OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 26, 2014, 11:21:26 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: By Grace Through Faith  (Read 7334 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #45 on: January 08, 2012, 01:21:47 AM »

Great. Even if it does resemble what some call 'mid acts' dispensationalism, lets just blow it off.


As I said, I have only skimmed your long post, but are so many similarities to Zionist Dispensationalism jump out at me that I can think of no other name for it. Unless it is perhaps Covenant Theology?

What support do you have from any Church Fathers for this doctrine?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #46 on: January 08, 2012, 01:32:24 AM »

By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 01:35:46 AM by Ortho_cat » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,289


Mzack. Uglyface creatures, unite!


« Reply #47 on: January 08, 2012, 01:36:26 AM »

Great. Even if it does resemble what some call 'mid acts' dispensationalism, lets just blow it off.


I'm not blowing it off because I'm just too blind to see the truth in it. It's just that I used to be a Protestant and was a regular on a forum that had a large dispensationalist element, and I spent years watching and participating in debates on this stuff. Frankly, I have no interest in revisiting it... but I think you will find others here who will be more than willing to discuss it with you.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #48 on: January 08, 2012, 01:39:32 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #49 on: January 08, 2012, 01:41:11 AM »

Great. Even if it does resemble what some call 'mid acts' dispensationalism, lets just blow it off.


I'm not blowing it off because I'm just too blind to see the truth in it. It's just that I used to be a Protestant and was a regular on a forum that had a large dispensationalist element, and I spent years watching and participating in debates on this stuff. Frankly, I have no interest in revisiting it... but I think you will find others here who will be more than willing to discuss it with you.

My objective is to speak to those who will listen. If you don't wish to revisit, that is up to you.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #50 on: January 08, 2012, 01:43:28 AM »

The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

Yeah, that's true.  Wink
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #51 on: January 08, 2012, 01:48:33 AM »


Here is a shorter post

In some ways Humanism was not a philosophy per se, but rather a method of learning. In contrast to the medieval scholastic mode, which focused on resolving contradictions between authors, humanists would study ancient texts in the original, and appraise them through a combination of reasoning and empirical evidence.

Above all, humanists asserted "the genius of man ... the unique and extraordinary ability of the human mind."[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

What comes from man?
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #52 on: January 08, 2012, 01:49:03 AM »

By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.

Correct. If an individual is to open the bible anywhere, and just try and teach out of it without dividing it rightly, there is going to be error and confusion. Hence my point earlier of somebody opening up to Leviticus and teaching people to live under the law cos thats what the bible says. I suppose thats why i understand you as the orthodox church like to stick together with what you have been taught and leave it at that.. Hold onto it no matter what..  I respect the zeal.. However, there is a book of authority, and it does not contradict itself. We need to study it to find the truth..

"Study, to show thyself approved to God". Do this friends. If you do, and I am wrong, you'll smash my 'teachings' to pieces, because there is one thing none of us can fight, and that is truth. Jesus Christ is Truth. The Word of God is like a 2 edged sword! Truth will win in the end. And I say that as humbly as I can, if I am outside the truth, I'm outside the truth. But the truth won't change because of any of us.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #53 on: January 08, 2012, 01:52:58 AM »

By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.

Correct. If an individual is to open the bible anywhere, and just try and teach out of it without dividing it rightly, there is going to be error and confusion. Hence my point earlier of somebody opening up to Leviticus and teaching people to live under the law cos thats what the bible says. I suppose thats why i understand you as the orthodox church like to stick together with what you have been taught and leave it at that.. Hold onto it no matter what..  I respect the zeal.. However, there is a book of authority, and it does not contradict itself. We need to study it to find the truth..

"Study, to show thyself approved to God". Do this friends. If you do, and I am wrong, you'll smash my 'teachings' to pieces, because there is one thing none of us can fight, and that is truth. Jesus Christ is Truth. The Word of God is like a 2 edged sword! Truth will win in the end. And I say that as humbly as I can, if I am outside the truth, I'm outside the truth. But the truth won't change because of any of us.

How do you know that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible?
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #54 on: January 08, 2012, 02:00:15 AM »


Here is a shorter post

In some ways Humanism was not a philosophy per se, but rather a method of learning. In contrast to the medieval scholastic mode, which focused on resolving contradictions between authors, humanists would study ancient texts in the original, and appraise them through a combination of reasoning and empirical evidence.

