OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 06:17:26 AM *
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 14646 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #180 on: November 04, 2010, 02:13:52 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



1 Cor 12:5 is self explanatory.

Yes, it's clear that everyone has gifts. The Church believes this.

I always shake my head at those who profess that Scripture is the "inspired, inerrant Word of God" yet feel obliged to conclude that Paul (or God, via Paul, or whatever) didn't mean what he said, but something else, presumably with the hope that someone like Alfred would come along and divine what he REALLY meant. Sounds like gnosticism to me.

Here Paul says everyone has gifts- you interpret that to mean that there will be disunity and an invisible church. Paul can be very clear and unequivocal when he wants to be. He would've said "just fyi, the church is spritual and invisible", but he didn't.

Just like Christ says "This IS my body, this IS my blood". Many protestants espouse a literal interpretation of scripture, yet they don't believe that the communion elements are Christ's body and blood.

Of course, literally speaking, that's what Christ said, but since Catholics believe in it you have to do the opposite and believe it's only symbolic and twist yourself in knots to explain away Christ's literal words, all while claiming to have cornered the market on "Bible believin' Christianity".

It is astounding.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 02:15:56 PM by android » Logged
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #181 on: November 04, 2010, 02:31:51 PM »

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

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

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

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Cor. 12: 12-13, 20, 24b-25
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many ... As it is, there are many parts, but one body ... But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other ...

Luke 11:17
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

There's no way we can say the different denominations are what is meant by the "different parts" of the body (let alone the "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw" and "ministries" in the quoted verses).  NO way. The beliefs and practices are too widely divergent (some opposing each other) and were born out of a separatist/individualist spirit. It would be like trying to do an organ donation or limb transplant from one body to another where the blood types don't match.  The organ/limb would be rejected by the living body.  Denominations do not have the matching blood type of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (God could change their "blood type" should they WANT to join the body of course).  

The Body of Christ is ONE.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 02:34:58 PM by Thankful » Logged

Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #182 on: November 04, 2010, 02:40:17 PM »

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

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

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

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

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


Thank you for this; a wonderful description. 
Logged

Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #183 on: November 04, 2010, 03:16:56 PM »

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

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

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

Behold ladies & gentlemen!  For you will not find a better example of what Sola Scriptura really is.  An individual can read a passage of scripture, insert his own understanding upon the text, believe he was led by God to the right conclusion, and condemn anyone who does not agree.

You can see why Protestantism has shattered.  It's truly every man for himself.

Funny too that the Scriptures elsewhere call the Church the foundation of truth.
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 #184 on: November 04, 2010, 08:14:09 PM »

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

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

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

Behold ladies & gentlemen!  For you will not find a better example of what Sola Scriptura really is.  An individual can read a passage of scripture, insert his own understanding upon the text, believe he was led by God to the right conclusion, and condemn anyone who does not agree.

You can see why Protestantism has shattered.  It's truly every man for himself.

Funny too that the Scriptures elsewhere call the Church the foundation of truth.

Incorrect. Paul is very clear in context, which is most of the NT was written to correct errors of the church.

Unlike you folks, Paul doesn't believe the church is infallible, he is called to address its heresies constantly,  and that's why much of the NT exists today, its correcting wrongs.

So when Paul writes others come behind him, building on the foundation of Christ, that is precisely what he means.

Your "it can't mean that" blah blah, is not a refutation of my simple exegesis...

If called upon, I can refer to the grammar and syntax...but the meaning of Paul, is so self evident, even a child can understand his words.

Therefore I thought it unnecessary.

If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.
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 #185 on: November 04, 2010, 08:39:40 PM »

He still hasn't proven his premise that sola scriptura was a Church practice in the first place.

Look for this thread to have a change of subject pretty soon. I lost count of how many there were in the last one.
Logged

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

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,194


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #186 on: November 04, 2010, 08:44:26 PM »



If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.

No, you will contradict it by quoting scripture out of context like you always do, then when we prove you wrong enough times you will start yet another thread with some new title that deals with the same issues and hope that we don't catch on to your petty little games.

BTW I brought up your jumping the gun on the allotted time for a reason, but since I have been busy training I have not had ample time to bring it up.

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


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

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

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

You clearly stated that you would explain the parable after 0001 PST. But you did not, you became impatient. If you become impatient like this how do we know that you are not impatient when making decisions in life? How do we know that you are not impatient when trying to interpret scripture?

You have failed this time around because you also said
Quote
If I don't deliver, you are right.

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

Its for your benefit, not mine.

You have not delivered to our satisfaction, you have not made it clear to us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. And yes, you do have to deliver and prove to our satisfaction, not yours. You are trying to convince us not yourself (though sometimes I do think you are trying to convince yourself as well). The burden of proof rests on you since you came here making claims against our Church. You have not done a very good job at all of convincing any of us that we should turn away from our faith (and in some cases turn back). This isn't pigheadedness on our parts, many people have told you how they were Protestant of one denomination or the other and your only retort is that they must not have really been that denomination for they do not think alike, or only attended a few time. You apply your own attributions to us (i.e. attending a few times, not thinking like the denomination you are a part of) and hope that we don't see the ruse.

I will tell you this; I was a Southern Baptist. I believed that Scripture could be interpreted by anybody using their own methods. I was even an ordained minister before I converted. But the biggest thing that turned me away from the Protestants was Sola Scriptura because every denomination had its own interpretation and no interpretation was the same as the other even in sub-groups (like free-will baptist, southern baptist, independent baptist etc). Even if they did agree 80% of the time why then did they not agree 100% of the time? Surely the Church was not always divided as such! It was when I was in Iraq and I started to study the Bible on my free time that I realized that the Church had been one unified body. Christ said that the Church would stand and being divided how could it stand? I did a lot of research and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the one, unified Church still standing after all of these years. It was no easy task deciding to convert either, I didn't want to give up the faith that I learned from my parents. But I swallowed my pride and I set myself on the path I could feel the Holy Spirit dragging me to; I had a lot of arguments as to why the Orthodox Church was wrong, and one by one they were shot down.

Many people have a story just like mine, we all started out at the same place and ended in the same place. We did our research, we swallowed our pride, but most importantly we submitted ourselves to the Holy Spirit. This is why you MUST convince us to our satisfaction, we left what you proclaim so loudly  - we were there once and we became convinced that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Your shoddy arguments do not stand against almost two thousand years of Tradition. You claim to know better than the fathers who built the religion you claim, even those who were disciples of the Apostles and sometimes even the Apostles themselves.

The burden of proof rests on you, Alfred, and so far you have failed in your every endeavor on this board.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #187 on: November 04, 2010, 10:09:39 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So...

Who has the authority to interpret scripture and teach doctrine?

How do they receive that authority?

How do you know your personal interpretation is correct?

How has the Holy Spirit guided the Church throughout the centuries?
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
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 #188 on: November 04, 2010, 10:31:23 PM »

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

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

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

Ephesians 4:4-6
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Cor. 12: 12-13, 20, 24b-25
Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit so as to form one body—whether Jews or Gentiles, slave or free—and we were all given the one Spirit to drink. Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many ... As it is, there are many parts, but one body ... But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other ...

Luke 11:17
But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.

There's no way we can say the different denominations are what is meant by the "different parts" of the body (let alone the "gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw" and "ministries" in the quoted verses).  NO way. The beliefs and practices are too widely divergent (some opposing each other) and were born out of a separatist/individualist spirit. It would be like trying to do an organ donation or limb transplant from one body to another where the blood types don't match.  The organ/limb would be rejected by the living body.  Denominations do not have the matching blood type of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church (God could change their "blood type" should they WANT to join the body of course).  

The Body of Christ is ONE.

Eph 4:4 & 1 Cor 12:12-13,20,24b-25 "one body" does not contradict the concept this one body subsists in many different denominations.

Nor does Luke 11:17 contradict this  for Christendom isn't a Kingdom divided, they have only One King Jesus Christ:
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Paul calls himself the master builder, and says "another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it."

