OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 23, 2014, 10:25:12 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 8446 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #90 on: January 08, 2012, 05:19:31 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.

Especially considering they spoke and thought in the language of the NT text and never came up with what BGTF is *teaching*.
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)
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #91 on: January 08, 2012, 06:17:58 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

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,179


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #92 on: January 08, 2012, 06:21:17 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

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.

"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Boo"
"Boo who"
"Oh stop it! There's no crying in theological discussion!"

(Yes, I love corny jokes) Tongue
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #93 on: January 08, 2012, 06:26:55 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..

If it's any help to you, i have come to realise that my perception of the OC is not always correct,  I mean what i think they mean and what they do mean is sometimes very different.
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #94 on: January 08, 2012, 06:32:03 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

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.

To each, their own. 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)
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #95 on: January 08, 2012, 06:34:20 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

It was about as funny and almost as predictable as a "knock, knock" joke from a Christmas cracker.

"Knock knock."
"Who's there?"
"Boo"
"Boo who"
"Oh stop it! There's no crying in theological discussion!"

(Yes, I love corny jokes) Tongue

Who's crying?

If you're going to interrupt the flow of an interesting thread, at least make it worth it.  Wink
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,179


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #96 on: January 08, 2012, 06:35:07 PM »


Who's crying?

If you're going to interrupt the flow of an interesting thread, at least make it worth it.  Wink

Does this mean you're going to respond to my post? Smiley
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 06:38:59 PM by Asteriktos » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #97 on: January 08, 2012, 06:36:58 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..

If it's any help to you, i have come to realise that my perception of the OC is not always correct,  I mean what i think they mean and what they do mean is sometimes very different.

Mindsets/Paradigms are confusing critters. Oftentimes, we say something in a mutual language which has a completely different meaning to the person hearing it.
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)
Shiny
Site Supporter
Moderated
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

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


Paint It Red


« Reply #98 on: January 08, 2012, 07:56:09 PM »

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.
Well I had to lower my standards and compete against first grade graphics and language from the drivel that was posted before me.
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 #99 on: January 08, 2012, 08:32:38 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.

I admire your humility.. Perhaps one day I might prove myself worthy to be proven wrong by you..
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #100 on: January 08, 2012, 08:35:29 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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #101 on: January 08, 2012, 08:41:41 PM »

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.
Well I had to lower my standards and compete against first grade graphics and language from the drivel that was posted before me.

Thankyou again. Thanks for coming down to my level. Its always nice when the intellectual high flyers come down to the level of peasants like myself.. But your graphics were so advanced though, alot of what you were trying to say flew right over the top of my head..



Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #102 on: January 08, 2012, 08:55:50 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..

If it's any help to you, i have come to realise that my perception of the OC is not always correct,  I mean what i think they mean and what they do mean is sometimes very different.

I'm starting to recognise that I just don't have the intelligence or the brain power to come into, or even communicate respectfully with members of the orthodox church.

When people start telling me that they mean something very different to what I think they mean, or something different to what it actually says, whether it be writings from the E.C.F's or from the scriptures, or from the O.C then I have no choice but to humbly bow out.. Much to the delight of many I suppose.. But I thank all of you for taking the time to share your thoughts with me.

My intention was never to come in here and win arguments, even though it may seem that way, but to share the truth and grow together spiritually.

I'll pray for you all, the best I know how.

BGTF

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #103 on: January 08, 2012, 09:03:10 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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but using our Scriptures to engage you on your terms is  like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 09:29:48 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #104 on: January 08, 2012, 09:32:13 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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..

But how are you going to prove that you understand the bible better than those who spoke and thought in the language of the NT writings and the Septuagint? I'm assuming that you aren't a Koine speaker so you are working with a translation. From past experience, I have seen many so-called biblical experts do this and come up with some doozies; "teachings" that would have had early Christians tearing out their hair. Even if these so-called experts "understand Greek", as I have heard so many claim, they still manage to understand Greek in a way that is slanted to suit their own preconceptions.