Above all, humanists asserted "the genius of man ... the unique and extraordinary ability of the human mind."[42]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance

What comes from man?

Thanks for the short post.. Some people on here go way overboard! Lord have mercy..

I don't know.. What comes from man? Not really much we can brag about when we look at God. We are sinful and unrighteous, believers of vain philosophy, we have produced 'genius' university professors who don't even recognise God. I could go on.

1 Corinthians 2:14 springs to mind..  "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned".
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #55 on: January 08, 2012, 02:07:02 AM »

By the way 'this teaching' - if you want to call it that, comes from the bible - not from man.

Correction, it comes from an individual's interpretation/understanding of what the bible says. One teaches from the bible, and in order to do so, one must interpret it in a particular way.

Correct. If an individual is to open the bible anywhere, and just try and teach out of it without dividing it rightly, there is going to be error and confusion. Hence my point earlier of somebody opening up to Leviticus and teaching people to live under the law cos thats what the bible says. I suppose thats why i understand you as the orthodox church like to stick together with what you have been taught and leave it at that.. Hold onto it no matter what..  I respect the zeal.. However, there is a book of authority, and it does not contradict itself. We need to study it to find the truth..

"Study, to show thyself approved to God". Do this friends. If you do, and I am wrong, you'll smash my 'teachings' to pieces, because there is one thing none of us can fight, and that is truth. Jesus Christ is Truth. The Word of God is like a 2 edged sword! Truth will win in the end. And I say that as humbly as I can, if I am outside the truth, I'm outside the truth. But the truth won't change because of any of us.

How do you know that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible?

I don't. But it is consistent with the rest of Pauls letters as far as my uneducated mind can assess. And secondly, that particular verse helped me understand things that didn't make much sense in the past. He raises what I understand to be a very important point on how we read the bible.

If it was written by Paul, it is the Word of God.. Paul received revelation directly from Jesus.. The only sections were this could be debated would be were he specifically says 'I speak as a man'.

The muslim sites I blog on have asked the same question. My answer doesn't satisfy them though..
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #56 on: January 08, 2012, 03:14:03 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 03:27:54 AM by wasamwillbe » Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #57 on: January 08, 2012, 03:21:53 AM »

The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.

Yeah, that's true.  Wink

Wow!
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #58 on: January 08, 2012, 03:47:40 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock because real truth can be arrived at through some real good rational exposition, oh yeah and that "spirit and truth" thing, and if every one really, really thought about it they'd see it to be true.  Oh and when Calvinist say this truth in interpretation thing, they're wrong.

No, you'll arrive at the truth.

It doesn't matter what we hear. Whatever we do hear, compare it to the scriptures. It is that simple.

What is this truth in interpretation thing that the calvinists speak of? While we talk about calvinists, one of the primary verses calvinists use is John 6:44 - "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."

They use this verse to suggest that those who believe were picked out to believe outside of their own free will. They were chosen to be saved, others were chosen to die..

But then they simply ignore or 'spiritualise' John 12:32"And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me."

Its not hard to argue with a calvinist. They haven't a leg to stand on other than the scriptures that they use to support their view. And their belief is crippled in one single sentence..i.e John 12:32..

I don't mean to single them out and criticise them individually, however we men seem to find security in something that suits us, and stick with it even if it is proven to be totally wrong.

You can shout 'mid acts dispensationalist!', 'heretic!', 'a man who is not supported by church fathers!', 'protestant!' 'not a member of the orthodox church!' until the kingdom does come. This won't guide me into the truth if I'm in error. Show me using the scriptures - then I will submit.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #59 on: January 08, 2012, 04:14:28 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #60 on: January 08, 2012, 04:20:39 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
So the bishops appointed by the apostles had no authority?
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #61 on: January 08, 2012, 04:22:51 AM »

Yeah, sorry I modifed that message because it was too harsh, sorry about that.  

You won't find me defending Calvinism, I grew up Calvinist.  And I'm sorry but I know many a Calvinist who can rationalize as well as you or better.