THAT is the context you  ignore, everything said is relevant to that opening, Paul is discussing buildings on the one foundation of Christ:

12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
 13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.

In this context, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw are different materials one builds upon Christ, and then the judgment. Gold withstands fire, nothing is lost. The rest descend from it in order of resilience to fire, the fire of God judgment.

13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
 15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Any inside these buildings during God's fiery judgment suffer loss in proportion to the loss of building material, therefore "if anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss.


BUT as the foundation of Christ always saves, even when the entire building is lost, the person "himself will be saved, yet as though fire" i.e., as though fleeing  a burning house, which implies, there was no reward for building with straw.


So Paul is describing what he sees as inevitable. There must be heresies, divisions, sectarianism, denominations. But if these are built upon Christ, those in these structures are saved, because they were built upon the Rock of Christ.

So this text should be cited as the reason why ecumenical cooperation to some degree is scriptural...but because of the apostasy in all denominations, ecumenicalism seems to aid the "great falling away" rather than evangelism for Christ:

Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, (2Th 2:3 NKJ)

But one cannot deny the express teaching of Scripture, Paul saw the advent of denominations as inevitable, his only caution against the tide of error and schism, there is ONLY ONE FOUNDATION that can be laid, for any denomination to still be in the one body of Christ, and that is Jesus Christ.




« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 10:36:36 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)
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 #189 on: November 04, 2010, 10:43:56 PM »



If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.

No, you will contradict it by quoting scripture out of context like you always do, then when we prove you wrong enough times you will start yet another thread with some new title that deals with the same issues and hope that we don't catch on to your petty little games.

BTW I brought up your jumping the gun on the allotted time for a reason, but since I have been busy training I have not had ample time to bring it up.

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


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

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

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

You clearly stated that you would explain the parable after 0001 PST. But you did not, you became impatient. If you become impatient like this how do we know that you are not impatient when making decisions in life? How do we know that you are not impatient when trying to interpret scripture?

You have failed this time around because you also said
Quote
If I don't deliver, you are right.

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

Its for your benefit, not mine.

You have not delivered to our satisfaction, you have not made it clear to us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. And yes, you do have to deliver and prove to our satisfaction, not yours. You are trying to convince us not yourself (though sometimes I do think you are trying to convince yourself as well). The burden of proof rests on you since you came here making claims against our Church. You have not done a very good job at all of convincing any of us that we should turn away from our faith (and in some cases turn back). This isn't pigheadedness on our parts, many people have told you how they were Protestant of one denomination or the other and your only retort is that they must not have really been that denomination for they do not think alike, or only attended a few time. You apply your own attributions to us (i.e. attending a few times, not thinking like the denomination you are a part of) and hope that we don't see the ruse.

I will tell you this; I was a Southern Baptist. I believed that Scripture could be interpreted by anybody using their own methods. I was even an ordained minister before I converted. But the biggest thing that turned me away from the Protestants was Sola Scriptura because every denomination had its own interpretation and no interpretation was the same as the other even in sub-groups (like free-will baptist, southern baptist, independent baptist etc). Even if they did agree 80% of the time why then did they not agree 100% of the time? Surely the Church was not always divided as such! It was when I was in Iraq and I started to study the Bible on my free time that I realized that the Church had been one unified body. Christ said that the Church would stand and being divided how could it stand? I did a lot of research and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the one, unified Church still standing after all of these years. It was no easy task deciding to convert either, I didn't want to give up the faith that I learned from my parents. But I swallowed my pride and I set myself on the path I could feel the Holy Spirit dragging me to; I had a lot of arguments as to why the Orthodox Church was wrong, and one by one they were shot down.

Many people have a story just like mine, we all started out at the same place and ended in the same place. We did our research, we swallowed our pride, but most importantly we submitted ourselves to the Holy Spirit. This is why you MUST convince us to our satisfaction, we left what you proclaim so loudly  - we were there once and we became convinced that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Your shoddy arguments do not stand against almost two thousand years of Tradition. You claim to know better than the fathers who built the religion you claim, even those who were disciples of the Apostles and sometimes even the Apostles themselves.

The burden of proof rests on you, Alfred, and so far you have failed in your every endeavor on this board.

The smoke always gags. Fitting.

I didn't jump the gun, I was tired and posting a little early didn't prevent you from doing better than me, which you have yet to accomplish.

Of course you don't want that fact noted about your tradition, how useless it is to understand these mysteries of God.

Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you. You are not judge, its not up to you if I succeeded or not. I know I did, and those that agree won't be admitting that here, they are, as we speak, studying these things in amazement. I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.



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 #190 on: November 04, 2010, 11:03:58 PM »

Quote from: Alfred Persson
Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you.

 Shocked

Contrast this with the humility of St. John the Forerunner:

Quote
25 Then there arose a dispute between some of John’s disciples and the Jews about purification. 26 And they came to John and said to him, “Rabbi, He who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you have testified—behold, He is baptizing, and all are coming to Him!”

27 John answered and said, “A man can receive nothing unless it has been given to him from heaven. 28 You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, ‘I am not the Christ,’ but, ‘I have been sent before Him.’ 29 He who has the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who stands and hears him, rejoices greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice. Therefore this joy of mine is fulfilled. 30 He must increase, but I must decrease. 31 He who comes from above is above all; he who is of the earth is earthly and speaks of the earth. He who comes from heaven is above all. 32 And what He has seen and heard, that He testifies; and no one receives His testimony. 33 He who has received His testimony has certified that God is true. 34 For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God does not give the Spirit by measure. 35 The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. 36 He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.”
        (bold added)

Do you think Perssonism will ever produce something like that?

Quote from: Alfred Persson
I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.

Are you sure you want to go down this road?

Quote
1 John 3:15
20 If someone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can[c] he love God whom he has not seen? 21 And this commandment we have from Him: that he who loves God must love his brother also.

Quote
Mt. 5:22

But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire.

« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 11:04:41 PM by biro » 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 #191 on: November 05, 2010, 01:17:56 AM »

Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you. You are not judge, its not up to you if I succeeded or not. I know I did, and those that agree won't be admitting that here, they are, as we speak, studying these things in amazement. I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.

On the contrary, no one will be assenting to what you say because many, if not most of the posters here have actually converted from and rejected your position.  We refused to set ourselves up as the standard and the sole authority of faith and practice and that is inescapably what Sola Scriptura demands.  It is every man for himself and we found that to be a place of despair and confusion.  I thank God daily that He brought me to His Body the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.  It has been nothing but joy and freedom.
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 #192 on: November 05, 2010, 07:04:20 AM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"They may."  Nice one.

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

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

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

Hardly.

An analogy:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

***

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


***

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

See above.


Yes, see above.

***

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

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



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

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

***

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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

But that will change:

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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

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



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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Compare:

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

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

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

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


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




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

"They may."  Nice one.



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

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

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



***

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

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



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


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

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

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

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

***

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

Hardly.



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

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


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


Otherwise my point stands.

***

11)An analogy:

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

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



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

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


If you study these things carefully, I think you will agree what is said above is consistent with explicit and implicit teaching of scripture, and not an invention of mine. If any part of it doesn't conform to the Bible, it is wrong. Be certain it doesn't conform, before you reject it.


More on #7 above:

"`by the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.' (Mat 18:16 NKJ)

God forbids the devils say "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" (Jo 4:2-3), neither will He allow they confess "Jesus is LORD".

 1 Now concerning spiritual gifts, brethren, I do not want you to be ignorant:
 2 You know that you were Gentiles, carried away to these dumb idols, however you were led.
 3 Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God calls Jesus accursed, and no one can say that Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.
 (1Co 12:1-3 NKJ)

"Don't be fooled by that demonic 'leading' that once carried you away into idolatry," Paul warns the Corinthians. Then he provides the objective means observers have to indentify the spirit speaking through the prophet: No one prophesying by God the Holy Spirit says "Jesus is accursed" and one prophesying by a devil can say "Jesus is LORD." This inability applies only while they speak under direct control of a spirit, not other times. A man while uncontrolled by a spirit can say anything he wants.

