OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 02:45:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT 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 14663 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 #135 on: November 02, 2010, 04:49:06 PM »

LOL.  I can't believe you pass this drivel off as actual scholarship, Alfred.

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

Quote from: Mark 9 NKJV
14 And when He came to the disciples, He saw a great multitude around them, and scribes disputing with them. 15 Immediately, when they saw Him, all the people were greatly amazed, and running to Him, greeted Him. 16 And He asked the scribes, “What are you discussing with them?”
17 Then one of the crowd answered and said, “Teacher, I brought You my son, who has a mute spirit. 18 And wherever it seizes him, it throws him down; he foams at the mouth, gnashes his teeth, and becomes rigid. So I spoke to Your disciples, that they should cast it out, but they could not.”
19 He answered him and said, “O faithless generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him to Me.” 20 Then they brought him to Him. And when he saw Him, immediately the spirit convulsed him, and he fell on the ground and wallowed, foaming at the mouth.
21 So He asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?”
And he said, “From childhood. 22 And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”

Just in case you prefer one gospel over another:

Quote from: Matthew 17 NKJV
14 And when they had come to the multitude, a man came to Him, kneeling down to Him and saying, 15 “Lord, have mercy on my son, for he is an epileptic[c] and suffers severely; for he often falls into the fire and often into the water. 16 So I brought him to Your disciples, but they could not cure him.”
17 Then Jesus answered and said, “O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I bear with you? Bring him here to Me.” 18 And Jesus rebuked the demon, and it came out of him; and the child was cured from that very hour.

I still can't believe you would say the above despite the fact that Matthew and Luke attest to the demon-possessed man being driven to the tombs and desert by the demon - both places that lead to, or contain, death.  Demons desire the death of all that is living, to cut short the time of repentance (and, for those remaining, to lead to fear and despair) and lead us to an unfavorable judgment, mistakenly thinking that God's mercy will be thus limited.  The demons don't need a human body as a home - they only use to to accomplish their task of driving people away from the Lord our God.

1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.
If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."


An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)


« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 04:58:43 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)
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #136 on: November 02, 2010, 05:05:08 PM »

I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #137 on: November 02, 2010, 07:07:09 PM »

Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   Roll Eyes

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew


St. Mark


St. Luke


St. John



And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul


St. James (Iakovos)


St. Peter


St. Jude



Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity  Grin


That clears that up, then.  Cool
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/
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #138 on: November 02, 2010, 07:16:46 PM »

Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   Roll Eyes

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew


St. Mark


St. Luke


St. John



And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul


St. James (Iakovos)


St. Peter


St. Jude



Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity  Grin


That clears that up, then.  Cool

How could Mr Persson recognize them?  He scrolls right past our icons on the forum and flees from our churches!
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!
GabrieltheCelt
Son of a Preacher man
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,971


Chasin' down a Hoodoo...


« Reply #139 on: November 02, 2010, 07:53:52 PM »

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

He'd of been escorted off the stage over at Monachos.  He's lucky our boys (and ladies) are a little more patient. 
Logged

"The Scots-Irish; Brewed in Scotland, bottled in Ireland, uncorked in America."  ~Scots-Irish saying

"Yes, you are a white supremacist, ..."  ~Iconodule
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,511



« Reply #140 on: November 02, 2010, 08:19:27 PM »

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

Sola scriptura has nothing to do with the Bible. It's about the Church.

If sola scriptura is wrong, then the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and has the authority to interpret the Scriptures and teach with authority.

If sola scriptura is right, then the Church is not guided by the Holy Spirit and has no authority to interpret the Scriptures or teach with authority.

This is part of what you have to prove in order to prove sola scriptura.

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

So you think if a person reads something enough times,they are bound to get it right eventually by relying on their own understanding?
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #141 on: November 02, 2010, 08:31:46 PM »


Quote
1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

You missed this.    Mark 9

21 So He asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?”
And he said, “From childhood. 22 And often he has thrown him both into the fire and into the water to destroy him. But if You can do anything, have compassion on us and help us.”
Quote

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.
They wanted to destroy there host.


Quote
Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.
They torment to destroy there victims.

Quote
Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.
No, it shows that man is at odds with the devil. So the battle ensues.

Quote
AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

It would prove that the demon has won in that instance.

Quote
For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

Devoid of life isn't clear enough.




Quote
That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

They are about the destruction of man, but for you to see that you must take up your cross.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 08:35:14 PM by Demetrios G. » 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.
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 #142 on: November 02, 2010, 09:41:38 PM »

I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?

What is unclear is why haven't you exerted yourself to know how to disprove an interpretation, even though that is clearly an ability you desire.

Usually one works for what they desire, they understand blaming others for their lack of effort, is inappropriate.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 09:48:00 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 #143 on: November 02, 2010, 09:50:35 PM »

Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   Roll Eyes

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew


St. Mark


St. Luke


St. John



And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul


St. James (Iakovos)


St. Peter


St. Jude



Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity  Grin


That clears that up, then.  Cool

Having studied those images, its clear they better remain indoors when the wind acts up.
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: 2,392



WWW
« Reply #144 on: November 02, 2010, 09:57:26 PM »



Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.


I hope you don't mind me not going over the entire post, Mr Persson, but this one phrase seems to dominate your misunderstanding on this particular issue.

Demons do not desire corporeal pleasures.  Pleasure is something that they use to entice us, the pleasure of lust, the pleasure of indulgent wrath, or the pleasure of gluttony.  Demons desire nothing more or less than the entire destruction of this thing called "Man".  Demons seek to devour us like a ravenous lion, taking us from sin to sin until the damnation of our souls is secured.  Whatever pleasure we perceive is useful to them only so long as it damns us.

I would suspect that demonic possession is much like hypnosis, in a way.  Certainly the accounts we are given are rather similar.  Both involve trance-like states, both can get people to act in ways that are out of character, yet not totally antithetical to the person being controlled.  I think with demonic possession the end-game is most likely to cause a person to enter into such a state of sin that spiritual depression drives such a person to that which the demon desires most: the total annihilation of the being.  With humans this could be a long process, I suspect pigs do not have quite so many blocks in place.
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!
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #145 on: November 02, 2010, 10:11:00 PM »

Hey Alfred,

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

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

In Christ,
Tigran dpir

Don' t know sign language...you should consider adding captions viewers can read. Its odd you thought this would inform me about anything.