I believe it's no coincidence that early heresies were weeded out by those who understood the language of the text, and that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit an accepted canon was formed, teachings regulated.* That we see a resurgence of heretical, or just plain silly opinions, particularly in groups and individuals that could not even be considered mainstream Protestant, is no surprise when they refuse to have any contact with any Christian ancestral roots. Because it is somehow beneath them to consider that someone else knows better than they do, they struggle to recreate a "Christianity" that no ancient believer would have possibly recognised as anything but gnostic mumbo-jumbo; something that fits their thinking instead of recreating their thinking to fit historical Christianity.

Using Dispensationalism as an example. Some English man sees something in his English translation that the Church has never considered doctrine. It's picked up and carried on in ignorance of that fact and made more important that the doctrines that have come down to us from the very beginning. It's no wonder that a group like the JWs appears out of the Sola Scriptura swamp, completely denying the doctrine of the Trinity because they "don't see the word "Trinity" in their bibles".  

Honestly, I have no axe to grind with you, but I do consider your opinions to be typical of a person who believes that the Holy Spirit is guiding you and you alone to understand the Scripture that was given to you by God, through the Church in the first place. (Yes, men - God works with men - what a shock!)

As Orthodox believers we have the Church for scriptual guidance, that's why we are completely confident that 2Timothy 2:15 belongs in the bible. What you say doesn't gel with what the Church teaches us. So, sorry to say you really are just wasting your time here if your purpose is to convince any Orthodox believer to accept your individual word over that of the historic Church which gives us Scripture and interprets it for us, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

*I can think of no better word than regulated. Perhaps someone can suggest something better?
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 #105 on: January 08, 2012, 09:55:08 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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #106 on: January 08, 2012, 09:57:12 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.
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..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #107 on: January 08, 2012, 10:09:15 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.
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..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #108 on: January 08, 2012, 10:14:51 PM »

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Orthodox Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?
Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #109 on: January 08, 2012, 10:24:54 PM »

http://shakespeare.mit.edu/merchant/merchant.1.3.html

ANTONIO

    Mark you this, Bassanio,
    The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.
    An evil soul producing holy witness
    Is like a villain with a smiling cheek,
    A goodly apple rotten at the heart:
    O, what a goodly outside falsehood hath!
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 satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,290


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #110 on: January 08, 2012, 10:39:02 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.
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..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2012, 10:39:35 PM by Marc1152 » Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #111 on: January 08, 2012, 10:56:04 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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #112 on: January 08, 2012, 10:58:36 PM »

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Orthodox Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?
Good point. One of the main reasons you, BGTF, started off on the wrong foot with me was your genuine shock that we don't believe as you do. How little you must actually know about us if our different approach to reading the Bible surprises you. Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 01:29:38 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #113 on: January 08, 2012, 11:20:16 PM »

Quote from: ByGracethroughFaith
I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I was wondering what Alfred had been up to lately.  Roll Eyes
Logged

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

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

spcasuncoast.org
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #114 on: January 08, 2012, 11:37:55 PM »


I was wondering what Alfred had been up to lately.  Roll Eyes

Be careful what you wish for ....  Tongue Tongue Wink
Logged
wasamwillbe
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 87



« Reply #115 on: January 09, 2012, 12:47:29 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..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

Yes but the heretics are not convinced.
Logged

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

Posts: 100


« Reply #116 on: January 09, 2012, 01:31:16 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..
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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...

You guys are great!


Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #117 on: January 09, 2012, 01:37:17 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..
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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #118 on: January 09, 2012, 01:43:40 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?  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..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?

By who? Me or them? Neither!  By the Word of God. By what authority? By the Word of God!

Who am I? I'm a sinner who has been reconciled to God through Christ. Justified and sanctified by the faith of Christ. I'm an ambassador for Christ.. And I'm the righteousness of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #119 on: January 09, 2012, 01:44:30 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..
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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Lol!
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #120 on: January 09, 2012, 01:46:59 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..
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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 14,363


fleem
WWW
« Reply #121 on: January 09, 2012, 02:03:03 AM »

Hi, Alfred. How've you been? 
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 satisified."

spcasuncoast.org
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Moderated
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,441


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #122 on: January 09, 2012, 02:08:08 AM »

Hi, Alfred. How've you been? 

