Surely it didn't take 1400 years for a rogue monk named Luther to finally figure things out. And surely 20,000+ denominations was not Christ's desire for his one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Surely there were devout Christians who subsisted on faith, tradition, the sacraments, prayer and fasting without ever being literate or being able to read scripture, and surely there were christians during the period after Christ's ascension and the canonization of Scripture. 

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.

Well said.   :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 04, 2010, 11:05:38 AM
[I do not accept scripture because of church lists of canon, I agree the 27 books are canon for many of the same reasons the church did. Therefore, I am not acknowledging the validity of Church Tradition. In effect, I am making my own decision. I don't deny church acceptance of these particular books was given some weight when making my conclusion, but I do NOT accept church rulings as infallible or even binding.

[/quote]

I don't think you understand the way the Church works. The Church doesn't "make rulings" that are infallible or binding. The Church typically acts by council- those are binding.

Look at how the first theological controversy was resolved by the Apostles in the book of Acts. They have a council.

Placing your faith in the Church which Christ established is Scriptural, as evidenced in Acts. The Apostles didn't resolve the dispute by pulling out their notes or Gospels, or the Old Testament, and argue individual verses back and forth until the most charismatic or systematically rigorous (or loudest) Apostle won- that would be the Protestant/Sola Scriptura model. They resolved it via the guidance of the Holy Spirit and via their capacities as Bishops ordained by Christ himself for the care and protection of His Church.

Christ's last act on Earth was to establish His Church (His Bride). This wasn't so Christians would have a place to hang out, or preacher's would have a raised platform from whichto give their opinion. It was for the care and guidance of the faithful.

The irony here is that sola scriptura is ascriptural.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 04, 2010, 11:13:12 AM
AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity. 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 04, 2010, 11:14:31 AM
I don't think you understand the way the Church works. The Church doesn't "make rulings" that are infallible or binding. The Church typically acts by council- those are binding.

Look at how the first theological controversy was resolved by the Apostles in the book of Acts. They have a council.

Placing your faith in the Church which Christ established is Scriptural, as evidenced in Acts. The Apostles didn't resolve the dispute by pulling out their notes or Gospels, or the Old Testament, and argue individual verses back and forth until the most charismatic or systematically rigorous (or loudest) Apostle won- that would be the Protestant/Sola Scriptura model. They resolved it via the guidance of the Holy Spirit and via their capacities as Bishops ordained by Christ himself for the care and protection of His Church.

Christ's last act on Earth was to establish His Church (His Bride). This wasn't so Christians would have a place to hang out, or preacher's would have a raised platform from whichto give their opinion. It was for the care and guidance of the faithful.

The irony here is that sola scriptura is ascriptural.

Bravo!!!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 12:05:02 PM
AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity.  

Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 04, 2010, 12:52:04 PM
AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity.  

Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)

What am I missing???  What are you reading into these verses that you feel supports your belief?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 04, 2010, 01:16:10 PM
Since when was St. Paul a Protestant?  ??? Was he against his own Church?  :o

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 01:49:25 PM
AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity.  

Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)

What am I missing???  What are you reading into these verses that you feel supports your belief?

Paul is the church builder, but other church builders come after him.

He says the only foundation one can build upon, is Christ (= Nicene Trinitarianism: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God)

Some build with apostolic doctrine (=gold), others with silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw (=traditions of men)

The fire of God's inspection will inspect every work, gold suffers no loss, straw total loss...

But those who built with straw will still be saved (because they have the foundation, Christ), but it will be as though a man fled a burning  house (as though he flees with only the clothes on his back, carrying no reward for the work he did as it was burned up).



1 Cor 12:5 is self explanatory.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 04, 2010, 01:56:51 PM
Since when was St. Paul a Protestant?  ??? Was he against his own Church?  :o



Alfred can't see the forest for the trees. It would be news to St. Paul that he was in fact writing to invisible Churches, or that the Churches established by the Apostles never really existed.

Much of 1 Timothy relates to the suitability of Bishops and Deacons. That St. Paul acknowledge, encouraged, wrote to and founded Churches is abundantly clear. Only via insincere readings of vague passages out of context could one conclude there wasn't "a Church". If Paul thought there was even a slight chance that someone could read it as Alfred is reading it, he would've been clearer.

Why would Paul found Churches, write to Churches and provide guidance on Bishops if the Church was merely an invisible concept?

Why not just read scripture harmoniously, rather than fight tooth and nail to ignore the fundamental nature of the Boof of Acts and the Epistles? There is a heavenly, mystical and spiritual body but there is also a physical institution in place to carry out the Great Commission and answer the call given at Pentecost? Just read it harmoniously rather than twist yourself into pretzels to ignore half of it.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 04, 2010, 02:13:52 PM
AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity.  

Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)

What am I missing???  What are you reading into these verses that you feel supports your belief?

Paul is the church builder, but other church builders come after him.

He says the only foundation one can build upon, is Christ (= Nicene Trinitarianism: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God)

Some build with apostolic doctrine (=gold), others with silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw (=traditions of men)

The fire of God's inspection will inspect every work, gold suffers no loss, straw total loss...

But those who built with straw will still be saved (because they have the foundation, Christ), but it will be as though a man fled a burning  house (as though he flees with only the clothes on his back, carrying no reward for the work he did as it was burned up).



1 Cor 12:5 is self explanatory.

Yes, it's clear that everyone has gifts. The Church believes this.

I always shake my head at those who profess that Scripture is the "inspired, inerrant Word of God" yet feel obliged to conclude that Paul (or God, via Paul, or whatever) didn't mean what he said, but something else, presumably with the hope that someone like Alfred would come along and divine what he REALLY meant. Sounds like gnosticism to me.

Here Paul says everyone has gifts- you interpret that to mean that there will be disunity and an invisible church. Paul can be very clear and unequivocal when he wants to be. He would've said "just fyi, the church is spritual and invisible", but he didn't.

Just like Christ says "This IS my body, this IS my blood". Many protestants espouse a literal interpretation of scripture, yet they don't believe that the communion elements are Christ's body and blood.

Of course, literally speaking, that's what Christ said, but since Catholics believe in it you have to do the opposite and believe it's only symbolic and twist yourself in knots to explain away Christ's literal words, all while claiming to have cornered the market on "Bible believin' Christianity".

It is astounding.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Thankful on November 04, 2010, 02:31:51 PM
Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Cor. 12: 12-13, 20, 24b-25
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many ... As it is, there are many parts, but one body ... But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other ...

Luke 11:17
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

There's no way we can say the different denominations are what is meant by the "different parts" of the body (let alone the "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw" and "ministries" in the quoted verses).  NO way. The beliefs and practices are too widely divergent (some opposing each other) and were born out of a separatist/individualist spirit. It would be like trying to do an organ donation or limb transplant from one body to another where the blood types don't match.  The organ/limb would be rejected by the living body.  Denominations do not have the matching blood type of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (God could change their "blood type" should they WANT to join the body of course).  

The Body of Christ is ONE.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Thankful on November 04, 2010, 02:40:17 PM
Surely you don't think that God abandoned his church, his Bride, the institution that you trust to put together your canon, which Christ declared the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Surely God would not have tasked the canonization of scripture with a heretical or apostate Church, and surely the holy spirit would not have been with the bishops and hierarchs who accomplished the task, and surely the spirit would not have abandoned those people or that Church thereafter, notwithstanding the promises of scripture and  Christ himself.

Surely it didn't take 1400 years for a rogue monk named Luther to finally figure things out. And surely 20,000+ denominations was not Christ's desire for his one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Surely there were devout Christians who subsisted on faith, tradition, the sacraments, prayer and fasting without ever being literate or being able to read scripture, and surely there were christians during the period after Christ's ascension and the canonization of Scripture. 

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.


Thank you for this; a wonderful description. 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 04, 2010, 03:16:56 PM
Some build with apostolic doctrine (=gold), others with silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw (=traditions of men)

The fire of God's inspection will inspect every work, gold suffers no loss, straw total loss...

But those who built with straw will still be saved (because they have the foundation, Christ), but it will be as though a man fled a burning  house (as though he flees with only the clothes on his back, carrying no reward for the work he did as it was burned up).

Behold ladies & gentlemen!  For you will not find a better example of what Sola Scriptura really is.  An individual can read a passage of scripture, insert his own understanding upon the text, believe he was led by God to the right conclusion, and condemn anyone who does not agree.

You can see why Protestantism has shattered.  It's truly every man for himself.

Funny too that the Scriptures elsewhere call the Church the foundation of truth.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 08:14:09 PM
Some build with apostolic doctrine (=gold), others with silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw (=traditions of men)

The fire of God's inspection will inspect every work, gold suffers no loss, straw total loss...

But those who built with straw will still be saved (because they have the foundation, Christ), but it will be as though a man fled a burning  house (as though he flees with only the clothes on his back, carrying no reward for the work he did as it was burned up).

Behold ladies & gentlemen!  For you will not find a better example of what Sola Scriptura really is.  An individual can read a passage of scripture, insert his own understanding upon the text, believe he was led by God to the right conclusion, and condemn anyone who does not agree.

You can see why Protestantism has shattered.  It's truly every man for himself.

Funny too that the Scriptures elsewhere call the Church the foundation of truth.

Incorrect. Paul is very clear in context, which is most of the NT was written to correct errors of the church.

Unlike you folks, Paul doesn't believe the church is infallible, he is called to address its heresies constantly,  and that's why much of the NT exists today, its correcting wrongs.

So when Paul writes others come behind him, building on the foundation of Christ, that is precisely what he means.

Your "it can't mean that" blah blah, is not a refutation of my simple exegesis...

If called upon, I can refer to the grammar and syntax...but the meaning of Paul, is so self evident, even a child can understand his words.

Therefore I thought it unnecessary.

If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 04, 2010, 08:39:40 PM
He still hasn't proven his premise that sola scriptura was a Church practice in the first place.

Look for this thread to have a change of subject pretty soon. I lost count of how many there were in the last one.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: dcommini on November 04, 2010, 08:44:26 PM


If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.

No, you will contradict it by quoting scripture out of context like you always do, then when we prove you wrong enough times you will start yet another thread with some new title that deals with the same issues and hope that we don't catch on to your petty little games.

BTW I brought up your jumping the gun on the allotted time for a reason, but since I have been busy training I have not had ample time to bring it up.

See you said
Quote
I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

You clearly stated that you would explain the parable after 0001 PST. But you did not, you became impatient. If you become impatient like this how do we know that you are not impatient when making decisions in life? How do we know that you are not impatient when trying to interpret scripture?

You have failed this time around because you also said
Quote
If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

You have not delivered to our satisfaction, you have not made it clear to us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. And yes, you do have to deliver and prove to our satisfaction, not yours. You are trying to convince us not yourself (though sometimes I do think you are trying to convince yourself as well). The burden of proof rests on you since you came here making claims against our Church. You have not done a very good job at all of convincing any of us that we should turn away from our faith (and in some cases turn back). This isn't pigheadedness on our parts, many people have told you how they were Protestant of one denomination or the other and your only retort is that they must not have really been that denomination for they do not think alike, or only attended a few time. You apply your own attributions to us (i.e. attending a few times, not thinking like the denomination you are a part of) and hope that we don't see the ruse.

I will tell you this; I was a Southern Baptist. I believed that Scripture could be interpreted by anybody using their own methods. I was even an ordained minister before I converted. But the biggest thing that turned me away from the Protestants was Sola Scriptura because every denomination had its own interpretation and no interpretation was the same as the other even in sub-groups (like free-will baptist, southern baptist, independent baptist etc). Even if they did agree 80% of the time why then did they not agree 100% of the time? Surely the Church was not always divided as such! It was when I was in Iraq and I started to study the Bible on my free time that I realized that the Church had been one unified body. Christ said that the Church would stand and being divided how could it stand? I did a lot of research and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the one, unified Church still standing after all of these years. It was no easy task deciding to convert either, I didn't want to give up the faith that I learned from my parents. But I swallowed my pride and I set myself on the path I could feel the Holy Spirit dragging me to; I had a lot of arguments as to why the Orthodox Church was wrong, and one by one they were shot down.

Many people have a story just like mine, we all started out at the same place and ended in the same place. We did our research, we swallowed our pride, but most importantly we submitted ourselves to the Holy Spirit. This is why you MUST convince us to our satisfaction, we left what you proclaim so loudly  - we were there once and we became convinced that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Your shoddy arguments do not stand against almost two thousand years of Tradition. You claim to know better than the fathers who built the religion you claim, even those who were disciples of the Apostles and sometimes even the Apostles themselves.

The burden of proof rests on you, Alfred, and so far you have failed in your every endeavor on this board.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Melodist on November 04, 2010, 10:09:39 PM
And this will prove sola scriptura is the right methodology for interpreting God's Word the Bible.

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with the Bible. It's about the Church.

If sola scriptura is wrong, then the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and has the authority to interpret the Scriptures and teach with authority.

If sola scriptura is right, then the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit and has no authority to interpret the Scriptures or teach with authority.

This is part of what you have to prove in order to prove sola scriptura.

If tradition cannot answer such questions, but a diligent Bible student via sound hermeneutic principles and sola scriptura can, then sola scriptura is clearly the certified "Way of God to understand His Scripture."

So you think if a person reads something enough times,they are bound to get it right eventually by relying on their own understanding?

So...

Who has the authority to interpret scripture and teach doctrine?

How do they receive that authority?

How do you know your personal interpretation is correct?

How has the Holy Spirit guided the Church throughout the centuries?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 10:31:23 PM
Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Cor. 12: 12-13, 20, 24b-25
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many ... As it is, there are many parts, but one body ... But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other ...

Luke 11:17
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

There's no way we can say the different denominations are what is meant by the "different parts" of the body (let alone the "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw" and "ministries" in the quoted verses).  NO way. The beliefs and practices are too widely divergent (some opposing each other) and were born out of a separatist/individualist spirit. It would be like trying to do an organ donation or limb transplant from one body to another where the blood types don't match.  The organ/limb would be rejected by the living body.  Denominations do not have the matching blood type of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (God could change their "blood type" should they WANT to join the body of course).  

The Body of Christ is ONE.

Eph 4:4 & 1 Cor 12:12-13,20,24b-25 "one body" does not contradict the concept this one body subsists in many different denominations.

Nor does Luke 11:17 contradict this  for Christendom isn't a Kingdom divided, they have only One King Jesus Christ:
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul calls himself the master builder, and says "another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it."

THAT is the context you  ignore, everything said is relevant to that opening, Paul is discussing buildings on the one foundation of Christ:

12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.

In this context, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw are different materials one builds upon Christ, and then the judgment. Gold withstands fire, nothing is lost. The rest descend from it in order of resilience to fire, the fire of God judgment.

13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Any inside these buildings during God's fiery judgment suffer loss in proportion to the loss of building material, therefore "if anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss.


BUT as the foundation of Christ always saves, even when the entire building is lost, the person "himself will be saved, yet as though fire" i.e., as though fleeing  a burning house, which implies, there was no reward for building with straw.


So Paul is describing what he sees as inevitable. There must be heresies, divisions, sectarianism, denominations. But if these are built upon Christ, those in these structures are saved, because they were built upon the Rock of Christ.

So this text should be cited as the reason why ecumenical cooperation to some degree is scriptural...but because of the apostasy in all denominations, ecumenicalism seems to aid the "great falling away" rather than evangelism for Christ:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, (2Th 2:3 NKJ)

But one cannot deny the express teaching of Scripture, Paul saw the advent of denominations as inevitable, his only caution against the tide of error and schism, there is ONLY ONE FOUNDATION that can be laid, for any denomination to still be in the one body of Christ, and that is Jesus Christ.




Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 04, 2010, 10:43:56 PM


If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.

No, you will contradict it by quoting scripture out of context like you always do, then when we prove you wrong enough times you will start yet another thread with some new title that deals with the same issues and hope that we don't catch on to your petty little games.

BTW I brought up your jumping the gun on the allotted time for a reason, but since I have been busy training I have not had ample time to bring it up.

See you said
Quote
I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

You clearly stated that you would explain the parable after 0001 PST. But you did not, you became impatient. If you become impatient like this how do we know that you are not impatient when making decisions in life? How do we know that you are not impatient when trying to interpret scripture?

You have failed this time around because you also said
Quote
If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

You have not delivered to our satisfaction, you have not made it clear to us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. And yes, you do have to deliver and prove to our satisfaction, not yours. You are trying to convince us not yourself (though sometimes I do think you are trying to convince yourself as well). The burden of proof rests on you since you came here making claims against our Church. You have not done a very good job at all of convincing any of us that we should turn away from our faith (and in some cases turn back). This isn't pigheadedness on our parts, many people have told you how they were Protestant of one denomination or the other and your only retort is that they must not have really been that denomination for they do not think alike, or only attended a few time. You apply your own attributions to us (i.e. attending a few times, not thinking like the denomination you are a part of) and hope that we don't see the ruse.

I will tell you this; I was a Southern Baptist. I believed that Scripture could be interpreted by anybody using their own methods. I was even an ordained minister before I converted. But the biggest thing that turned me away from the Protestants was Sola Scriptura because every denomination had its own interpretation and no interpretation was the same as the other even in sub-groups (like free-will baptist, southern baptist, independent baptist etc). Even if they did agree 80% of the time why then did they not agree 100% of the time? Surely the Church was not always divided as such! It was when I was in Iraq and I started to study the Bible on my free time that I realized that the Church had been one unified body. Christ said that the Church would stand and being divided how could it stand? I did a lot of research and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the one, unified Church still standing after all of these years. It was no easy task deciding to convert either, I didn't want to give up the faith that I learned from my parents. But I swallowed my pride and I set myself on the path I could feel the Holy Spirit dragging me to; I had a lot of arguments as to why the Orthodox Church was wrong, and one by one they were shot down.

Many people have a story just like mine, we all started out at the same place and ended in the same place. We did our research, we swallowed our pride, but most importantly we submitted ourselves to the Holy Spirit. This is why you MUST convince us to our satisfaction, we left what you proclaim so loudly  - we were there once and we became convinced that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Your shoddy arguments do not stand against almost two thousand years of Tradition. You claim to know better than the fathers who built the religion you claim, even those who were disciples of the Apostles and sometimes even the Apostles themselves.

The burden of proof rests on you, Alfred, and so far you have failed in your every endeavor on this board.

The smoke always gags. Fitting.

I didn't jump the gun, I was tired and posting a little early didn't prevent you from doing better than me, which you have yet to accomplish.

Of course you don't want that fact noted about your tradition, how useless it is to understand these mysteries of God.

Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you. You are not judge, its not up to you if I succeeded or not. I know I did, and those that agree won't be admitting that here, they are, as we speak, studying these things in amazement. I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.



Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 04, 2010, 11:03:58 PM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you.

 :o

Contrast this with the humility of St. John the Forerunner:

Quote
25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!”

27 John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him.’ 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
        (bold added)

Do you think Perssonism will ever produce something like that?

Quote from: Alfred Persson
I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Quote
1 John 3:15
20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can[c] he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

Quote
Mt. 5:22

But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 05, 2010, 01:17:56 AM
Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you. You are not judge, its not up to you if I succeeded or not. I know I did, and those that agree won't be admitting that here, they are, as we speak, studying these things in amazement. I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.

On the contrary, no one will be assenting to what you say because many, if not most of the posters here have actually converted from and rejected your position.  We refused to set ourselves up as the standard and the sole authority of faith and practice and that is inescapably what Sola Scriptura demands.  It is every man for himself and we found that to be a place of despair and confusion.  I thank God daily that He brought me to His Body the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.  It has been nothing but joy and freedom.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 07:04:20 AM
1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.

If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.

If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.

Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).

Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.

Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.

AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.

For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.

That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.

An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.

1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.


Of course demons are not omnipotent. Of course they need God's "concurrence" to do anything in this matrix, we all do.

Satan had nothing to gain by killing him, his goal was to get Job to curse God, and God knew Satan would go to any lengths to accomplish that, and probably go too far. So God protects Job with that warning :

6 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life." (Job 2:6 NKJ)

In other words, Satan didn't ask for permission to kill Job, but God knew he likely would in his mad quest to prove himself right, so God forbade it.

So this text is irrelevant to your conclusion "its their desire and their goal to destroy all they possess." You have NO proof of that here, or frankly, from anywhere else.

You portray the evil spirits as irrational, and scripture does not, it portrays them as evil, not irrationally self destructive.

Their causing hurt to those they possess and others is likely because they enjoy watching others or experiencing pain,  because they are evil and masochistic. They aren't destroying others for no reason, they have their reasons, sick evil reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

***

2) The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.


No, the swine perished in the water, the devils went to Tartarus:
NKJ  2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell (ταρταρώσας) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;
 (2Pe 2:4 NKJ)

Christ was in complete control. The devils thought Jesus agreed to their bargain, He didn't. He was there to torment them before their time, just as they feared. When Christ said "Go", they rushed into the swine believing they were free, to their horror, they were made to run into the lake, as a prefigure of what will be in the Day of Christ, when they rush headlong into the Lake of fire.

As you know, if Christ didn't send them to Tartarus, then they went free. But then the text does not glorify Christ, then He is liable to various charges of wanton destruction of life, the swine.

The context is glorifying Christ, He commands the wind and sea, now the devils. This must be interpreted consistent with Matthew's purpose of putting it here, THAT is the context:
26 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
 27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.
 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:26-32 NKJ)

The devils are terrified, they are not in control, they are powerless before Christ. They are standing before the LORD Almighty, before the Form of God the angels behold in heaven(Phi 2:6), there is no question who is in authority  here at all. Jesus is "the Son of God" and they know it. They are begging not to be thrown into the abyss, compare:

31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss. (Luk 8:31 NKJ)

Jesus did precisely that, He was there to torment them before their time, He did command them to go into the abyss.


Getting rid of the swine was "getting two evils with one stone." It violated the law of Moses to be herding swine for food (Deu 14:8), that is why the herders were terrified of Jesus:

33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.
 34 And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region. (Mat 8:33-34 NKJ)

So according to the law of both God and man, Jesus is beyond reproach, nothing wrong occurred here, everything was done right.

***

3) If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.


See #2 above, I agree they have NO control over the situation, they were standing before the LORD GOD Almighty, completely at His mercy.