Just as we can trace the prohibition against the devils saying "Jesus Christ has come in the flesh" to Phil 2:6-12 where the Incarnation vindicates the Father by the Son's display of true love for Him, so also their  not being able to say "Jesus is LORD" likely points to this event, for it is here the Name of Jesus is exalted above every other name, everyone in heaven and earth must now openly confess "Jesus is LORD" (YHWH, cp Is 45:23-25).

So there are two "witnesses" as it were, this word is true.

Compare:

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

Evidently Lucifer coveted this title:

 12 "How you are fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How you are cut down to the ground, You who weakened the nations!
 13 For you have said in your heart:`I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God; I will also sit on the mount of the congregation On the farthest sides of the north;
 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds, I will be like the Most High.'
 15 Yet you shall be brought down to Sheol, To the lowest depths of the Pit.
 (Isa 14:12-15 NKJ)

When Satan lost the argument forever, he also lost all hope of getting this title forever.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 07:15:17 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)
android
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #193 on: November 05, 2010, 09:47:15 AM »

Alfred, you have not responded to my posts.

And your comparison of yourself to Christ and we to His accusers summarizes perfectly your overall mentality and approach to Scripture. You have a pet doctrine and own point of view, and you interpret Scripture in light of that point of view, even if it means taking extreme liberties with the text. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that you do this (and are just having a laugh at getting everyone going) or if you are sincere and just clueless as to your devotion to Perssonism, but I am really shaking my head that you actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say they do.

It is out of pride that people substitute their own understanding for that of Christ's Church. The same pride that tempted Adam to eat the apple and know all things. If you believe yourself to be fallen and a sinner, how can you trust your own intellect, esp. when your conclusions lead to significant contradictions with other parts of Scripture?

At the risk of being more critical, I will stop now.

Prayers for you.
Logged
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #194 on: November 05, 2010, 12:16:47 PM »

Alfred,

I believe that it ultimately comes down to this. Your traditional beliefs have been challenged, and you feel threatened by the claims put forth by the Orthodox Church. The Church has presented you with the most compelling case for authentic, apostolic Christianity that you have encountered so far (other than your own particular brand of Christianity, perhaps) otherwise you wouldn't be on here arguing with us; instead you'd be on another site, perhaps a Roman Catholic, or an Anglican one.

Your avatar also eludes to this. You claim that you are a protestant, yet do not believe in the filioque. Well, that's interesting! What brought you to this conclusion? Was this your own personal divine revelation that told you this? Were you convinced by reading scripture that this is the case? Perhaps you will rely on the former two arguments when defending this belief to us, but you know deep down what gives merit to your belief is that the early Church just so happens to agree with you, and that this was the traditional view held for the first 6 centuries of Christianity, and still maintained by the Orthodox Church. The same is for the biblical canon. You may say that you came to the independant conclusion that the only inspired books of the NT are the 27 that we currently have, yet you know what grants any legitimacy to your opinion is the fact that the early Church also shared your views and canonized them as such.

These facts irritate you, and you know that relying on your own interpretation will ultimately fail you. You are looking for an authentic expression of Christianity, and much of what the Orthodox teach makes sense, but for some reason you are yet too headstrong to embrace it in totality. You are frustrated with the modern protestant churches, as shown by your lackluster and inconsistent attendance to services. You are searching for something more, something deeper. You, as I did, must ardently defend what you have been taught in the face of opposition, not because you really want to, but because you want to test the Church's claims to authenticity. I do believe that if you continue down your path of inquiry with an open and critical mind, you will eventually find the way, as many skeptical protestants have done so before you, and embrace the fullness of faith. Ultimately though, it will be your heart that makes this decision for you, not your head.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 12:20:57 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #195 on: November 05, 2010, 12:49:54 PM »

Alfred, you have not responded to my posts.

And your comparison of yourself to Christ and we to His accusers summarizes perfectly your overall mentality and approach to Scripture. You have a pet doctrine and own point of view, and you interpret Scripture in light of that point of view, even if it means taking extreme liberties with the text. I don't know if you are aware of the fact that you do this (and are just having a laugh at getting everyone going) or if you are sincere and just clueless as to your devotion to Perssonism, but I am really shaking my head that you actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say they do.

It is out of pride that people substitute their own understanding for that of Christ's Church. The same pride that tempted Adam to eat the apple and know all things. If you believe yourself to be fallen and a sinner, how can you trust your own intellect, esp. when your conclusions lead to significant contradictions with other parts of Scripture?

At the risk of being more critical, I will stop now.

Prayers for you.

You need to be praying for yourself, not me. I'm in Christ and loving it.



Alfred, you have not responded to my posts.

Respond to ad hominem when among unfriendly people? That is a waste of time. However some may not know what ad hominem is...here are a few examples:


"And your comparison of yourself to Christ...
your overall mentality and approach to Scripture...

You have a pet doctrine and own point of view....

and you interpret Scripture in light of that point of view...
even if it means taking extreme liberties with the text...

I don't know if you are aware of the fact...

are just having a laugh at getting everyone going...

or if you are sincere and just clueless...

your devotion to Perssonism...

you actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say...



Your last ad hominem is less direct:

It is out of pride that people substitute their own understanding for that of Christ's Church. The same pride that tempted Adam to eat the apple and know all things. If you believe yourself to be fallen and a sinner, how can you trust your own intellect, esp. when your conclusions lead to significant contradictions with other parts of Scripture?


Your second to last statement has the germ of an argument within it, the gist of it is: "how can fallen man interpret God's Word the Bible, his intellect is darkened and unable to see the light."

Scripture came into existence before the Orthodox church, Christ quotes it for doctrine, for support of His teaching. Therefore Christ fully expected His audience CAN interpret God's Word the Bible, and confirm for themselves it agrees with His teaching.

Therefore your theory about fallen intellect fails the test of scripture.

The following from "Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period":

I.   Quotations occurring in the "Triple Tradition" or in Mark and one other Synoptic Gospel:

A.   With introductory formulae:
1.   Mark 7:6-7; Matt 15:8-9 (Isa 29:13).
2.   Mark 7:10; Matt 15:4 (Exod 20:12; 21:17 [LXX = 21:16]; Deut 5:16).
3.   Mark 11:17; Matt 21:13; Luke 19:46 (Isa 56:7; Jer 7:11).
4.   Mark 12:10-11; Matt 21:42; Luke 20:17 (Ps 118:22-23 [LXX = 117:22-23]).
5.   Mark 12:26; Matt 22:32; Luke 20:37 (Exod 3:6).
6.   Mark 12:36; Matt 22:44; Luke 20:42-43 (Ps 110:1 [LXX = 109:1]).
7.   Mark 13:14; Matt 24:15 (Dan 9:27; 11:31; 12:11).
8.   Mark 14:27; Matt 26:31 (Zech 13:7).

B.   Without introductory formulae:
9.   Mark 10:7-8; Matt 19:5 (Gen 2:24).
10.   Mark 10:19; Matt 19:18-19a; Luke 18:20 (Exod 20:12-16; Deut 5:16-20).
11.   Mark 12:29-30; Matt 22:37; Luke 10:27 (Deut 6:4-5).
12.   Mark 12:31; Matt 22:39; Luke 10:27 (Lev 19:18).
13.   Mark 15:34; Matt 27:46 (Ps 22:1 [MT = 22:2; LXX = 21:2]).

II.   Quotations occurring in the "Double Tradition" (i.e., in Matthew and Luke, but not Mark):

A.   With introductory formulae:
14.   Matt 4:4; Luke 4:4 (Deut 8:3).
15.   Matt 4:7; Luke 4:12 (Deut 6:16).
16.   Matt 4:10; Luke 4:8 (Deut 6:13).
17.   Matt 11:10; Luke 7:27 (Mal 3:1).
B.   Without introductory formulae:
18.   Matt 23:39; Luke 13:35 (Ps 118:26 [LXX = 117:26]).

