Originally posted by robrecht
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Theology 201 Guidelines
This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.
Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.
Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is Sola Scritura from Scripture?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostMostly because you haven't plainly told him that is your aim. Something he's probably already figured out I'm guessing though.βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον·
ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View Post[That the direct descendants of the apostles are still around is] obviously disputable,
and there's a number of "descendants" in that chain who bore little fruit that would indicate they were even followers of Christ.
No it didn't. You of all people should be aware that the NT canon was relatively fixed early on. Evidence includes the quoting of all of the NT books in the writings of the early church fathers and the 2nd century Muratorian fragment that lists most of the books in the canon as we know it today.
If it was only for a specific audience, only for a specific time and pace, then it would be worthless to anyone outside of that time and place.
In that regard, then, it seems best to understand scripture as multi-dimensional. On one level the New Testament directly addresses the issues and circumstances of its original audience, and on another level it's applicable to all Christians everywhere and in every time.
37818 wrote "essentials of the Christian faith". There have always been, and always will be differences between Christians on secondary matters, and that's true for the Orthodox and Catholic communities as it is the Protestant ones.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by 37818 View PostSays who?
What we have direct from God to His prophets and Apostles to the us by way of writings which are the Holy Scriptures.
That is not what I asserted. I asserted that there is a disagreement whether God does or does not today by way of the three gifts of the Holy Spirit speak to His church today, as noted. I did not assert God cannot. You say this disagreement is not a secondary issue. So then according to you all professing Christians who are cessationist are heretics.
Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written (2 Peter 2:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
And you are citing is Holy Scripture to make your argument.
The Holy Scriptures were handed down through the churches.
So then you are arguing protestants of the Reformation are not Christians then.
Originally posted by OBPWhy, then, are there so many [Christian] denominations?Originally posted by OBPNot even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!
The church [made up of churches] Christ is building has been here 19 centuries.
And those teachings come from the Holy Scriptures as noted.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThe idea that they were not around for at least quite some time has more to do with polemics than history; even most Protestants can accurately be described as Chalcedonian, and the Reformers found much authoritative teachings in the writings of St. Augustine (and IIRC Anselm). A strict sola scriptura view discounts all that.
Most, yes. We're quibbling over details.
Agreed. What I'm getting at is that scripture was not written to cover everything. The apostles did not, for example, write a manual detailing Christian worship, or write out the essentials of their belief. The Church was built on the preaching of the apostles and their successors; it took time for the lectionary to develop.
I agree; however, if a "secondary matter" causes schism, how "secondary" could it possibly be to those involved?Last edited by Adrift; 12-04-2015, 09:37 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThat a Protestant might accept a particular interpretation of scripture from a later figure like Augustine does not imply that they believe that Augustine (for example) had Apostolic authority.
That's the point of the correction I offered. You wrote: "It took centuries before the NT canon was largely agreed upon". It did not take centuries for the NT canon to be largely agreed upon. It was largely agreed upon within a century or so. Had you written "It took centuries before the NT canon was completely agreed upon" I wouldn't have quibbled.
I think it can be argued that the Apostles did write a manual detailing Christian worship, and that manual is woven throughout their letters to their initial audience. It only takes a competent hermeneutic (admittedly guided by the Holy Spirit) to read that out.
Point taken, but it doesn't seem to me that most Protestant churches today schism over salvational issues, and even that originally believed they had, I'm certain have since rethought that position. The passage of time has a way of putting things in perspective.
I imagine few modern Orthodox believers believe the Roman church or the Iconoclasts of the 8th and 9th century split over essentials that would deny salvation.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThen why does Protestant worship largely look so different from that of the Catholic churches?
And why is there such variety in Protestant worship, which is ostensibly scripturally based?
This seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.
Some Orthodox believers believe that there is no salvation outside the Orthodox Church (Jezz came to hold this view, which is why he stepped down from his leadership position). The more prevalent view, AFAICT, is that there is salvation inside the Orthodox Church, and no dogmatic statement should be made regarding those outside of Orthodoxy.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostFrom my perspective, as an ex-cultist, it isn't so different, or at least, not so different as I was initially led to believe.
Again, in my opinion, the variety in Protestant worship isn't so great.
But the reason there is so much variety is because of freedom to do so. I think that freedom can be a wonderful thing especially when church leadership grows corrupt as has been the case on numerous occasions in all of our faith traditions.
Originally posted by OBPThis seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.
I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that the prevalent view, as far as you can tell, is that there is salvation in the Orthodox Church, but that outside of it, anyone, even those who claim not to be Christian (an atheist, or a Muslim, or a Hindu) has as much chance at salvation as one who is, say, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, or Southern Baptist?
(apropos of your avatar, Blue Highway was running through my head on the way home)Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostThere is almost literally nothing in common between a Lutheran liturgy and a Quaker meeting. In most Protestant churches, the sermon is the main focus of the service; in Orthodox/Roman Catholic/Anglican services, the Eucharist is the focal point of the service.