Click on the little box with "cc" in it.  It should inform you about quite a bit.   Smiley
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 10:15:29 PM by Salpy » Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #146 on: November 02, 2010, 10:12:28 PM »

Hey Alfred,

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

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

In Christ,
Tigran dpir

Welcome to the forum, Tigran!  I love your videos:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25886.msg407977.html#msg407977

Բարի եկաք։
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,841


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #147 on: November 02, 2010, 10:39:01 PM »

1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.

If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.

If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.

Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).

Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.

Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.

AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.

For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.

That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.

An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.
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.
Gebre Menfes Kidus
"SERVANT of The HOLY SPIRIT"
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Ethiopian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Tewahedo / Non-Chalcedonian
Posts: 7,817


"Lord Have Mercy on Me a Sinner!"


WWW
« Reply #148 on: November 02, 2010, 10:49:56 PM »

Scripture didn't come from Orthodox Holy Tradition? Well, other than having been written by our saints, that is...   Roll Eyes

Recognize any of these people?

St. Matthew


St. Mark


St. Luke


St. John



And the rest of the New Testament:

St. Paul


St. James (Iakovos)


St. Peter


St. Jude



Brought to you by...
The Holy Trinity  Grin


That clears that up, then.  Cool


Perfect! Wink


Selam
Logged

“Lord, I say too many uncharitable things about people every day. I say them because they make me look clever. Help me to realize how cheap this is. I am stupid, quite as stupid as the people I ridicule. Help me to stop this selfishness, because I love You dear God." ~ FLANNERY O'CONNOR ~
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #149 on: November 02, 2010, 11:01:02 PM »

Thank you.   Smiley
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/
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #150 on: November 03, 2010, 12:11:03 AM »

I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?

What is unclear is why haven't you exerted yourself to know how to disprove an interpretation, even though that is clearly an ability you desire.

Usually one works for what they desire, they understand blaming others for their lack of effort, is inappropriate.


No, this isn't about me, it's about you.  Your entire premise is that you hold the correct interpretation and yet you can only claim to do so on your own authority, and this confuses me.  Why is your interpretation the correct one and to what authority do you appeal to prove it?
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 #151 on: November 03, 2010, 07:01:22 AM »

I'm still unclear, Alfred, why is it that there is only one correct interpretation and that interpretation is yours?

What is unclear is why haven't you exerted yourself to know how to disprove an interpretation, even though that is clearly an ability you desire.

Usually one works for what they desire, they understand blaming others for their lack of effort, is inappropriate.


No, this isn't about me, it's about you.  Your entire premise is that you hold the correct interpretation and yet you can only claim to do so on your own authority, and this confuses me.  Why is your interpretation the correct one and to what authority do you appeal to prove it?

Incorrect. There are Orthodox apologists on the net you could learn from, rather than accuse me of crap.

I post a claim, the reasons for my claim. If you reject the claim, then you post reasons why my reasons are unsound.

Accusing me of making a claim I believe in, is not only immature, its boorish. Of course I believe what I say, if I didn't, I wouldn't say it.

Perhaps you just don't realize how stupid such an accusation is...

You expect I will post an interpretation believing it wrong, that everyone else is right, and that is "normal" to you?

Do you do that? Where, when, copy paste it now here, now. I want to see if you follow your own advice, live by your own rules, practice what you preach.

Or you could consult with your fellow Orthodox apologists on the NET, and learn apologetics, and stop embarrassing yourself.


« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 07:08:44 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)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,403


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #152 on: November 03, 2010, 09:05:04 AM »

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.
Actually, Trevor, this Orthodox-Other Christian section of the forum IS to some degree a Protestant board, which, to SOME degree, IS a place for Orthodox to dialogue with Protestants and maybe even act on the sometimes vain hope that we can convince a Protestant to abandon his heresies and become Orthodox.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #153 on: November 03, 2010, 09:30:17 AM »

Incorrect. There are Orthodox apologists on the net you could learn from, rather than accuse me of crap.

I'm really not sure how to make myself any more clear, Alfred.  I have not accused you of a single thing, I have asked you simple questions because I'm genuinely confused by your posts.  If you won't answer them, then why are you here???

Quote
I post a claim, the reasons for my claim. If you reject the claim, then you post reasons why my reasons are unsound.

You didn't post a claim, you posted that you held the key to the only interpretation of a passage and all I was asking you was to what authority you appeal to give your interpretation its stamp of approval, because I genuinely do not understand how it's anyone other than yourself.  If you could just answer that instead of accusing me of accusing you of things, we could get on with things...

Quote
Accusing me of making a claim I believe in, is not only immature, its boorish. Of course I believe what I say, if I didn't, I wouldn't say it.

This didn't happen.  Whose posts are you reading???

Quote
Perhaps you just don't realize how stupid such an accusation is...

Had I made an accusation at all this might make sense.

Quote
You expect I will post an interpretation believing it wrong, that everyone else is right, and that is "normal" to you?

Nope, but I would expect you to at least answer my question about the authority to which you appeal for your interpretation.

Quote
Or you could consult with your fellow Orthodox apologists on the NET, and learn apologetics, and stop embarrassing yourself.
 
My questions are not about my own apologetics, they are about yours.
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 #154 on: November 03, 2010, 09:33:50 AM »

1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.

The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.

If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.

If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.

Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).

Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.

Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.

AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.

For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interst.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.

That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.

An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.

1)Nothing in Mark 9 (or elsewhere) says the boy was destroyed, died. Rather he is afflicted, there is a difference.

The demons are not omnipotent; just as Satan could not raise his hand to kill Job because of God's restrictions, so too are the demons prohibited from killing people.  But it is their desire and their goal to destroy all that they possess.


Of course demons are not omnipotent. Of course they need God's "concurrence" to do anything in this matrix, we all do.

Satan had nothing to gain by killing him, his goal was to get Job to curse God, and God knew Satan would go to any lengths to accomplish that, and probably go too far. So God protects Job with that warning :

6 And the LORD said to Satan, "Behold, he is in your hand, but spare his life." (Job 2:6 NKJ)

In other words, Satan didn't ask for permission to kill Job, but God knew he likely would in his mad quest to prove himself right, so God forbade it.