III.   Quotations occurring in Matthew alone:

A.   With introductory formulae:
19.   Matt 5:21 (Exod 20:13; Deut 5:17).19
20.   Matt 5:27 (Exod 20:14; Deut 5:18).
21.   Matt 5:31 (Deut 24:1).
22.   Matt 5:33 (Ps 50:14 [LXX = 49:14]).
23.   Matt 5:38 (Exod 21:24; Lev 24:20; Deut 19:21).
24.   Matt 5:43 (Lev 19:18).
25.   Matt 13:14-15 (Isa 6:9-10).
26.   Matt 21:16 (Ps 8:2 [MT and LXX = 8:3]).
B.   Without introductory formulae:
27.   Matt 9:13 (Hos 6:6).
28.   Matt 12:7 (Hos 6:6).
29.   Matt 18:16 (Deut 19:15).
30.   Matt 19:19b (Lev 19:18).

IV.   Quotations occurring in Luke alone:
A.   With introductory formulae:
31.   Luke 4:18-19 (Isa 61:1-2).
32.   Luke 22:37 (Isa 53:12).
B.   Without introductory formulae:
33.   Luke 23:30 (Hos 10:8).
34.   Luke 23:46 (Ps 31:5 [MT = 31:6; LXX = 30:6]).

V.   Quotations occurring in John alone, with introductory formulae:
35.   John 6:45 (Isa 54:13; Jer 31:33).
36.   John 7:38 (Isa 12:3; 43:19-20; 44:3; 58:11).
37.   John 10:34 (Ps 82:6 [LXX = 81:6]).
38.   John 13:18 (Ps 41:9 [MT = 41:10; LXX = 40:10]).
39.   John 15:25 (Ps 35:19 [LXX = 34:19]; 69:4 [MT = 69:5; LXX = 68:5]).


Second Edition-William B Eerdmans Pub Co., Grand Rapids, Mi, 1975, pp 42-43


If the apostles subscribed to your theory, this would not exist in scripture, for then it were impossible this unregenerate fallen audience be able to determine whether the things the apostles preached, "were so":

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so. (Act 17:11 NKJ)



If your theory man cannot understand scripture without the church were true, the Paul should have wrote the following in 2 Tim 3:15-17

15 And that from a child thou hast NOT known the holy scriptures, which are NOT able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is NOT profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
 17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works BY THE CHURCH.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 01:20:21 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 #196 on: November 05, 2010, 01:32:14 PM »

Alfred,

I believe that it ultimately comes down to this. Your traditional beliefs have been challenged, and you feel threatened by the claims put forth by the Orthodox Church. The Church has presented you with the most compelling case for authentic, apostolic Christianity that you have encountered so far (other than your own particular brand of Christianity, perhaps) otherwise you wouldn't be on here arguing with us; instead you'd be on another site, perhaps a Roman Catholic, or an Anglican one.

Your avatar also eludes to this. You claim that you are a protestant, yet do not believe in the filioque. Well, that's interesting! What brought you to this conclusion? Was this your own personal divine revelation that told you this? Were you convinced by reading scripture that this is the case? Perhaps you will rely on the former two arguments when defending this belief to us, but you know deep down what gives merit to your belief is that the early Church just so happens to agree with you, and that this was the traditional view held for the first 6 centuries of Christianity, and still maintained by the Orthodox Church. The same is for the biblical canon. You may say that you came to the independant conclusion that the only inspired books of the NT are the 27 that we currently have, yet you know what grants any legitimacy to your opinion is the fact that the early Church also shared your views and canonized them as such.

These facts irritate you, and you know that relying on your own interpretation will ultimately fail you. You are looking for an authentic expression of Christianity, and much of what the Orthodox teach makes sense, but for some reason you are yet too headstrong to embrace it in totality. You are frustrated with the modern protestant churches, as shown by your lackluster and inconsistent attendance to services. You are searching for something more, something deeper. You, as I did, must ardently defend what you have been taught in the face of opposition, not because you really want to, but because you want to test the Church's claims to authenticity. I do believe that if you continue down your path of inquiry with an open and critical mind, you will eventually find the way, as many skeptical protestants have done so before you, and embrace the fullness of faith. Ultimately though, it will be your heart that makes this decision for you, not your head.

Incorrect, I post here under my name, Alfred Persson, but elswhere as "LetsObeyChrist." I am known on the NET at other sites, as a Google search will show.

In is inconsistent with sola scriptura Protestants accept the filioque, its expressly stated in scripture the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Whenever a conclusion is contradicted by scripture, in this case that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son, its clear the premises were flawed. The Orthodox have ably demonstrated where it is logically flawed.

Its inconsistent you reject rational exegesis, proving the filioque incorrect requires precisely that for success.

I am here to support Scripture against any who claim to be its sole interpreters. We have one God the Father, and One infallible teaching authority, Jesus Christ the righteous:

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
 10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
 (Mat 23:9-10 KJV)

Now its time you turn your attention to refuting some of the arguments I raised, rather than deceiving yourself you know anything correct about me.





« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 01:33:22 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 #197 on: November 05, 2010, 01:34:04 PM »

So, basically, you'll take any legitimate challenge to your position as an ad hominem attack?

Read through your posts again Alfred.

"And your comparison of yourself to Christ...
your overall mentality and approach to Scripture...

You do have your own point of view which you believe to be correct....

And you do interpret Scripture in light of that point of view...

You do take extreme liberties with the text...

You clearly aren't aware of certain facts...

You are wholly devoted to yourself as the interpreter of Scripture...

You do actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say...

These are not ad hominem attacks, Alfred, they're simply accurate observations.  What else are we supposed to conclude?
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 #198 on: November 05, 2010, 01:45:44 PM »

So, basically, you'll take any legitimate challenge to your position as an ad hominem attack?

Read through your posts again Alfred.

"And your comparison of yourself to Christ...
your overall mentality and approach to Scripture...

You do have your own point of view which you believe to be correct....

And you do interpret Scripture in light of that point of view...

You do take extreme liberties with the text...

You clearly aren't aware of certain facts...

You are wholly devoted to yourself as the interpreter of Scripture...

You do actually believe the verses you cite support the propositions you say...

These are not ad hominem attacks, Alfred, they're simply accurate observations.  What else are we supposed to conclude?

The difference between unsound ad hominem, and statements of fact, is the lack of fact.

For example, the claim I take extreme liberties with the text, you must prove it with examples, otherwise your claim is mere ad hominem.

When before an unfriendly audience, it is a grave mistake to address ad hominem, a complete waste of time and is foolishly accepting the premise as worthy of a response.

Rather one counters with truth and provides facts proving the proposition is truth, hoping a few in the unfriendly audience will check it out, and agree.

That the mob will continue circling their prey, is irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent to the man of God.

The goal of the man of God, is to save some:

 19 For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more;
 20 and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law;
 21 to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law;
 22 to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.
 23 Now this I do for the gospel's sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.
 (1Co 9:19-23 NKJ)

 11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men (2Co 5:11 KJV)

As an expendable asset, I am at Christ's disposal, and Christ gave me fair warning what to expect:

 24 "A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his master.
 25 "It is enough for a disciple that he be like his teacher, and a servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more will they call those of his household!
 26 "Therefore do not fear them. For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known.
 27 "Whatever I tell you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear in the ear, preach on the housetops.
 28 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
 (Mat 10:24-28 NKJ)


Ad hominem is immaterial as:

"He must increase, but I must decrease.
 (Joh 3:30 NKJ)

« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 02:13:01 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)
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,795


« Reply #199 on: November 05, 2010, 02:00:43 PM »

Do you evangelize outside of OC net?
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
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 #200 on: November 05, 2010, 02:18:28 PM »

Do you evangelize outside of OC net?

Your failure to prove your tradition+scripture is better than sola scriptura as a methodology for truth, as the means for knowing the Christian faith, is more manifest with each irrelevant post you make.

If I were you, I'd be ashamed I'm not able to give a defense of my beliefs.