I argued a counterpoint, they could "fly away" without the swine if that is what they wanted to do...against your saying they wanted the swine to perish so they could fly away. You  are arguing Christ would let them do that, you can't then deny He would let them do that without first entering the swine.

I am arguing that doesn't make sense because if they were allowed to do it, they would have done it before approaching Christ, they were terrified of Him and of what He might do. It doesn't make sense they would go near Christ, beg to enter the swine to make their escape, and that Christ would allow that. If that is the case, then they could have fled BEFORE getting so close to Christ they had to beg.

I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic, It was a counter  point, not a claim.

My claim is they had no control whatsoever, and when the swine rush into the sea, its Jesus who is making them do it, they are not running away at all, they are being tormented before their time.


***

4) If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.


Yes, see above.

***

5) Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).



I do not agree, this is not revelation about devils...no one in the Gospels seem ignorant about them, and they do nothing in this context that is new.

Christ fooled them into thinking they struck a bargain, and they release their captives willingly without harming them, they rush into the swine and to their horror, are "tormented them before their time" revealing He truly is the Son of God, that everything is under His control, not just the wind and sea.

***

6) Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.


Incorrect, and here is one of many texts proving they do lust after physical pleasures:

NKJ  Genesis 6:1 Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them,
 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose. (Gen 6:1-2 NKJ)


These are "incorporeal" NOW, because God evidently decreed it after the flood, but they weren't before.


People think of heaven as immaterial, but that is pagan, not Scriptural revelation. The Bible shows Mount Zion to be a place, and angels certainly seem quite material to each other.  Recall Enoch, Moses and Elijah are in heaven physically, they aren't spirits.

Nothing in the description of heaven makes it "immaterial," it exists in different dimensions than our sphere of existence, an "alternate reality" as it were, but scripture does not say its immaterial. Its material in its dimension of existence.


Scripture shows they can "materialize forms" or appear in their own form, materially, in our sphere of existence:

2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
 3 and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.
 4 "Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
 5 "And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant." They said, "Do as you have said."
 6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes."
 7 And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it.
 8 So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. (Gen 18:2-8 NKJ)


When Christ appeared in the locked room, the text does not say He walked through walls or the door:

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (Joh 20:19 KJV)


"Came Jesus and stood in their midst" (ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον Joh 20:19), Jesus stepped into our dimension, remaining as phyiscal as He is in the heavenly dimension, the TELEIOS ( 1 Cor 13:10), aka "kingdom of God"  (Mark 9:1ff) met our dimension, and Moses and Elijah speaks to Jesus.

They are physical in God's Dimension, not immaterial. Angels are immaterial in  ours, when they want to be. Demons, no doubt because of what they did that forced God to flood the earth and cleanse if of their children, evidently are NOT allowed to take physical form in our realm of existence.

But that will change:

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
 (2Th 2:9-12 NKJ)

It seems God will  allow the devils take physical form to decieve the entire earth...likely that UFOs have landed and will give us alien technology:

4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" (Rev 13:4 NKJ)

That is speculation, but it would explain why Satan has gone through so much trouble perfecting his "alien encounters" throughout history. UFO reports make perfect sense when they are seen as "trial runs" getting the "kinks" out of the deception.


But I admit UFO play a part in the strong delusion is speculation, not explicit scripture teaching, so it could be wrong.


Demons were once angels in the army of God, who LEFT their proper habitation, and are not allowed to take physical form now, because of what happened in Genesis. God had to destroy all humanity (except Noah and family whose DNA was not corrupted with angelic DNA Gen 6:9), to cleanse the earth of the abomination, the image of God in man was corrupted with the image of angels.

It was a satanic plot to stop the seed of the Woman from arriving to "bruise them" in the head (Gen 3:15).

After the flood, these fallen angels do what they want, possess people for pleasure etc. No doubt Satan orders them around as needed, but in general, they are on their own, satisfying their evil lusts and doing as much evil as they find pleasurable to do.

They do derive pleasure from physical forms, that desire is what propelled their fall.

Notice the association Jude makes, these are guilty of the same sinful lusts as found in Sodom, they go after "strange flesh":

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jud 1:6-7 KJV)


Scripture alone is 100% accurate information on the spirit world, not the testimony of men, the ability of spirits to deceive is too great for man to overcome on his own. ONLY in scripture will you find the uncorrupted truth.




7) Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.



Compare #1 above, I dispute that. Tormenting Job was not for pleasure, it was argument Satan was making to the sons of God in heaven:


6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
 7 And the LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" So Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."
 8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?"
 9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing?
 (Job 1:6-9 NKJ)


God made a claim, that none on earth were like Job, he loved God with true love, blameless.

Satan counter argues in vs 9, "Does Job fear God for nothing?"

This isn't about Job per se, its about God, He made a claim, Satan is saying God is wrong = God then is not God according to His own standards, therefore God must allow Satan and his angels live apart from God.

Collaborating this is what the incarnation did to make demons choke on the words "Jesus came in the flesh."

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
 (1Jo 4:2-3 NKJ)

Compare:

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 (Phi 2:5-11 NKJ)

Christ proved "true love for the Father" exists when He "sold all He owned" in heaven, adding to Himself human nature, to die a horrible death worse than any man received, on earth.

Leaving INFINITE riches, because Jesus loved the Father above all = true love exists, Satan's argument every act has a selfish motive, even  acts of devotion to God, is wrong.

Satan lost the argument forever, when Christ became flesh. Therefore the devils choke on the words, they cannot say them.


Job was tormented in a test of God's perfection, to see if He made a mistake about Job.




8) AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.



That is a counter claim, not a "nice one" sophistry.

It was argued devils destroy for no reason...that would make them insane and perhaps innocent victims of the evil they do.

On the contrary, scripture shows they are evil, which implies they act for selfish motives, and not insanely without reason.



***

9) For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interest.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.



Incorrect, they thought they could win the argument and then God would have to let them have their own kingdom.


People "project," that is, honest people assume others are honest. Thieves project everyone is a thief also. In Job 1:9ff Satan is arguing every act of love for God has a selfish motive, BECAUSE that is true of him:

14 "You were the anointed cherub who covers; I established you; You were on the holy mountain of God; You walked back and forth in the midst of fiery stones.
 15 You were perfect in your ways from the day you were created, Till iniquity was found in you.
 (Eze 28:14-15 NKJ)

Satan searched his own motives, and found selfishness at the root of every act, and projected that is true for everyone, including Job.

He lost the argument concerning Job, and Christ via the incarnation blasted it away forever. True love exists, therefore when God created all things, to live with other creatures in mutual true love for each other, it wasn't a mistake.

***

10) That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.



My point stands, nothing in scripture shows demons are either 1)unselfish; 2)insane.

They have evil reasons for what they do, they are not innocent victims of insanity, otherwise how could God punishment them? Then He would be unjust.


So if you want to prove your point, you will have to do more than say "Hardly."


Otherwise my point stands.

***

11)An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.



It is certain Matthew's purpose was to reveal Christ has authority over wind, sea and demons, not to show Satan's goals or anything about demons.

Christ makes this serve multiple righteous purposes. 1)Herding Swine for food is forbidden by the Law; 2)Liberating these demon possessed men without the devils harming them was good reason to fool them into thinking they made a bargain with Jesus. They assumed that, He never said He did. 3)This prefigured what will occur in the last day when the devils are driven into the lake of fire. 4)This reveals they will suffer corporeally for their corporeal sins, just as men do. Never will God leave the wicked unpunished.


If you study these things carefully, I think you will agree what is said above is consistent with explicit and implicit teaching of scripture, and not an invention of mine. If any part of it doesn't conform to the Bible, it is wrong. Be certain it doesn't conform, before you reject it.


More on #7 above:

"`by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' (Mat 18:16 NKJ)

God forbids the devils say "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (Jo 4:2-3), neither will He allow they confess "Jesus is LORD".

 1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:
 2 You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led.
 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
 (1Co 12:1-3 NKJ)

"Don't be fooled by that demonic 'leading' that once carried you away into idolatry," Paul warns the Corinthians. Then he provides the objective means observers have to indentify the spirit speaking through the prophet: No one prophesying by God the Holy Spirit says "Jesus is accursed" and one prophesying by a devil can say "Jesus is LORD." This inability applies only while they speak under direct control of a spirit, not other times. A man while uncontrolled by a spirit can say anything he wants.

Just as we can trace the prohibition against the devils saying "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" to Phil 2:6-12 where the Incarnation vindicates the Father by the Son's display of true love for Him, so also their  not being able to say "Jesus is LORD" likely points to this event, for it is here the Name of Jesus is exalted above every other name, everyone in heaven and earth must now openly confess "Jesus is LORD" (YHWH, cp Is 45:23-25).

So there are two "witnesses" as it were, this word is true.

Compare:

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 (Phi 2:5-11 NKJ)

Evidently Lucifer coveted this title:

 12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
 13 For you have said in your heart:`I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'
 15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
 (Isa 14:12-15 NKJ)

When Satan lost the argument forever, he also lost all hope of getting this title forever.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 05, 2010, 09:47:15 AM
Alfred, you have not responded to my posts.

And your comparison of yourself to Christ and we to His accusers summarizes perfectly your overall mentality and approach to Scripture. You have a pet doctrine and own point of view, and you interpret Scripture in light of that point of view, even if it means taking extreme liberties with the text. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that you do this (and are just having a laugh at getting everyone going) or if you are sincere and just clueless as to your devotion to Perssonism, but I am really shaking my head that you actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say they do.

It is out of pride that people substitute their own understanding for that of Christ's Church. The same pride that tempted Adam to eat the apple and know all things. If you believe yourself to be fallen and a sinner, how can you trust your own intellect, esp. when your conclusions lead to significant contradictions with other parts of Scripture?

At the risk of being more critical, I will stop now.

Prayers for you.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 05, 2010, 12:16:47 PM
Alfred,

I believe that it ultimately comes down to this. Your traditional beliefs have been challenged, and you feel threatened by the claims put forth by the Orthodox Church. The Church has presented you with the most compelling case for authentic, apostolic Christianity that you have encountered so far (other than your own particular brand of Christianity, perhaps) otherwise you wouldn't be on here arguing with us; instead you'd be on another site, perhaps a Roman Catholic, or an Anglican one.

Your avatar also eludes to this. You claim that you are a protestant, yet do not believe in the filioque. Well, that's interesting! What brought you to this conclusion? Was this your own personal divine revelation that told you this? Were you convinced by reading scripture that this is the case? Perhaps you will rely on the former two arguments when defending this belief to us, but you know deep down what gives merit to your belief is that the early Church just so happens to agree with you, and that this was the traditional view held for the first 6 centuries of Christianity, and still maintained by the Orthodox Church. The same is for the biblical canon. You may say that you came to the independant conclusion that the only inspired books of the NT are the 27 that we currently have, yet you know what grants any legitimacy to your opinion is the fact that the early Church also shared your views and canonized them as such.

These facts irritate you, and you know that relying on your own interpretation will ultimately fail you. You are looking for an authentic expression of Christianity, and much of what the Orthodox teach makes sense, but for some reason you are yet too headstrong to embrace it in totality. You are frustrated with the modern protestant churches, as shown by your lackluster and inconsistent attendance to services. You are searching for something more, something deeper. You, as I did, must ardently defend what you have been taught in the face of opposition, not because you really want to, but because you want to test the Church's claims to authenticity. I do believe that if you continue down your path of inquiry with an open and critical mind, you will eventually find the way, as many skeptical protestants have done so before you, and embrace the fullness of faith. Ultimately though, it will be your heart that makes this decision for you, not your head.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 12:49:54 PM
Alfred, you have not responded to my posts.

And your comparison of yourself to Christ and we to His accusers summarizes perfectly your overall mentality and approach to Scripture. You have a pet doctrine and own point of view, and you interpret Scripture in light of that point of view, even if it means taking extreme liberties with the text. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that you do this (and are just having a laugh at getting everyone going) or if you are sincere and just clueless as to your devotion to Perssonism, but I am really shaking my head that you actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say they do.

It is out of pride that people substitute their own understanding for that of Christ's Church. The same pride that tempted Adam to eat the apple and know all things. If you believe yourself to be fallen and a sinner, how can you trust your own intellect, esp. when your conclusions lead to significant contradictions with other parts of Scripture?

At the risk of being more critical, I will stop now.

Prayers for you.

You need to be praying for yourself, not me. I'm in Christ and loving it.



Alfred, you have not responded to my posts.

Respond to ad hominem when among unfriendly people? That is a waste of time. However some may not know what ad hominem is...here are a few examples:


"And your comparison of yourself to Christ...
your overall mentality and approach to Scripture...

You have a pet doctrine and own point of view....

and you interpret Scripture in light of that point of view...
even if it means taking extreme liberties with the text...

I don't know if you are aware of the fact...

are just having a laugh at getting everyone going...

or if you are sincere and just clueless...

your devotion to Perssonism...

you actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say...



Your last ad hominem is less direct:

It is out of pride that people substitute their own understanding for that of Christ's Church. The same pride that tempted Adam to eat the apple and know all things. If you believe yourself to be fallen and a sinner, how can you trust your own intellect, esp. when your conclusions lead to significant contradictions with other parts of Scripture?


Your second to last statement has the germ of an argument within it, the gist of it is: "how can fallen man interpret God's Word the Bible, his intellect is darkened and unable to see the light."

Scripture came into existence before the Orthodox church, Christ quotes it for doctrine, for support of His teaching. Therefore Christ fully expected His audience CAN interpret God's Word the Bible, and confirm for themselves it agrees with His teaching.

Therefore your theory about fallen intellect fails the test of scripture.

The following from "Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period":

I.   Quotations occurring in the "Triple Tradition" or in Mark and one other Synoptic Gospel:

A.   With introductory formulae:
1.   Mark 7:6-7; Matt 15:8-9 (Isa 29:13).
2.   Mark 7:10; Matt 15:4 (Exod 20:12; 21:17 [LXX = 21:16]; Deut 5:16).
3.   Mark 11:17; Matt 21:13; Luke 19:46 (Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11).
4.   Mark 12:10-11; Matt 21:42; Luke 20:17 (Ps 118:22-23 [LXX = 117:22-23]).
5.   Mark 12:26; Matt 22:32; Luke 20:37 (Exod 3:6).
6.   Mark 12:36; Matt 22:44; Luke 20:42-43 (Ps 110:1 [LXX = 109:1]).
7.   Mark 13:14; Matt 24:15 (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).
8.   Mark 14:27; Matt 26:31 (Zech 13:7).

B.   Without introductory formulae:
9.   Mark 10:7-8; Matt 19:5 (Gen 2:24).
10.   Mark 10:19; Matt 19:18-19a; Luke 18:20 (Exod 20:12-16; Deut 5:16-20).
11.   Mark 12:29-30; Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27 (Deut 6:4-5).
12.   Mark 12:31; Matt 22:39; Luke 10:27 (Lev 19:18).
13.   Mark 15:34; Matt 27:46 (Ps 22:1 [MT = 22:2; LXX = 21:2]).

II.   Quotations occurring in the "Double Tradition" (i.e., in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark):

A.   With introductory formulae:
14.   Matt 4:4; Luke 4:4 (Deut 8:3).
15.   Matt 4:7; Luke 4:12 (Deut 6:16).
16.   Matt 4:10; Luke 4:8 (Deut 6:13).
17.   Matt 11:10; Luke 7:27 (Mal 3:1).
B.   Without introductory formulae:
18.   Matt 23:39; Luke 13:35 (Ps 118:26 [LXX = 117:26]).

III.   Quotations occurring in Matthew alone:

A.   With introductory formulae:
19.   Matt 5:21 (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).19
20.   Matt 5:27 (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18).
21.   Matt 5:31 (Deut 24:1).
22.   Matt 5:33 (Ps 50:14 [LXX = 49:14]).
23.   Matt 5:38 (Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21).
24.   Matt 5:43 (Lev 19:18).
25.   Matt 13:14-15 (Isa 6:9-10).
26.   Matt 21:16 (Ps 8:2 [MT and LXX = 8:3]).
B.   Without introductory formulae:
27.   Matt 9:13 (Hos 6:6).
28.   Matt 12:7 (Hos 6:6).
29.   Matt 18:16 (Deut 19:15).
30.   Matt 19:19b (Lev 19:18).

IV.   Quotations occurring in Luke alone:
A.   With introductory formulae:
31.   Luke 4:18-19 (Isa 61:1-2).
32.   Luke 22:37 (Isa 53:12).
B.   Without introductory formulae:
33.   Luke 23:30 (Hos 10:8).
34.   Luke 23:46 (Ps 31:5 [MT = 31:6; LXX = 30:6]).

V.   Quotations occurring in John alone, with introductory formulae:
35.   John 6:45 (Isa 54:13; Jer 31:33).
36.   John 7:38 (Isa 12:3; 43:19-20; 44:3; 58:11).
37.   John 10:34 (Ps 82:6 [LXX = 81:6]).
38.   John 13:18 (Ps 41:9 [MT = 41:10; LXX = 40:10]).
39.   John 15:25 (Ps 35:19 [LXX = 34:19]; 69:4 [MT = 69:5; LXX = 68:5]).


Second Edition-William B Eerdmans Pub Co., Grand Rapids, Mi, 1975, pp 42-43


If the apostles subscribed to your theory, this would not exist in scripture, for then it were impossible this unregenerate fallen audience be able to determine whether the things the apostles preached, "were so":

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Act 17:11 NKJ)



If your theory man cannot understand scripture without the church were true, the Paul should have wrote the following in 2 Tim 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast NOT known the holy scriptures, which are NOT able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is NOT profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works BY THE CHURCH.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 01:32:14 PM
Alfred,

I believe that it ultimately comes down to this. Your traditional beliefs have been challenged, and you feel threatened by the claims put forth by the Orthodox Church. The Church has presented you with the most compelling case for authentic, apostolic Christianity that you have encountered so far (other than your own particular brand of Christianity, perhaps) otherwise you wouldn't be on here arguing with us; instead you'd be on another site, perhaps a Roman Catholic, or an Anglican one.

Your avatar also eludes to this. You claim that you are a protestant, yet do not believe in the filioque. Well, that's interesting! What brought you to this conclusion? Was this your own personal divine revelation that told you this? Were you convinced by reading scripture that this is the case? Perhaps you will rely on the former two arguments when defending this belief to us, but you know deep down what gives merit to your belief is that the early Church just so happens to agree with you, and that this was the traditional view held for the first 6 centuries of Christianity, and still maintained by the Orthodox Church. The same is for the biblical canon. You may say that you came to the independant conclusion that the only inspired books of the NT are the 27 that we currently have, yet you know what grants any legitimacy to your opinion is the fact that the early Church also shared your views and canonized them as such.

These facts irritate you, and you know that relying on your own interpretation will ultimately fail you. You are looking for an authentic expression of Christianity, and much of what the Orthodox teach makes sense, but for some reason you are yet too headstrong to embrace it in totality. You are frustrated with the modern protestant churches, as shown by your lackluster and inconsistent attendance to services. You are searching for something more, something deeper. You, as I did, must ardently defend what you have been taught in the face of opposition, not because you really want to, but because you want to test the Church's claims to authenticity. I do believe that if you continue down your path of inquiry with an open and critical mind, you will eventually find the way, as many skeptical protestants have done so before you, and embrace the fullness of faith. Ultimately though, it will be your heart that makes this decision for you, not your head.

Incorrect, I post here under my name, Alfred Persson, but elswhere as "LetsObeyChrist." I am known on the NET at other sites, as a Google search will show.

In is inconsistent with sola scriptura Protestants accept the filioque, its expressly stated in scripture the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Whenever a conclusion is contradicted by scripture, in this case that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, its clear the premises were flawed. The Orthodox have ably demonstrated where it is logically flawed.

Its inconsistent you reject rational exegesis, proving the filioque incorrect requires precisely that for success.

I am here to support Scripture against any who claim to be its sole interpreters. We have one God the Father, and One infallible teaching authority, Jesus Christ the righteous:

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
 (Mat 23:9-10 KJV)

Now its time you turn your attention to refuting some of the arguments I raised, rather than deceiving yourself you know anything correct about me.





Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 05, 2010, 01:34:04 PM
So, basically, you'll take any legitimate challenge to your position as an ad hominem attack?

Read through your posts again Alfred.

"And your comparison of yourself to Christ...
your overall mentality and approach to Scripture...

You do have your own point of view which you believe to be correct....

And you do interpret Scripture in light of that point of view...

You do take extreme liberties with the text...

You clearly aren't aware of certain facts...

You are wholly devoted to yourself as the interpreter of Scripture...

You do actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say...

These are not ad hominem attacks, Alfred, they're simply accurate observations.  What else are we supposed to conclude?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 01:45:44 PM
So, basically, you'll take any legitimate challenge to your position as an ad hominem attack?

Read through your posts again Alfred.

"And your comparison of yourself to Christ...
your overall mentality and approach to Scripture...

You do have your own point of view which you believe to be correct....

And you do interpret Scripture in light of that point of view...

You do take extreme liberties with the text...

You clearly aren't aware of certain facts...

You are wholly devoted to yourself as the interpreter of Scripture...

You do actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say...

These are not ad hominem attacks, Alfred, they're simply accurate observations.  What else are we supposed to conclude?

The difference between unsound ad hominem, and statements of fact, is the lack of fact.

For example, the claim I take extreme liberties with the text, you must prove it with examples, otherwise your claim is mere ad hominem.

When before an unfriendly audience, it is a grave mistake to address ad hominem, a complete waste of time and is foolishly accepting the premise as worthy of a response.

Rather one counters with truth and provides facts proving the proposition is truth, hoping a few in the unfriendly audience will check it out, and agree.

That the mob will continue circling their prey, is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent to the man of God.

The goal of the man of God, is to save some:

 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;
 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
 (1Co 9:19-23 NKJ)

 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men (2Co 5:11 KJV)

As an expendable asset, I am at Christ's disposal, and Christ gave me fair warning what to expect:

 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
 25 "It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!
 26 "Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.
 27 "Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops.
 28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
 (Mat 10:24-28 NKJ)


Ad hominem is immaterial as:

"He must increase, but I must decrease.
 (Joh 3:30 NKJ)

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: recent convert on November 05, 2010, 02:00:43 PM
Do you evangelize outside of OC net?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 02:18:28 PM
Do you evangelize outside of OC net?