So this text is irrelevant to your conclusion "its their desire and their goal to destroy all they possess." You have NO proof of that here, or frankly, from anywhere else.

You portray the evil spirits as irrational, and scripture does not, it portrays them as evil, not irrationally self destructive.

Their causing hurt to those they possess and others is likely because they enjoy watching others or experiencing pain,  because they are evil and masochistic. They aren't destroying others for no reason, they have their reasons, sick evil reasons, but reasons nonetheless.

***

2) The demons begged Christ to be in the swine, it is inconsistent with that they immediately kill the swine.

Are you saying that the incorporeal demons were killed by the swine?  Only in that case would your objection make sense.  Otherwise, the demons killed the swine and then were freed to torment someone else - unless you've found evidence that the angels die, something that would have been relevant when they battled one another.


No, the swine perished in the water, the devils went to Tartarus:
NKJ  2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels who sinned, but cast them down to hell (ταρταρώσας) and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgment;
 (2Pe 2:4 NKJ)

Christ was in complete control. The devils thought Jesus agreed to their bargain, He didn't. He was there to torment them before their time, just as they feared. When Christ said "Go", they rushed into the swine believing they were free, to their horror, they were made to run into the lake, as a prefigure of what will be in the Day of Christ, when they rush headlong into the Lake of fire.

As you know, if Christ didn't send them to Tartarus, then they went free. But then the text does not glorify Christ, then He is liable to various charges of wanton destruction of life, the swine.

The context is glorifying Christ, He commands the wind and sea, now the devils. This must be interpreted consistent with Matthew's purpose of putting it here, THAT is the context:
26 But He said to them, "Why are you fearful, O you of little faith?" Then He arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was a great calm.
 27 So the men marveled, saying, "Who can this be, that even the winds and the sea obey Him?"
 28 When He had come to the other side, to the country of the Gergesenes, there met Him two demon-possessed men, coming out of the tombs, exceedingly fierce, so that no one could pass that way.
 29 And suddenly they cried out, saying, "What have we to do with You, Jesus, You Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?"
 30 Now a good way off from them there was a herd of many swine feeding.
 31 So the demons begged Him, saying, "If You cast us out, permit us to go away into the herd of swine."
 32 And He said to them, "Go." So when they had come out, they went into the herd of swine. And suddenly the whole herd of swine ran violently down the steep place into the sea, and perished in the water. (Mat 8:26-32 NKJ)

The devils are terrified, they are not in control, they are powerless before Christ. They are standing before the LORD Almighty, before the Form of God the angels behold in heaven(Phi 2:6), there is no question who is in authority  here at all. Jesus is "the Son of God" and they know it. They are begging not to be thrown into the abyss, compare:

31 And they begged Him that He would not command them to go out into the abyss. (Luk 8:31 NKJ)

Jesus did precisely that, He was there to torment them before their time, He did command them to go into the abyss.


Getting rid of the swine was "getting two evils with one stone." It violated the law of Moses to be herding swine for food (Deu 14:8), that is why the herders were terrified of Jesus:

33 Then those who kept them fled; and they went away into the city and told everything, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men.
 34 And behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus. And when they saw Him, they begged Him to depart from their region. (Mat 8:33-34 NKJ)

So according to the law of both God and man, Jesus is beyond reproach, nothing wrong occurred here, everything was done right.

***

3) If they wanted to "fly away", they could have done that without going into the swine first.

Not without Christ's blessing; they had their options pinned down.


See #2 above, I agree they have NO control over the situation, they were standing before the LORD GOD Almighty, completely at His mercy.

I argued a counterpoint, they could "fly away" without the swine if that is what they wanted to do...against your saying they wanted the swine to perish so they could fly away. You  are arguing Christ would let them do that, you can't then deny He would let them do that without first entering the swine.

I am arguing that doesn't make sense because if they were allowed to do it, they would have done it before approaching Christ, they were terrified of Him and of what He might do. It doesn't make sense they would go near Christ, beg to enter the swine to make their escape, and that Christ would allow that. If that is the case, then they could have fled BEFORE getting so close to Christ they had to beg.

I'm pointing out the flaw in your logic, It was a counter  point, not a claim.

My claim is they had no control whatsoever, and when the swine rush into the sea, its Jesus who is making them do it, they are not running away at all, they are being tormented before their time.


***

4) If they wanted to run into the lake, they could have done that as men, before Christ arrived.

See above.


Yes, see above.

***

5) Nothing in the context indicates it was their decision to run into the lake, the entire context where Christ commands the wind and the sea, is revealing Christ's power and authority over everything, including the devils.

Christ let them go to the swine, knowing fully what would happen, and how people would react.  He does it to not only show His power, but also what the Demons wish to do to us (body and soul).



I do not agree, this is not revelation about devils...no one in the Gospels seem ignorant about them, and they do nothing in this context that is new.

Christ fooled them into thinking they struck a bargain, and they release their captives willingly without harming them, they rush into the swine and to their horror, are "tormented them before their time" revealing He truly is the Son of God, that everything is under His control, not just the wind and sea.

***

6) Demons desire corporeal pleasures...that they also love tormenting their hosts is not a contradiction to that, its part of the pleasure they have via physical forms.

They desire "corporeal pleasures?"  Hardly - they're eternal and incorporeal beings.  Find a few references to them desiring corporeal pleasures and desiring pleasures in physical forms.


Incorrect, and here is one of many texts proving they do lust after physical pleasures:

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


These are "incorporeal" NOW, because God evidently decreed it after the flood, but they weren't before.


People think of heaven as immaterial, but that is pagan, not Scriptural revelation. The Bible shows Mount Zion to be a place, and angels certainly seem quite material to each other.  Recall Enoch, Moses and Elijah are in heaven physically, they aren't spirits.

Nothing in the description of heaven makes it "immaterial," it exists in different dimensions than our sphere of existence, an "alternate reality" as it were, but scripture does not say its immaterial. Its material in its dimension of existence.


