OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 25, 2014, 05:45:19 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Superiority of Sola Scriptura over Scripture + Orthodox Tradition  (Read 16059 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,682


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #90 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.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,682


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #91 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.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 08:50:55 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #92 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.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #93 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.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #94 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
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #95 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.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,506



« Reply #96 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 Smiley !
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #97 on: November 02, 2010, 10:13:08 AM »


I don't think more proof was needed that you are talking to yourself, Alfred.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 967



« Reply #98 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

"Accused" is not quite the right word.  He revels in it.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 10:18:54 AM by tuesdayschild » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #99 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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #100 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.

« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 10:47:25 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Tikhon.of.Colorado
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,363



« Reply #101 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.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 10:40:05 AM by trevor72694 » Logged

"It is true that I am not always faithful, but I never lose courage, I leave myself in the Arms of Our Lord." - St. Thérèse of Lisieux
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #102 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.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #103 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!
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #104 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.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #105 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.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 11:12:43 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,073


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #106 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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

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

On to better things: here's something interesting St. 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)

 Grin

Sounds familiar...
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #107 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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

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

On to better things: here's something interesting St. 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)

 Grin

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.

Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #108 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.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #109 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.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #110 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.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #111 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. Tongue 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".

No problem PTA. I hope you feel better.  Smiley
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #112 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.
Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #113 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)
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 11:40:19 AM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 967



« Reply #114 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).
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 12:04:35 PM by tuesdayschild » Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #115 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!

« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 12:21:28 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #116 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.


Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #117 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.



« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 01:15:46 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #118 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.
Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #119 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?
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 01:23:43 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #120 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)

« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 01:39:02 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,073


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #121 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.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 967



« Reply #122 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?
Logged
orthonorm
Warned
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,523



« Reply #123 on: November 02, 2010, 02:19:17 PM »

LOL @ First Tag.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #124 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.


« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 02:47:23 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,438



WWW
« Reply #125 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.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,265

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #126 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?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,073


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #127 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.

 Grin  angel

November post of the month already?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,207


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #128 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!
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
tuesdayschild
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 967



« Reply #129 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.
Logged
Michał
['mi:hɑʊ]
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic (again!)
Jurisdiction: the Latin Church
Posts: 824


"Mother of God, Virgin, by God glorified Mary..."


« Reply #130 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.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #131 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
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,093


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #132 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.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 04:07:09 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #133 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.

« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 04:34:41 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant but no Filioque
Jurisdiction: usa
Posts: 1,207


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #134 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.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 04:41:52 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
Tags: Alfred's back for more Perssonism sola scriptura dead horse 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.251 seconds with 71 queries.