Your failure to prove your tradition+scripture is better than sola scriptura as a methodology for truth, as the means for knowing the Christian faith, is more manifest with each irrelevant post you make.

If I were you, I'd be ashamed I'm not able to give a defense of my beliefs.

Clearly you don't believe obeying apostolic doctrine is a good thing to do:

Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you...(1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: recent convert on November 05, 2010, 02:30:03 PM
Do you evangelize outside of OC net?

Your failure to prove your tradition+scripture is better than sola scriptura as a methodology for truth, as the means for knowing the Christian faith, is more manifest with each irrelevant post you make.

If I were you, I'd be ashamed I'm not able to give a defense of my beliefs.

Clearly you don't believe obeying apostolic doctrine is a good thing to do:

Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you...(1Pe 3:15 NKJ)


Actually in this or another thread I have laid out our core doctrines which are all scriptural and you never answer the question. I have summoned you for weeks over it & I get no reply at all (like the Phil Collins song). So I will lay these out again, what do you find non scriptural about the theology of the Nicene Creed, the Lord's commands to love God & our neighbor, the golden rule, the 10 commandments, prayer, fasting, alms giving, the Beatitudes, confession, holy communion etc. Re: holy communion, I have seen your theology, reject it, & do not want to reiterate it and whatever you may say you cannot deny that we at least try to be scriptural in our understanding of it even though it apparently is inadequate to your theology. Lastly, you now have 2 of my questions that you need to answer since you just evaded my second question.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 05, 2010, 02:33:41 PM
We don't need a methodology for truth Alfred, because Orthodoxy has always had it.  We're not searching for it somewhere "out there" hoping our "method" is simply the best among many options.  The Undivided Church has always contained the Truth of the Faith and we have no need to question the means by which the Spirit guided us to that Truth.

And you haven't once asked us to give you a reason for the hope that is in us.  Thank you for providing me with the perfect example of how you take "extreme liberties" with the Scriptures.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 03:51:28 PM
We don't need a methodology for truth Alfred, because Orthodoxy has always had it.  We're not searching for it somewhere "out there" hoping our "method" is simply the best among many options.  The Undivided Church has always contained the Truth of the Faith and we have no need to question the means by which the Spirit guided us to that Truth.

And you haven't once asked us to give you a reason for the hope that is in us.  Thank you for providing me with the perfect example of how you take "extreme liberties" with the Scriptures.

This thread isn't a request, its a claim, which I prove with various arguments, and which you fail to disprove. If you want to discuss other things, a thread dedicated to that purpose might suit you better. I consider anything said not relevant to my claim, additional confirmation my claim is correct.

Sola Scriptura is clearly superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Thankful on November 05, 2010, 04:11:42 PM
I'm in Christ and loving it.

If this were true, Alfred, you wouldn't be attending church so infrequently. You would take the Body of Christ much more seriously than that.  No one can be "in Christ and loving it" and yet not be going to church.  There's something in you that's dissatisfied.  Like many of the others here, I also know what that's like.  If the Church is "the fullness of him who fills everything in every way," nothing would keep you away.  
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 05, 2010, 04:19:45 PM

Sola Scriptura is clearly superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture.
Alfred, it really is unfortunate that you haven't yet understood that Scripture is not only part of but the central feature of Orthodox Tradition and is not a separate entity.

Sola Scriptura is the context (Tradition?) in which you understand the Scriptures. Orthodox Tradition is the context in which we Orthodox understand the Scriptures.

You really should be writing "Sola Scriptura + Scripture is clearly a superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture" if you want to compare apples to apples.

You may indeed continue to reject Orthodox teaching. That's OK with me. But I'm really trying to help you understand more clearly what it is you're rejecting. How can I do a better job with that? I'm willing to back up and try again to discuss, not argue. Please note that this forum is called Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion, not Orthodox-Other Christian Argument  :).

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: dcommini on November 05, 2010, 04:40:38 PM


If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.

No, you will contradict it by quoting scripture out of context like you always do, then when we prove you wrong enough times you will start yet another thread with some new title that deals with the same issues and hope that we don't catch on to your petty little games.

BTW I brought up your jumping the gun on the allotted time for a reason, but since I have been busy training I have not had ample time to bring it up.

See you said
Quote
I will give you folks till 0001 Tuesday, PST to find the interpretation of this parable in your tradition.


Sometime after that I will explain the parable, and you will know precisely:

a)why they ran into the lake;
b)what happened to them after they did;
c)why Jesus agreed to their request

Everything about this will be revealed. AND you will know the interpretation is correct, because the Holy Spirit will bear you witness, grant you perception it is correct.

You clearly stated that you would explain the parable after 0001 PST. But you did not, you became impatient. If you become impatient like this how do we know that you are not impatient when making decisions in life? How do we know that you are not impatient when trying to interpret scripture?

You have failed this time around because you also said
Quote
If I don't deliver, you are right.

If I do deliver, then sola scriptura is correct, God gave me this sign, to give to you.

Its for your benefit, not mine.

You have not delivered to our satisfaction, you have not made it clear to us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. And yes, you do have to deliver and prove to our satisfaction, not yours. You are trying to convince us not yourself (though sometimes I do think you are trying to convince yourself as well). The burden of proof rests on you since you came here making claims against our Church. You have not done a very good job at all of convincing any of us that we should turn away from our faith (and in some cases turn back). This isn't pigheadedness on our parts, many people have told you how they were Protestant of one denomination or the other and your only retort is that they must not have really been that denomination for they do not think alike, or only attended a few time. You apply your own attributions to us (i.e. attending a few times, not thinking like the denomination you are a part of) and hope that we don't see the ruse.

I will tell you this; I was a Southern Baptist. I believed that Scripture could be interpreted by anybody using their own methods. I was even an ordained minister before I converted. But the biggest thing that turned me away from the Protestants was Sola Scriptura because every denomination had its own interpretation and no interpretation was the same as the other even in sub-groups (like free-will baptist, southern baptist, independent baptist etc). Even if they did agree 80% of the time why then did they not agree 100% of the time? Surely the Church was not always divided as such! It was when I was in Iraq and I started to study the Bible on my free time that I realized that the Church had been one unified body. Christ said that the Church would stand and being divided how could it stand? I did a lot of research and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the one, unified Church still standing after all of these years. It was no easy task deciding to convert either, I didn't want to give up the faith that I learned from my parents. But I swallowed my pride and I set myself on the path I could feel the Holy Spirit dragging me to; I had a lot of arguments as to why the Orthodox Church was wrong, and one by one they were shot down.

Many people have a story just like mine, we all started out at the same place and ended in the same place. We did our research, we swallowed our pride, but most importantly we submitted ourselves to the Holy Spirit. This is why you MUST convince us to our satisfaction, we left what you proclaim so loudly  - we were there once and we became convinced that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Your shoddy arguments do not stand against almost two thousand years of Tradition. You claim to know better than the fathers who built the religion you claim, even those who were disciples of the Apostles and sometimes even the Apostles themselves.

The burden of proof rests on you, Alfred, and so far you have failed in your every endeavor on this board.

The smoke always gags. Fitting.

I didn't jump the gun, I was tired and posting a little early didn't prevent you from doing better than me, which you have yet to accomplish.

Of course you don't want that fact noted about your tradition, how useless it is to understand these mysteries of God.

Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you. You are not judge, its not up to you if I succeeded or not. I know I did, and those that agree won't be admitting that here, they are, as we speak, studying these things in amazement. I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.





You were tired, i.e. you jumped the gun. What other reason would you have for not keeping your word? I don't have to do better than you because I have 2,000 years of Church history and tradition to back me up. And I don't have to do better than you because you came to our house and made claims against us; I would have to do better than you if I came to your house and started accusing you. Stop comparing yourself to Christ, you do not carry His cross - you carry some imagined burden and we are only trying to help you remove that burden. You still have to satisfy us because you are accusing us. Instead you come in here with claims that our Church has already dealt with and any time anybody give you a good argument you ignore them. Lastly, if anybody here did switch to your beliefs I would not attack them like a ravenous beast, it is their decision to follow you and I respect that decision because at least they made a decision instead of wallowing around in un-decision as you appear to do every time you ignore a valid argument.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 05, 2010, 04:49:04 PM
This thread isn't a request, its a claim, which I prove with various arguments, and which you fail to disprove.

I'm honestly not quite sure what you're saying here.  You said we were rejecting Apostolic teaching because as Christians we should be prepared to give an account for the hope that is in us.  You somehow equated that with answering your "challenges" and I was simply pointing out that you did not ask us to do what the verse asks us to do.  You did not ask us for the hope that is in us, so your weird prooftext there was totally irrelevant and yet gave a wonderful example of how easily and frequently you twist the scriptures for your own purposes.

Quote
If you want to discuss other things, a thread dedicated to that purpose might suit you better.

What "other things"?  I'm only addressing what you've said Alfred.

Quote
I consider anything said not relevant to my claim, additional confirmation my claim is correct.

And how this in any way makes sense to you completely baffles me.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 05, 2010, 04:50:47 PM
Alfred, when will you address the serious challenges to your claim?  I've seen you ignore some outstanding posts.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 06:21:32 PM

Sola Scriptura is clearly superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture.
Alfred, it really is unfortunate that you haven't yet understood that Scripture is not only part of but the central feature of Orthodox Tradition and is not a separate entity.

Sola Scriptura is the context (Tradition?) in which you understand the Scriptures. Orthodox Tradition is the context in which we Orthodox understand the Scriptures.

You really should be writing "Sola Scriptura + Scripture is clearly a superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture" if you want to compare apples to apples.

You may indeed continue to reject Orthodox teaching. That's OK with me. But I'm really trying to help you understand more clearly what it is you're rejecting. How can I do a better job with that? I'm willing to back up and try again to discuss, not argue. Please note that this forum is called Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion, not Orthodox-Other Christian Argument  :).



I reject church tradition is equal to scripture:

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? (1Co 14:36 KJV)

So I argue on this thread.

You folks allow arguments like this because you believe they are incorrect and can prove it.

Otherwise you should ban me as Catholic Answers did, lest folks begin obeying God's Word the Bible against your traditions.

Its always your choice, not mine. You either shine your light where all can see, or you hide it under a basket so only the indoctrinated can see it, and presumably accept it is light without question.

I've been very up front, I evangelize for Christ, I PROSELYTIZE, I believe any who don't are daft.

That's why I defend His Word the Bible against everything that diminishes it.

Church Tradition on the same level as scripture diminishes scripture, robs it of its unique position of Authority over God's people.

I consider mixing tradition and scripture together to be sinful, adding to His word in direct rebellion to His command we not do that:

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
 3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.
 4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.
 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
 (Deu 4:2-6 KJV)


You folks can always ban me, as Catholic Answers did. Or you can argue in defense of your tradition.

If I were Orthodox, and met someone I couldn't answer, I would do two things first: 1)learn how to argue critically, there are lots of books on critical thinking at Amazon.com; 2)Search the internet for accomplished Orthodox apologists who might consider spending some of their time answering this thread's arguments;

AND after I had done that, if I then saw it proven Tradition is NOT equal to Scripture, then its time to obey the Scripture, the words God said, and stop making God's word of no effect, for the sake of human tradition, and not care about the social cost, because it is written:

 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
 (Mat 16:26-27 KJV)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 05, 2010, 06:32:11 PM
You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further, Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 06:32:59 PM
You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

To say its "the most important" allows its still just a "part of."

God is not part of man.

His words are not part of man's words.

His word is not the most important words men speak.

God's word has supreme authority because He is the Supreme Being, and not man.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Thankful on November 05, 2010, 06:43:58 PM
You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 05, 2010, 06:55:56 PM

God's word has supreme authority because He is the Supreme Being, and not man.

Sounds like you're making the Bible into an idol.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 05, 2010, 07:08:52 PM

Sola Scriptura is the context (Tradition?) in which you understand the Scriptures. Orthodox Tradition is the context in which we Orthodox understand the Scriptures.

I consider mixing tradition and scripture together to be sinful, adding to His word in direct rebellion to His command we not do that:

[sigh]Missing my point again.[/sigh]
And yet you seem to have no qualms about mixing your tradition with Scripture. You don't seem to understand that Sola Scriptura is a tradition.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 05, 2010, 07:19:03 PM

God's word has supreme authority because He is the Supreme Being, and not man.
Do I understand you to say, "The Bible (God's word) has supreme authority because He (God) is the Supreme Being, and not man"?

If that's the case, how do you explain Matthew 28:18 (NKJV): And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth..."

So where is the "supreme authority" - in Jesus Christ or in the Holy Scriptures?

I will be the first to agree that the two will never contradict each other. I will agree that the Holy Scriptures testify to the Person of Jesus Christ. But don't equate the two - that would be bibliolatry.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 07:36:45 PM
You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.


Analogy fail, your heart is part of your body. Most important? Perhaps, but still just a part of your body.

Your father is still human, like you. While his words may be the most important, they are still  human words and have authority only within his family.

The Letter "t" is still just another letter in the alphabet.

The roots of a tree are certainly a part of the tree, what authority said they aren't?

I got the point, your analogies prove me right, you wrong.

God came first, therefore His Word is NOT a part of human tradition, UNLESS you agree with those who say Man created God in his image.

Paul was very clear, God's Word came to the church, it does not arise from the church:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
 (1Co 14:36-37 NKJ)

Contrary to some prophets in the church, Paul says the Word of God came to them from him, they are not speaking the "word of God."

THAT is every damaging to your position church tradition = word of God, because Paul rejects the prophecy, tongues, (supernaturally given) knowledge of the Corinthians, is the Word of God.

If words inspired by the Spirit in Corinth are NOT the "word of God" then neither can any words arising from the Orthodox church.


In the church we both agree is 100% Christian, God's word goes to it, not comes out from it.


So if you believe Orthodox churches generate the "word of God" then you are saying it is dissimilar to the church at Corinth...


As the church at Corinth was Christian, what does that make any church that is dissimilar?


How can it be words the Holy Spirit inspired in Corinthian prophecy, tongues and knowledge ARE NOT " the words of God"----while those the Holy Spirit speaks through Paul are...simple...God is writing scripture through Paul, and therefore renders it inerrant, that is not the case with the Corinthians.

A thorough study of these gifts reveals the prophecy, inspired psalms etc, were essentially "inspired expository preaching" many do today...a "prophet" could be "wrong" without being labeled a "false prophet", because he  is NOT speaking by the Spirit, his prophecy etc is teaching, and therefore can be wrong:

 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
 (1Co 14:29-32 NKJ)

That is like an inspired "bible study" where folks are revealing insights into the scripture they believe the Holy Spirit has given them.

God does not overrule free will, when Corinthians "get it wrong" He does not stop then from embarrassing themselves...I am certain He tried to keep them from making mistakes, but they sometimes do...hence, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, i.e., especially those scripturally knowledgeable.

"Spirits of the prophets" is ambiguous, it can refer to actual spirits inspiring the prophecy, or the spirits of the prophets, their "new creature" souls which have partaken of divine nature, and are now "spirits of just men" (cp Heb. 12:23).

The latter is true, otherwise any false prophesy would be immediately condemned and the spiritist thrown out of the congregation, for then he is inspired by a spirit of error, a antichrist spirit, one that assumes the guise of Christ, to oppose Christ:

NKJ  1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
 (1Jo 4:1-3 NKJ)

It does not follow "good spirits" are communicating with us today. The NT period, while scripture was being written, is a unique time of revelation. That ceased with the advent of a completed scripture...observe such revelation is spoken of as completed:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

By John's time, it was all false prophecy, hence his warning.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 05, 2010, 08:00:33 PM
Paul was very clear, God's Word came to the church, it does not arise from the church:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
 (1Co 14:36-37 NKJ)

You may be right; you may be wrong. This passage doesn't prove your claim. It does not say the written word of God but in fact, exactly the opposite. Read the context - you'll see that the Apostle is dealing with speaking in the church. He is writing to the Corinthians about how they speak in the Church - not about what they read.

There is nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise, unless you place the Tradition of Sola Scriptura ahead of the plain reading of the text.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 08:14:11 PM
Paul was very clear, God's Word came to the church, it does not arise from the church:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
 (1Co 14:36-37 NKJ)

You may be right; you may be wrong. This passage doesn't prove your claim. It does not say the written word of God but in fact, exactly the opposite. Read the context - you'll see that the Apostle is dealing with speaking in the church. He is writing to the Corinthians about how they speak in the Church - not about what they read.

There is nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise, unless you place the Tradition of Sola Scriptura ahead of the plain reading of the text.

In context Paul is rejecting their prophets, what they say, is NOT the "word of God", a literal rendering is:

36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?
 37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.
 38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
 (1Co 14:36-38 ASV)


This is confirmed by the fact much of the New Testament was written to correct errors the church got itself into. Especially we see this in Peter's oral tradition:

 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel,
 (Gal 2:11-14 NKJ)

Peter's tradition, spoken by his actions, or one could say, the "living tradition of the church of Galatia" was wrong, "not straightfoward about the truth of the gospel," hence a lie.

God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.

This is why sola scriptura is vital, its the only way we remain under the apostles authority.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 05, 2010, 08:42:28 PM

God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.
Except for the Apostle Peter, apparently.

The Apostle Paul was quick to declare himself the chief of sinners. He had no illusions about his imperfections. The absence of detail proves nothing.

My point is that no single apostle was infallible - that's why it took the Church as a whole to maintain the truth.

Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group (http://advancementofgrace.com/home/)? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Manalive on November 05, 2010, 08:50:14 PM
This is confirmed by the fact much of the New Testament was written to correct errors the church got itself into. Especially we see this in Peter's oral tradition:

 11 Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed;
 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision.
 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
 14 But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel,
 (Gal 2:11-14 NKJ)

Peter's tradition, spoken by his actions, or one could say, the "living tradition of the church of Galatia" was wrong, "not straightfoward about the truth of the gospel," hence a lie.

God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.

This is why sola scriptura is vital, its the only way we remain under the apostles authority.

Hence, you should be under the Apostolic Church and still under the Apostles authority. There is one Apostolic Church; there are many churches.  :)

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Thankful on November 05, 2010, 09:23:57 PM
You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.


Analogy fail, your heart is part of your body. Most important? Perhaps, but still just a part of your body.

Your father is still human, like you. While his words may be the most important, they are still  human words and have authority only within his family.

The Letter "t" is still just another letter in the alphabet.

The roots of a tree are certainly a part of the tree, what authority said they aren't?

I got the point, your analogies prove me right, you wrong.

[...Snipping out Alfred's interpretation of Scripture]


Wow, you really make God and Holy Scripture confusing (I snipped all that Alfred-interpretation out of there, since that's not what I'm addressing).  I'm addressing your statement "To say its part of is to say its equal to."  This is just plain not true.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME; my father is a part of our family, but he's not our family; the letter "t" is part of this sentence but it's not the sentence and the roots of the tree are part of the tree, but they're not the tree. These parts are NOT equal to. Your refutation failed, Alfred, not the analogy.  Your God is too difficult to know and touch, Alfred.  
===

Along those lines, can you address this please?

Surely there were devout Christians who subsisted on faith, tradition, the sacraments, prayer and fasting without ever being literate or being able to read scripture, and surely there were christians during the period after Christ's ascension and the canonization of Scripture.  

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 05, 2010, 10:31:12 PM

God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.
Except for the Apostle Peter, apparently.

The Apostle Paul was quick to declare himself the chief of sinners. He had no illusions about his imperfections. The absence of detail proves nothing.

My point is that no single apostle was infallible - that's why it took the Church as a whole to maintain the truth.

Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group (http://advancementofgrace.com/home/)? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

No, as I said, I am one of Christ's expendable assets; a Bible student, nothing more. Its scripture you should heed, it is the Word of God.


 17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. (Joh 17:17 NKJ)


 14 "If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.
 15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
 (Joh 14:14-15 NKJ)



The ad hominem is I want you to agree with me.


THAT is Incorrect.

I beg you agree with God according to your conscience.

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
 (Rom 2:14-16 NKJ)

Even if you disagree with me, a bible student like yourself, I count all worthy of praise if they follow the grammar and syntax of the scripture faithfully, in full agreement with their conscience.

Then I consider my job done...I only all follow God according to their conscience...not me...

I am irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial.

Its obvious to all I could be wrong, BUT the word of God alone is inerrant, infallible Truth. That is what all must obey.


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 06, 2010, 07:53:49 AM

God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.
Except for the Apostle Peter, apparently.

The Apostle Paul was quick to declare himself the chief of sinners. He had no illusions about his imperfections. The absence of detail proves nothing.

My point is that no single apostle was infallible - that's why it took the Church as a whole to maintain the truth.

Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group (http://advancementofgrace.com/home/)? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

I have no idea who they are, their beliefs etc., never heard of them.

I do not believe Paul's teachings supersede those of the other apostles.

It may be I cite him more than the other apostles, but that is because he wrote much of our NT, more than the other apostles.

As the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13) and student of Gamaliel (Ac 22:3) Paul is expert at explaining Christ to the Gentiles.

Some expositors don't perceive the depth of Christ's teaching because Rabbis like Christ (John 1:49) used symbols to imply premises, and Paul was fully conversant with that style of argumentation and communicates Christ's meaning we otherwise might miss.

For example, Adam Clarke's commentary on Mat 22:32 says:

I am the God of Abraham - Let it be observed, that Abraham was dead upwards of 300 years before these words were spoken to Moses: yet still God calls himself the God of Abraham, etc. Now Christ properly observes that God is not the God of the dead, (that word being equal, in the sense of the Sadducees, to an eternal annihilation), but of the living; it therefore follows that, if he be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, these are not dead, but alive; alive with God, though they had ceased, for some hundreds of years, to exist among mortals. We may see, from this, that our Lord combats and confutes another opinion of the Sadducees, viz. that there is neither angel nor spirit; by showing that the soul is not only immortal, but lives with God, even while the body is detained in the dust of the earth, which body is afterwards to be raised to life, and united with its soul by the miraculous power of God, of which power they showed themselves to be ignorant when they denied the possibility of a resurrection.


While Clarke's conclusion is correct, he got there the wrong way.  