Scripture shows they can "materialize forms" or appear in their own form, materially, in our sphere of existence:

2 So he lifted his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing by him; and when he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them, and bowed himself to the ground,
 3 and said, "My Lord, if I have now found favor in Your sight, do not pass on by Your servant.
 4 "Please let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree.
 5 "And I will bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh your hearts. After that you may pass by, inasmuch as you have come to your servant." They said, "Do as you have said."
 6 So Abraham hurried into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quickly, make ready three measures of fine meal; knead it and make cakes."
 7 And Abraham ran to the herd, took a tender and good calf, gave it to a young man, and he hastened to prepare it.
 8 So he took butter and milk and the calf which he had prepared, and set it before them; and he stood by them under the tree as they ate. (Gen 18:2-8 NKJ)


When Christ appeared in the locked room, the text does not say He walked through walls or the door:

19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. (Joh 20:19 KJV)


"Came Jesus and stood in their midst" (ἦλθεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ ἔστη εἰς τὸ μέσον Joh 20:19), Jesus stepped into our dimension, remaining as phyiscal as He is in the heavenly dimension, the TELEIOS ( 1 Cor 13:10), aka "kingdom of God"  (Mark 9:1ff) met our dimension, and Moses and Elijah speaks to Jesus.

They are physical in God's Dimension, not immaterial. Angels are immaterial in  ours, when they want to be. Demons, no doubt because of what they did that forced God to flood the earth and cleanse if of their children, evidently are NOT allowed to take physical form in our realm of existence.

But that will change:

9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,
 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
 (2Th 2:9-12 NKJ)

It seems God will  allow the devils take physical form to decieve the entire earth...likely that UFOs have landed and will give us alien technology:

4 So they worshiped the dragon who gave authority to the beast; and they worshiped the beast, saying, "Who is like the beast? Who is able to make war with him?" (Rev 13:4 NKJ)

That is speculation, but it would explain why Satan has gone through so much trouble perfecting his "alien encounters" throughout history. UFO reports make perfect sense when they are seen as "trial runs" getting the "kinks" out of the deception.


But I admit UFO play a part in the strong delusion is speculation, not explicit scripture teaching, so it could be wrong.


Demons were once angels in the army of God, who LEFT their proper habitation, and are not allowed to take physical form now, because of what happened in Genesis. God had to destroy all humanity (except Noah and family whose DNA was not corrupted with angelic DNA Gen 6:9), to cleanse the earth of the abomination, the image of God in man was corrupted with the image of angels.

It was a satanic plot to stop the seed of the Woman from arriving to "bruise them" in the head (Gen 3:15).

After the flood, these fallen angels do what they want, possess people for pleasure etc. No doubt Satan orders them around as needed, but in general, they are on their own, satisfying their evil lusts and doing as much evil as they find pleasurable to do.

They do derive pleasure from physical forms, that desire is what propelled their fall.

Notice the association Jude makes, these are guilty of the same sinful lusts as found in Sodom, they go after "strange flesh":

6 And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
 7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire. (Jud 1:6-7 KJV)


Scripture alone is 100% accurate information on the spirit world, not the testimony of men, the ability of spirits to deceive is too great for man to overcome on his own. ONLY in scripture will you find the uncorrupted truth.




7) Your examples failed because they only show the devils love the pleasure of tormenting their hosts.

Which they take as close to death as the Lord will allow - just as He did with Job, so did He also prevent them from killing the men.



Compare #1 above, I dispute that. Tormenting Job was not for pleasure, it was argument Satan was making to the sons of God in heaven:


6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came among them.
 7 And the LORD said to Satan, "From where do you come?" So Satan answered the LORD and said, "From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking back and forth on it."
 8 Then the LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job, that there is none like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man, one who fears God and shuns evil?"
 9 So Satan answered the LORD and said, "Does Job fear God for nothing?
 (Job 1:6-9 NKJ)


God made a claim, that none on earth were like Job, he loved God with true love, blameless.

Satan counter argues in vs 9, "Does Job fear God for nothing?"

This isn't about Job per se, its about God, He made a claim, Satan is saying God is wrong = God then is not God according to His own standards, therefore God must allow Satan and his angels live apart from God.

Collaborating this is what the incarnation did to make demons choke on the words "Jesus came in the flesh."

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
 (1Jo 4:2-3 NKJ)

Compare:

5 Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus,
 6 who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God,
 7 but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.
 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.
 9 Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name,
 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth,
 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
 (Phi 2:5-11 NKJ)

Christ proved "true love for the Father" exists when He "sold all He owned" in heaven, adding to Himself human nature, to die a horrible death worse than any man received, on earth.

Leaving INFINITE riches, because Jesus loved the Father above all = true love exists, Satan's argument every act has a selfish motive, even  acts of devotion to God, is wrong.

Satan lost the argument forever, when Christ became flesh. Therefore the devils choke on the words, they cannot say them.


Job was tormented in a test of God's perfection, to see if He made a mistake about Job.




8) AND they may even enjoy the physical sensation of dying, so even if the child died (which he didn't), it wouldn't prove your point.

"They may."  Nice one.



That is a counter claim, not a "nice one" sophistry.

It was argued devils destroy for no reason...that would make them insane and perhaps innocent victims of the evil they do.

On the contrary, scripture shows they are evil, which implies they act for selfish motives, and not insanely without reason.



***

9) For your argument to be sound, you must have a clear example of them fighting against their own interest.

Rebelling against the Eternal God is a good enough "clear example" for me.



Incorrect, they thought they could win the argument and then God would have to let them have their own kingdom.


People "project," that is, honest people assume others are honest. Thieves project everyone is a thief also. In Job 1:9ff Satan is arguing every act of love for God has a selfish motive, BECAUSE that is true of him:

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

Satan searched his own motives, and found selfishness at the root of every act, and projected that is true for everyone, including Job.

He lost the argument concerning Job, and Christ via the incarnation blasted it away forever. True love exists, therefore when God created all things, to live with other creatures in mutual true love for each other, it wasn't a mistake.

***

10) That would contradict everything scripture reveals about them, they "are all about selfish interest."

Hardly.



My point stands, nothing in scripture shows demons are either 1)unselfish; 2)insane.

They have evil reasons for what they do, they are not innocent victims of insanity, otherwise how could God punishment them? Then He would be unjust.


So if you want to prove your point, you will have to do more than say "Hardly."


Otherwise my point stands.

***

11)An analogy:

23 So He called them to Himself and said to them in parables: "How can Satan cast out Satan?
 24 "If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand.
 25 "And if a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
 26 "And if Satan has risen up against himself, and is divided, he cannot stand, but has an end.
 (Mar 3:23-26 NKJ)

Since the demons cannot die (just as angels cannot die), your point isn't proven with the quote.  Causing the death of living creatures only aids Satan in his goal of driving a wedge between creation (not just mankind) and God.