You can claim scripture stands on it's own all you like but it doesn't.  The best debater does not arrive at Truth.  
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #62 on: January 08, 2012, 04:29:57 AM »

Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. Undecided So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 04:30:05 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #63 on: January 08, 2012, 04:32:12 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #64 on: January 08, 2012, 04:33:51 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
So the bishops appointed by the apostles had no authority?

Again, read the last sentance.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #65 on: January 08, 2012, 04:35:44 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? Huh
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #66 on: January 08, 2012, 04:45:19 AM »

Yeah, sorry I modifed that message because it was too harsh, sorry about that.  

You won't find me defending Calvinism, I grew up Calvinist.  And I'm sorry but I know many a Calvinist who can rationalize as well as you or better.

You can claim scripture stands on it's own all you like but it doesn't.  The best debater does not arrive at Truth.  

Well at least we agree on something! The first part at least.. The second part...well...nah!
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2012, 04:46:25 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? Huh

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2012, 04:47:49 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2012, 04:49:18 AM »

Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. Undecided So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2012, 04:57:02 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? Huh

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.
Logged

"We no longer knew whether we were in heaven or on earth,"
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2012, 04:59:00 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? Huh

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2012, 05:06:11 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..

Here is what Melito wrote around 170 A.D.:

We are not those who pay homage to stones, that are without sensation; but of the only God, who is before all and over all, and, moreover, we are worshippers of His Christ, who is veritably God the Word existing before all time (Melito. Translation by Roberts and Donaldson. From the apology addressed to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Online version copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html 11/18/06).

For there are some men who are unable to rise from their mother earth, and therefore also do they make them gods. from the earth their mother; and they are condemned by the judgments of truth, forasmuch as they apply the name of Him who is unchangeable to those objects which are subject to change, and shrink not from calling those things gods which have been made by the hands of man, and dare to make an image of God whom they have not seen...

Who is this God? He who is Himself truth, and His word truth. And what is truth? That which is not fashioned, nor made, nor represented by art: that is, which has never been brought into existence, and is on that account called truth. If, therefore, a man worship that which is made with hands, it is not the truth that he worships, nor yet the word of truth..."

There are, however, persons who say: It is for the honour of God that we make the image: in order, that is, that we may worship the God who is concealed from our view. But they are unaware that God is in every country, and in every place, and is never absent, and that there is not anything done and He knoweth it not. Yet thou, despicable man! within whom He is, and without whom He is, and above whom He is, hast nevertheless gone and bought thee wood from the carpenter's, and it is carved and made into an image insulting to God. To this thou offerest sacrifice, and knowest not that the all-seeing eye seeth thee, and that the word of truth reproves thee, and says to thee: How can the unseen God be sculptured? Nay, it is the likeness of thyself that thou makest and worshippest. Because the wood has been sculptured, hast thou not the insight to perceive that it is still wood, or that the stone is still stone? The gold also the workman: taketh according to its weight in the balance. And when thou hast had it made into an image, why dose thou weigh it? Therefore thou art a lover of gold, and not a lover of God...

Again, there are persons who say: Whatsoever our fathers have bequeathed to us, that we reverence. Therefore, of course, it is, that those whose fathers have bequeathed them poverty strive to become rich! and those whose fathers did not instruct them, desire to be instructed, and to learn that which their fathers knew not! And why, forsooth, do the children of the blind see, and the children of the lame walk? Nay, it is not well for a man to follow his predecessors, if they be those whose course was evil; but rather that we should turn from that path of theirs, lest that which befell our predecessors should bring disaster upon us also. Wherefore, inquire whether thy father's course was good: and, if so, do thou also follow in his steps; but, if thy father's course was very evil, let thine be good, and so let it be with thy children after thee. Be grieved also for thy father because his course is evil, so long as thy grief may avail to help him. But, as for thy children, speak to them thus: There is a God, the Father of all, who never came into being, neither was ever made, and by whose will all things subsist...

And then shall those who have not known God, and those who have made them idols, bemoan themselves, when they shall see those idols of theirs being burnt up, together with themselves, and nothing shall be found to help them (Melito. Translation by Roberts and Donaldson. A DISCOURSE WHICH WAS IN THE PRESENCE OF ANTONINUS CAESAR, AND HE EXHORTED THE SAID CAESAR TO ACQUAINT HIMSELF WITH GOD, AND SHOWED TO HIM THE WAY OF TRUTH. Online version copyright © 2001 Peter Kirby. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/melito.html 11/18/06).