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Mat 22:29 KJV)

Christ is doing more than disproving Sadduccean belief the soul dies when the body dies, that is not the main thrust of His argument. Rather the symbols imply they err about the power of God to preserve life even in death, and to fulfill His promises. As the scripture has Abraham Issac and Jacob standing before God, this implies the resurrection because God promised these (in scripture) they would serve Him physically forever, and as as they now stand before God continually, they are constant reminders of unfulfilled promises.

Arguments for the resurrection based upon implication were quite common among the Rabbis in Jesus' day:

An apparent reason why the Sadducees rejected the doctrine [of the resurrection] was that it was not taught, so they alleged, in the Pentateuch, and was therefore part of the Oral Torah which they repudiated. This view was strongly controverted by the Rabbis. The Talmud even remarks: 'There is no section of the (written) Torah which does not imply the doctrine of the Resurrection, but we have not the capacity to expound it in this sense' (Sifre Deut. Section 306; 132a) Much ingenuity was therefore expended to demonstrate that the Torah does teach it. A selection of these proofs will here be given.  

'Whence is the doctrine of the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, 'Ye shall give the Lord's heave-offering to Aaron the priest' (Num xviii. 28). But did Aaron live for ever to receive the offering? Is it not true he did not enter the land of Israel? Consequently the text teaches that he is to be restored to life (in the Hearafter) and will receive the heave-offering. Hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah (Sanh. 90b).  

'The Sadducees asked R. Gamaliel, "Whence is it known that the Holy One, blessed be He, revives the dead?" He answered…"From the Pentateuch, for it is written, 'Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up' (sic Deut. xxxi. 16)…  

Finally he quoted for them, “The land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give unto them” (Deut. xi 9). It is not stated “unto you,” but “unto them”; hence the doctrine of the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.  

Others maintain that it can be derived from, “Ye that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day”; therefore the meaning must be, even on the day when people in general are dead you will live, and as you are all alive this day so will you all live in the World to Come’ (Sanh 90b).  

It is written, “I kill and I make alive” (Deut. xxxii. 39). It is possible to think that death is caused by one Power and life by another, as is the usual way of the world; therefore the text continues, “I have wounded and I heal.” As both wounding and healing are in the hands of the same Power, so are killing and reviving in the hands of the same Power. This is a refutation of those who declare that the Resurrection is not taught in the Torah.  

R. Meir asked, Whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, “Then will1 Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord” (Exod. xv.1). It is not said “sang” but “will sing”; hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.  

R.Joshua b. Levi asked, Whence is the Resurrection derived in the Torah? As it is said, “Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house, they will be still praising Thee” (Ps. lxxxiv. 4) It is not stated, “They have praised Thee” but “will be still praising Three” (in the Hereafter); hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.  

Raba asked, Whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, “Let Reuben live and not die” (Deut. xxxiii. 6)—“let Reuben live” in this world, “and not die in the World to come.”  

Rabina declared that it may be deduced from, “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Dan xii. 2)  

R. Ashe deduced it from, “Go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and shalt stand in thy lot at the end of the days (ibid 3) ‘(Sanh. 91b et seq.)  

In addition to the Sadducees, another sect denied this dogma, viz. the Samaritans. A polemic against them is contained in the passage: ‘R. Eliezer b. Jose said, In this matter I proved the books of the Samaritans2 who declared that the Resurrection is not taught in the Torah to be false. I told them, You have falsified your recension of the Torah but it has availed you nothing in your contention that the Resurrection is not taught in the Torah, because it is there stated, “That soul shall be utterly cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him” (Num. xv. 31)—“shall be utterly cut off” must refer t this world;3 when, then, “shall his iniquity be upon him”? Must it not be in the World to Come?’ (Sanh. 90b). -Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud ( Schocken Books, New York, 1995), -pp 358-359  





Hence Paul is not teaching a different Christianity than Christ, He is faithful to Christ's teaching in every respect, that some don't realize this has more to do with their ignorance of Jewish exegesis in the days of Christ, and Paul's teaching, than anything real in the Scripture:


Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1Th 4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Knowing what the Rabbi's taught in the days of Christ, is relevant, its context the expositor must be aware of when interpreting Christ:

52 Then He said to them, "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old." (Mat 13:52 NKJ)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 06, 2010, 08:55:35 AM
You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.


Analogy fail, your heart is part of your body. Most important? Perhaps, but still just a part of your body.

Your father is still human, like you. While his words may be the most important, they are still  human words and have authority only within his family.

The Letter "t" is still just another letter in the alphabet.

The roots of a tree are certainly a part of the tree, what authority said they aren't?

I got the point, your analogies prove me right, you wrong.

[...Snipping out Alfred's interpretation of Scripture]


Wow, you really make God and Holy Scripture confusing (I snipped all that Alfred-interpretation out of there, since that's not what I'm addressing).  I'm addressing your statement "To say its part of is to say its equal to."  This is just plain not true.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME; my father is a part of our family, but he's not our family; the letter "t" is part of this sentence but it's not the sentence and the roots of the tree are part of the tree, but they're not the tree. These parts are NOT equal to. Your refutation failed, Alfred, not the analogy.  Your God is too difficult to know and touch, Alfred.  
===

Along those lines, can you address this please?

Surely there were devout Christians who subsisted on faith, tradition, the sacraments, prayer and fasting without ever being literate or being able to read scripture, and surely there were christians during the period after Christ's ascension and the canonization of Scripture.  

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.

A straw man, I did not say "to say its part of is to say its the entire" which is what you are arguing against, quite poorly I might add. The Straw Man you created nearly whooped you bad.


Those who can't read etc, are in the same boat as many Christians were before the printing press, they must hear the scripture read by others, often in church.


It does not follow the "reader" is equal to the writer however, that premise would be absurd. Does reading E=mc2 make one Einstein? Of course not.



Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 06, 2010, 09:04:12 AM
First of all, Alfred, let me thank you for either staying up really late, or getting up really early - I know we're separated by a three-hour time difference - to follow up on this. I hope you're not neglecting your sleep. Keeping a healthy body is important, too.

Quote
Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group (http://advancementofgrace.com/home/)? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

I have no idea who they are, their beliefs etc., never heard of them.

I do not believe Paul's teachings supersede those of the other apostles.

It may be I cite him more than the other apostles, but that is because he wrote much of our NT, more than the other apostles.
Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't really think you were. I noticed a few similarities, but since the website (at least a quick review - and I didn't go into the forums) didn't actually use the term "Sola Scriptura", though I would think they are without labelling themselves as such - it didn't line up with everything that appears to form your understanding.

Quote
Christ is doing more than disproving Sadduccean belief the soul dies when the body dies, that is not the main thrust of His argument. Rather the symbols imply they err about the power of God to preserve life even in death, and as the scripture has Abraham Issac and Jacob standing before God, this implies the resurrection because God promised these (in scripture) they would serve Him physically forever, and as as they now stand before God continually, they are constant reminders of unfulfilled promises.

<big snips of interesting background>
I'm not sure if by "unfulfilled promises" you mean those that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob looked forward to, or the unfulfilled promises of the Resurrection to which even we look forward to, though we have a greater understanding than the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. You may mean both. I would think they are both implied.

You may know that the Orthodox focus much more than Protestants on the work of Christ in Hades between His crucifixion and His resurrection. The Liturgy which we celebrate on the morning of Holy Saturday really emphasizes that work, and it's one of my favourite services.

I know, Alfred, that you object to the veneration of icons (we don't need to go back to that, really!) and that because you know icons are associated with veneration you avoid them. Do you object to their use as a teaching tool? If not, I'd invite you to look at this page (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/pascha/phf09.htm) which depicts and briefly explains the icon of the "Descent into Hades". Some icons of the same event show a greater gathering of Old Testament saints and righteous ones, which may (I don't know for sure) include the patriarchs. Most of them - though I don't see him in the one I've linked to - show Abel. He's the one holding a shepherd's staff. It would be easy to go on - you know that a picture is worth a thousand words!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 06, 2010, 10:31:58 AM
First of all, Alfred, let me thank you for either staying up really late, or getting up really early - I know we're separated by a three-hour time difference - to follow up on this. I hope you're not neglecting your sleep. Keeping a healthy body is important, too.

Quote
Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group (http://advancementofgrace.com/home/)? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

I have no idea who they are, their beliefs etc., never heard of them.

I do not believe Paul's teachings supersede those of the other apostles.

It may be I cite him more than the other apostles, but that is because he wrote much of our NT, more than the other apostles.
Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't really think you were. I noticed a few similarities, but since the website (at least a quick review - and I didn't go into the forums) didn't actually use the term "Sola Scriptura", though I would think they are without labelling themselves as such - it didn't line up with everything that appears to form your understanding.

Quote
Christ is doing more than disproving Sadduccean belief the soul dies when the body dies, that is not the main thrust of His argument. Rather the symbols imply they err about the power of God to preserve life even in death, and as the scripture has Abraham Issac and Jacob standing before God, this implies the resurrection because God promised these (in scripture) they would serve Him physically forever, and as as they now stand before God continually, they are constant reminders of unfulfilled promises.

<big snips of interesting background>
I'm not sure if by "unfulfilled promises" you mean those that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob looked forward to, or the unfulfilled promises of the Resurrection to which even we look forward to, though we have a greater understanding than the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. You may mean both. I would think they are both implied.

You may know that the Orthodox focus much more than Protestants on the work of Christ in Hades between His crucifixion and His resurrection. The Liturgy which we celebrate on the morning of Holy Saturday really emphasizes that work, and it's one of my favourite services.

I know, Alfred, that you object to the veneration of icons (we don't need to go back to that, really!) and that because you know icons are associated with veneration you avoid them. Do you object to their use as a teaching tool? If not, I'd invite you to look at this page (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/pascha/phf09.htm) which depicts and briefly explains the icon of the "Descent into Hades". Some icons of the same event show a greater gathering of Old Testament saints and righteous ones, which may (I don't know for sure) include the patriarchs. Most of them - though I don't see him in the one I've linked to - show Abel. He's the one holding a shepherd's staff. It would be easy to go on - you know that a picture is worth a thousand words!

Early to bed, early to rise, that's me.

There are lots more similarities with the Orthodox, on the Holy Trinity, but you haven't suspected me of being Orthodox.  Why not?

Just joking, but also making a point. Similar is not "the same".

Evidently you didn't read the Talmud quotes, then you could have found the promises yourself, the resurrection is deducible from these texts, for the promises made in them aren't fulfilled if these remain dead:

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.(Gen 17:8 KJV)

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (Gen 17:19 KJV)

13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
 14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
 15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.
 (Gen 28:13-15 KJV)

Perhaps this last doesn't apply, but that wouldn't negate Christ's interpretation, only one promise need exist for it to be sound.

Icons of God are forbidden, not of other scenes. I don't believe they are efficient tools for teaching, for example, the one you directed me to, if you didn't explain it was about Christ's descent into hell, I wouldn't have figured that out for myself.

But I don't care about paintings, icons, statues, etc, only images supposedly of God...they are forbidden.

If I ever make a movie of Christ, I wouldn't have any actor play Him, rather we would see the world through His eyes, or not see Him at all. Why misrepresent what He looked like?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 06, 2010, 11:18:16 AM
First of all, Alfred, let me thank you for either staying up really late, or getting up really early - I know we're separated by a three-hour time difference - to follow up on this. I hope you're not neglecting your sleep. Keeping a healthy body is important, too.

Quote
Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group (http://advancementofgrace.com/home/)? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

I have no idea who they are, their beliefs etc., never heard of them.

I do not believe Paul's teachings supersede those of the other apostles.

It may be I cite him more than the other apostles, but that is because he wrote much of our NT, more than the other apostles.
Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't really think you were. I noticed a few similarities, but since the website (at least a quick review - and I didn't go into the forums) didn't actually use the term "Sola Scriptura", though I would think they are without labelling themselves as such - it didn't line up with everything that appears to form your understanding.

Quote
Christ is doing more than disproving Sadduccean belief the soul dies when the body dies, that is not the main thrust of His argument. Rather the symbols imply they err about the power of God to preserve life even in death, and as the scripture has Abraham Issac and Jacob standing before God, this implies the resurrection because God promised these (in scripture) they would serve Him physically forever, and as as they now stand before God continually, they are constant reminders of unfulfilled promises.

<big snips of interesting background>
I'm not sure if by "unfulfilled promises" you mean those that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob looked forward to, or the unfulfilled promises of the Resurrection to which even we look forward to, though we have a greater understanding than the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. You may mean both. I would think they are both implied.

You may know that the Orthodox focus much more than Protestants on the work of Christ in Hades between His crucifixion and His resurrection. The Liturgy which we celebrate on the morning of Holy Saturday really emphasizes that work, and it's one of my favourite services.

I know, Alfred, that you object to the veneration of icons (we don't need to go back to that, really!) and that because you know icons are associated with veneration you avoid them. Do you object to their use as a teaching tool? If not, I'd invite you to look at this page (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/pascha/phf09.htm) which depicts and briefly explains the icon of the "Descent into Hades". Some icons of the same event show a greater gathering of Old Testament saints and righteous ones, which may (I don't know for sure) include the patriarchs. Most of them - though I don't see him in the one I've linked to - show Abel. He's the one holding a shepherd's staff. It would be easy to go on - you know that a picture is worth a thousand words!

Early to bed, early to rise, that's me.

There are lots more similarities with the Orthodox, on the Holy Trinity, but you haven't suspected me of being Orthodox.  Why not?

Just joking, but also making a point. Similar is not "the same".

Evidently you didn't read the Talmud quotes, then you could have found the promises yourself, the resurrection is deducible from these texts, for the promises made in them aren't fulfilled if these remain dead:

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.(Gen 17:8 KJV)

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (Gen 17:19 KJV)

13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
 14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
 15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.
 (Gen 28:13-15 KJV)

Perhaps this last doesn't apply, but that wouldn't negate Christ's interpretation, only one promise need exist for it to be sound.

Icons of God are forbidden, not of other scenes. I don't believe they are efficient tools for teaching, for example, the one you directed me to, if you didn't explain it was about Christ's descent into hell, I wouldn't have figured that out for myself.

But I don't care about paintings, icons, statues, etc, only images supposedly of God...they are forbidden.

If I ever make a movie of Christ, I wouldn't have any actor play Him, rather we would see the world through His eyes, or not see Him at all. Why misrepresent what He looked like?


So basically you reject the Incarnation?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 06, 2010, 11:33:08 AM
First of all, Alfred, let me thank you for either staying up really late, or getting up really early - I know we're separated by a three-hour time difference - to follow up on this. I hope you're not neglecting your sleep. Keeping a healthy body is important, too.

Quote
Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group (http://advancementofgrace.com/home/)? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

I have no idea who they are, their beliefs etc., never heard of them.

I do not believe Paul's teachings supersede those of the other apostles.

It may be I cite him more than the other apostles, but that is because he wrote much of our NT, more than the other apostles.
Thank you for clearing that up. I didn't really think you were. I noticed a few similarities, but since the website (at least a quick review - and I didn't go into the forums) didn't actually use the term "Sola Scriptura", though I would think they are without labelling themselves as such - it didn't line up with everything that appears to form your understanding.

Quote
Christ is doing more than disproving Sadduccean belief the soul dies when the body dies, that is not the main thrust of His argument. Rather the symbols imply they err about the power of God to preserve life even in death, and as the scripture has Abraham Issac and Jacob standing before God, this implies the resurrection because God promised these (in scripture) they would serve Him physically forever, and as as they now stand before God continually, they are constant reminders of unfulfilled promises.

<big snips of interesting background>
I'm not sure if by "unfulfilled promises" you mean those that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob looked forward to, or the unfulfilled promises of the Resurrection to which even we look forward to, though we have a greater understanding than the patriarchs and prophets of the Old Testament. You may mean both. I would think they are both implied.

You may know that the Orthodox focus much more than Protestants on the work of Christ in Hades between His crucifixion and His resurrection. The Liturgy which we celebrate on the morning of Holy Saturday really emphasizes that work, and it's one of my favourite services.

I know, Alfred, that you object to the veneration of icons (we don't need to go back to that, really!) and that because you know icons are associated with veneration you avoid them. Do you object to their use as a teaching tool? If not, I'd invite you to look at this page (http://www.comeandseeicons.com/pascha/phf09.htm) which depicts and briefly explains the icon of the "Descent into Hades". Some icons of the same event show a greater gathering of Old Testament saints and righteous ones, which may (I don't know for sure) include the patriarchs. Most of them - though I don't see him in the one I've linked to - show Abel. He's the one holding a shepherd's staff. It would be easy to go on - you know that a picture is worth a thousand words!

Early to bed, early to rise, that's me.

There are lots more similarities with the Orthodox, on the Holy Trinity, but you haven't suspected me of being Orthodox.  Why not?

Just joking, but also making a point. Similar is not "the same".

Evidently you didn't read the Talmud quotes, then you could have found the promises yourself, the resurrection is deducible from these texts, for the promises made in them aren't fulfilled if these remain dead:

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.(Gen 17:8 KJV)

19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him. (Gen 17:19 KJV)

13 And, behold, the LORD stood above it, and said, I am the LORD God of Abraham thy father, and the God of Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed;
 14 And thy seed shall be as the dust of the earth, and thou shalt spread abroad to the west, and to the east, and to the north, and to the south: and in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.
 15 And, behold, I am with thee, and will keep thee in all places whither thou goest, and will bring thee again into this land; for I will not leave thee, until I have done that which I have spoken to thee of.
 (Gen 28:13-15 KJV)

Perhaps this last doesn't apply, but that wouldn't negate Christ's interpretation, only one promise need exist for it to be sound.

Icons of God are forbidden, not of other scenes. I don't believe they are efficient tools for teaching, for example, the one you directed me to, if you didn't explain it was about Christ's descent into hell, I wouldn't have figured that out for myself.

But I don't care about paintings, icons, statues, etc, only images supposedly of God...they are forbidden.

If I ever make a movie of Christ, I wouldn't have any actor play Him, rather we would see the world through His eyes, or not see Him at all. Why misrepresent what He looked like?


So basically you reject the Incarnation?

No

Thanks for adding to the irrelevant posts which confirm there is no defense for Tradition+Scripture being superior to Sola Scriptura.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 06, 2010, 12:04:03 PM

... and as the scripture has Abraham Issac and Jacob standing before God...and as as they now stand before God continually, they are constant reminders of unfulfilled promises.
Quote
Evidently you didn't read the Talmud quotes, then you could have found the promises yourself, the resurrection is deducible from these texts, for the promises made in them aren't fulfilled if these remain dead:

Perhaps this last doesn't apply, but that wouldn't negate Christ's interpretation, only one promise need exist for it to be sound.


Perhaps then I should have focused on "they are constant reminders", which suggests reminders to us of the promises that we await with great expectation. I doubt that we disagree on the point here - just having a hard time getting the words to make that clear.

Quote
Icons of God are forbidden, not of other scenes. I don't believe they are efficient tools for teaching, for example, the one you directed me to, if you didn't explain it was about Christ's descent into hell, I wouldn't have figured that out for myself.
Thank you for taking the time to check it out. Your stand on icons has been noticed around here from time to time  ;).

You are quite right about needing help understanding that icon. Sometimes explanations are needed, much like Christ's parables. It's from the questions they elicit that teaching arises.

Quote
If I ever make a movie of Christ, I wouldn't have any actor play Him, rather we would see the world through His eyes, or not see Him at all. Why misrepresent what He looked like?
You may find this strange, but I don't think I could go there. It would seem presumptuous of me to put thoughts into Christ's head. Theatrically it would be a fascinating effort, but otherwise, I'm not so sure.

If you wanted to avoid having Christ portrayed by an actor, maybe you could weave a story around people who came into contact with Him during His earthly ministry telling their stories to others.

I understand what you say about not misrepresenting what He looked like. We have to be sure we don't misrepresent anything about Him. And not only that, but playing the role can be demanding on a serious actor. I found this fascinating interview (http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/ScottRoss-Jim_Caviezel_1.aspx) with Jim Caviezel. It doesn't matter what you think of the movie - it has flaws - just notice the effect that playing Jesus had on Caviezel. I've had only a brief career in community theatre (and of course in teaching as a career, I had to play a lot of roles) but it's enough to make clear that I wouldn't want to take on that assignment.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 06, 2010, 12:16:19 PM
So basically you reject the Incarnation?

No

Thanks for adding to the irrelevant posts which confirm there is no defense for Tradition+Scripture being superior to Sola Scriptura.

It's not so irrelevant.  Historically, groups that have rejected icons have had problems with the Incarnation.  The Paulicians, who believed Christ didn't have real flesh, for example, rejected icons.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 06, 2010, 06:59:49 PM
Trolling is not apologetics. This is a game. ::)

Prediction: Alfred is going to shoot down responses one by one, using badly formatted multicolor Bible verses parsed through his all-holy, immaculate, most blessed and glorious Hermaneutic. Then he will declare victory in this contrived game of his. His ego will be stroked and his insecurities will be driven a little farther off. Rinse and repeat.

[edit] I didn't even submit my post and he already did it. ::)

Trolling is a fishing term. It's when you drop multiple hooks in the water and drift around waiting for a bite. That's exactly what you're doing constantly.  See why we call you a troll?  

prophecy fulfilled.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 06, 2010, 08:04:12 PM
Prophecy fulfilled indeed.  SO many wonderful points that he has refused to address!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 03:14:43 PM
Sola Scriptura alone results in a Personal Relationship with Christ, it is impossible Ritual and the Tradition of men lead to Christ's indwelling:

 18 "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
 19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
 20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
 21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 (Joh 14:18-23 NKJ)

Hence Paul rejoices in leaving ritual "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection":

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
 (Phi 3:3-10 KJV)

He deems all things religious mere rubbish that he win Christ's approval, know Him personally, such is the joy a believer has with His  risen Master Jesus Christ.

This personal relationship with Jesus is the context of much of the NT statements of joy, peace, long suffering, Christianity is not a ritual.

This experience is knowing Christ personally in one's life, its knowing God as Father, and the Holy Spirit as Comforter...it is a deep abiding communion like one has with one's earthly family, built upon a perception, an abiding "knowing one is a child of their parents", that one is home.:

 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
 (Gal 4:6 NKJ)

 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

 (Rom 8:14-16 NKJ)

There are no rituals or sacrament that accomplishes what obedience to God's Word., i.e., sola scriptura does.