Oooooo, you're heading for a 2 oz sinker between the eyes ....  Wink laugh
Logged
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,440



WWW
« Reply #123 on: January 09, 2012, 02:12:43 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..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?

By who? Me or them? Neither!  By the Word of God. By what authority? By the Word of God!

Who am I? I'm a sinner who has been reconciled to God through Christ. Justified and sanctified by the faith of Christ. I'm an ambassador for Christ.. And I'm the righteousness of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

*sigh* back on the merry-go-round.

By "who are you" what we mean is by what authority should we take your interpretation of the word of God over that of men who learned from the Apostles of the very Word of God.

By the way, nice that you claim to be an ambassador of Christ and all, but... well, you're arguing with the Body of Christ- are you so sure your diplomatic papers are entirely in order?
Logged

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

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #124 on: January 09, 2012, 02:34:19 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..

Every heresy that ever was or will be claim their idea's are found in Scripture.


And, more importantly, every heresy that ever was or ever will be can be proven to be heresy by using scripture also.

By who? You or them? To your personal satisfaction or to their personal satisfaction?

By what authority do you get to be the judge?

Who are you again?

By who? Me or them? Neither!  By the Word of God. By what authority? By the Word of God!

Who am I? I'm a sinner who has been reconciled to God through Christ. Justified and sanctified by the faith of Christ. I'm an ambassador for Christ.. And I'm the righteousness of God by the Faith of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

*sigh* back on the merry-go-round.

By "who are you" what we mean is by what authority should we take your interpretation of the word of God over that of men who learned from the Apostles of the very Word of God.

By the way, nice that you claim to be an ambassador of Christ and all, but... well, you're arguing with the Body of Christ- are you so sure your diplomatic papers are entirely in order?

Err.. As far as I'm aware, I don't think I'm 'arguing' with anyone.. Discussing. communicating, sharing, yes, guilty as charged! Besides, former reformer, all I did regarding your posts was answer your questions..

If you want to argue, go ahead.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #125 on: January 09, 2012, 02:49:18 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..
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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #126 on: January 09, 2012, 02:56:49 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?

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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?

Why not. Scratch the itch!
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,902


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #127 on: January 09, 2012, 03:17:06 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..
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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?

Why not. Scratch the itch!
Okay. You're not being persecuted for the content of your message.  Other Evangelicals who visit this board have shown themselves able to present their points of view with conviction and with very clear statements of why they disagree with us, yet with the utmost desire to truly understand what we believe and the maturity to not take our criticism of their beliefs personally. Such posters are very welcome here.

You, however, choose to pontificate without taking the time to really understand what we believe. When others criticize your point of view, you refuse to acknowledge that their criticism may be valid and keep right on pontificating. Either that or you take the criticism personally and cry that you're being persecuted. You're not acting like one who wants to enter into a genuine two-way discussion with us; rather, you're acting like a jackass and are merely reaping the fruit of your jackassery.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2012, 03:24:31 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #128 on: January 09, 2012, 04:35:27 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..
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.

I haven't answered that question because it is not my aim to disprove anyones teachings. My aim is to show you how I understand the bible and then for you to prove me wrong using scripture if possible..
Sorry if I don't feel like playing that game. I just don't like it when someone comes to this forum thinking he can set the rules for debate. You say, "Prove me wrong." That comes across to me as displaying an attitude of, "I'm right until you can prove me wrong," which is, IMO, a rather arrogant thing to say and a violation of standard burden-of-proof rules. It's also a classic trait of Internet trolls. If you were to say something like, "This is what I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong," then I think we would be much more responsive to you, since you would be showing an attitude of humility and a willingness to be corrected.

Also, when others do offer evidence that counters your opinion, you would do well to actually engage the rebuttal by articulating a defense against it. I really haven't seen you do that. All I've seen you do is use various dodgeball tactics to brush aside others' genuine attempts to prove you wrong, and then continue pondefecating. That kind of unwillingness to engage us makes it difficult for us to even want to discuss our point of view with you. Forgive my crass way of saying it, but it's like casting pearls before swine only to then watch the swine trample the pearls under their feet.