Like I said earlier.. All writings from all people can be profitable.. Perhaps this teaching from Melito might help enlighten us.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2012, 05:09:23 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
What makes you think you do?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2012, 05:13:32 AM »

Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. Undecided So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Yes, I read your posts very carefully as I typed my reply. Maybe you need to read again what you posted, because it very clearly does imply that, because the call to join the Church is stated in Chapters 2-5 of Acts, it applies only to the Jews. And you explicitly stated that St. Paul takes precedent over the Twelve as pertains to the Gentiles. What is precedent if not superiority?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2012, 05:16:33 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? Huh

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #76 on: January 08, 2012, 05:19:45 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 05:25:46 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #77 on: January 08, 2012, 05:29:28 AM »

Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. Undecided So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Yes, I read your posts very carefully as I typed my reply. Maybe you need to read again what you posted, because it very clearly does imply that, because the call to join the Church is stated in Chapters 2-5 of Acts, it applies only to the Jews. And you explicitly stated that St. Paul takes precedent over the Twelve as pertains to the Gentiles. What is precedent if not superiority?

Precedent -a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.

Superiority -the quality or condition of being superior.

There is a difference my friend..

1 Timothy 1:15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #78 on: January 08, 2012, 05:32:51 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
So since wolves enter among us we should each interpret scripture "in spirit and in truth" because then we will all arive at mid acts whatever that was, and that will not be the deception that destroys because we could never be that wolf in the flock?  Come on.  Scripture was an accumulation of letters written to the Churches by the apostles.  These churches submitted to the authority given to the Apostles, they kept these letters and passed them around and eventually the Body gathered these together and canonized them. The CHURCH canonized them because they maintained that authority that the apostles had because they handed it down to them.

How could anyone not canonise what was canonised? All the books of the new testament were written by apostles and those who had direct contact with Christ.. Some books historical and factual, written by witnesses to the risen Christ, (still under law) i.e - Matthew, mark, Luke, yet there are some for today, which are written to us - NOW. i.e - Pauls letters. (not under law, under grace). Just because the men that lived back then put the bible together the way they did means what?.. Who would honestly debate the NT canon now? Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James - all apostles. All of them had contact with Christ.. All with their own style of writing - easily recognisable. All of them writing according to the purpose of God. This is why they are in the bible canon.

Ignatius of antiochs writings, to use an example, (I have nothing against this man) didn't make the canon though. Why? Read the first few paragraphs of his writings and the answer will be clear. He had no authority. Just like my writings and your writings.. No authority.. Often the writings can be profitable, but they hold no authority. Not like the authority given to the writers of the N.T.
If you have no authority, why are you here? Huh

I repeat.. Read the last sentance.. If I don't back up what I say with scripture then I have no authority.
What about when you use scripture incorrectly, oh, and your rational won't accept that you are.

Not at all.. Like I have plead with you all time and time again. If I am using scripture incorrectly, correct me using scripture and I'll gladly stand corrected.
Sola scriptura... Is that teaching found in Scripture?

I think sola scriptura needs to be understood in the sense that everything that is taught, referenced and accepted in Christianity must be supported by scripture..
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #79 on: January 08, 2012, 05:35:11 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?

I realise that by this it simply means you pick and choose from their writings the ones which suit you.. or suit the orthodox church..
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #80 on: January 08, 2012, 05:37:04 AM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
What makes you think you do?

Because nobody has so far been able to put one scripture up on this post to prove me wrong.. Thats what I'm waiting for.
Logged
Shiny
Site Supporter
Muted
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Groucho Marxist
Jurisdiction: Dahntahn Stoop Haus
Posts: 13,267


Paint It Red


« Reply #81 on: January 08, 2012, 08:09:57 AM »



Here is my response to you:



You can send a seminary diploma to my inbox.
Logged

“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”

– St. Ambrose of Milan
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #82 on: January 08, 2012, 08:39:58 AM »



Here is my response to you:



You can send a seminary diploma to my inbox.