When we love Christ's Word above the Traditions of men, count all things of the flesh loss that we may win Christ's approval, then it we show we love Him and, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[/b] (Rev 3:20 KJV)

NIV  Isaiah 55:1 "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
 2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
 3 Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live
. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.
 4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples.
 5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor."
 6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
 7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
 12 You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
 13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree, and instead of briers the myrtle will grow. This will be for the LORD's renown, for an everlasting sign, which will not be destroyed."
 (Isa 55:1 NIV)


The New Testament is the proof of this.

Can any of you cite where following your Tradition resulted in joyous personal fellowship with God in Holy Trinity?



 14 "I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
 15 "I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
 16 "They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world.
 17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
 18 "As You sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world.
 19 "And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth.
 20 "I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word;
 21 "that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.
 (Joh 17:14-21 NKJ)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: dcommini on November 07, 2010, 03:39:19 PM
Sola Scriptura alone results in a Personal Relationship with Christ, it is impossible Ritual and the Tradition of men lead to Christ's indwelling:

 18 "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
 19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
 20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
 21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 (Joh 14:18-23 NKJ)

Hence Paul rejoices in leaving ritual "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection":

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
 (Phi 3:3-10 KJV)

He deems all things rubbish that he win Christ's approval, such is joyous fellowship Paul has with the risen Christ.

Its clear in all of NT epistle believers have a personal relationship with Christ, not just ritual.

This experience is knowing who Christ is, personally in one's life,  a deep perception the same as "knowing one is a child of their parents", a deep intimate awareness of a reality that transcends all intellectual apprehension...it is a continuous communion:

 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
 (Gal 4:6 NKJ)

 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

 (Rom 8:14-16 NKJ)

There are no rituals or sacrament that accomplishes what obedience to God's Word., i.e., sola scriptura does.


When we love Christ's Word above the Traditions of men, count all things of the flesh loss that we may win Christ's approval, then it we show we love Him and, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[/b] (Rev 3:20 KJV)

NIV  Isaiah 55:1 "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
 2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
 3 Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live
. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.
 4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples.
 5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor."
 6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
 7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
 12 You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
 13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree, and instead of briers the myrtle will grow. This will be for the LORD's renown, for an everlasting sign, which will not be destroyed."
 (Isa 55:1 NIV)

You obviously base that off of assumption; you assume that none of us have a personal relationship with Jesus. We all have a personal relationship with Jesus, and mine own has been enhanced with my conversion to Orthodoxy to such a level I never knew as a Sola Scripturist. Orthodoxy has helped me to realize that there is so much more of a close, personal relationship that I can experience with my Lord and Savior then I could get elsewhere. I have icons of Him to show Him and the world that I love Him, just like I have pictures of my daughter to show her and the world that I love her.

Rituals do help us to have a closer relationship with all of our friends. For example, one of my friends and I would frequent a pool halls to shoot some pool and throw darts. This time spent with each other in close fellowship gave us a bond that is nigh inseparable. Another example is one of my friends and I would go to Kung Fu class together - we would ride together, be in class together and then go to Sonic for dinner afterwards - this has brought us extremely close together and both of these friends and I consider ourselves brothers (one even has two kids who call me Uncle Dave). Likewise the spiritual rituals I do (daily prayers, daily Scripture readings, being in His very presence at Divine Liturgy, etc.) brining me closer to Christ because I am spending so much more time with Him and I receive such a better understanding of Him than I could with out these "vilified" rituals. Of course, Protestants also have rituals they use to have a closer relationship with Christ, they just don't call them rituals because the Protestants fear that word for some reason - but a rose by any other name...
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 07, 2010, 03:51:37 PM
Alfred doesn't care what we have to say. I personally responded to similar blathering about rituals and sacraments in that other thread and he blew it off. Alfred likes to hear himself talk, that's all I've concluded.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 07, 2010, 04:01:09 PM
How does he know what an Orthodox liturgy is like, when he's never been to one? Why is 'ritual' supposed to be bad, when Our Lord was pleased to preach in the synagogue in Capernaum, and the Apostles prayed at the prescribed Hours of the day?

I don't know how Alfred can posit that our relationships with God cannot be personal, since Alfred Persson cannot read anybody's heart. If worship and relationship are personal, by definition, they are known by each person. Who is he to demean the faith of another? How could he even begin to know?

Nobody holds a gun to my head to make me go to church. I go because I want to, and I am an adult, who accepts full responsibility for one's actions. Therefore, my participation in what the church is doing is of my own behest. It is not done under duress. I accept everything that comes from what I do, and say, and pray.

If that isn't personal, then you have changed the meaning of the word. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time you have done that.  ::)

I can show you an occasion where the Orthodox Holy Tradition has borne fruit.

Maybe you've read it before? It's called the New Testament.

You're welcome.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 07, 2010, 04:03:35 PM
Alfred doesn't care what we have to say. I personally responded to similar blathering about rituals and sacraments in that other thread and he blew it off. Alfred likes to hear himself talk, that's all I've concluded.

I think you may be right. Never the twain shall meet.  :-\
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 07, 2010, 04:41:43 PM
You'd almost think Alfred wasn't aware of the fact that the Early Church was entirely liturgical and that the oneness Christ spoke of was experienced in the Eucharist.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 07, 2010, 05:11:45 PM
Sola Scriptura alone results in a Personal Relationship with Christ, it is impossible Ritual and the Tradition of men lead to Christ's indwelling:

But Alfred, how would you know this? You have never experienced Jesus Christ in Orthodox worship.

You are right if what you mean is "it is impossible Ritual and the Tradition of men alone lead to Christ's indwelling". But that's not the Orthodox faith.

In every service I and all others present - not just Orthodox Christians - are censed because each and every one of us has been created in the image of God. I am reminded regularly of my special place in God's creation.

When I receive the Holy Mysteries (Communion), the priest says, "The servant of God, James, partakes of the precious and all-holy Body and Blood of our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, unto the forgiveness of sins and unto life everlasting." I have a name; I am a real person when I come before Him. That's personal.

If what you want is to understand the relationship that Orthodox Christians have with our Lord and Saviour, then a simple question would have served your purpose better than the opening line of another argument.

You are likely aware that the phrase "personal relationship" is not Biblical. I'm not aware of any authority that clearly defines it. I'm not opposed to using non-Biblical terms, they are part of the Orthodox Tradition that is in many instances followed by other Christians, for example, "Trinity", but your understanding of "personal relationship" may or may not be the same as that of other Christians. This leads to unnecessary division and quarrelling.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 07:50:35 PM
Sola Scriptura alone results in a Personal Relationship with Christ, it is impossible Ritual and the Tradition of men lead to Christ's indwelling:

 18 "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
 19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
 20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
 21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 (Joh 14:18-23 NKJ)

Hence Paul rejoices in leaving ritual "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection":

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
 (Phi 3:3-10 KJV)

He deems all things rubbish that he win Christ's approval, such is joyous fellowship Paul has with the risen Christ.

Its clear in all of NT epistle believers have a personal relationship with Christ, not just ritual.

This experience is knowing who Christ is, personally in one's life,  a deep perception the same as "knowing one is a child of their parents", a deep intimate awareness of a reality that transcends all intellectual apprehension...it is a continuous communion:

 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
 (Gal 4:6 NKJ)

 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

 (Rom 8:14-16 NKJ)

There are no rituals or sacrament that accomplishes what obedience to God's Word., i.e., sola scriptura does.


When we love Christ's Word above the Traditions of men, count all things of the flesh loss that we may win Christ's approval, then it we show we love Him and, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[/b] (Rev 3:20 KJV)

NIV  Isaiah 55:1 "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
 2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
 3 Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live
. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.
 4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples.
 5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor."
 6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
 7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
 12 You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
 13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree, and instead of briers the myrtle will grow. This will be for the LORD's renown, for an everlasting sign, which will not be destroyed."
 (Isa 55:1 NIV)

You obviously base that off of assumption; you assume that none of us have a personal relationship with Jesus. We all have a personal relationship with Jesus, and mine own has been enhanced with my conversion to Orthodoxy to such a level I never knew as a Sola Scripturist. Orthodoxy has helped me to realize that there is so much more of a close, personal relationship that I can experience with my Lord and Savior then I could get elsewhere. I have icons of Him to show Him and the world that I love Him, just like I have pictures of my daughter to show her and the world that I love her.

Rituals do help us to have a closer relationship with all of our friends. For example, one of my friends and I would frequent a pool halls to shoot some pool and throw darts. This time spent with each other in close fellowship gave us a bond that is nigh inseparable. Another example is one of my friends and I would go to Kung Fu class together - we would ride together, be in class together and then go to Sonic for dinner afterwards - this has brought us extremely close together and both of these friends and I consider ourselves brothers (one even has two kids who call me Uncle Dave). Likewise the spiritual rituals I do (daily prayers, daily Scripture readings, being in His very presence at Divine Liturgy, etc.) brining me closer to Christ because I am spending so much more time with Him and I receive such a better understanding of Him than I could with out these "vilified" rituals. Of course, Protestants also have rituals they use to have a closer relationship with Christ, they just don't call them rituals because the Protestants fear that word for some reason - but a rose by any other name...

Incorrect, I cannot possibly know what your relationship is with Christ, or anyone posting here...so NONE of you are in the argument.

That's ego talking....sometimes its not you being discussed.

I know some believe that impossible, they are so important, but it does happen.

Christ said:
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (Joh 14:21 NKJ)

THERE is the proof of my argument. Sola scriptura is the policy one will keep Christ's commandments above any from men, and Jesus said that obedience to His commands "is the outward physical evidence one loves Jesus."

If you love Jesus, THEN you will be loved by Jesus' Father, and Jesus loves those whom His Father loves, so then He will love and manifest Himself to you.

Sola Scriptura = love of Jesus = Loved by the Father = Loved by Jesus = Manifest Jesus.

Just in case there are some who don't get it, Jesus repeats it:

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
 (Joh 14:23-24 NKJ)

So Christ's indwelling is a direct consequence of sola scriptura.


You would have to prove Christ wrong before you can convince me Jesus indwells because of ritual or sacrament or images.

I don't say you are wrong, I don't know if you are.

I say Jesus is right, and if you want I believe you, then you must prove 1)Christ is wrong 2)You are right also.


But if you asked me to hypothesize, I must conclude any venerating an icon of Jesus, believing it goes to the prototype Jesus in heaven, is thereby testifying Christ is not near, not indwelling. He is far away in heaven, and you are, as it were, placing a long distance call.

To me, veneration of icons, is outward physical evidence the prototype being venerated, is not present.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 08:07:23 PM
How does he know what an Orthodox liturgy is like, when he's never been to one? Why is 'ritual' supposed to be bad, when Our Lord was pleased to preach in the synagogue in Capernaum, and the Apostles prayed at the prescribed Hours of the day?

I don't know how Alfred can posit that our relationships with God cannot be personal, since Alfred Persson cannot read anybody's heart. If worship and relationship are personal, by definition, they are known by each person. Who is he to demean the faith of another? How could he even begin to know?

Nobody holds a gun to my head to make me go to church. I go because I want to, and I am an adult, who accepts full responsibility for one's actions. Therefore, my participation in what the church is doing is of my own behest. It is not done under duress. I accept everything that comes from what I do, and say, and pray.

If that isn't personal, then you have changed the meaning of the word. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time you have done that.  ::)

I can show you an occasion where the Orthodox Holy Tradition has borne fruit.

Maybe you've read it before? It's called the New Testament.

You're welcome.

I cited Christ's teaching sola scriptura = love of God = His manifesting Himself to the sola scripturist.

This proves the superiority of sola scriptura over your tradition UNLESS you can cite someone describing their personal experience of Christ, how they know Him personally as LORD, because they kissed xyz icon, or repeated xyz Tradition... or whatever else in the Orthodoxy, that isn't scripture, you do.

I know Christ is right, whether you are has yet to be determined.

Cite someone (an authority, accepted author, priest, bishop etc) who describes the personal relationship with Christ that developed after they did XYZ stipulated by your Tradition.

To insure the integrity of the argument,  we must restrict testimony to known authority that is prior to, or independent of, this argument.

IN other words, I quote Christ to prove my argument sound, not my own testimony.

Therefore you must find "proof" for your side, independent of any posting here, or of any responding to this argument. Surely in the 2,000 years of Orthodoxy, someone "jumped up"  and exclaimed "Now I love Christ's commands in scripture because I kissed xyz icon!" Or something like that.

As Christ insists those who really love Him love His commands in scripture...that is the deciding point.

People can love entities they believe are Jesus, but are not:

 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
 (Gal 1:6-9 NKJ)

They must  prove they love the genuine Jesus of Scripture, by proving their following xyz Orthodox Tradition led to a personal relationship with Christ and they now obey all He taught in scripture, proving they love the genuine Jesus, the real McCoy.

Because those who love the "real McCoy" Jesus,  are loved by His Father, and then Christ loves them because His Father does, and Jesus manifests Himself, dwells within that person.

Simple test of superiority. It should be easy for you to find reams of testimony how doing xyz Orthodox Tradition led to Christ' indwelling, to a profound love of His commandments in scripture, thereby proving one is in love with the real Jesus Christ of Scripture.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 07, 2010, 08:15:03 PM
Then Christ couldn't have blessed the children to whom He spoke, as we read in Matthew 19:

13 Then little children were brought to Him that He might put His hands on them and pray, but the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” 15 And He laid His hands on them and departed from there.

Now, did this happen because it was already in something called the Bible, or was it important enough to go in the Gospel, and then the Gospels into the Bible, because of what Jesus did?

See the difference?

By the way, the word "indwelt" isn't in the Bible. You've made it up, you've decided what it means, and you've decided no one else can meet the conditions of this term. Doesn't that sound like playing with loaded dice?

The first self-proclaimed sola Scriptura-ist, the one who coined the term anyway, was Martin Luther. You don't seem to line up with many of the things he said. You've defined your own school of interpretation; you've made a new meaning for it, all your own; you're a Perssonist. Lutherans, to my knowledge, don't believe that anyone with a copy of the Bible can make up meanings as they see fit. Then there would be as many 'salvations' as there are copies of the Bible. That's incoherent. If you don't congress with others on a regular basis, how can you call yourself one of them?

I have posted this before, but the Bible already tells us Who the Word of God is. It's a Person.

John 1

 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 This man came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

10 He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him. 11 He came to His own, and His own did not receive Him. 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
   
14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.
15 John bore witness of Him and cried out, saying, “This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me is preferred before me, for He was before me.’”


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 07, 2010, 08:30:40 PM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Cite someone (an authority, accepted author, priest, bishop etc) who describes the personal relationship with Christ that developed after they did XYZ stipulated by your Tradition.

Ah, so now personal experience doesn't count.

You asked for personal experience. It was given, and when you lost the argument, you changed the terms.

 :D

Quote
IN other words, I quote Christ to prove my argument sound, not my own testimony.

Wrong, you quote your own opinion. You asked for proof of people's personal relationships with God. That proof was provided. Then you decided you 'really' meant something else.  ::)

Why don't you just admit that you will never accept anything posted by anyone Orthodox as proof of anything? When my brother was losing at chess, he had a unique response. He'd knock over the board.

That, of course, is not the same as winning.

What you're doing is called sophistry. It is a rhetorical device by which one assumes one's claim to be the truth, and goes through different explanations of it, rather than 'showing your work' and providing proof for the case. It's not an insult. It's just a fact. Pretty much all of your questions are rhetorical.

Let's cut all this dallying and get to the chase.  You believe what you believe, and we believe what we believe. Why not agree to disagree? Our faith is what it is. It has been here since Christ gave it to the Apostles and the Apostles taught it around the world. It will be here when He comes again with glory.

Will yours?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 07, 2010, 09:43:37 PM
Cite someone (an authority, accepted author, priest, bishop etc) who describes the personal relationship with Christ that developed after they did XYZ stipulated by your Tradition.

To insure the integrity of the argument,  we must restrict testimony to known authority that is prior to, or independent of, this argument.

IN other words, I quote Christ to prove my argument sound, not my own testimony.

Therefore you must find "proof" for your side, independent of any posting here, or of any responding to this argument. Surely in the 2,000 years of Orthodoxy, someone "jumped up"  and exclaimed "Now I love Christ's commands in scripture because I kissed xyz icon!" Or something like that.

They must  prove they love the genuine Jesus of Scripture, by proving their following xyz Orthodox Tradition led to a personal relationship with Christ and they now obey all He taught in scripture, proving they love the genuine Jesus, the real McCoy.

Because those who love the "real McCoy" Jesus,  are loved by His Father, and then Christ loves them because His Father does, and Jesus manifests Himself, dwells within that person.

Simple test of superiority. It should be easy for you to find reams of testimony how doing xyz Orthodox Tradition led to Christ' indwelling, to a profound love of His commandments in scripture, thereby proving one is in love with the real Jesus Christ of Scripture.

You will, no doubt, think this doesn't meet your requirements, but it's interesting nonetheless.  Here is Henry Nouwen's experience of Rublev's Trinity icon:

"During a hard period of my life in which verbal prayer had become nearly impossible and which mental and emotional fatigue had made me the easy victim of feelings of despair and fear; a long and quiet presence to this icon became the beginning of my healing.  As I sat for long hours in front of Rublev's Trinity, I noticed how gradually my gaze became a prayer.  This silent prayer slowly made my inner restlessness melt away and lifted me up into the circle of love, a circle that could not be broken by the powers of the world.  Even as I moved away from the icon and became involved in the many tasks of everyday life, I felt as if I did not have to leave the holy place I had found and could dwell there whatever I did or wherever I went."

He was virtually at the end of himself, almost destroyed by fear and nearly unable to utter a single word of prayer.  An icon of the Holy Trinity is what began his journey back to faith.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 07, 2010, 10:10:48 PM

Cite someone (an authority, accepted author, priest, bishop etc) who describes the personal relationship with Christ that developed after they did XYZ stipulated by your Tradition.

To insure the integrity of the argument,  we must restrict testimony to known authority that is prior to, or independent of, this argument.

IN other words, I quote Christ to prove my argument sound, not my own testimony.

Therefore you must find "proof" for your side, independent of any posting here, or of any responding to this argument. Surely in the 2,000 years of Orthodoxy, someone "jumped up"  and exclaimed "Now I love Christ's commands in scripture because I kissed xyz icon!" Or something like that.
Read the story of St. Mary of Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt). And yes, the fifth Sunday of Lent is dedicated to her memory. That's authoritative for us because our bishops and priests direct us to commemorate her.

You still seem to ignore the fact that reading and meditating on Scripture would fit your requirement of doing XYZ stipulated by Tradition. You keep trying to separate Scripture from Tradition. I know this is repetitive, but Orthodox Tradition includes Scripture, and is in fact its central feature. To put the same question to you in your terms, can you show me someone who developed a deep, loving, lasting relationship with Christ merely by studying the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, i.e. your tradition?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: dcommini on November 07, 2010, 10:11:37 PM
Sola Scriptura alone results in a Personal Relationship with Christ, it is impossible Ritual and the Tradition of men lead to Christ's indwelling:

 18 "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
 19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
 20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
 21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 (Joh 14:18-23 NKJ)

Hence Paul rejoices in leaving ritual "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection":

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
 (Phi 3:3-10 KJV)

He deems all things rubbish that he win Christ's approval, such is joyous fellowship Paul has with the risen Christ.

Its clear in all of NT epistle believers have a personal relationship with Christ, not just ritual.

This experience is knowing who Christ is, personally in one's life,  a deep perception the same as "knowing one is a child of their parents", a deep intimate awareness of a reality that transcends all intellectual apprehension...it is a continuous communion:

 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
 (Gal 4:6 NKJ)

 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

 (Rom 8:14-16 NKJ)

There are no rituals or sacrament that accomplishes what obedience to God's Word., i.e., sola scriptura does.


When we love Christ's Word above the Traditions of men, count all things of the flesh loss that we may win Christ's approval, then it we show we love Him and, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[/b] (Rev 3:20 KJV)

NIV  Isaiah 55:1 "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
 2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
 3 Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live
. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.
 4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples.
 5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor."
 6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
 7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
 12 You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
 13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree, and instead of briers the myrtle will grow. This will be for the LORD's renown, for an everlasting sign, which will not be destroyed."
 (Isa 55:1 NIV)

You obviously base that off of assumption; you assume that none of us have a personal relationship with Jesus. We all have a personal relationship with Jesus, and mine own has been enhanced with my conversion to Orthodoxy to such a level I never knew as a Sola Scripturist. Orthodoxy has helped me to realize that there is so much more of a close, personal relationship that I can experience with my Lord and Savior then I could get elsewhere. I have icons of Him to show Him and the world that I love Him, just like I have pictures of my daughter to show her and the world that I love her.

Rituals do help us to have a closer relationship with all of our friends. For example, one of my friends and I would frequent a pool halls to shoot some pool and throw darts. This time spent with each other in close fellowship gave us a bond that is nigh inseparable. Another example is one of my friends and I would go to Kung Fu class together - we would ride together, be in class together and then go to Sonic for dinner afterwards - this has brought us extremely close together and both of these friends and I consider ourselves brothers (one even has two kids who call me Uncle Dave). Likewise the spiritual rituals I do (daily prayers, daily Scripture readings, being in His very presence at Divine Liturgy, etc.) brining me closer to Christ because I am spending so much more time with Him and I receive such a better understanding of Him than I could with out these "vilified" rituals. Of course, Protestants also have rituals they use to have a closer relationship with Christ, they just don't call them rituals because the Protestants fear that word for some reason - but a rose by any other name...

Incorrect, I cannot possibly know what your relationship is with Christ, or anyone posting here...so NONE of you are in the argument.

That's ego talking....sometimes its not you being discussed.

I know some believe that impossible, they are so important, but it does happen.

Christ said:
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (Joh 14:21 NKJ)

THERE is the proof of my argument. Sola scriptura is the policy one will keep Christ's commandments above any from men, and Jesus said that obedience to His commands "is the outward physical evidence one loves Jesus."

If you love Jesus, THEN you will be loved by Jesus' Father, and Jesus loves those whom His Father loves, so then He will love and manifest Himself to you.

Sola Scriptura = love of Jesus = Loved by the Father = Loved by Jesus = Manifest Jesus.

Just in case there are some who don't get it, Jesus repeats it:

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
 (Joh 14:23-24 NKJ)

So Christ's indwelling is a direct consequence of sola scriptura.