It is certain Matthew's purpose was to reveal Christ has authority over wind, sea and demons, not to show Satan's goals or anything about demons.

Christ makes this serve multiple righteous purposes. 1)Herding Swine for food is forbidden by the Law; 2)Liberating these demon possessed men without the devils harming them was good reason to fool them into thinking they made a bargain with Jesus. They assumed that, He never said He did. 3)This prefigured what will occur in the last day when the devils are driven into the lake of fire. 4)This reveals they will suffer corporeally for their corporeal sins, just as men do. Never will God leave the wicked unpunished.


If you study these things carefully, I think you will agree what is said above is consistent with explicit and implicit teaching of scripture, and not an invention of mine. If any part of it doesn't conform to the Bible, it is wrong. Be certain it doesn't conform, before you reject it.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 09:56:39 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
But you can call me Trevor.
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,340



« Reply #155 on: November 03, 2010, 09:35:07 AM »

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

He'd of been escorted off the stage over at Monachos.  He's lucky our boys (and ladies) are a little more patient. 
well, if anyone wants to be on the "escort them off" commitee, I'd be happy to petition the moderators  Cheesy
Logged

Maybe I'm posting, maybe I'm not.  Who knows...
Tikhon.of.Colorado
But you can call me Trevor.
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 2,340



« Reply #156 on: November 03, 2010, 09:36:49 AM »

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.
Actually, Trevor, this Orthodox-Other Christian section of the forum IS to some degree a Protestant board, which, to SOME degree, IS a place for Orthodox to dialogue with Protestants and maybe even act on the sometimes vain hope that we can convince a Protestant to abandon his heresies and become Orthodox.
ah, correct, my bad.  sorry, some members can really get under my skin, especially those who call themseves "Christians" and are obsessed with proving everyone else wrong.
Logged

Maybe I'm posting, maybe I'm not.  Who knows...
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #157 on: November 03, 2010, 10:21:17 AM »

Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 10:28:24 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #158 on: November 03, 2010, 12:40:35 PM »

I just can't believe how people stumble over the truth as if it was a large crack on the sidewalk and then go beyond it as if the surface was smooth while passing over it. The answer is so simple that it's almost always over looked. It's a delusion that god gives to man that doesn't allow him to see the truth. There is no sense in arguing because they believe in the lie. It's fruitless to all engaged in it. The proof that he sees is real to him. Why should we get in the way of that?
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.
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 157


« Reply #159 on: November 03, 2010, 12:42:56 PM »

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


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

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

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

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

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

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


So writing the rest of the OT after Deuteronomy and the entire New Testament is heresy, and contravention of God's law as set forth in the verse above? The NT is "added words" that came after Deuteronomy, so....

Talk about proof-texting and taking things out of context and contradictions. You are so attached to your pet doctrine that you can't even see how your primary support for the idea is in complete opposition to your premise.

By the way- I'm Orthodox and a former Presbyterian, so I understand exactly how your mind is working. It's all about perspective and paradigm. May God be with you.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 12:43:24 PM by android » Logged
DennyB
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 218


Moving Toward Orthodoxy


« Reply #160 on: November 03, 2010, 05:36:28 PM »

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

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

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

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


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

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

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





An exegesis of the title of this OP,  The Superiority of Alfred's views of Scripture,over The Faith once delivered to the Saints.

I've already picked which side I'm on, get real Alfred!!!!
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: 35,604



« Reply #161 on: November 03, 2010, 05:47:41 PM »

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN ORTHODOX CHRISTIAN FORUM, NOT A PROTESTANT ONE.
this is for disgussing Orthodox Christianity, not for trying to prove people wrong against heretical beliefs.

He'd of been escorted off the stage over at Monachos.  He's lucky our boys (and ladies) are a little more patient. 
well, if anyone wants to be on the "escort them off" commitee, I'd be happy to petition the moderators  Cheesy
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 #162 on: November 04, 2010, 01:15:16 AM »

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


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

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

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

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

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

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


So writing the rest of the OT after Deuteronomy and the entire New Testament is heresy, and contravention of God's law as set forth in the verse above? The NT is "added words" that came after Deuteronomy, so....

Talk about proof-texting and taking things out of context and contradictions. You are so attached to your pet doctrine that you can't even see how your primary support for the idea is in complete opposition to your premise.

By the way- I'm Orthodox and a former Presbyterian, so I understand exactly how your mind is working. It's all about perspective and paradigm. May God be with you.

Incorrect, adding words of men is forbidden, not more words of God.

To suggest Moses would stupidly contradict what he does is hardly exegesis a Presbyterian would propose...they know Bible writers never contradict themselves...it never happens in scripture, and the actual stupidity lies with those who foolishly point to scripture they don't understand, and exclaim "see, a contradiction!"

So I doubt you really are a "former Presbyterian", likely you only attended their churches a few time.

So did I, they are great houses of true worship, but that didn't make me a Presbyterian.

Perhaps they kicked you out? Their boot print wouldn't make you a Presbyterian either.

That was in jest, I only doubt you were a bible thumping Presbyterian, they would never suggest what you did.

AND you don't understand me at all:

"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Joh 3:8 NKJ)
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 01:18:43 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)
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 #163 on: November 04, 2010, 01:30:28 AM »

Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

You  made specific claims for your Tradition:

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

It follows you have this tradition in written form as you claim to know it was never altered, added to or subtracted from in any way...and can prove it was never altered in any way, by citing its text for proof.

It also follows "the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles" would be canonized by an ecumenical council when all the teaching of the faith deposited by Jesus and the apostles, was canonized.

I write this hoping you are not replicating the strong delusion of Roman Catholics who refer to "apostolic tradition" but have never read one word of it their entire lives.

When I ask them to recite a line or two of this tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, they become quite evasive in their response.

They certainly make the claim of having it, just as you:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?
Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium

It follows from the Orthodox/Catholic schism not happening for centuries, that their "Holy Tradition from the lips of Christ and apostles" would be precisely the same as yours, given it was never added to, subtracted from or altered in any way.


Please copy paste a section of this Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

Otherwise I don't think you actually have it.