Very good! Did you draw that all by yourself? Oh, Obamas the antichrist is he? I'll keep that in mind.. Thanks for the input!
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #83 on: January 08, 2012, 11:58:15 AM »

I don't see that there's any need to be childish Achronos. This is a worthwhile discussion and if you don't agree then say so or find another thread to occupy yourself with, rather than posting silly first grade graphics and language.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #84 on: January 08, 2012, 12:00:02 PM »

Hi people.. Apologies, this is going to be a long one.. But I think it is imperative we understand the covenants before anything I'm trying to say here can become more clear. I ask that if you really are interested in what I'm saying, or really are convinced I am wrong, please read this carefully. Attached are 3 images. Charts 1-3. They are each referenced throughout this post.

Once again, apologies for the extra long post.
Okay. Undecided So what does any of this have to do with your implications that the call to join the Church applies only to Jews and that St. Paul is superior to the other Apostles?

None of that is what I implied. Feel free to read again..
Yes, I read your posts very carefully as I typed my reply. Maybe you need to read again what you posted, because it very clearly does imply that, because the call to join the Church is stated in Chapters 2-5 of Acts, it applies only to the Jews. And you explicitly stated that St. Paul takes precedent over the Twelve as pertains to the Gentiles. What is precedent if not superiority?

Precedent -a legal decision or form of proceeding serving as an authoritative rule or pattern in future similar or analogous cases.
But the way you use a word takes precedent over any dictionary definition you may like to post to win an argument.

Superiority -the quality or condition of being superior.

There is a difference my friend..

1 Timothy 1:15This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.16Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Okay. What are you trying to say here? Scripture needs interpretation.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,678


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 08, 2012, 02:52:14 PM »

Um, I hate to say this, but does BGTF have anything to do with a person whose name rhymes with Alfred Persson?

 Huh

Just wondering.

(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)
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/
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #86 on: January 08, 2012, 05:05:00 PM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
Say... to what? What are you arguing against in this post?

BTW, you do realize that we don't hold individual Church Fathers to be infallible?

I realise that by this it simply means you pick and choose from their writings the ones which suit you.. or suit the orthodox church..
You do notice that I haven't posted any arguments from the Fathers and that the only citations I've made of authorities outside myself have been of the Christian Scriptures? (This has been intentional and is not merely an oversight on my part.) Between you and me, you're the only one who has made any attempt to quote a Father, and it was one you cherry picked to prove your point. You have heard the parable of the dog who ridiculed the cat for being covered with fur?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 05:28:08 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #87 on: January 08, 2012, 05:05:59 PM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

Type in to google a man named 'Zakir Naik'.. This man also speaks 'copious' amounts of scripture, but doesn't understand a word they say.
What makes you think you do?

Because nobody has so far been able to put one scripture up on this post to prove me wrong.. Thats what I'm waiting for.
Don't hold your breath. For us to deem it worth our time to prove you wrong, you first bear a burden to prove yourself right.
Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #88 on: January 08, 2012, 05:07:15 PM »

(P.S., I thought Achronos' graphic was hilarious.)

Forgive me, those it offends, but I thought it was hilarious too!! It was a great start to my Monday!  (I just wish I hadn't been drinking coffee at the time I read it! Looking around for something to wipe the computer screen with. ) laugh
Logged

I believe in One God, maker of heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, Russian Orthodox Christian (1900-1975)
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,494


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #89 on: January 08, 2012, 05:09:28 PM »

Covenant theology is classical reformed theology.. Straight out calvinism.

My posts explain how they have erred in their understanding of individual predestination. So no. This is not covenant theology. However, if you were being sarcastic you will already know this.

Now with regard to early church fathers. Lets have a look at Acts 20:29For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.30Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

I'm not suggesting that they are off the track. However, we were warned. The writings of the early church fathers are not in the canon of scripture. The information provided in my 'long post' and yes, I know its long, comes from the bible not the early church fathers. If this is not good enough for you then theres not alot more I can do.
We know the Holy Fathers spoke copiously from the Scriptures, so what makes your use of the Scriptures different from theirs?

I really don't want to open up a can of worms right here right now.. There is enough going on.. Perhaps I might start a new post.. but if you really respect the early church fathers and hold their teachings as infallible and authoritative just as I do the scriptures, then listen to what Melito - Bishop of Sardis had to say..
So... back to this post. What makes your interpretation of the Scriptures different from (i.e., better than) that of the early Church Fathers? You still haven't answered this question.
Logged
Tags:
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 0.21 seconds with 73 queries.