I apologise. I didn't mean to come onto this forum and set any rules.. if I did, I truly apologise.. If my attitude comes across as 'I'm right until you prove me wrong', again, I apologise.. However, I was not attempting to prove I am right, I should not have used the words 'prove me wrong'.. But like I said, (using the wrong word), I am trying to share my simple understanding of the scripture - and if it be possible, to be corrected. If anything, I am trying to prove that the bible is right my friend.. Not me.

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

A persecution complex is also not a good way to engender good will toward you on this site. No one is persecuting you here, so you can give up that canard right now.

A persecution complex.. I love it! I suppose I'm interpreting all the name calling and belittling the wrong way...
Yes, you are.

Hang on.. What does 'yes you are' mean? Does it really mean 'yes you are'? Or should I not attempt to interpret what your saying here?
No need to read anything into my statement. You're interpreting all the "name calling" and "belittling" the wrong way. Need I be more blunt?

Why not. Scratch the itch!
Okay. You're not being persecuted for the content of your message.  Other Evangelicals who visit this board have shown themselves able to present their points of view with conviction and with very clear statements of why they disagree with us, yet with the utmost desire to truly understand what we believe and the maturity to not take our criticism of their beliefs personally. Such posters are very welcome here.

You, however, choose to pontificate without taking the time to really understand what we believe. When others criticize your point of view, you refuse to acknowledge that their criticism may be valid and keep right on pontificating. Either that or you take the criticism personally and cry that you're being persecuted. You're not acting like one who wants to enter into a genuine two-way discussion with us; rather, you're acting like a jackass and are merely reaping the fruit of your jackassery.

Good on you Peter!

Now I am a proponent of the scripture - obviously. But upon the advice of some sensible and polite people on this site I have gone about to read through some of the writings of the ante-nicene fathers. Just to see what they have to say and whether it matches up with the bible.

Anyway, I have been reading the 1st epistle of Clement of Rome - to the Corinthians. This apparently was written around 96.. In the 13 chapter of his epistle, headed 'an appeal to renounce obstinacy and schism' he says;

"My brothers, do let us have a little humility, let us forget our self assertion and braggadocio and stupid quarrelling, and do what the Bible tells us instead. The Holy Spirit says, The wise man is not to brag of his wisdom, nor the strong man of his strength, nor the rich man of his wealth; if a man must boast, he should boast of the Lord, seeking Him out and acting with justice and uprightness".

This is definitely great advice for me. Very encouraging and uplifting. Humility is something I do struggle with and what I am engaging in here on this thread would be hard to argue that I'm not quarrelling..  'Oh wretched man that I am'.. I thank Him for saving me.

Now I understand that there are various canons of scripture compiled over the years from the early church. The canon we have now, perhaps not until the mid 300's? Please correct me if I'm wrong. However, I also understand that the books in the N.T would have been mostly completed in the 1st century, no later than 150. The books and letters that were written were also apparently in circulation at the time of Clement. It is apparent that he was using these himself - at least according to his writings.. Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

The book I am reading is called 'early christian writings'. Published by penguin. Translated into English.

I bought it a while ago, but haven't read much of it. It was recommended to me by a relative of mine who is 'orthodox'.

Has what Clement said above been translated correctly? Does he not say let us turn to what the bible says? Or have I again misinterpreted something?



Logged
Riddikulus
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,788



« Reply #129 on: January 09, 2012, 04:51:29 AM »

You might find this interesting... An Orthodox view on the Holy Scriptures -
Part I - All Scripture Is Inspired by God: Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon

and

Part II - Do not Add to His Words: Thoughts on the New Testament Canon

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_view_scriptures.htm



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 #130 on: January 09, 2012, 04:54:49 AM »

You might find this interesting... An Orthodox view on the Holy Scriptures -
Part I - All Scripture Is Inspired by God: Thoughts on the Old Testament Canon

and

Part II - Do not Add to His Words: Thoughts on the New Testament Canon

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/orthodox_view_scriptures.htm





Thanks for sharing.. I'll check it out.
Logged
HandmaidenofGod
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (Ecumenical Patriarch)
Posts: 3,397


O Holy St. Demetrius pray to God for us!