You would have to prove Christ wrong before you can convince me Jesus indwells because of ritual or sacrament or images.

I don't say you are wrong, I don't know if you are.

I say Jesus is right, and if you want I believe you, then you must prove 1)Christ is wrong 2)You are right also.


But if you asked me to hypothesize, I must conclude any venerating an icon of Jesus, believing it goes to the prototype Jesus in heaven, is thereby testifying Christ is not near, not indwelling. He is far away in heaven, and you are, as it were, placing a long distance call.

To me, veneration of icons, is outward physical evidence the prototype being venerated, is not present.

But we all are in this argument since you say that one can not have a personal relationship with Jesus through ritual, and yet all of us Orthodox here do have a personal relationship with Jesus through the rituals we do. You have a personal relationship with Jesus (or so you claim) through your own private rituals. Perhaps it is you who should put your ego aside and stop making unfounded claims. I do not have to prove that Jesus is wrong because I do not believe that He is, you perceive that we think He is wrong. You also perceive that because of icons the prototype is not present. We perceive that you are wrong in your arguments and perception is reality. I agree with biro; we should just agree to disagree - that is possibly the best outcome (aside from you converting to Orthodoxy) that we will see here in this discussion or any others you may start/join.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Melodist on November 07, 2010, 11:17:38 PM
But if you asked me to hypothesize, I must conclude any venerating an icon of Jesus, believing it goes to the prototype Jesus in heaven, is thereby testifying Christ is not near, not indwelling. He is far away in heaven, and you are, as it were, placing a long distance call.

To me, veneration of icons, is outward physical evidence the prototype being venerated, is not present.

When I was in the Marine Corps I saluted (venerated) the American Flag (the image) while I was still in America (the prototype). The honor being shown to the flag (the image) was in fact passed on to the country for which it stands (the prototype), and because I was still inside the country, it was not a sign that I was seperated from the prototype of the image to which I was giving honor.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 11:25:07 PM
Sola Scriptura alone results in a Personal Relationship with Christ, it is impossible Ritual and the Tradition of men lead to Christ's indwelling:

 18 "I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
 19 "A little while longer and the world will see Me no more, but you will see Me. Because I live, you will live also.
 20 "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.
 21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him."
 22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, "Lord, how is it that You will manifest Yourself to us, and not to the world?"
 23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 (Joh 14:18-23 NKJ)

Hence Paul rejoices in leaving ritual "that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection":

3 For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh.
 4 Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:
 5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;
 6 Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.
 7 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.
 8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,
 9 And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith:
 10 That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death;
 (Phi 3:3-10 KJV)

He deems all things rubbish that he win Christ's approval, such is joyous fellowship Paul has with the risen Christ.

Its clear in all of NT epistle believers have a personal relationship with Christ, not just ritual.

This experience is knowing who Christ is, personally in one's life,  a deep perception the same as "knowing one is a child of their parents", a deep intimate awareness of a reality that transcends all intellectual apprehension...it is a continuous communion:

 6 And because you are sons, God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying out, "Abba, Father!"
 (Gal 4:6 NKJ)

 14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons of God.
 15 For you did not receive the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you received the Spirit of adoption by whom we cry out, "Abba, Father."
 16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

 (Rom 8:14-16 NKJ)

There are no rituals or sacrament that accomplishes what obedience to God's Word., i.e., sola scriptura does.


When we love Christ's Word above the Traditions of men, count all things of the flesh loss that we may win Christ's approval, then it we show we love Him and, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.[/b] (Rev 3:20 KJV)

NIV  Isaiah 55:1 "Come, all you who are thirsty, come to the waters; and you who have no money, come, buy and eat! Come, buy wine and milk without money and without cost.
 2 Why spend money on what is not bread, and your labor on what does not satisfy? Listen, listen to me, and eat what is good, and your soul will delight in the richest of fare.
 3 Give ear and come to me; hear me, that your soul may live
. I will make an everlasting covenant with you, my faithful love promised to David.
 4 See, I have made him a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander of the peoples.
 5 Surely you will summon nations you know not, and nations that do not know you will hasten to you, because of the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, for he has endowed you with splendor."
 6 Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near.
 7 Let the wicked forsake his way and the evil man his thoughts. Let him turn to the LORD, and he will have mercy on him, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.
 8 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the LORD.
 9 "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
 10 As the rain and the snow come down from heaven, and do not return to it without watering the earth and making it bud and flourish, so that it yields seed for the sower and bread for the eater,
 11 so is my word that goes out from my mouth: It will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.
 12 You will go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and hills will burst into song before you, and all the trees of the field will clap their hands.
 13 Instead of the thornbush will grow the pine tree, and instead of briers the myrtle will grow. This will be for the LORD's renown, for an everlasting sign, which will not be destroyed."
 (Isa 55:1 NIV)

You obviously base that off of assumption; you assume that none of us have a personal relationship with Jesus. We all have a personal relationship with Jesus, and mine own has been enhanced with my conversion to Orthodoxy to such a level I never knew as a Sola Scripturist. Orthodoxy has helped me to realize that there is so much more of a close, personal relationship that I can experience with my Lord and Savior then I could get elsewhere. I have icons of Him to show Him and the world that I love Him, just like I have pictures of my daughter to show her and the world that I love her.

Rituals do help us to have a closer relationship with all of our friends. For example, one of my friends and I would frequent a pool halls to shoot some pool and throw darts. This time spent with each other in close fellowship gave us a bond that is nigh inseparable. Another example is one of my friends and I would go to Kung Fu class together - we would ride together, be in class together and then go to Sonic for dinner afterwards - this has brought us extremely close together and both of these friends and I consider ourselves brothers (one even has two kids who call me Uncle Dave). Likewise the spiritual rituals I do (daily prayers, daily Scripture readings, being in His very presence at Divine Liturgy, etc.) brining me closer to Christ because I am spending so much more time with Him and I receive such a better understanding of Him than I could with out these "vilified" rituals. Of course, Protestants also have rituals they use to have a closer relationship with Christ, they just don't call them rituals because the Protestants fear that word for some reason - but a rose by any other name...

Incorrect, I cannot possibly know what your relationship is with Christ, or anyone posting here...so NONE of you are in the argument.

That's ego talking....sometimes its not you being discussed.

I know some believe that impossible, they are so important, but it does happen.

Christ said:
21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (Joh 14:21 NKJ)

THERE is the proof of my argument. Sola scriptura is the policy one will keep Christ's commandments above any from men, and Jesus said that obedience to His commands "is the outward physical evidence one loves Jesus."

If you love Jesus, THEN you will be loved by Jesus' Father, and Jesus loves those whom His Father loves, so then He will love and manifest Himself to you.

Sola Scriptura = love of Jesus = Loved by the Father = Loved by Jesus = Manifest Jesus.

Just in case there are some who don't get it, Jesus repeats it:

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
 24 "He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me.
 (Joh 14:23-24 NKJ)

So Christ's indwelling is a direct consequence of sola scriptura.


You would have to prove Christ wrong before you can convince me Jesus indwells because of ritual or sacrament or images.

I don't say you are wrong, I don't know if you are.

I say Jesus is right, and if you want I believe you, then you must prove 1)Christ is wrong 2)You are right also.


But if you asked me to hypothesize, I must conclude any venerating an icon of Jesus, believing it goes to the prototype Jesus in heaven, is thereby testifying Christ is not near, not indwelling. He is far away in heaven, and you are, as it were, placing a long distance call.

To me, veneration of icons, is outward physical evidence the prototype being venerated, is not present.

But we all are in this argument since you say that one can not have a personal relationship with Jesus through ritual, and yet all of us Orthodox here do have a personal relationship with Jesus through the rituals we do. You have a personal relationship with Jesus (or so you claim) through your own private rituals. Perhaps it is you who should put your ego aside and stop making unfounded claims. I do not have to prove that Jesus is wrong because I do not believe that He is, you perceive that we think He is wrong. You also perceive that because of icons the prototype is not present. We perceive that you are wrong in your arguments and perception is reality. I agree with biro; we should just agree to disagree - that is possibly the best outcome (aside from you converting to Orthodoxy) that we will see here in this discussion or any others you may start/join.


We cannot allow experimenter's bias ruin the objectivity necessary for knowing the truth, whether your Tradition has any real value towards developing a personal relationship with God.

Hence I restrict myself to the NT data, Christ's express words in particular, precisely because that is independent of me. Its objective material.

I am willing to consider Orthodox extra biblical evidence your Tradition, whatever you say it is, can replicate the results of sola scriptura as defined by Jesus Christ.

21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (Joh 14:21 NKJ)

THERE is precisely what your Tradition must replicate for it to have equal standing with Scripture.

Jesus says His Words, which are in scripture, when "had" by someone who "keeps them," is evidence that Possessor/Keeper loves Jesus, then the Father loves that Possessor/Keeper/Lover of Jesus.

AND then in response to the Father's love, Jesus loves the Possessor/Keeper/Lover of Jesus.

THAT results in Christ's manifestation, and both He and His Father make their home in the "lover":

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. (Joh 14:23NKJ)

So Christ's indwelling is a direct consequence of sola scriptura. Keeping Christ's commands above all others = sola scriptura.



If Orthodox Tradition cannot accomplish the same, and you have 2,000 years to draw from, it is irrelevant.

Therefore I propose you plumb your 2,000 year history of Tradition, and find us one "saint" who after doing what your Tradition say to do, confesses they have replicated the love for Christ's Word in Scripture, and God's indwelling.

The NT is filled with examples of those who now speak of Jesus as to their LORD and Master whom they know personally, of God as their ABBA "Father," of the Holy Spirit as their "Comforter."

Their Christianity is not a religious rite consisting of rules and formal way of dress...its clear they have a personal relationship with God. Show us how that also resulted from someone in Orthodox History, apart from Scripture, because of Orthodox Tradition...

For example,  did any kiss an icon and then proclaim how they love the teachings of Christ in the Gospels? Or do any Orthodox saint ascribe a personal relationship with God to something else in your Tradition, a sacrament perhaps?

If your Tradition, by itself, does not create personal relationships with God, as Scripture does, then it is irrelevant. Certainly inferior to sola scriptura for the truth required to to know God personally.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 07, 2010, 11:29:34 PM
We have said that it does, but see? No matter what, he doesn't accept them, and it doesn't matter. It's not good enough for him. It will never be good enough for him. And that's the point.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1240847#m_en_us1240847

disingenuous(dis·in·gen·u·ous)

Pronunciation:/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective

      not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 07, 2010, 11:30:49 PM
Alfred, you keep appealing to Sola Scriptura as if it's an identifiable, objective thing, but you fail to see that it is a different thing for different people and it ultimately always comes down to an individual's interpretation.  This is the problem.  You are placing your faith in your own ability to determine the correct interpretation of scripture, which is why people keep calling it Perssonism.  There is no objectivity with a Sola Scriptura stance; it's impossible.

And, as we have said time and time again, your dichotomy of Scripture vs Tradition is a false one.  They are not pitted against each other.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 07, 2010, 11:33:44 PM
Indeed, since Scripture is a part of our Tradition, and the canon was formed using Tradition.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 07, 2010, 11:39:06 PM
By the way, has anyone been converted by Alfred yet?  Has anyone decided to give up icons yet, or to look to Alfred for their interpretation of the Bible instead of an interpretation given by 2,000 years of Christian witness (i.e. Tradition?)

I'm just wondering.  Don't be shy:  If Alfred has converted you, we'd all be interested in hearing about what it is he has said that worked for you. 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 11:39:59 PM
We have said that it does, but see? No matter what, he doesn't accept them, and it doesn't matter. It's not good enough for him. It will never be good enough for him. And that's the point.


http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1240847#m_en_us1240847

disingenuous(dis·in·gen·u·ous)

Pronunciation:/ˌdisinˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective

      not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does

You claim to have made an argument, where? when? copy paste it here, my argument, and your reply, or your argument against a premise of mine, that is relevant.

Your posts are DEFLECTION, nothing more.

Evidently you can't find one Orthodox saint who, after kissing an icon, or partaking of a sacrament, or whatever it is you do in Orthodox Tradition that is supposed to draw you closer to God, if it didn't lead to Christ's indwelling, as happens when sola scriptura is followed, precisely as Jesus said, it clearly is inferior...yea, even irrelevant.

21 "He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him." (Joh 14:21 NKJ)

THERE is precisely what your Tradition must replicate for it to have equal standing with Scripture.

Jesus says His Words, which are in scripture, when "had" by someone who "keeps them," is evidence that Possessor/Keeper loves Jesus, then the Father loves that Possessor/Keeper/Lover of Jesus.

AND then in response to the Father's love, Jesus loves the Possessor/Keeper/Lover of Jesus.

THAT results in Christ's manifestation, and both He and His Father make their home in the "lover":

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. (Joh 14:23NKJ)


Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 07, 2010, 11:45:45 PM
Alfred, perhaps you missed this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt)

Money quote:  "Her Vita relates that when she tried to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the celebration, she was barred from doing so by an unseen force. Realizing that this was because of her impurity, she was struck with remorse, and on seeing an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) outside the church, she prayed for forgiveness and promised to give up the world (i.e., become an ascetic). Then she attempted again to enter the church, and this time was permitted in. After venerating the relic of the true cross, she returned to the icon to give thanks, and heard a voice telling her, "If you cross the Jordan, you will find glorious rest/ true peace." She immediately went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the River Jordan, where she received absolution and afterwards Holy Communion."

This is a direct correlation of an icon and conversion, by an Orthodox Saint, who came to know the real Christ; what you call a "Real McCoy."
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 11:51:56 PM
But if you asked me to hypothesize, I must conclude any venerating an icon of Jesus, believing it goes to the prototype Jesus in heaven, is thereby testifying Christ is not near, not indwelling. He is far away in heaven, and you are, as it were, placing a long distance call.

To me, veneration of icons, is outward physical evidence the prototype being venerated, is not present.

When I was in the Marine Corps I saluted (venerated) the American Flag (the image) while I was still in America (the prototype). The honor being shown to the flag (the image) was in fact passed on to the country for which it stands (the prototype), and because I was still inside the country, it was not a sign that I was seperated from the prototype of the image to which I was giving honor.

Your analogy is unsound, to illustrate:

I bite into an apple and claim it proves what an orange tastes like. No, it does not, because the properties relevant to the comparison, are incompatible.

In similar fashion, your comparison of flag to icon is unsound.

A flag is a symbol, NOT an icon. A flag does not have a prototype, an icon does. The United States is not a person with a presence, its a country with geographical boundaries.

A sound analogy, as you believe you are communicating with the prototype via the icon, is a telephone. Just as you are talking "long distance" via the icon, so one talks "long distance" via a telephone.

Therefore the properties relevant to the comparison are compatible. Just as calling long distance via telephone proves the person being called is not present, so also calling long distance via an icon proves the person is not present.

This is serious as it is written:

Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. (Rom 8:9 NKJ)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: theistgal on November 07, 2010, 11:52:59 PM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 07, 2010, 11:54:59 PM
By the way, has anyone been converted by Alfred yet?  Has anyone decided to give up icons yet, or to look to Alfred for their interpretation of the Bible instead of an interpretation given by 2,000 years of Christian witness (i.e. Tradition?)

I'm just wondering.  Don't be shy:  If Alfred has converted you, we'd all be interested in hearing about what it is he has said that worked for you. 

Let's see. I've engaged Alfred a fair amount in the last few months. Today I read some proscribed prayers from a prayer book, lit a candle, kissed some icons, participated in ritual worship, and ate what I trust to be Our Lord's true Body and Blood.

Nope. Still Orthodox. *shrug*
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 07, 2010, 11:55:44 PM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 11:56:18 PM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...

Evidently you can't find one Orthodox saint who, after kissing an icon, or partaking of a sacrament, or whatever it is you do in Orthodox Tradition that is supposed to draw you closer to God, if it didn't lead to Christ's indwelling, as happens when sola scriptura is followed, precisely as Jesus said, it clearly is inferior...yea, even irrelevant.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 11:57:06 PM
By the way, has anyone been converted by Alfred yet?  Has anyone decided to give up icons yet, or to look to Alfred for their interpretation of the Bible instead of an interpretation given by 2,000 years of Christian witness (i.e. Tradition?)

I'm just wondering.  Don't be shy:  If Alfred has converted you, we'd all be interested in hearing about what it is he has said that worked for you.  

Let's see. I've engaged Alfred a fair amount in the last few months. Today I read some proscribed prayers from a prayer book, lit a candle, kissed some icons, participated in ritual worship, and ate what I trust to be Our Lord's true Body and Blood.

Nope. Still Orthodox. *shrug*


Evidently you can't find one Orthodox saint who, after kissing an icon, or partaking of a sacrament, or whatever it is you do in Orthodox Tradition that is supposed to draw you closer to God---that did the same as scripture. If it didn't lead to Christ's indwelling,precisely as Jesus said, then your Tradition is clearly inferior to Sola Scriptura...yea, even irrelevant.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 07, 2010, 11:58:10 PM
Alfred just ignores most of the posts against him, or immediately says it 'doesn't constitute an argument.' That's his tactic. That's it. Does he seriously want us to re-post most of this thread? Is he kidding?  ???

Again, he claims that there is no argument against him, that there can never be one. By default, all his posts are rhetorical. Now, he said he was going to proselytize, but he has also appeared to entertain a discussion or ongoing debate. The gig is up. (Was it ever really otherwise?)

If someone is playing with loaded dice, there is fundamentally no game going on. There is only a fixed set, and the process of waiting for the other party to walk into a set-up.

Alfred is what he is. He is here to preach. There's nothing to worry about, because he can't hurt the faith, but he thinks there was another Christianity taking place all along, while Jesus and the Apostles went about their business... and there wasn't.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 07, 2010, 11:59:58 PM
Alfred just ignores most of the posts against him, or immediately says it 'doesn't constitute an argument.' That's his tactic. That's it. Does he seriously want us to re-post most of this thread? Is he kidding?  ???

Again, he claims that there is no argument against him, that there can never be one. By default, all his posts are rhetorical. Now, he said he was going to proselytize, but he has also appeared to entertain a discussion or ongoing debate. The gig is up. (Was it ever really otherwise?)

If someone is playing with loaded dice, there is fundamentally no game going on. There is only a fixed set, and the process of waiting for the other party to walk into a set-up.

Alfred is what he is. He is here to preach. There's nothing to worry about, because he can't hurt the faith, but he thinks there was another Christianity taking place all along, while Jesus and the Apostles went about their business... and there wasn't.


If you ever had an argument, I really think it would render you unconscious. The sudden burst of critical thinking, would overwhelm your synapses.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 12:01:21 AM
Alfred,

Do you believe that only people who can read will be saved?  Do you believe that illiterate people who can't read the Bible go to hell?

How about the people who lived before the Bible as we know it was compiled or even written?  Are they lost?  How about the Thief on the Cross?  He never read a Christian Bible and yet Christ told him he would be in Paradise.  Was Christ just kidding him?  

The Apostle Paul never quotes any of the Gospels, which means he probably never read them.  Can he be saved?  Did he fall off his horse and come to believe in Christ after reading a Christian Bible?  I guess I am trying to understand how from your point of view St. Paul, or the Thief on the Cross, or anyone who lived before the Bible existed could possibly be saved, since they did not have access to your god, (i.e. the Bible.)

We Orthodox Christians have the Bible and love it, but the Bible is not our god.  The Holy Trinity is God.  God is greater than the Bible and existed before the Bible.  Our Tradition, which is the witness of all Christians everywhere at all times, tells us of God.  Tradition includes the Bible, but it is more than that, which is how Christians who existed before the Bible as we know it could know Christ and be saved.  

I guess I just don't get how someone can equate the Bible with salvation.  We Orthodox Christians equate Christ with salvation.  Could it be we have been wrong all these 2000 years?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 08, 2010, 12:01:36 AM
By the way, has anyone been converted by Alfred yet?  Has anyone decided to give up icons yet, or to look to Alfred for their interpretation of the Bible instead of an interpretation given by 2,000 years of Christian witness (i.e. Tradition?)

I'm just wondering.  Don't be shy:  If Alfred has converted you, we'd all be interested in hearing about what it is he has said that worked for you.  

Let's see. I've engaged Alfred a fair amount in the last few months. Today I read some proscribed prayers from a prayer book, lit a candle, kissed some icons, participated in ritual worship, and ate what I trust to be Our Lord's true Body and Blood.

Nope. Still Orthodox. *shrug*


Evidently you can't find one Orthodox saint who, after kissing an icon, or partaking of a sacrament, or whatever it is you do in Orthodox Tradition that is supposed to draw you closer to God---that did the same as scripture. If it didn't lead to Christ's indwelling,precisely as Jesus said, then your Tradition is clearly inferior to Sola Scriptura...yea, even irrelevant.

The Prayers Before Holy Communion
Prayer 1, A Prayer of Saint Basil the Great

... Take away the heavy burden of my sins, O Thou that takest away the sins of the world, and healest the infirmities of men, and callest all that are weary and heavy laden to thyself and givest them rest; thou that camest not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance, cleanse thou me from all stain of body and soul and teach me to fulfill holiness in thy fear, that with the witness of my conscience pure, I may receive a portion of thy Holy Gifts, and be united to thy Holy Body and Precious Blood, and may have thee, with thy Father and Holy Spirit, dwelling and abiding in me. ...
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 08, 2010, 12:01:57 AM
By the way, has anyone been converted by Alfred yet?  Has anyone decided to give up icons yet, or to look to Alfred for their interpretation of the Bible instead of an interpretation given by 2,000 years of Christian witness (i.e. Tradition?)

I'm just wondering.  Don't be shy:  If Alfred has converted you, we'd all be interested in hearing about what it is he has said that worked for you.  

Let's see. I've engaged Alfred a fair amount in the last few months. Today I read some proscribed prayers from a prayer book, lit a candle, kissed some icons, participated in ritual worship, and ate what I trust to be Our Lord's true Body and Blood.

Nope. Still Orthodox. *shrug*


Evidently you can't find one Orthodox saint who, after kissing an icon, or partaking of a sacrament, or whatever it is you do in Orthodox Tradition that is supposed to draw you closer to God---that did the same as scripture. If it didn't lead to Christ's indwelling,precisely as Jesus said, then your Tradition is clearly inferior to Sola Scriptura...yea, even irrelevant.