Clearly you don't believe obeying apostolic doctrine is a good thing to do:

Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you...(1Pe 3:15 NKJ)

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)
recent convert
Orthodox Chrisitan
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian (N.A.)
Posts: 1,795


« Reply #201 on: November 05, 2010, 02:30:03 PM »

Do you evangelize outside of OC net?

Your failure to prove your tradition+scripture is better than sola scriptura as a methodology for truth, as the means for knowing the Christian faith, is more manifest with each irrelevant post you make.

If I were you, I'd be ashamed I'm not able to give a defense of my beliefs.

Clearly you don't believe obeying apostolic doctrine is a good thing to do:

Always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you...(1Pe 3:15 NKJ)


Actually in this or another thread I have laid out our core doctrines which are all scriptural and you never answer the question. I have summoned you for weeks over it & I get no reply at all (like the Phil Collins song). So I will lay these out again, what do you find non scriptural about the theology of the Nicene Creed, the Lord's commands to love God & our neighbor, the golden rule, the 10 commandments, prayer, fasting, alms giving, the Beatitudes, confession, holy communion etc. Re: holy communion, I have seen your theology, reject it, & do not want to reiterate it and whatever you may say you cannot deny that we at least try to be scriptural in our understanding of it even though it apparently is inadequate to your theology. Lastly, you now have 2 of my questions that you need to answer since you just evaded my second question.
Logged

Antiochian OC N.A.
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #202 on: November 05, 2010, 02:33:41 PM »

We don't need a methodology for truth Alfred, because Orthodoxy has always had it.  We're not searching for it somewhere "out there" hoping our "method" is simply the best among many options.  The Undivided Church has always contained the Truth of the Faith and we have no need to question the means by which the Spirit guided us to that Truth.

And you haven't once asked us to give you a reason for the hope that is in us.  Thank you for providing me with the perfect example of how you take "extreme liberties" with the Scriptures.
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 #203 on: November 05, 2010, 03:51:28 PM »

We don't need a methodology for truth Alfred, because Orthodoxy has always had it.  We're not searching for it somewhere "out there" hoping our "method" is simply the best among many options.  The Undivided Church has always contained the Truth of the Faith and we have no need to question the means by which the Spirit guided us to that Truth.

And you haven't once asked us to give you a reason for the hope that is in us.  Thank you for providing me with the perfect example of how you take "extreme liberties" with the Scriptures.

This thread isn't a request, its a claim, which I prove with various arguments, and which you fail to disprove. If you want to discuss other things, a thread dedicated to that purpose might suit you better. I consider anything said not relevant to my claim, additional confirmation my claim is correct.

Sola Scriptura is clearly superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture.
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)
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #204 on: November 05, 2010, 04:11:42 PM »

I'm in Christ and loving it.

If this were true, Alfred, you wouldn't be attending church so infrequently. You would take the Body of Christ much more seriously than that.  No one can be "in Christ and loving it" and yet not be going to church.  There's something in you that's dissatisfied.  Like many of the others here, I also know what that's like.  If the Church is "the fullness of him who fills everything in every way," nothing would keep you away.  
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 04:12:34 PM by Thankful » Logged

genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,378



« Reply #205 on: November 05, 2010, 04:19:45 PM »


Sola Scriptura is clearly superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture.
Alfred, it really is unfortunate that you haven't yet understood that Scripture is not only part of but the central feature of Orthodox Tradition and is not a separate entity.

Sola Scriptura is the context (Tradition?) in which you understand the Scriptures. Orthodox Tradition is the context in which we Orthodox understand the Scriptures.

You really should be writing "Sola Scriptura + Scripture is clearly a superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture" if you want to compare apples to apples.

You may indeed continue to reject Orthodox teaching. That's OK with me. But I'm really trying to help you understand more clearly what it is you're rejecting. How can I do a better job with that? I'm willing to back up and try again to discuss, not argue. Please note that this forum is called Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion, not Orthodox-Other Christian Argument  Smiley.

Logged
dcommini
Tha mi sgulan na Trianaid
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 1,194


Beannachd Dia dhuit

dcommini
WWW
« Reply #206 on: November 05, 2010, 04:40:38 PM »



If you don't believe Paul said what he clearly says in the text, offer your own interpretation...I will certainly contradict it with Paul's clear statements.

No, you will contradict it by quoting scripture out of context like you always do, then when we prove you wrong enough times you will start yet another thread with some new title that deals with the same issues and hope that we don't catch on to your petty little games.

BTW I brought up your jumping the gun on the allotted time for a reason, but since I have been busy training I have not had ample time to bring it up.

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


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

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

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

You clearly stated that you would explain the parable after 0001 PST. But you did not, you became impatient. If you become impatient like this how do we know that you are not impatient when making decisions in life? How do we know that you are not impatient when trying to interpret scripture?

You have failed this time around because you also said
Quote
If I don't deliver, you are right.

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

Its for your benefit, not mine.

You have not delivered to our satisfaction, you have not made it clear to us that Sola Scriptura is the way to go. And yes, you do have to deliver and prove to our satisfaction, not yours. You are trying to convince us not yourself (though sometimes I do think you are trying to convince yourself as well). The burden of proof rests on you since you came here making claims against our Church. You have not done a very good job at all of convincing any of us that we should turn away from our faith (and in some cases turn back). This isn't pigheadedness on our parts, many people have told you how they were Protestant of one denomination or the other and your only retort is that they must not have really been that denomination for they do not think alike, or only attended a few time. You apply your own attributions to us (i.e. attending a few times, not thinking like the denomination you are a part of) and hope that we don't see the ruse.

I will tell you this; I was a Southern Baptist. I believed that Scripture could be interpreted by anybody using their own methods. I was even an ordained minister before I converted. But the biggest thing that turned me away from the Protestants was Sola Scriptura because every denomination had its own interpretation and no interpretation was the same as the other even in sub-groups (like free-will baptist, southern baptist, independent baptist etc). Even if they did agree 80% of the time why then did they not agree 100% of the time? Surely the Church was not always divided as such! It was when I was in Iraq and I started to study the Bible on my free time that I realized that the Church had been one unified body. Christ said that the Church would stand and being divided how could it stand? I did a lot of research and I came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the one, unified Church still standing after all of these years. It was no easy task deciding to convert either, I didn't want to give up the faith that I learned from my parents. But I swallowed my pride and I set myself on the path I could feel the Holy Spirit dragging me to; I had a lot of arguments as to why the Orthodox Church was wrong, and one by one they were shot down.

Many people have a story just like mine, we all started out at the same place and ended in the same place. We did our research, we swallowed our pride, but most importantly we submitted ourselves to the Holy Spirit. This is why you MUST convince us to our satisfaction, we left what you proclaim so loudly  - we were there once and we became convinced that Sola Scriptura was and is wrong. Your shoddy arguments do not stand against almost two thousand years of Tradition. You claim to know better than the fathers who built the religion you claim, even those who were disciples of the Apostles and sometimes even the Apostles themselves.

The burden of proof rests on you, Alfred, and so far you have failed in your every endeavor on this board.

The smoke always gags. Fitting.

I didn't jump the gun, I was tired and posting a little early didn't prevent you from doing better than me, which you have yet to accomplish.

Of course you don't want that fact noted about your tradition, how useless it is to understand these mysteries of God.

Just as Christ never satisfied His accusers, neither will I you. You are not judge, its not up to you if I succeeded or not. I know I did, and those that agree won't be admitting that here, they are, as we speak, studying these things in amazement. I don't expect they will ever assent to anything I say here, not because they do not, but because posters like you would turn on them like ravenous beasts.