« Reply #131 on: January 09, 2012, 05:01:17 AM »

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.

Logged

"For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the LORD, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope." Jer 29:11
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #132 on: January 09, 2012, 05:12:35 AM »

Actually, in my previous post, I spoke of clements 1st epistle. There was something in particular that caught my attention and I forgot to mention earlier.. It is also relevant to the title of this thread..

Opening of the letter:

"From the colony of the church of God at Rome - To the colony of the church of God at Corinth, called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ. All grace and peace to you from God almighty, through Jesus Christ.

The word 'colony' caught my attention straight off the bat. I continued reading and wanted to come back and check that out, but at the end of the letter I came across some notes from the translators - or the authors of this book - Maxwell Staniforth, and Andrew Louth - professor of patristic and byzantine studies. But I haven't a clue who they are.

I quote;

Notes. (Referring to the above quote)

Literally, the church of God which is 'transiently sojourning in Rome'. Clement is here using a technical term which denotes the temporary residents of a place, as distinct from its permanent inhabitants; for the Christians true home is not the earth, but in heaven. I have tried to express the idea by the word 'colony', in the sense in which we might speak of 'the french colony in London'.

End quote.

I suppose if there is a 'French colony in London, not all of the French would be living in the same place? They are scattered around, but they are still French people living in England, simply backed up by the fact that they are French.

My understanding is virtually the same with the Church. The Body of Christ.

Can anyone shed some light on this?
Logged
ByGracethroughFaith
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 100


« Reply #133 on: January 09, 2012, 05:18:54 AM »

If my 'teachings' are different to (or better than, as you think I think) that of the O.C or the early fathers, would it not be possible to reference some of them so I can see who you are referring to and how my understanding differs from theirs?

I might be one you like to refer to as an 'internet troll' or 'swine'. Call me what you like. Think of me what you like. Ridicule and persecution would be more an accurate description of what I have experienced on this site. I Praise the Lord for that.. If there is just 1 person reading this thread and comes to the knowledge of Truth in Jesus Christ then it has been worthwhile. But you have made your opposition to the Truth clear, and again I reference scripture:

1 Corinthians 14:37If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.38But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.


I wonder what makes you think that our teachings are wrong? Are you familiar with the teachings of the Orthodox Church? Have you studied the Early Church Fathers?

Are you familiar with how the Bible, which you rightly revere, came to be? (Here's a hint: It did not come from heaven leather-bound with the King James translation and the words of Christ in Red.)

You say that if one comes to the knowledge of Christ through your postings, well then Glory to God!

What makes you think that we do not know Christ?

Did you know that in the post-communal hymn of the Orthodox Church, we sing "We have seen the true light, we have received the Heavenly Spirit, we have found the true faith, worshiping the undivided Trinity, who has saved us!"?

Do you know who the Early Church Fathers are and why we pay attention to what they have to say? They aren't just a bunch of old men that we like to quote. There is a reason why we take their words seriously. Do you know why?

I am interested in how much you know about the Prefix Church, that you have come to enlighten us to the truth.

Or is it you, who have come to be enlightened?

I am still waiting for a response to my questions.



I never said so bluntly orthodox teachings are wrong.
I am becoming familiar with the teachings of the orthodox church.
I am reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am well aware the bible did not come down 'leather bound etc.
Yes, Glory be to God if someone comes to Christ.
I never said you don't know Christ. How do I know you?
No. I didn't know about the post communal hymn, but thanks for sharing.
I am currently reading the ante-nicene fathers.
I am interested in how much I know about the prefix church also - hence I'm here.
Perhaps I have come to be enlightened. Perhaps not.
Logged
FountainPen
Is not wasting any more of her ink
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,025



« Reply #134 on: January 09, 2012, 05:22:02 AM »


Who's crying?

If you're going to interrupt the flow of an interesting thread, at least make it worth it.  Wink

Does this mean you're going to respond to my post? Smiley

Yep
Logged

None of us can have as many virtues as the fountain pen, or half its cussedness; but we can try. Mark Twain
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 0.305 seconds with 73 queries.