If you fail to present some of the text here, now, or provide a link to the text, I suspect your belief it exists is fantasy, a fable.

Your claims to have tradition deposited by Christ and His apostles, that was never altered, would then be delusion.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 01:52:48 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)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 30,403


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #164 on: November 04, 2010, 02:38:06 AM »

Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

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

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

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

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

Only ad hominem against me, as usual.
Actually, no. Criticism of your methods, even if I point out that your method is to cheat, is not an ad hominem and is in fact very important to this discussion, since your methods are the very means by which you conclude all that you post here and even how you play this game. If I can show how your methods are faulty, I don't need to refute your conclusions, since conclusions based on faulty methods are nothing but dust anyway.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #165 on: November 04, 2010, 03:59:36 AM »

Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

You  made specific claims for your Tradition:

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

It follows you have this tradition in written form as you claim to know it was never altered, added to or subtracted from in any way...and can prove it was never altered in any way, by citing its text for proof.

It also follows "the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles" would be canonized by an ecumenical council when all the teaching of the faith deposited by Jesus and the apostles, was canonized.

I write this hoping you are not replicating the strong delusion of Roman Catholics who refer to "apostolic tradition" but have never read one word of it their entire lives.

When I ask them to recite a line or two of this tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, they become quite evasive in their response.

They certainly make the claim of having it, just as you:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?
Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium

It follows from the Orthodox/Catholic schism not happening for centuries, that their "Holy Tradition from the lips of Christ and apostles" would be precisely the same as yours, given it was never added to, subtracted from or altered in any way.


Please copy paste a section of this Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

Otherwise I don't think you actually have it.

If you fail to present some of the text here, now, or provide a link to the text, I suspect your belief it exists is fantasy, a fable.

Your claims to have tradition deposited by Christ and His apostles, that was never altered, would then be delusion.

The words of Christ and his apostles were preserved in Holy Scripture by the Church. Of course, you take this form of Holy Tradition for granted because you are not aware of the price that was paid by the Church to preserve it. Rome clearly added novel doctrines that were foreign to the early Church. Now, are you going to address my questions?
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 #166 on: November 04, 2010, 07:32:42 AM »

Wow, Sola Scriptura must be so superior that Alfred did not even find himself dignified enough to refute what was given to him from the Tradition POV! Surely this new way of thinking is far superior since it need not refute claims that have been around for almost 2,000 years!

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

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

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

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

Only ad hominem against me, as usual.
Actually, no. Criticism of your methods, even if I point out that your method is to cheat, is not an ad hominem and is in fact very important to this discussion, since your methods are the very means by which you conclude all that you post here and even how you play this game. If I can show how your methods are faulty, I don't need to refute your conclusions, since conclusions based on faulty methods are nothing but dust anyway.

Coloring a claim as "a cheat" and proving it, is what distinguishes ad hominem, from an argument.

Make your argument, and I'll respond.
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 #167 on: November 04, 2010, 07:36:00 AM »

Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

You  made specific claims for your Tradition:

Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

It follows you have this tradition in written form as you claim to know it was never altered, added to or subtracted from in any way...and can prove it was never altered in any way, by citing its text for proof.

It also follows "the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles" would be canonized by an ecumenical council when all the teaching of the faith deposited by Jesus and the apostles, was canonized.

I write this hoping you are not replicating the strong delusion of Roman Catholics who refer to "apostolic tradition" but have never read one word of it their entire lives.

When I ask them to recite a line or two of this tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, they become quite evasive in their response.

They certainly make the claim of having it, just as you:

Now in this respect there are several points of controversy between Catholics and every body of Protestants. Is all revealed truth consigned to Holy Scripture? or can it, must it, be admitted that Christ gave to His Apostles to be transmitted to His Church, that the Apostles received either from the very lips of Jesus or from inspiration or Revelation, Divine instructions which they transmitted to the Church and which were not committed to the inspired writings?
Catholic Encyclopedia under Tradition and Living Magisterium

It follows from the Orthodox/Catholic schism not happening for centuries, that their "Holy Tradition from the lips of Christ and apostles" would be precisely the same as yours, given it was never added to, subtracted from or altered in any way.


Please copy paste a section of this Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction.

Otherwise I don't think you actually have it.

If you fail to present some of the text here, now, or provide a link to the text, I suspect your belief it exists is fantasy, a fable.

Your claims to have tradition deposited by Christ and His apostles, that was never altered, would then be delusion.

The words of Christ and his apostles were preserved in Holy Scripture by the Church. Of course, you take this form of Holy Tradition for granted because you are not aware of the price that was paid by the Church to preserve it. Rome clearly added novel doctrines that were foreign to the early Church. Now, are you going to address my questions?


So you do not claim to have tradition from the very lips of Christ and His apostles, that is not found in scripture?

I will assume that is precisely what you claim, and will address your questions with that understanding.

Correct it if its wrong.
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 #168 on: November 04, 2010, 07:57:51 AM »

Alfred, I think we need to go over some basic definitions before we proceed. Here is what Holy Tradition means to the Orthodox:

Quote
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence.

Unlike many conceptions of tradition in popular understanding, the Orthodox Church does not regard Holy Tradition as something which grows and expands over time, forming a collection of practices and doctrines which accrue, gradually becoming something more developed and eventually unrecognizable to the first Christians. Rather, Holy Tradition is that same faith which Christ taught to the Apostles and which they gave to their disciples, preserved in the whole Church and especially in its leadership through Apostolic Succession.


http://orthodoxwiki.org/Holy_Tradition

So as you see, Holy Tradition isn't something that some guy thought up in the 3rd or 4th century and thought it would be a cool idea. Holy Tradition is the very life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and had it's inception at Pentecost when the Church was founded. Holy Tradition is that very deposit of faith which has been handed down from Christ to his apostles, preserved and written down in the scriptures, passed down, safeguarded, and interpreted through the Church. Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition. Unfortunately however, you only recognize certain parts of that Holy Tradition. If you have faith that the Church was inspired by God to write, preserve, and ultimately transmit their scriptures down to you faithfully, why will you not trust the Church with other more important matters of the faith, such as interpreting the very scripture it held in Her bosom since the beginning? I hope you see that this is a fundamental contradiction of the highest order.