I'll direct you to post #254 for ease of use, though it's the same thing you've ignored over and over now.  
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 08, 2010, 12:02:29 AM
Alfred just ignores most of the posts against him, or immediately says it 'doesn't constitute an argument.' That's his tactic. That's it. Does he seriously want us to re-post most of this thread? Is he kidding?  ???

Again, he claims that there is no argument against him, that there can never be one. By default, all his posts are rhetorical. Now, he said he was going to proselytize, but he has also appeared to entertain a discussion or ongoing debate. The gig is up. (Was it ever really otherwise?)

If someone is playing with loaded dice, there is fundamentally no game going on. There is only a fixed set, and the process of waiting for the other party to walk into a set-up.

Alfred is what he is. He is here to preach. There's nothing to worry about, because he can't hurt the faith, but he thinks there was another Christianity taking place all along, while Jesus and the Apostles went about their business... and there wasn't.


If you ever had an argument, I really think it would render you unconscious. The sudden burst of critical thinking, would overwhelm your synapses.



Quit being rude. Your unbridled pride is getting annoying.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 08, 2010, 12:03:14 AM
Alfred again ignores post #254, which provides the answer about an Orthodox saint who was converted by, among other things, the spiritual experience garnered by praying with and kissing an icon.

Is something wrong with his computer screen? Does he just not want to read all the posts?

Or does he just refuse to admit it, perhaps because it's fun to play some kind of game?

It's there, Alfred. No one else can do the reading for you.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 08, 2010, 12:05:43 AM
I think he's trying to decide which color of text he wants to bold in order to somehow say that story is bogus or doesn't meet his criteria.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 08, 2010, 12:06:06 AM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  :police:
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Brigidsboy on November 08, 2010, 12:07:06 AM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  :police:

High time this tiresome troll was shut down!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 08, 2010, 12:08:31 AM
Alfred, perhaps you missed this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt)

Money quote:  "Her Vita relates that when she tried to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the celebration, she was barred from doing so by an unseen force. Realizing that this was because of her impurity, she was struck with remorse, and on seeing an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) outside the church, she prayed for forgiveness and promised to give up the world (i.e., become an ascetic). Then she attempted again to enter the church, and this time was permitted in. After venerating the relic of the true cross, she returned to the icon to give thanks, and heard a voice telling her, "If you cross the Jordan, you will find glorious rest/ true peace." She immediately went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the River Jordan, where she received absolution and afterwards Holy Communion."

This is a direct correlation of an icon and conversion, by an Orthodox Saint, who came to know the real Christ; what you call a "Real McCoy."

Very close, but I must bring to your attention it didn't comply with the need for objectivity. To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt. There is bias, yours and mine. The only way we can keep this scientific, weed out the bias, is to do what I said in Reply #241 above :

People can love entities they believe are Jesus, but are not:

 6 I marvel that you are turning away so soon from Him who called you in the grace of Christ, to a different gospel,
 7 which is not another; but there are some who trouble you and want to pervert the gospel of Christ.
 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed.
 9 As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
 (Gal 1:6-9 NKJ)

They prove love for the genuine Jesus of Scripture, by obeying what He taught in scripture:

23 Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him. (Joh 14:23NKJ)

They are interchangeable. Loving Christ's Word is loving Him, Loving Him is Loving Christ's Word. This indicates indwelling, the loving of Christ's Word in scripture. It is, as it were, "Loving Christ's commands in scripture is THE outward physical evidence of Christ dwelling within."

So Christ set the OBJECTIVE standard...

If you find an Orthodox saint who proclaims their love for the commands of Christ in the gospels, and by all accounts lived according to His commands...after partaking something in Orthodox Tradition, icons, sacraments, whatever, you have proved Orthodox Tradition worthy of being classed with Scripture Tradition.

We must prove the invisible, by the visible effects of His indwelling. Love for and obedience to His Word in the Bible, is the proof we need.

So it is a simple test. It should be easy for you to find reams of testimony how doing xyz Orthodox Tradition led to Christ' indwelling, to a profound love of His commandments in scripture, thereby proving Jesus is indwelling.[/color]
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 12:10:03 AM
Alfred again ignores post #254, which provides the answer about an Orthodox saint who was converted by, among other things, the spiritual experience garnered by praying with and kissing an icon.

Is something wrong with his computer screen? Does he just not want to read all the posts?

Or does he just refuse to admit it, perhaps because it's fun to play some kind of game?

It's there, Alfred. No one else can do the reading for you.

It could be his computer has something wrong and it won't let him read reply 254.  I'll copy it here, just in case.  From reply 254, above:


Quote
Alfred, perhaps you missed this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt

Money quote:  "Her Vita relates that when she tried to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the celebration, she was barred from doing so by an unseen force. Realizing that this was because of her impurity, she was struck with remorse, and on seeing an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) outside the church, she prayed for forgiveness and promised to give up the world (i.e., become an ascetic). Then she attempted again to enter the church, and this time was permitted in. After venerating the relic of the true cross, she returned to the icon to give thanks, and heard a voice telling her, "If you cross the Jordan, you will find glorious rest/ true peace." She immediately went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the River Jordan, where she received absolution and afterwards Holy Communion."

This is a direct correlation of an icon and conversion, by an Orthodox Saint, who came to know the real Christ; what you call a "Real McCoy."
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 12:11:59 AM
Oh, he replied while I was writing the above.  But wait!  Since someone was able to find what he said we couldn't find, he's changing his request again.  I'm so surprised!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 08, 2010, 12:15:32 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Very close, but I must bring to your attention it didn't comply with the need for objectivity. To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt.

See?

 ::)

When you lose, change the rules... this is the song that never ends... 

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 08, 2010, 12:20:45 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Very close, but I must bring to your attention it didn't comply with the need for objectivity. To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt.

See?

 ::)

When you lose, change the rules... this is the song that never ends... 




"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Melodist on November 08, 2010, 12:24:15 AM
But if you asked me to hypothesize, I must conclude any venerating an icon of Jesus, believing it goes to the prototype Jesus in heaven, is thereby testifying Christ is not near, not indwelling. He is far away in heaven, and you are, as it were, placing a long distance call.

To me, veneration of icons, is outward physical evidence the prototype being venerated, is not present.

When I was in the Marine Corps I saluted (venerated) the American Flag (the image) while I was still in America (the prototype). The honor being shown to the flag (the image) was in fact passed on to the country for which it stands (the prototype), and because I was still inside the country, it was not a sign that I was seperated from the prototype of the image to which I was giving honor.

Your analogy is unsound, to illustrate:

I bite into an apple and claim it proves what an orange tastes like. No, it does not, because the properties relevant to the comparison, are incompatible.

In similar fashion, your comparison of flag to icon is unsound.

My analogy is sound. It's about the closest I can come to finding something that most people can relate to. If it is entirely unsound as you claim, then I welcome correction in the form of a better analogy that is easier for everyone to relate to. Unfortunately for you, the only objection to my analogy comes from someone who isn't Orthodox, therefore can't be relied on as a reliable source of Orthodox doctrine.

Quote
A flag is a symbol, NOT an icon.

It is an image that expresses and bears witness to something other than itself.

Quote
A flag does not have a prototype, an icon does.

No one salutes it for the purpose of giving honor to nothing more than a piece of cloth.

Quote
The United States is not a person with a presence, its a country with geographical boundaries.

Do you really think that flag represents nothing more than a just piece of dirt with geographical boundaries?

Quote
A sound analogy, as you believe you are communicating with the prototype via the icon, is a telephone. Just as you are talking "long distance" via the icon, so one talks "long distance" via a telephone.

Therefore the properties relevant to the comparison are compatible. Just as calling long distance via telephone proves the person being called is not present, so also calling long distance via an icon proves the person is not present.

If that was such a sound analogy for Orthodox doctrine, to the point where it meant being completely absent from the prototype, why is there not a single Orthodox Christian here who believes that?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 08, 2010, 12:25:40 AM
In her own words, again:

"But from that time until the present day, the power of God has guarded my sinful soul and humble body. I was fed and clothed by the all-powerful word of God, since man does not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God (Dt 8:3, Mt.4:4, Luke 4:4), and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38). When I remember from what evil and from what sins the Lord delivered me, I have imperishible food for salvation."

That, to me, is pretty clear evidence (though you'll probably reject its source for some reason) that her conversion was true and that she put into practice Christ's  commandments.

And just because I found it interesting, here is a bit more:

When Abba Zosimas heard that the holy ascetic quoted the Holy Scripture from memory, from the Books of Moses and Job and from the Psalms of David, he then asked the woman, "Mother, have you read the Psalms and other books?"

She smiled at hearing this question, and answered, "Believe me, I have seen no human face but yours from the time that I crossed over the Jordan. I never learned from books. I have never heard anyone read or sing from them. Perhaps the Word of God, which is alive and acting, teaches man knowledge by itself (Col 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13). This is the end of my story. As I asked when I began, I beg you for the sake of the Incarnate Word of God, holy Abba, pray for me, a sinner."

If this was not Christ living and dwelling within her, then what was it?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 08, 2010, 12:26:08 AM
Quote from: bogdan
"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."

 :D

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/trainofftrack.jpg)

Oh no!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 08, 2010, 12:30:35 AM
Alfred again ignores post #254, which provides the answer about an Orthodox saint who was converted by, among other things, the spiritual experience garnered by praying with and kissing an icon.

Is something wrong with his computer screen? Does he just not want to read all the posts?

Or does he just refuse to admit it, perhaps because it's fun to play some kind of game?

It's there, Alfred. No one else can do the reading for you.

It could be his computer has something wrong and it won't let him read reply 254.  I'll copy it here, just in case.  From reply 254, above:


Quote
Alfred, perhaps you missed this link:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt

Money quote:  "Her Vita relates that when she tried to enter the Church of the Holy Sepulchre for the celebration, she was barred from doing so by an unseen force. Realizing that this was because of her impurity, she was struck with remorse, and on seeing an icon of the Theotokos (the Virgin Mary) outside the church, she prayed for forgiveness and promised to give up the world (i.e., become an ascetic). Then she attempted again to enter the church, and this time was permitted in. After venerating the relic of the true cross, she returned to the icon to give thanks, and heard a voice telling her, "If you cross the Jordan, you will find glorious rest/ true peace." She immediately went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist on the bank of the River Jordan, where she received absolution and afterwards Holy Communion."

This is a direct correlation of an icon and conversion, by an Orthodox Saint, who came to know the real Christ; what you call a "Real McCoy."


Reply 271 above addresses his post.

I can't answer everyone at the same time, his was among the best of the lot so far... I give him lots of respect...he is trying to defend Orthodox Tradition. Will you join him soon?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 12:37:18 AM
Please read reply 273, where I made it clear (I thought) that I wrote what I did while you were writing reply 271.   :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 12:38:37 AM
..he is trying to defend Orthodox Tradition. Will you join him soon?

Nice.  No wonder you're making so many converts.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 08, 2010, 12:43:58 AM
Another ignored overlooked point:

Evidently you can't find one Orthodox saint who, after kissing an icon, or partaking of a sacrament, or whatever it is you do in Orthodox Tradition that is supposed to draw you closer to God---that did the same as scripture. If it didn't lead to Christ's indwelling,precisely as Jesus said, then your Tradition is clearly inferior to Sola Scriptura...yea, even irrelevant.

I don't need to find a saint. I took communion today; I was indwelt by Christ through it. To wit:

"... that... I may receive a portion of thy Holy Gifts, and be united to thy Holy Body and Precious Blood, and may have thee, with thy Father and Holy Spirit, dwelling and abiding in me. ..."

-The Prayers Before Holy Communion, Prayer 1, A Prayer of Saint Basil the Great


I provided precisely what you asked for: an example of being indwelt by Christ through a sacrament. Retract the claim.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 08, 2010, 12:46:42 AM
In her own words, again:

"But from that time until the present day, the power of God has guarded my sinful soul and humble body. I was fed and clothed by the all-powerful word of God, since man does not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God (Dt 8:3, Mt.4:4, Luke 4:4), and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38). When I remember from what evil and from what sins the Lord delivered me, I have imperishible food for salvation."

That, to me, is pretty clear evidence (though you'll probably reject its source for some reason) that her conversion was true and that she put into practice Christ's  commandments.

And just because I found it interesting, here is a bit more:

When Abba Zosimas heard that the holy ascetic quoted the Holy Scripture from memory, from the Books of Moses and Job and from the Psalms of David, he then asked the woman, "Mother, have you read the Psalms and other books?"

She smiled at hearing this question, and answered, "Believe me, I have seen no human face but yours from the time that I crossed over the Jordan. I never learned from books. I have never heard anyone read or sing from them. Perhaps the Word of God, which is alive and acting, teaches man knowledge by itself (Col 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13). This is the end of my story. As I asked when I began, I beg you for the sake of the Incarnate Word of God, holy Abba, pray for me, a sinner."

If this was not Christ living and dwelling within her, then what was it?

Her words do not indicate a love for scripture, she changed its meaning, one doesn't change what they love:
"and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38)"

The context of the quote isn't about the victims of evil hiding themselves in rocks:

8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
 12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
 (Col 3:8-12 NKJ)

Its odd indeed she jumps from THAT to this:

4 They push the needy off the road; All the poor of the land are forced to hide.
 5 Indeed, like wild donkeys in the desert, They go out to their work, searching for food. The wilderness yields food for them and for their children.
 6 They gather their fodder in the field And glean in the vineyard of the wicked.
 7 They spend the night naked, without clothing, And have no covering in the cold.
 8 They are wet with the showers of the mountains, And huddle around the rock for want of shelter.
 9 "Some snatch the fatherless from the breast, And take a pledge from the poor.
 10 They cause the poor to go naked, without clothing; And they take away the sheaves from the hungry.
 (Job 24:4-10 NKJ)

Can you explain that "disconnect"? I don't get it.

Is she saying she once was doing that to others? Is she now need and in want for shelter...that's not what putting the old man off, is.

Col 3:9 means repenting of the "old man's ways"...for her to jump to evil people and their victims is peculiar, odd.

Unsound.

A sound mind is a gift of the Holy Spirit:

7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2Ti 1:7 NKJ)

Therefore on that basis alone, the unsoundness of her "exegesis," indicates her experiences are suspect.

Surely you can find a better example of someone obeying Christ's teaching in the Bible, after an encounter with your Tradition in some fashion. Your Tradition has had 2,000 years to generate such true believers.



PS: Claiming supernatural knowledge of scripture without reading it, when Jesus and His apostles had to read it, works against her credibility, not for it.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 12:52:18 AM
Her words do not indicate a love for scripture,

Her words indicate a love for Christ.  Christ is our God.  You don't get that.  Stop worshipping the Bible. 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 12:58:06 AM
Your Tradition has had 2,000 years to generate such true believers.

Thank you for admitting that our Tradition is 2000 years old.  How old is your own personal tradition?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 08, 2010, 01:01:49 AM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  :police:

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  :police:

High time this tiresome troll was shut down!

Why? Has he violated any forum rules recently? I haven't seen any formal complaints come off this thread the last few days. We're not going to mute him just because some people find him irritating and can't keep themselves from arguing with him. If you think him a troll, DON'T ARGUE WITH HIM. It's really that simple.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 08, 2010, 01:03:07 AM
Her words do not indicate a love for scripture,

Her words indicate a love for Christ.  Christ is our God.  You don't get that.  Stop worshipping the Bible. 

He can't. For him Christ can only be known through the Bible (or the "correct" interpretation thereof), so the two are inextricably linked. I can't tell where one ends and the other begins.

Meanwhile in Orthodoxy, the Bible is the preeminent witness to Christ, but Christ exists quite above and apart from the Bible. I can't provide a citation so I should perhaps bite my tongue, but I believe St John Chrysostom said somewhere that the Church would function exactly the same as it does, and Christianity would be exactly the same as it is, even if the Bible had not come down to us. IOW the Bible exists to prove the Church, not vice-versa.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: bogdan on November 08, 2010, 01:04:24 AM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  :police:

(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Alfred a troll? Can that be made a moderational decision and have Alfred be muted?  :police:

High time this tiresome troll was shut down!

Why? Has he violated any forum rules recently? I haven't seen any formal complaints come off this thread the last few days. We're not going to mute him just because some people find him irritating and can't keep themselves from arguing with him. If you think him a troll, DON'T ARGUE WITH HIM. It's really that simple.

I know, I'm just playing. :)  Alfred has been well-behaved in keeping things centralized in specific threads, and I commend him for that.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: PeterTheAleut on November 08, 2010, 01:06:44 AM
Alfred just ignores most of the posts against him, or immediately says it 'doesn't constitute an argument.' That's his tactic. That's it. Does he seriously want us to re-post most of this thread? Is he kidding?  ???

Again, he claims that there is no argument against him, that there can never be one. By default, all his posts are rhetorical. Now, he said he was going to proselytize, but he has also appeared to entertain a discussion or ongoing debate. The gig is up. (Was it ever really otherwise?)

If someone is playing with loaded dice, there is fundamentally no game going on. There is only a fixed set, and the process of waiting for the other party to walk into a set-up.

Alfred is what he is. He is here to preach. There's nothing to worry about, because he can't hurt the faith, but he thinks there was another Christianity taking place all along, while Jesus and the Apostles went about their business... and there wasn't.


If you ever had an argument, I really think it would render you unconscious. The sudden burst of critical thinking, would overwhelm your synapses.


Did you intend that statement to belittle biro's intelligence or the size of his brain? If so, that's the type of juvenile ad hominem for which you've already drawn one formal warning. Please keep from treading this line so we don't have to warn you again.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 08, 2010, 01:11:14 AM
In her own words, again:

"But from that time until the present day, the power of God has guarded my sinful soul and humble body. I was fed and clothed by the all-powerful word of God, since man does not live by bread alone, but by every word proceeding from the mouth of God (Dt 8:3, Mt.4:4, Luke 4:4), and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38). When I remember from what evil and from what sins the Lord delivered me, I have imperishible food for salvation."

That, to me, is pretty clear evidence (though you'll probably reject its source for some reason) that her conversion was true and that she put into practice Christ's  commandments.

And just because I found it interesting, here is a bit more:

When Abba Zosimas heard that the holy ascetic quoted the Holy Scripture from memory, from the Books of Moses and Job and from the Psalms of David, he then asked the woman, "Mother, have you read the Psalms and other books?"

She smiled at hearing this question, and answered, "Believe me, I have seen no human face but yours from the time that I crossed over the Jordan. I never learned from books. I have never heard anyone read or sing from them. Perhaps the Word of God, which is alive and acting, teaches man knowledge by itself (Col 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13). This is the end of my story. As I asked when I began, I beg you for the sake of the Incarnate Word of God, holy Abba, pray for me, a sinner."

If this was not Christ living and dwelling within her, then what was it?

Her words do not indicate a love for scripture, she changed its meaning, one doesn't change what they love:
"and those who have put off the old man (Col 3:9) have no refuge, hiding themselves in the clefts of the rocks (Job 24:8, Heb 11:38)"

The context of the quote isn't about the victims of evil hiding themselves in rocks:

8 But now you yourselves are to put off all these: anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy language out of your mouth.
 9 Do not lie to one another, since you have put off the old man with his deeds,
 10 and have put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him,
 11 where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised nor uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave nor free, but Christ is all and in all.
 12 Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering;
 (Col 3:8-12 NKJ)

Its odd indeed she jumps from THAT to this:

4 They push the needy off the road; All the poor of the land are forced to hide.
 5 Indeed, like wild donkeys in the desert, They go out to their work, searching for food. The wilderness yields food for them and for their children.
 6 They gather their fodder in the field And glean in the vineyard of the wicked.
 7 They spend the night naked, without clothing, And have no covering in the cold.
 8 They are wet with the showers of the mountains, And huddle around the rock for want of shelter.
 9 "Some snatch the fatherless from the breast, And take a pledge from the poor.
 10 They cause the poor to go naked, without clothing; And they take away the sheaves from the hungry.
 (Job 24:4-10 NKJ)

Can you explain that "disconnect"? I don't get it.

Is she saying she once was doing that to others? Is she now need and in want for shelter...that's not what putting the old man off, is.

Col 3:9 means repenting of the "old man's ways"...for her to jump to evil people and their victims is peculiar, odd.

Unsound.

A sound mind is a gift of the Holy Spirit:

7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. (2Ti 1:7 NKJ)

Therefore on that basis alone, the unsoundness of her "exegesis," indicates her experiences are suspect.

Surely you can find a better example of someone obeying Christ's teaching in the Bible, after an encounter with your Tradition in some fashion. Your Tradition has had 2,000 years to generate such true believers.



PS: Claiming supernatural knowledge of scripture without reading it, when Jesus and His apostles had to read it, works against her credibility, not for it.

And you know these are the correct interpretations how, again?  You've still not addressed the utter and inescapable subjectivity of the Sola Scriptura position.

And even beside that, there is not one interpretation of a passage.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Salpy on November 08, 2010, 02:08:08 AM
The life of St. Catherine also shows how Christ can use an icon to bring someone to Himself:

Quote
The beautiful Catherine made it quite clear that she would only take a young man as her husband if he was like her in virtue, that is, having the characteristics which made her distinctive amongst other women. She refused to consider any man who was unworthy or inferior, for he would be deemed unsuitable.

The young maiden’s mother and relatives soon realised the impossibility of finding such worthy husband. After many unsuccessful attempts, Catherine’s mother decided to seek the help of her spiritual confessor who lived in hiding outside the city. She took her daughter to visit the elder. The ascetic, noticing this young girl's modesty, firmly decided to convey to her his knowledge of Christ, the heavenly King.

Catherine was soon overwhelmed by the attributes of this potential groom and assumed that the elder was referring to an earthly prince. She questioned the elder and asked to see the Youth. The old man gave her an icon of the most holy Theotokos holding the divine Child. He then instructed her to close herself in her bedchamber and pray all night with reverence to Mary, so that she might reveal her Son. Catherine did as the elder directed and exerted herself in prayer and humbleness and as result fell asleep. All of a sudden she had a vision of the Queen of the Angels, as portrayed in the icon, holding the holy Child. His face was turned towards His Mother and so Catherine could only see His back. Three times Catherine attempted to see the face of Christ but He would only turn the other way. The Theotokos begged for her sweet Child to look upon Catherine but eventually Christ advised her to return to the elder, who gave her the icon, and follow his instructions. It was clear that the young bride was not yet worthy to meet her groom.