You were tired, i.e. you jumped the gun. What other reason would you have for not keeping your word? I don't have to do better than you because I have 2,000 years of Church history and tradition to back me up. And I don't have to do better than you because you came to our house and made claims against us; I would have to do better than you if I came to your house and started accusing you. Stop comparing yourself to Christ, you do not carry His cross - you carry some imagined burden and we are only trying to help you remove that burden. You still have to satisfy us because you are accusing us. Instead you come in here with claims that our Church has already dealt with and any time anybody give you a good argument you ignore them. Lastly, if anybody here did switch to your beliefs I would not attack them like a ravenous beast, it is their decision to follow you and I respect that decision because at least they made a decision instead of wallowing around in un-decision as you appear to do every time you ignore a valid argument.
Logged

Gun cuireadh do chupa thairis le slàinte agus sona - May your cup overflow with health and happiness
Check out my blog...
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #207 on: November 05, 2010, 04:49:04 PM »

This thread isn't a request, its a claim, which I prove with various arguments, and which you fail to disprove.

I'm honestly not quite sure what you're saying here.  You said we were rejecting Apostolic teaching because as Christians we should be prepared to give an account for the hope that is in us.  You somehow equated that with answering your "challenges" and I was simply pointing out that you did not ask us to do what the verse asks us to do.  You did not ask us for the hope that is in us, so your weird prooftext there was totally irrelevant and yet gave a wonderful example of how easily and frequently you twist the scriptures for your own purposes.

Quote
If you want to discuss other things, a thread dedicated to that purpose might suit you better.

What "other things"?  I'm only addressing what you've said Alfred.

Quote
I consider anything said not relevant to my claim, additional confirmation my claim is correct.

And how this in any way makes sense to you completely baffles me.
Logged
Sleeper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,216

On hiatus for the foreseeable future.


« Reply #208 on: November 05, 2010, 04:50:47 PM »

Alfred, when will you address the serious challenges to your claim?  I've seen you ignore some outstanding posts.
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 #209 on: November 05, 2010, 06:21:32 PM »


Sola Scriptura is clearly superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture.
Alfred, it really is unfortunate that you haven't yet understood that Scripture is not only part of but the central feature of Orthodox Tradition and is not a separate entity.

Sola Scriptura is the context (Tradition?) in which you understand the Scriptures. Orthodox Tradition is the context in which we Orthodox understand the Scriptures.

You really should be writing "Sola Scriptura + Scripture is clearly a superior methodology for knowing truth over Orthodox Tradition + Scripture" if you want to compare apples to apples.

You may indeed continue to reject Orthodox teaching. That's OK with me. But I'm really trying to help you understand more clearly what it is you're rejecting. How can I do a better job with that? I'm willing to back up and try again to discuss, not argue. Please note that this forum is called Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion, not Orthodox-Other Christian Argument  Smiley.



I reject church tradition is equal to scripture:

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only? (1Co 14:36 KJV)

So I argue on this thread.

You folks allow arguments like this because you believe they are incorrect and can prove it.

Otherwise you should ban me as Catholic Answers did, lest folks begin obeying God's Word the Bible against your traditions.

Its always your choice, not mine. You either shine your light where all can see, or you hide it under a basket so only the indoctrinated can see it, and presumably accept it is light without question.

I've been very up front, I evangelize for Christ, I PROSELYTIZE, I believe any who don't are daft.

That's why I defend His Word the Bible against everything that diminishes it.

Church Tradition on the same level as scripture diminishes scripture, robs it of its unique position of Authority over God's people.

I consider mixing tradition and scripture together to be sinful, adding to His word in direct rebellion to His command we not do that:

2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.
 3 Your eyes have seen what the LORD did because of Baalpeor: for all the men that followed Baalpeor, the LORD thy God hath destroyed them from among you.
 4 But ye that did cleave unto the LORD your God are alive every one of you this day.
 5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
 6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
 (Deu 4:2-6 KJV)


You folks can always ban me, as Catholic Answers did. Or you can argue in defense of your tradition.

If I were Orthodox, and met someone I couldn't answer, I would do two things first: 1)learn how to argue critically, there are lots of books on critical thinking at Amazon.com; 2)Search the internet for accomplished Orthodox apologists who might consider spending some of their time answering this thread's arguments;

AND after I had done that, if I then saw it proven Tradition is NOT equal to Scripture, then its time to obey the Scripture, the words God said, and stop making God's word of no effect, for the sake of human tradition, and not care about the social cost, because it is written:

 26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?
 27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
 (Mat 16:26-27 KJV)
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 06:32:18 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)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #210 on: November 05, 2010, 06:32:11 PM »

You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further, Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 06:32:40 PM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Alfred Persson
Jesus is LORD, God the Eternal Son
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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


Primitive Orthodox


« Reply #211 on: November 05, 2010, 06:32:59 PM »

You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

To say its "the most important" allows its still just a "part of."

God is not part of man.

His words are not part of man's words.

His word is not the most important words men speak.

God's word has supreme authority because He is the Supreme Being, and not man.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 06:35:23 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #212 on: November 05, 2010, 06:43:58 PM »

You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.
Logged

Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #213 on: November 05, 2010, 06:55:56 PM »


God's word has supreme authority because He is the Supreme Being, and not man.

Sounds like you're making the Bible into an idol.
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,378



« Reply #214 on: November 05, 2010, 07:08:52 PM »


Sola Scriptura is the context (Tradition?) in which you understand the Scriptures. Orthodox Tradition is the context in which we Orthodox understand the Scriptures.

I consider mixing tradition and scripture together to be sinful, adding to His word in direct rebellion to His command we not do that:

[sigh]Missing my point again.[/sigh]
And yet you seem to have no qualms about mixing your tradition with Scripture. You don't seem to understand that Sola Scriptura is a tradition.
Logged
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,378



« Reply #215 on: November 05, 2010, 07:19:03 PM »


God's word has supreme authority because He is the Supreme Being, and not man.
Do I understand you to say, "The Bible (God's word) has supreme authority because He (God) is the Supreme Being, and not man"?

If that's the case, how do you explain Matthew 28:18 (NKJV): And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth..."

So where is the "supreme authority" - in Jesus Christ or in the Holy Scriptures?

I will be the first to agree that the two will never contradict each other. I will agree that the Holy Scriptures testify to the Person of Jesus Christ. But don't equate the two - that would be bibliolatry.
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 #216 on: November 05, 2010, 07:36:45 PM »

You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.


Analogy fail, your heart is part of your body. Most important? Perhaps, but still just a part of your body.

Your father is still human, like you. While his words may be the most important, they are still  human words and have authority only within his family.

The Letter "t" is still just another letter in the alphabet.

The roots of a tree are certainly a part of the tree, what authority said they aren't?

I got the point, your analogies prove me right, you wrong.

God came first, therefore His Word is NOT a part of human tradition, UNLESS you agree with those who say Man created God in his image.

Paul was very clear, God's Word came to the church, it does not arise from the church:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
 (1Co 14:36-37 NKJ)

Contrary to some prophets in the church, Paul says the Word of God came to them from him, they are not speaking the "word of God."

THAT is every damaging to your position church tradition = word of God, because Paul rejects the prophecy, tongues, (supernaturally given) knowledge of the Corinthians, is the Word of God.

If words inspired by the Spirit in Corinth are NOT the "word of God" then neither can any words arising from the Orthodox church.


In the church we both agree is 100% Christian, God's word goes to it, not comes out from it.


So if you believe Orthodox churches generate the "word of God" then you are saying it is dissimilar to the church at Corinth...


As the church at Corinth was Christian, what does that make any church that is dissimilar?


How can it be words the Holy Spirit inspired in Corinthian prophecy, tongues and knowledge ARE NOT " the words of God"----while those the Holy Spirit speaks through Paul are...simple...God is writing scripture through Paul, and therefore renders it inerrant, that is not the case with the Corinthians.

A thorough study of these gifts reveals the prophecy, inspired psalms etc, were essentially "inspired expository preaching" many do today...a "prophet" could be "wrong" without being labeled a "false prophet", because he  is NOT speaking by the Spirit, his prophecy etc is teaching, and therefore can be wrong:

 29 Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others judge.
 30 But if anything is revealed to another who sits by, let the first keep silent.
 31 For you can all prophesy one by one, that all may learn and all may be encouraged.
 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
 (1Co 14:29-32 NKJ)

That is like an inspired "bible study" where folks are revealing insights into the scripture they believe the Holy Spirit has given them.