From my perspective, freedom is what allows corruption to wreak the most havoc. The reason why prayers became fixed in the liturgy is because that way heretics couldn't slip their heresies into them. The teachings of the Orthodox Church are embedded in its services; even when the Russians forbade the priests to teach, knowledge was still passed down through the daily services of the Church.
It seems that if you're talking about the church today, as if the church of yesteryear was of less import. And I think that today, for many people in the West at least, denomination is rather less significant than it was even a generation ago, with many people eschewing denomination entirely.
No, a Christian would be (much, IMO) more likely to be saved, but only the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the faith.
(apropos of your avatar, Blue Highway was running through my head on the way home)Last edited by Adrift; 12-04-2015, 11:24 PM.
Comment
-
I still don't fully understand what the disagreement even is. Is Bad Pig saying that modern "apostles" are able to contradict the word of God? Or can they only add on to the word of God, but not explicitly contradict it? And what exactly are the limits of their add-on authority, given that Deuteronomy 4 says the law itself is fixed?
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostOK, so if God has not revealed to you that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture, has he revealed it to someone else?
And Jesus, as I also pointed out, contended by being willing to do God's will, God's teaching is known (John 7:16). While Jesus was speaking of His words, this truth applies to all of God's word (John 8:47).
Is it revealed in Scripture that these 66 books, and only these 66 books, are holy Scripture?
Or do you accept some extra-scriptural authority that identifies these and only these 66 books as sacred Scripture?
Again, those 66 books are what were handed down as Holy Scripture by the churches. And they have withstood a test of time as well.Last edited by 37818; 12-05-2015, 07:52 PM.. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI think there is probably far more than you realize. Coming from an organization that did not believe in baptism, or in the trinity, or in any form of church meeting place (home fellowships only), or a liturgy there is a ton in common between Lutheran liturgy and a Quaker meeting. And the Quakers may not have a scripted liturgy like you'd expect in Lutheran church, but they do partake in what they call a liturgy of silence which is meant to express the same form of worshipfulness. Even Baptists have a liturgy of sorts, they simply don't call it a "liturgy". Sometimes they refer to it as a bulletin in which the worshipers sing songs, the pastor preaches, the collection plate is passed around, there's a closing prayer, and then you leave.
And from my perspective, when you fix a prayer, you end up with rote memorization that can lead to thankless, and faithless ritual. It's why many commentators believe Jesus specifically warned against the repetitious style of Gentile prayer before showing the style of prayer we ought to emulate.
In my experience, lack of freedom in churches often results in churches that come off cold and mechanical and spiritless. I've been to mainline churches that are heavy on a scripted liturgy and they come off to me as...dead. There's no life, no energy, no passion for what they're a part of. Just a sort of zombie going through the motions. A sort of "we do this because our parents did this and because their parents did". Maybe that hasn't been your experience, and perhaps that isn't always the issue in heavily liturgical churches, but its what I've witnessed personally.
And if you're afraid of corruption in the church, well I hate to break it to you, but some of the most corrupt churches were those who lacked the freedom to deviate. I mean, it was corruption in the Church that led to the Reformation to begin with.
I'm not sure what I said to give you that impression. Though I do think there's a sense of introspection in the church today that was missing in much of the past. Why do we do what we do, rather than "just do it".
Instead of worrying so much about what we wear to church,
how closely we follow the rote rituals,
which baptized Christians can and cannot take communion with us, and the like,
there is more of a sense of, you know, getting back to basics that I think the Reformation affords modern believers.
When I read something like the Didache, I see in it a church service that is much more like a non-denominational Evangelical service than I do an Orthodox or Roman Catholic service. But that's neither here nor there.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View PostI still don't fully understand what the disagreement even is. Is Bad Pig saying that modern "apostles" are able to contradict the word of God?
Or can they only add on to the word of God, but not explicitly contradict it? And what exactly are the limits of their add-on authority, given that Deuteronomy 4 says the law itself is fixed?
In Orthodox understanding, an ecumenical council has the authority to decree normative beliefs and praxis. For example, the Nicene Creed, as formulated by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and expanded by the Council of Constantinople in 381, is considered authoritative. However, their decrees cannot contradict what is already authoritative, and need to be supported by past belief.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
-
You DO recognize that the New Testament came after Deuteronomy, yes?
In Orthodox understanding, an ecumenical council has the authority to decree normative . . . praxis.
However, their decrees cannot contradict what is already authoritative, and need to be supported by past belief.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Obsidian View PostI don't think the New Testament modified the law.
That sounds a bit like modifying the law.
I doubt that 37818 has any problem with merely decreeing things that are already supported by past belief, and that do not contradict past belief. The problem comes when you make up new things. Hence, I don't truly understand what the dispute is about.Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom
Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Comment