The next morning, Catherine wasted no time and immediately hurried to the old man’s cell and fell at his feet in tears. She informed him of her vision and begged for more advice. The blessed one thoroughly explained to her the sacraments and mysteries of the true faith (Orthodoxy). Catherine’s intelligence and wisdom allowed her to quickly grasp the fine points of the faith so she believed with all her heart and through holy baptism was accepted into the faith. The elder then instructed the holy maiden to again ask the Most Holy Theotokos to appear once again.   After praying with tears and fasting, she was overcome by sleep. The heavenly Queen with her divine Child again appeared to Catherine. This time, the Master Christ was pleased as her ignorance had now turned to enlightenment. She was now possessed with many good blessings and graces and in Christ's eyes she had become noble and eminent. Upon His Mother’s request, the Lord then gave Catherine a beautiful ring as a token of His eternal betrothal to her ad she was now worthy of the Kingdom of Heaven. The following morning the young bride woke to find a ring on her right finger and her heart was now filled with the love of Christ.

http://www.stcatherines.org/StCatherine.htm

I'm sure Alfred will say this story doesn't count, because the incident with the icon only led her to be filled with love for Christ, instead of love for the Bible (which would not be fully compiled until sometime after St. Catherine's death.)  Still, for those of us who worship Christ, it is an inspiring story, especially given the fact that after the saint's conversion she turned so many others to Christ. 

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 08, 2010, 02:43:29 AM
Your analogy is unsound, to illustrate:

I bite into an apple and claim it proves what an orange tastes like. No, it does not, because the properties relevant to the comparison, are incompatible.

In similar fashion, your comparison of flag to icon is unsound.

My analogy is sound. It's about the closest I can come to finding something that most people can relate to. If it is entirely unsound as you claim, then I welcome correction in the form of a better analogy that is easier for everyone to relate to. Unfortunately for you, the only objection to my analogy comes from someone who isn't Orthodox, therefore can't be relied on as a reliable source of Orthodox doctrine.



The analogy is unsound because what is relevant to the conclusion is not analogous.

To illustrate. An apple is not analogous to an orange in taste because they have different properties relevant to taste, different chemicals make them taste differently.

A flag is not an icon, it is a symbol, the flag of the USA doesn't have the USA as its prototype. The flag symbolizes the USA.

If YOU said icons are symbolic only, like flags, your fellow Orthodox would declare that heretical, they reject the idea completely.

So your analogy is not analogous.

Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 08, 2010, 02:58:34 AM
Alfred just ignores most of the posts against him, or immediately says it 'doesn't constitute an argument.' That's his tactic. That's it. Does he seriously want us to re-post most of this thread? Is he kidding?  ???

Again, he claims that there is no argument against him, that there can never be one. By default, all his posts are rhetorical. Now, he said he was going to proselytize, but he has also appeared to entertain a discussion or ongoing debate. The gig is up. (Was it ever really otherwise?)

If someone is playing with loaded dice, there is fundamentally no game going on. There is only a fixed set, and the process of waiting for the other party to walk into a set-up.

Alfred is what he is. He is here to preach. There's nothing to worry about, because he can't hurt the faith, but he thinks there was another Christianity taking place all along, while Jesus and the Apostles went about their business... and there wasn't.


If you ever had an argument, I really think it would render you unconscious. The sudden burst of critical thinking, would overwhelm your synapses.


Did you intend that statement to belittle biro's intelligence or the size of his brain? If so, that's the type of juvenile ad hominem for which you've already drawn one formal warning. Please keep from treading this line so we don't have to warn you again.

No, didn't mean it that way. I apologize...it was jest...

I was looking at his definition of "argument." The idea I asked to copy paste the entire thread, when I asked he prove I didn't answer arguments,  shows complete ignorance of what an argument is, its form.


BUT reviewing all the crap you just said about me, I take my apology back.

I dont' believe that comment any worse than you calling me a troll...warn yourself.


If you want I get personal, I can very  easy. And just as you cannot best me in argumentation, neither will you in that area.

If you want an excuse to ban me...why bother...just  do it quickly. Everyone here will proclaim victory...and they will all rejoice.

Of course, those not joining in, may realize why you banned me...apologetic fail.



Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: SolEX01 on November 08, 2010, 03:17:03 AM
Everyone here will proclaim victory...and they will all rejoice.

We won't declare victory over you; You will proclaim victory over us as you continue to play the victim.

Of course, those not joining in, may realize why you banned me...apologetic fail.

Some of us were starting to ignore you as evident by the decrease in the posting volume of your subsequent threads.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 08, 2010, 03:18:24 AM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Put this under your hat, you got lots of room there. People follow you out of morbid curiosity.

When I meet a moderator calling me a troll, I realize I've met boob who can look through a key hole with both  eyes.

A pin head whose brain, if put on top of a razor, would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

If you don't think this Christian, you don't know Christ, He would have lots more things to say about you.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
You, sir, have crossed the line of rudeness.

While discussion of greater discipline for you has been conducted, it was decided to continue to allow you to post here due to the following reasons:

1. Your poorly structured "arguments" display for all this site the lack of substance behind anyone holding your position.

2. You entertain many of us with your belief system.

The consequences of your  Post Moderation status has been explained to you previously.

+FrChris
Admin
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Dart on November 08, 2010, 06:15:48 AM
Dare I say it, Alfred has made a good point which has not yet been answered. That is what part of our Tradition is not supported by Scripture? In fact, could one not define Tradition as the "correct" interpretation of the Scripture. If one defines Scripture to include the Old Testament as well as any new revelations conveyed by the Holy Spirit as the Word than Tradition and Scripture are in essence the same.

Clarification though is needed from Alfred in this one point, though. Does the Holy Spirit continue to work and reveal the Truth? If so then I believe myself to be in agreement with Alfred taking into account his definitions of Scripture and Tradition.

So please do answer me, Alfred. Does the Holy Spirit continue to work and reveal the Truth? Have there been any prophets since the Bible was written? Dare I say, maybe Alfred is a prophet also?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: biro on November 08, 2010, 08:40:02 AM
Quote from: Alfred Persson
Put this under your hat, you got lots of room there. People follow you out of morbid curiosity.

When I meet a moderator calling me a troll, I realize I've met boob who can look through a key hole with both  eyes.

A pin head whose brain, if put on top of a razor, would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

If you don't think this Christian, you don't know Christ, He would have lots more things to say about you.


Not only is that a series of name-calling, but it's barely coherent. Once again, Alfred presumes to speak for Christ.  ???

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/pancakebunny-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: genesisone on November 08, 2010, 09:10:06 AM
Alfred, you ignored my post #245 (though I appreciated the others who did notice and followed up on it).

You refuse to accept St. Mary's testimony because she doesn't conform to your prejudices. You asked for an example of someone who came to love Jesus. From post #248:
Quote
I am willing to consider Orthodox extra biblical evidence your Tradition, whatever you say it is, can replicate the results of sola scriptura as defined by Jesus Christ.
Now you change the rules to say that you want someone who has a love of the Scriptures - and don't twist what Jesus said; He called us to love and serve Him - not to love and serve the Scriptures; He had harsh words for those who were focused on a text-based faith. You also made this pontifical claim in post #271:
Quote
To you she is clearly speaking about Jesus, to me I have some doubt.
St. Mary may have been illiterate - I don't know - in any case she was drawn to an isolated life of devotion. It is you who have limited God to the pages of a single book.

Perhaps you could help us out by showing us the life of someone who studied only the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, who was then convinced by that doctrine that he/she should then develop a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 08, 2010, 09:36:57 AM
there are millions (perhaps billions, over the last 2000 years) of people who have been instructed in truth via icons. think of all of the illiterate christians throughout the ages.

scripture does not tell us of anyone that i can recall at the moment that was converted or saved by reading. scripture attests to tradition and the word of God (scripture) as being controlling authority. as mentioned, in Acts the very first theological dispute in the Church was resolved via a council of bishops, not by quoting scripture back and forth to one another. this is because the Apostles understood the mission Christ gave them and the role of the Church, with what ultimately became scripture as being the most logical medium for transmitting truth from generation to generation. scripture is just the written mechanism for truth. if we had video of christ himself that would be our main source of truth. the focus should be on the truth itself, not the medium through which truth is transmitted. scripture is a wonderful blessing.

this whole discussion is a non-starter, as sola scriptura was a necessary tool used by the reformers to appeal to a higher authority and demonstrate the manifest error of the powers that be in the Roman Catholic Church at the time. i get that. they were reacting, for understandable reasons at the time.

however, people have dug their heels in and carried things forward to today, and to recognize or acknowledge the limitations of sola scriptura is to acknowledge that protestant churches are generally inadequate and lacking in tradition. this is a difficult position to be in, even though it leads to ridiculous outcomes and the unfortunate reality of having to, in effect, be one's own source of authority. it's as exhausting as it erroneous.

and yet, pride is a helluva drug.

i attempted to parcipate in this thread a page ago, perhaps against my better judgment. the reasons sola scriptura is an inadequate (and unscriptural) dogma has been demonstrated over and over again very effectively by several posters.

now, i am reminded of the words of St. Isaac the Syrian:

"Flee from discussions of dogma as from an unruly lion; and never embark upon them yourself, either with those raised in the Church, or with strangers."

i love debate and love this site. the process can certainly strengthen people's faith.  initially, i was kind of disappointed at alfred's latest post, as i had initially read him as a sincere but misguided fellow. now, not so much.

of course, i say that at the risk of having a verse from Revelation quoted as referring to me personally, but it's a risk i'm willing to take. :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Sleeper on November 08, 2010, 11:06:17 AM
I'm afraid I'd have to agree with genesisone on this one, Alfred.  I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but any time someone plays along and gives you what you ask for (e.g. someone who converted because of an icon) you change what you say you asked for.  What gives?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Melodist on November 08, 2010, 11:44:25 AM
Your analogy is unsound, to illustrate:

I bite into an apple and claim it proves what an orange tastes like. No, it does not, because the properties relevant to the comparison, are incompatible.

In similar fashion, your comparison of flag to icon is unsound.

My analogy is sound. It's about the closest I can come to finding something that most people can relate to. If it is entirely unsound as you claim, then I welcome correction in the form of a better analogy that is easier for everyone to relate to. Unfortunately for you, the only objection to my analogy comes from someone who isn't Orthodox, therefore can't be relied on as a reliable source of Orthodox doctrine.



The analogy is unsound because what is relevant to the conclusion is not analogous.

To illustrate. An apple is not analogous to an orange in taste because they have different properties relevant to taste, different chemicals make them taste differently.

A flag is not an icon, it is a symbol, the flag of the USA doesn't have the USA as its prototype. The flag symbolizes the USA.

If YOU said icons are symbolic only, like flags, your fellow Orthodox would declare that heretical, they reject the idea completely.

So your analogy is not analogous.

Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.

I will say this once more. You are not Orthodox and yet presume that you know more about Orthodox dogma than every single Orthodox Christian on this forum, a few of which are priests.

When you say "Icon veneration means that you do not experience Christ as present" and not one single Orthodox Christian agrees with you, then do you even think that it might even be a possibility that you are misunderstanding and misrepresenting our beliefs and practices?

You keep asking for a single stand alone "authority" on Orthodox teaching - there isn't, everything (Scripture, writings, prayers, liturgical traditions, icons, etc) all make one integrated whole. And if there were a single stand alone "authority", it wouldn't be a person who doesn't even hold the faith.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tzimis on November 08, 2010, 12:13:51 PM


Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.


You are correct here. The icon isn't the idol you suggest it is and your own words prove it. Since Christ isn't present here and now we use the icon as a portal to him and the saints depicted. If he were here along with the saints the icon wouldn't be needed any longer. hence the second coming would be upon us.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 08, 2010, 12:19:35 PM


Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.


You are correct here. The icon isn't the idle you suggest it is and your own words prove it. Since Christ isn't present here and now we use the icon as a portal to him and the saints depicted. If he were here along with the saints the icon wouldn't be needed any longer. hence the second coming would be upon us.

you could use alfred's argument to demonstrate that reading scripture demonstrates lack of faith in Christ's presence. why would you read scripture if Christ is present with you. will there be scripture in heaven? who knows, but i can't see the purpose it would serve at that point. do i still need a map after i've reached my destination?

in other words, alfred's argument holds no water (in addition to being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy).

St. John of Damascus:

"In times past, God, without body and form, could in no way be represented. But now, since God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I can depict that which is visible of God….[for Christ is "the image of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15.)] I do not venerate the matter but I venerate the Creator of matter, Who became matter for me, Who condescended to live in matter, and Who, through matter accomplished my salvation; I do not cease to respect the matter through which my salvation is accomplished."

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Tzimis on November 08, 2010, 12:30:03 PM


Dispense with the analogy, look at the reality:

You want to prove one can venerate the prototype of icon who is present.

That is contradicted by the fact if the prototype were standing there with you, you would not be using the icon.

If Christ were standing there before you, in all His glory, and asked you a question...you would not turn away from Him to reply via an icon...that would be nutty indeed.

Icons of Christ are used only because the venerator does not experience Christ as present.


You are correct here. The icon isn't the idle you suggest it is and your own words prove it. Since Christ isn't present here and now we use the icon as a portal to him and the saints depicted. If he were here along with the saints the icon wouldn't be needed any longer. hence the second coming would be upon us.

you could use alfred's argument to demonstrate that reading scripture demonstrates lack of faith in Christ's presence. why would you read scripture if Christ is present with you. will there be scripture in heaven? who knows, but i can't see the purpose it would serve at that point. do i still need a map after i've reached my destination?

in other words, alfred's argument holds no water (in addition to being based on a fundamental misunderstanding of Orthodoxy).

St. John of Damascus:

"In times past, God, without body and form, could in no way be represented. But now, since God has appeared in the flesh and lived among men, I can depict that which is visible of God….[for Christ is "the image of the invisible God. (Col. 1:15.)] I do not venerate the matter but I venerate the Creator of matter, Who became matter for me, Who condescended to live in matter, and Who, through matter accomplished my salvation; I do not cease to respect the matter through which my salvation is accomplished."


Very well said android. Glad to have you with us and glad to see the spirit of god shine in you. 
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: android on November 08, 2010, 01:49:53 PM
Thanks Demetrios. Please pray for me.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on November 08, 2010, 03:05:00 PM
Wow. I would have to say that the utmost restraint and patience has been exercised with respect to the moderation of Alfred's comments, yet he still couldn't control himself in a respectful manner. Sad, really.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: authio on November 08, 2010, 11:42:31 PM
Quote from: bogdan
"We are at war with Eastasia. We've always been at war with Eastasia."

 :D

(http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c24/neon000/trainofftrack.jpg)

Oh no!

That train was clearly derailed by Eurasia.  We've always been at war with Eurasia.  Our troops are sacking their largest border city right now.  Eastasia, our eternally faithful allies, today join us in the battle against the bloodthirsty Eurasia
Death to Eurasia!
Long live Eastasia!
Long live Oceana!!
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Alfred Persson on November 10, 2010, 01:56:38 PM
(sigh) Pearls before swine, folks ...
Yup. That, and don't feed the troll. ;)

Put this under your hat, you got lots of room there. People follow you out of morbid curiosity.

When I meet a moderator calling me a troll, I realize I've met boob who can look through a key hole with both  eyes.

A pin head whose brain, if put on top of a razor, would look like a pea rolling down a four lane highway.

If you don't think this Christian, you don't know Christ, He would have lots more things to say about you.
(http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/Themes/Pascha2010/images/warnpmod.gif)
You, sir, have crossed the line of rudeness.

While discussion of greater discipline for you has been conducted, it was decided to continue to allow you to post here due to the following reasons:

1. Your poorly structured "arguments" display for all this site the lack of substance behind anyone holding your position.

2. You entertain many of us with your belief system.

The consequences of your  Post Moderation status has been explained to you previously.

+FrChris
Admin

Being called swine and troll by moderators was the last straw...


I shake the dust off my feet of this place. May the peace I brought, leave with me.

Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: sprtslvr1973 on January 03, 2011, 03:24:00 PM
AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity. 

Question: Is invisible church really anathema to visible church?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 03, 2011, 04:23:05 PM
(http://i12.tinypic.com/4c96gd3.jpg)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: sainthieu on January 05, 2011, 12:20:18 PM
Al: I'm so glad you finally decided to shake the dust off your shoes. It's about time.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: TryingtoConvert on January 11, 2011, 10:42:54 PM
LMFAO AT THIS THREAD.

Clearly this guy is worse than me, Christians arguing against Christians. Gotta love pride. :laugh:
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Asteriktos on January 11, 2011, 10:45:17 PM
LMFAO AT THIS THREAD.

Clearly this guy is worse than me, Christians arguing against Christians. Gotta love pride. :laugh:

Thankfully atheists never argue with one another. Brb, I'm going to go watch atheists mock Sam Harris for embracing "spirituality"  :P
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: mtgdude on January 11, 2011, 11:11:13 PM
LMFAO AT THIS THREAD.

Clearly this guy is worse than me, Christians arguing against Christians. Gotta love pride. :laugh:

Thankfully atheists never argue with one another. Brb, I'm going to go watch atheists mock Sam Harris for embracing "spirituality"  :P

An atheist who is a statist is just another theist.  ;)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: laconicstudent on January 11, 2011, 11:16:59 PM

Being called swine and troll by moderators was the last straw...


I shake the dust off my feet of this place. May the peace I brought, leave with me.



Well, at least he thinks highly of himself.  ::)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: theistgal on January 11, 2011, 11:36:24 PM
Come on, TtC, you know (or should know) this isn't a "Christian vs Christian" thing.  There is always someone like Alfred on every Internet forum, of whatever subject matter.   We had them at IIDB too. :)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: TryingtoConvert on January 11, 2011, 11:43:50 PM
Come on, TtC, you know (or should know) this isn't a "Christian vs Christian" thing.  There is always someone like Alfred on every Internet forum, of whatever subject matter.   We had them at IIDB too. :)

I was on that forum recently and they had you categorized still as an atheist. Dang they had alot of Christians turn to atheism.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: FormerReformer on January 11, 2011, 11:44:36 PM
Come on, TtC, you know (or should know) this isn't a "Christian vs Christian" thing.  There is always someone like Alfred on every Internet forum, of whatever subject matter.   We had them at IIDB too. :)

Yes, this thread was more akin to D&D 4ed rules lawyers arguing against AD&D.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: theistgal on January 12, 2011, 01:27:52 AM
TtC, are you sure you were looking at the right person? I didn't have the same username there that I have here.  Plus I made no secret of my theism - I made sure the mods knew when I became one.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: theistgal on January 12, 2011, 02:22:11 AM
Come on, TtC, you know (or should know) this isn't a "Christian vs Christian" thing.  There is always someone like Alfred on every Internet forum, of whatever subject matter.   We had them at IIDB too. :)

I was on that forum recently and they had you categorized still as an atheist. Dang they had alot of Christians turn to atheism.

OK, now I'm puzzled because I did some digging.  The old IIDB forum doesn't exist anymore, it's been morphed into the FRDB (Freeratio) discussion board.  My account as "windsofchange" is still there and I'm still listed as a "Gardnerian fideist".  Wondering what you saw that had me "categorized still as an atheist"?

Also yes, there were a lot of people at that forum who had turned to atheism from Christianity. But really, what does that prove?  There are plenty of atheists who turned to Christianity and go on to other boards to discuss their newfound beliefs.  Most of them don't continue on atheist boards (mainly because they get unmercifully lambasted if they do).  But nevertheless, my point is, people change their beliefs all the time.

(I know this is off the OP's topic so my apologies, I did just want to clarify this though. Thanks.)
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Shiny on January 12, 2011, 04:07:02 AM
Very interesting thread to say the least. Hey theistgal did they try to convert you back to atheism?
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ortho_cat on January 12, 2011, 05:17:07 AM
LMFAO AT THIS THREAD.

Clearly this guy is worse than me, Christians arguing against Christians. Gotta love pride. :laugh:

Thankfully atheists never argue with one another. Brb, I'm going to go watch atheists mock Sam Harris for embracing "spirituality"  :P

Ya, I've seen some people go at him pretty ruthlessly over his open-mindedness regarding the spiritual experience and some of his "meditation expeditions"...
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: theistgal on January 12, 2011, 11:58:29 PM
Achronos - a few did but most were respectful.  They were a nice bunch of people.

In fact I was quite proud to witness two of the moderators there going out of their way to help a woman who'd posted a suicide threat.

"Lord, when did we see you alone and afraid?"  "Inasmuch as you did it to one of my brethren (or sistren! :) ), you did it unto Me."
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: mtgdude on January 14, 2011, 01:45:19 AM
edited
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Ikonguru on February 02, 2011, 04:26:28 PM
A man who relies solely on Sola Scriptura is blind and will remain in darkness.
The Christian Tradition (including the Holy Icons), not exclusive to Orthodoxy, contains the mysteries which are never written down. Unless a person is guided to those truths by another or Divine providence, their progress on the path will be slow.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: fanlynne on February 09, 2011, 09:05:13 PM
whether a partisan of sola scriptura can say whether oral instructions concerning, say, the Eucharistic liturgy, made it into the canon or not? Partisans of non-liturgical traditions of worship (what the historian, Joseph Strayer, called “four walls and a sermon”) may consider liturgy an arbitrary matter, but Catholics do not, because they believe God is to be worshipped, not as we wish, but as He wishes -- in a manner divinely revealed through Sacred Tradition, which involves at its center the sacramental presentation of the once-for-all, atoning sacrifice of Christ.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: ozgeorge on February 09, 2011, 09:34:21 PM
in a manner divinely revealed through Sacred Tradition
I don't know about your particular organization, but in the Orthodox Christian Church, things are not "divinely revealed through Sacred Tradition". In Orthodox Christianity, Tradition is the handing down through the Church of what was once and for all divinely revealed to the Apostles. God doesn't "reveal" things through Tradition- rather, Tradition is the preservation of what God has revealed.
Title: Re: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition
Post by: Seraphim98 on March 26, 2011, 01:47:43 PM
hmmm…however you slice it isn't that the point which was being made…that our worship has divine origin and not mere human invention?