God does not overrule free will, when Corinthians "get it wrong" He does not stop then from embarrassing themselves...I am certain He tried to keep them from making mistakes, but they sometimes do...hence, the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets, i.e., especially those scripturally knowledgeable.

"Spirits of the prophets" is ambiguous, it can refer to actual spirits inspiring the prophecy, or the spirits of the prophets, their "new creature" souls which have partaken of divine nature, and are now "spirits of just men" (cp Heb. 12:23).

The latter is true, otherwise any false prophesy would be immediately condemned and the spiritist thrown out of the congregation, for then he is inspired by a spirit of error, a antichrist spirit, one that assumes the guise of Christ, to oppose Christ:

NKJ  1 John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
 2 By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God,
 3 and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.
 (1Jo 4:1-3 NKJ)

It does not follow "good spirits" are communicating with us today. The NT period, while scripture was being written, is a unique time of revelation. That ceased with the advent of a completed scripture...observe such revelation is spoken of as completed:

 3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,
 4 God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?
 (Heb 2:3-4 NKJ)

By John's time, it was all false prophecy, hence his warning.

« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 08:07:47 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)
genesisone
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,378



« Reply #217 on: November 05, 2010, 08:00:33 PM »

Paul was very clear, God's Word came to the church, it does not arise from the church:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
 (1Co 14:36-37 NKJ)

You may be right; you may be wrong. This passage doesn't prove your claim. It does not say the written word of God but in fact, exactly the opposite. Read the context - you'll see that the Apostle is dealing with speaking in the church. He is writing to the Corinthians about how they speak in the Church - not about what they read.

There is nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise, unless you place the Tradition of Sola Scriptura ahead of the plain reading of the text.
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 #218 on: November 05, 2010, 08:14:11 PM »

Paul was very clear, God's Word came to the church, it does not arise from the church:

36 Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?
 37 If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.
 (1Co 14:36-37 NKJ)

You may be right; you may be wrong. This passage doesn't prove your claim. It does not say the written word of God but in fact, exactly the opposite. Read the context - you'll see that the Apostle is dealing with speaking in the church. He is writing to the Corinthians about how they speak in the Church - not about what they read.

There is nothing in the passage to suggest otherwise, unless you place the Tradition of Sola Scriptura ahead of the plain reading of the text.

In context Paul is rejecting their prophets, what they say, is NOT the "word of God", a literal rendering is:

36 What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?
 37 If any man thinketh himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him take knowledge of the things which I write unto you, that they are the commandment of the Lord.
 38 But if any man is ignorant, let him be ignorant.
 (1Co 14:36-38 ASV)


This is confirmed by the fact much of the New Testament was written to correct errors the church got itself into. Especially we see this in Peter's oral tradition:

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

Peter's tradition, spoken by his actions, or one could say, the "living tradition of the church of Galatia" was wrong, "not straightfoward about the truth of the gospel," hence a lie.

God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.

This is why sola scriptura is vital, its the only way we remain under the apostles authority.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antioch
Posts: 2,378



« Reply #219 on: November 05, 2010, 08:42:28 PM »


God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.
Except for the Apostle Peter, apparently.

The Apostle Paul was quick to declare himself the chief of sinners. He had no illusions about his imperfections. The absence of detail proves nothing.

My point is that no single apostle was infallible - that's why it took the Church as a whole to maintain the truth.

Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.
Logged
Manalive
Иоанн
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Moscow Patriarchate
Posts: 288


It is later than we think.


« Reply #220 on: November 05, 2010, 08:50:14 PM »

This is confirmed by the fact much of the New Testament was written to correct errors the church got itself into. Especially we see this in Peter's oral tradition:

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

Peter's tradition, spoken by his actions, or one could say, the "living tradition of the church of Galatia" was wrong, "not straightfoward about the truth of the gospel," hence a lie.

God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.

This is why sola scriptura is vital, its the only way we remain under the apostles authority.

Hence, you should be under the Apostolic Church and still under the Apostles authority. There is one Apostolic Church; there are many churches.  Smiley

Logged

"Lay hold of the pathway... rugged and narrow as it is."- St. John Chrystostom
Thankful
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 263



« Reply #221 on: November 05, 2010, 09:23:57 PM »

You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.


Analogy fail, your heart is part of your body. Most important? Perhaps, but still just a part of your body.

Your father is still human, like you. While his words may be the most important, they are still  human words and have authority only within his family.

The Letter "t" is still just another letter in the alphabet.

The roots of a tree are certainly a part of the tree, what authority said they aren't?

I got the point, your analogies prove me right, you wrong.

[...Snipping out Alfred's interpretation of Scripture]


Wow, you really make God and Holy Scripture confusing (I snipped all that Alfred-interpretation out of there, since that's not what I'm addressing).  I'm addressing your statement "To say its part of is to say its equal to."  This is just plain not true.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME; my father is a part of our family, but he's not our family; the letter "t" is part of this sentence but it's not the sentence and the roots of the tree are part of the tree, but they're not the tree. These parts are NOT equal to. Your refutation failed, Alfred, not the analogy.  Your God is too difficult to know and touch, Alfred.  
===

Along those lines, can you address this please?

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

Surely being a christian doesn't require literacy, or the luxury of living after the advent of the printing press or where owning one's own personal copy of Scripture is commonplace.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 09:24:31 PM by Thankful » 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 #222 on: November 05, 2010, 10:31:12 PM »


God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.
Except for the Apostle Peter, apparently.

The Apostle Paul was quick to declare himself the chief of sinners. He had no illusions about his imperfections. The absence of detail proves nothing.

My point is that no single apostle was infallible - that's why it took the Church as a whole to maintain the truth.

Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

No, as I said, I am one of Christ's expendable assets; a Bible student, nothing more. Its scripture you should heed, it is the Word of God.


 17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth. (Joh 17:17 NKJ)


 14 "If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.
 15 "If you love Me, keep My commandments.
 (Joh 14:14-15 NKJ)



The ad hominem is I want you to agree with me.


THAT is Incorrect.

I beg you agree with God according to your conscience.

14 for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves,
 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
 16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
 (Rom 2:14-16 NKJ)

Even if you disagree with me, a bible student like yourself, I count all worthy of praise if they follow the grammar and syntax of the scripture faithfully, in full agreement with their conscience.

Then I consider my job done...I only all follow God according to their conscience...not me...

I am irrelevant, incompetent and immaterial.

Its obvious to all I could be wrong, BUT the word of God alone is inerrant, infallible Truth. That is what all must obey.


« Last Edit: November 05, 2010, 11:02:23 PM by Alfred Persson » Logged

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. (Rom 1:18-19 NKJ)
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 #223 on: November 06, 2010, 07:53:49 AM »


God intervened, sent Paul to correct "church tradition" inspired by Peter's action.

So also much of the NT, the church invents all sorts of heresy and schism, and God corrects it via the apostles.
Except for the Apostle Peter, apparently.

The Apostle Paul was quick to declare himself the chief of sinners. He had no illusions about his imperfections. The absence of detail proves nothing.

My point is that no single apostle was infallible - that's why it took the Church as a whole to maintain the truth.

Alfred, are you by any chance connected to this group? Like you, they seem to think that the Apostle Paul's teachings somehow supersede those of the other Apostles.

I have no idea who they are, their beliefs etc., never heard of them.

I do not believe Paul's teachings supersede those of the other apostles.

It may be I cite him more than the other apostles, but that is because he wrote much of our NT, more than the other apostles.

As the "apostle to the Gentiles" (Rom 11:13) and student of Gamaliel (Ac 22:3) Paul is expert at explaining Christ to the Gentiles.

Some expositors don't perceive the depth of Christ's teaching because Rabbis like Christ (John 1:49) used symbols to imply premises, and Paul was fully conversant with that style of argumentation and communicates Christ's meaning we otherwise might miss.