Second, you seem to imply earlier that the Church was somehow not involved in the canonization of scripture, and perhaps that the NT was received by God on a silver platter, directly from heaven. Of course, the process which led to the canonization of scripture was led by the Holy Spirit, but it was not an easy or simple process. Here is an article that I hope will give you some insight into the formation of the NT canon:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

Thirdly, you said earlier that you were part of the same Church that canonized the scripture. Are you really trying to imply that you profess the same faith that these early Church fathers did?

Since you acknowledged that God, acting through the Church and the members thereof by the power of his Holy Spirit, inspired the men of the Church in the 4th century to canonize the New Testament, you acknowledge the validity of Her Holy Tradition.

I do not accept scripture because of church lists of canon, I agree the 27 books are canon for many of the same reasons the church did. Therefore, I am not acknowledging the validity of Church Tradition. In effect, I am making my own decision. I don't deny church acceptance of these particular books was given some weight when making my conclusion, but I do NOT accept church rulings as infallible or even binding.

Moreover I reject the premise NT scripture is not organically one with OT scripture, that requires I also reject the concept of scripture as tradition that came into existence through and by the church and therefore its correct interpretation is within the purview of the church only.

Every time Christ quotes the word of God for doctrine, He establishes scripture is independent of the church He founded built on the Rock of faith in Him, which came into existence AFTER the scripture He cited, did. That proves independence.

Also, the NT is a finite collection of books, its not still being written. Yet the church is still growing, that also identifies scripture as an entity distinguishable from church tradition, and independent of it.

As for canonization, I didn't say the church played no part, I said she evaluated evidences when making the lists of canon. The church didn't "by fiat" rule which books were scripture. The entire process is somewhat hazy, but it appears "apostolicity" was a primary consideration, whether the book was used in the universal church as scripture, from the beginning. Also internal evidences were evaluated.

So I certainly see the church involved in canonization, I do not accept the list of canon because she did it. Anyone could have done it, and I would accept it because I agree with the premises for acceptance.

I would reject the premises if the church (or anyone else) applied them to books that weren't accepted in the days of the apostles by the universal church, but are today.

Thirdly, I do claim the early church is my church, just as you do. We disagree as to what they believe. My claim is just as valid to me, as yours is to you. Every time I cite scripture against an Orthodox doctrine, I prove my claim sound.

AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 08:05:21 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
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #169 on: November 04, 2010, 10:24:53 AM »

Quote from: Alfred Persson
So I certainly see the church involved in canonization, I do not accept the list of canon because she did it. Anyone could have done it, and I would accept it because I agree with the premises for acceptance.

No. Anyone could not have done it. Have a look at what happened when 'anyone' tried to do it, without the guidance of the Holy Spirit: the Gnostic writings, which claimed to be Scripture and failed utterly. Collections of them are still available at the library, but all you'll find there are heretical blather such as the 'Gospel of Thomas.' Historically, they bore no fruit.

The guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church, however, gave us the New Testament. You are reading something brought to you by an Orthodox Church council.

Then again, Alfred has claimed to be the only person who believes what the Apostles wrote as written, so hearing him claim he could have put together the New Testament is just what one should expect. And it can be dismissed just as quickly.  Roll Eyes

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/
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 157


« Reply #170 on: November 04, 2010, 10:57:57 AM »

Sola Scripture is a contradiction of terms. The scriptures of the Bible were selected by the Church through Tradition. So accepting scripture is in itself accepting Tradition.


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

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

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

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

 2 "You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deu 4:2 NKJ)The real contradiction, is in your position. If God wanted your traditions added to the Word of God, He would have said so:

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


So writing the rest of the OT after Deuteronomy and the entire New Testament is heresy, and contravention of God's law as set forth in the verse above? The NT is "added words" that came after Deuteronomy, so....

Talk about proof-texting and taking things out of context and contradictions. You are so attached to your pet doctrine that you can't even see how your primary support for the idea is in complete opposition to your premise.

By the way- I'm Orthodox and a former Presbyterian, so I understand exactly how your mind is working. It's all about perspective and paradigm. May God be with you.

Incorrect, adding words of men is forbidden, not more words of God.

To suggest Moses would stupidly contradict what he does is hardly exegesis a Presbyterian would propose...they know Bible writers never contradict themselves...it never happens in scripture, and the actual stupidity lies with those who foolishly point to scripture they don't understand, and exclaim "see, a contradiction!"

So I doubt you really are a "former Presbyterian", likely you only attended their churches a few time.

So did I, they are great houses of true worship, but that didn't make me a Presbyterian.

Perhaps they kicked you out? Their boot print wouldn't make you a Presbyterian either.

That was in jest, I only doubt you were a bible thumping Presbyterian, they would never suggest what you did.

AND you don't understand me at all:

"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit." (Joh 3:8 NKJ)


I'll ignore the ad hominem personal attack. For the record I was baptized Presbyterian and attended for 22 years. The local Orthodox parish accepted by Presbyterian baptism.

And I didn't say "see a contradiction!" as to Moses. The contradiction lies with you. Of course Moses didn't contradict himself- the verse doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.

I believe it was Shakespeare who said that "the devil can quote scripture for his purposes". Prooftexting and trotting out verses out of context does no one any good.

I actually learned Greek and did some theological grandstanding of my own (quite like you are) before humbing myself and accepting the Church that Christ founded at Pentecost. 

Surely you don't think that God abandoned his church, his Bride, the institution that you trust to put together your canon, which Christ declared the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Surely God would not have tasked the canonization of scripture with a heretical or apostate Church, and surely the holy spirit would not have been with the bishops and hierarchs who accomplished the task, and surely the spirit would not have abandoned those people or that Church thereafter, notwithstanding the promises of scripture and  Christ himself.

Surely it didn't take 1400 years for a rogue monk named Luther to finally figure things out. And surely 20,000+ denominations was not Christ's desire for his one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Surely there were devout Christians who subsisted on faith, tradition, the sacraments, prayer and fasting without ever being literate or being able to read scripture, and surely there were christians during the period after Christ's ascension and the canonization of Scripture. 

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.


Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #171 on: November 04, 2010, 11:03:35 AM »

Quote from: android
Surely you don't think that God abandoned his church, his Bride, the institution that you trust to put together your canon, which Christ declared the gates of hell would not prevail against?