For example, Adam Clarke's commentary on Mat 22:32 says:

I am the God of Abraham - Let it be observed, that Abraham was dead upwards of 300 years before these words were spoken to Moses: yet still God calls himself the God of Abraham, etc. Now Christ properly observes that God is not the God of the dead, (that word being equal, in the sense of the Sadducees, to an eternal annihilation), but of the living; it therefore follows that, if he be the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, these are not dead, but alive; alive with God, though they had ceased, for some hundreds of years, to exist among mortals. We may see, from this, that our Lord combats and confutes another opinion of the Sadducees, viz. that there is neither angel nor spirit; by showing that the soul is not only immortal, but lives with God, even while the body is detained in the dust of the earth, which body is afterwards to be raised to life, and united with its soul by the miraculous power of God, of which power they showed themselves to be ignorant when they denied the possibility of a resurrection.


While Clarke's conclusion is correct, he got there the wrong way.  

29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Mat 22:29 KJV)

Christ is doing more than disproving Sadduccean belief the soul dies when the body dies, that is not the main thrust of His argument. Rather the symbols imply they err about the power of God to preserve life even in death, and to fulfill His promises. As the scripture has Abraham Issac and Jacob standing before God, this implies the resurrection because God promised these (in scripture) they would serve Him physically forever, and as as they now stand before God continually, they are constant reminders of unfulfilled promises.

Arguments for the resurrection based upon implication were quite common among the Rabbis in Jesus' day:

An apparent reason why the Sadducees rejected the doctrine [of the resurrection] was that it was not taught, so they alleged, in the Pentateuch, and was therefore part of the Oral Torah which they repudiated. This view was strongly controverted by the Rabbis. The Talmud even remarks: 'There is no section of the (written) Torah which does not imply the doctrine of the Resurrection, but we have not the capacity to expound it in this sense' (Sifre Deut. Section 306; 132a) Much ingenuity was therefore expended to demonstrate that the Torah does teach it. A selection of these proofs will here be given.  

'Whence is the doctrine of the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, 'Ye shall give the Lord's heave-offering to Aaron the priest' (Num xviii. 28). But did Aaron live for ever to receive the offering? Is it not true he did not enter the land of Israel? Consequently the text teaches that he is to be restored to life (in the Hearafter) and will receive the heave-offering. Hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah (Sanh. 90b).  

'The Sadducees asked R. Gamaliel, "Whence is it known that the Holy One, blessed be He, revives the dead?" He answered…"From the Pentateuch, for it is written, 'Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers and rise up' (sic Deut. xxxi. 16)…  

Finally he quoted for them, “The land which the Lord sware unto your fathers to give unto them” (Deut. xi 9). It is not stated “unto you,” but “unto them”; hence the doctrine of the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.  

Others maintain that it can be derived from, “Ye that cleave unto the Lord your God are alive every one of you this day”; therefore the meaning must be, even on the day when people in general are dead you will live, and as you are all alive this day so will you all live in the World to Come’ (Sanh 90b).  

It is written, “I kill and I make alive” (Deut. xxxii. 39). It is possible to think that death is caused by one Power and life by another, as is the usual way of the world; therefore the text continues, “I have wounded and I heal.” As both wounding and healing are in the hands of the same Power, so are killing and reviving in the hands of the same Power. This is a refutation of those who declare that the Resurrection is not taught in the Torah.  

R. Meir asked, Whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, “Then will1 Moses and the children of Israel sing this song unto the Lord” (Exod. xv.1). It is not said “sang” but “will sing”; hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.  

R.Joshua b. Levi asked, Whence is the Resurrection derived in the Torah? As it is said, “Blessed are they that dwell in Thy house, they will be still praising Thee” (Ps. lxxxiv. 4) It is not stated, “They have praised Thee” but “will be still praising Three” (in the Hereafter); hence the Resurrection is deducible from the Torah.  

Raba asked, Whence is the Resurrection derived from the Torah? As it is said, “Let Reuben live and not die” (Deut. xxxiii. 6)—“let Reuben live” in this world, “and not die in the World to come.”  

Rabina declared that it may be deduced from, “Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” (Dan xii. 2)  

R. Ashe deduced it from, “Go thou thy way till the end be, for thou shalt rest, and shalt stand in thy lot at the end of the days (ibid 3) ‘(Sanh. 91b et seq.)  

In addition to the Sadducees, another sect denied this dogma, viz. the Samaritans. A polemic against them is contained in the passage: ‘R. Eliezer b. Jose said, In this matter I proved the books of the Samaritans2 who declared that the Resurrection is not taught in the Torah to be false. I told them, You have falsified your recension of the Torah but it has availed you nothing in your contention that the Resurrection is not taught in the Torah, because it is there stated, “That soul shall be utterly cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him” (Num. xv. 31)—“shall be utterly cut off” must refer t this world;3 when, then, “shall his iniquity be upon him”? Must it not be in the World to Come?’ (Sanh. 90b). -Abraham Cohen, Everyman’s Talmud ( Schocken Books, New York, 1995), -pp 358-359  





Hence Paul is not teaching a different Christianity than Christ, He is faithful to Christ's teaching in every respect, that some don't realize this has more to do with their ignorance of Jewish exegesis in the days of Christ, and Paul's teaching, than anything real in the Scripture:


Gal 1:1 Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)

Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1Th 4:2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

Knowing what the Rabbi's taught in the days of Christ, is relevant, its context the expositor must be aware of when interpreting Christ:

52 Then He said to them, "Therefore every scribe instructed concerning the kingdom of heaven is like a householder who brings out of his treasure things new and old." (Mat 13:52 NKJ)
« Last Edit: November 06, 2010, 08:24:30 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 #224 on: November 06, 2010, 08:55:35 AM »

You still don't get it. No one here claims that Scripture is equal to Tradition. Scripture is PART OF Tradition; further Holy Scripture is considered by the Orthodox to be the most important part of Tradition.

Sophistry. To say its part of is to say its equal to.

Not true, Alfred.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME (it's an important part of me with which I could not live without, but it's not me).  My father is a part of our family, but he's not our family (he's important, and we could not exist without him).  The letter "t" in this sentence is part of the sentence but it's not the sentence (it's important as without it, the rest of the sentence would not make sense).  The roots of the tree outside my window are part of the tree, but they're not the tree (they're important as they do nourish the tree).  Hopefully you get the point and can re-think what we're trying to say to you: Holy Scripture is part of Holy Tradition -- a very important part, we couldn't exist without it, we don't make sense without it, and it is does provide our "food" -- but there are other parts of Holy Tradition as well.  And just like my heart doesn't contradict me, my father doesn't contradict the makeup of our family, the letter "t" doesn't contradict the sentence it's in and the roots don't contradict the tree, Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition do not contradict each other.


Analogy fail, your heart is part of your body. Most important? Perhaps, but still just a part of your body.

Your father is still human, like you. While his words may be the most important, they are still  human words and have authority only within his family.

The Letter "t" is still just another letter in the alphabet.

The roots of a tree are certainly a part of the tree, what authority said they aren't?

I got the point, your analogies prove me right, you wrong.

[...Snipping out Alfred's interpretation of Scripture]


Wow, you really make God and Holy Scripture confusing (I snipped all that Alfred-interpretation out of there, since that's not what I'm addressing).  I'm addressing your statement "To say its part of is to say its equal to."  This is just plain not true.  My heart is a part of me, but it's not ME; my father is a part of our family, but he's not our family; the letter "t" is part of this sentence but it's not the sentence and the roots of the tree are part of the tree, but they're not the tree. These parts are NOT equal to. Your refutation failed, Alfred, not the analogy.  Your God is too difficult to know and touch, Alfred.  
===

Along those lines, can you address this please?

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

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

A straw man, I did not say "to say its part of is to say its the entire" which is what you are arguing against, quite poorly I might add. The Straw Man you created nearly whooped you bad.


Those who can't read etc, are in the same boat as many Christians were before the printing press, they must hear the scripture read by others, often in church.


It does not follow the "reader" is equal to the writer however, that premise would be absurd. Does reading E=mc2 make one Einstein? Of course not.



Logged

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

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.241 seconds with 73 queries.