Surely God would not have tasked the canonization of scripture with a heretical or apostate Church, and surely the holy spirit would not have been with the bishops and hierarchs who accomplished the task, and surely the spirit would not have abandoned those people or that Church thereafter, notwithstanding the promises of scripture and  Christ himself.

Surely it didn't take 1400 years for a rogue monk named Luther to finally figure things out. And surely 20,000+ denominations was not Christ's desire for his one holy catholic and apostolic church.

Surely there were devout Christians who subsisted on faith, tradition, the sacraments, prayer and fasting without ever being literate or being able to read scripture, and surely there were christians during the period after Christ's ascension and the canonization of Scripture. 

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.

Well said.   Smiley
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/
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 157


« Reply #172 on: November 04, 2010, 11:05:38 AM »

[I do not accept scripture because of church lists of canon, I agree the 27 books are canon for many of the same reasons the church did. Therefore, I am not acknowledging the validity of Church Tradition. In effect, I am making my own decision. I don't deny church acceptance of these particular books was given some weight when making my conclusion, but I do NOT accept church rulings as infallible or even binding.

[/quote]

I don't think you understand the way the Church works. The Church doesn't "make rulings" that are infallible or binding. The Church typically acts by council- those are binding.

Look at how the first theological controversy was resolved by the Apostles in the book of Acts. They have a council.

Placing your faith in the Church which Christ established is Scriptural, as evidenced in Acts. The Apostles didn't resolve the dispute by pulling out their notes or Gospels, or the Old Testament, and argue individual verses back and forth until the most charismatic or systematically rigorous (or loudest) Apostle won- that would be the Protestant/Sola Scriptura model. They resolved it via the guidance of the Holy Spirit and via their capacities as Bishops ordained by Christ himself for the care and protection of His Church.

Christ's last act on Earth was to establish His Church (His Bride). This wasn't so Christians would have a place to hang out, or preacher's would have a raised platform from whichto give their opinion. It was for the care and guidance of the faithful.

The irony here is that sola scriptura is ascriptural.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #173 on: November 04, 2010, 11:13:12 AM »

AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity. 
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #174 on: November 04, 2010, 11:14:31 AM »

I don't think you understand the way the Church works. The Church doesn't "make rulings" that are infallible or binding. The Church typically acts by council- those are binding.

Look at how the first theological controversy was resolved by the Apostles in the book of Acts. They have a council.

Placing your faith in the Church which Christ established is Scriptural, as evidenced in Acts. The Apostles didn't resolve the dispute by pulling out their notes or Gospels, or the Old Testament, and argue individual verses back and forth until the most charismatic or systematically rigorous (or loudest) Apostle won- that would be the Protestant/Sola Scriptura model. They resolved it via the guidance of the Holy Spirit and via their capacities as Bishops ordained by Christ himself for the care and protection of His Church.

Christ's last act on Earth was to establish His Church (His Bride). This wasn't so Christians would have a place to hang out, or preacher's would have a raised platform from whichto give their opinion. It was for the care and guidance of the faithful.

The irony here is that sola scriptura is ascriptural.

Bravo!!!
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 #175 on: November 04, 2010, 12:05:02 PM »

AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity.  

Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 12:05:36 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)
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #176 on: November 04, 2010, 12:52:04 PM »

AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity.  

Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)

What am I missing???  What are you reading into these verses that you feel supports your belief?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 11,910


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #177 on: November 04, 2010, 01:16:10 PM »

Since when was St. Paul a Protestant?  Huh Was he against his own Church?  Shocked

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 #178 on: November 04, 2010, 01:49:25 PM »

AND I have disputed Orthodox claim they believe the same as the fathers...the overwhelming consensus of the fathers was belief in the 1000 year reign of Christ, a belief the Orthodox do not share, but I do.

And yet you do not believe something that they did believe:  that the Church is one of visible unity.  As a Protestant you buy into the false understanding of the "universal church" being "invisible" and made up of all who "believe" and while it is certainly true that the Church is universal, and there is an invisible mystical union within Christ's Body and those who call upon the Name of the Lord are saved, you reject that which was a fundamental self-understanding of the Church.

This is why the Orthodox Church can rightfully claim to be the undivided Body of Christ, and why the Presbyterians cannot.  Only one Church has maintained the Apostolic faith in visible unity.  

Yes, Protestants believe in invisible unity, in spite of any outer disunity, because that is precisely what Paul stated would be:

 10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
 11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
 12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
 14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
 (1Co 3:10-15 NKJ)

 5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord. (1Co 12:5 NKJ)

What am I missing???  What are you reading into these verses that you feel supports your belief?

Paul is the church builder, but other church builders come after him.

He says the only foundation one can build upon, is Christ (= Nicene Trinitarianism: Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God)

Some build with apostolic doctrine (=gold), others with silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw (=traditions of men)

The fire of God's inspection will inspect every work, gold suffers no loss, straw total loss...

But those who built with straw will still be saved (because they have the foundation, Christ), but it will be as though a man fled a burning  house (as though he flees with only the clothes on his back, carrying no reward for the work he did as it was burned up).



1 Cor 12:5 is self explanatory.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 01:51:49 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)
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GO Archdiocese of America- Southeast US
Posts: 157


« Reply #179 on: November 04, 2010, 01:56:51 PM »

Since when was St. Paul a Protestant?  Huh Was he against his own Church?  Shocked



Alfred can't see the forest for the trees. It would be news to St. Paul that he was in fact writing to invisible Churches, or that the Churches established by the Apostles never really existed.

Much of 1 Timothy relates to the suitability of Bishops and Deacons. That St. Paul acknowledge, encouraged, wrote to and founded Churches is abundantly clear. Only via insincere readings of vague passages out of context could one conclude there wasn't "a Church". If Paul thought there was even a slight chance that someone could read it as Alfred is reading it, he would've been clearer.

Why would Paul found Churches, write to Churches and provide guidance on Bishops if the Church was merely an invisible concept?

Why not just read scripture harmoniously, rather than fight tooth and nail to ignore the fundamental nature of the Boof of Acts and the Epistles? There is a heavenly, mystical and spiritual body but there is also a physical institution in place to carry out the Great Commission and answer the call given at Pentecost? Just read it harmoniously rather than twist yourself into pretzels to ignore half of it.

Logged
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 0.25 seconds with 73 queries.