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
See more
See less

Is Sola Scritura from Scripture?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by robrecht View Post
    Why do you consider this a little bit of a "gotcha"? I think it is an entirely fair and straightforward question.
    Mostly because you haven't plainly told him that is your aim. Something he's probably already figured out I'm guessing though.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      Mostly because you haven't plainly told him that is your aim. Something he's probably already figured out I'm guessing though.
      My aim is merely to understand how he approaches this question.
      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


      • #33
        Originally posted by Adrift View Post
        [That the direct descendants of the apostles are still around is] obviously disputable,
        The 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.
        and there's a number of "descendants" in that chain who bore little fruit that would indicate they were even followers of Christ.
        That's not a new issue; it's been around since at least the Novatianist schism.
        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.
        Most, yes. We're quibbling over details. Revelation wasn't firmly accepted until the 7th century (even later in the case of the Armenians and some Syrian groups); IIRC it took nearly as long for Hebrews to be fully accepted in the West, and some Syraic groups never did accept James, 2 Peter, and 2 & 3 John.
        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.
        No.
        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.
        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.
        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.
        I agree; however, if a "secondary matter" causes schism, how "secondary" could it possibly be to those involved?
        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


        • #34
          Originally posted by 37818 View Post
          Says who?
          At least Orthodox and Roman Catholic Christians (IIRC Anglicans and Lutherans claim apostolic descent as well).
          What we have direct from God to His prophets and Apostles to the us by way of writings which are the Holy Scriptures.
          Sure.
          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.
          You are asserting that the 66 books of scripture accepted by Protestants are the final authority. That leaves no room whatsoever for the Holy Spirit to speak with authority.
          Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture upon being written (2 Peter 2:20-21; 2 Timothy 3:16-17).
          Yes and no. It is indeed inspired by God upon being written, but it takes time for it to be largely recognized as such.
          And you are citing is Holy Scripture to make your argument.
          Um, yes. Now try reading it for comprehension.
          The Holy Scriptures were handed down through the churches.
          Of course, but that does not support what you said.
          So then you are arguing protestants of the Reformation are not Christians then.
          No. I am arguing that what the Protestants of the Reformation stated is not normative for Christianity.
          Originally posted by OBP
          Why, then, are there so many [Christian] denominations?
          Because of disagreements over secondary issues.
          Originally posted by OBP
          Not even the Reformers of the 16th century could agree!
          By making non essentials as essentials.
          So you admit that you and they disagree over what is essential.
          The church [made up of churches] Christ is building has been here 19 centuries.
          Yes.
          And those teachings come from the Holy Scriptures as noted.
          And whatever was preached by the apostles, which came prior to the NT.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            The 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.
            That 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.

            Most, yes. We're quibbling over details.
            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.

            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 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.

            I agree; however, if a "secondary matter" causes schism, how "secondary" could it possibly be to those involved?
            Point taken, but it doesn't seem to me that most Protestant churches today schism over salvational issues, and even those 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.
            Last edited by Adrift; 12-04-2015, 09:37 AM.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Adrift View Post
              That 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.
              IIRC Augustine was cited by the Reformers in arguments against Rome.
              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.
              "Complete" isn't technically accurate.
              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.
              Then 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?
              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.
              This seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.
              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.
              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.
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                Then why does Protestant worship largely look so different from that of the Catholic churches?
                From my perspective, as an ex-cultist, it isn't so different, or at least, not so different as I was initially led to believe.

                And why is there such variety in Protestant worship, which is ostensibly scripturally based?
                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.

                This seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.
                I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

                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.
                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?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  From 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.
                  There 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.
                  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.
                  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.
                  Originally posted by OBP
                  This seems to focus on the church today as at least somewhat divorced from the church of history.
                  I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
                  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.

                  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?
                  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)
                  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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                    There 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.
                    I 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.

                    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.
                    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.

                    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.
                    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.

                    No, a Christian would be (much, IMO) more likely to be saved, but only the Orthodox Church has the fullness of the faith.
                    Ok...I think.

                    (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


                    • #40
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by robrecht View Post
                        OK, 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?
                        As I had already explained, those 66 books that are in our Bible were handed down as Holy Scripture.

                        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?
                        Not at all. Only that that God's written word is the sure word of God (2 Peter 1:19-21) and completely authoritative (2 Timothy 3:14-17). Now because not all of those 66 books are cross referenced and quoted in Holy Scripture does not mean they are not God's word. And just because non-Holy Scripture is quoted in Holy Scripture does not make such documents the word of God too.

                        Or do you accept some extra-scriptural authority that identifies these and only these 66 books as sacred Scripture?
                        No. Not as a word of God. If that is what you are asking.

                        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


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          I 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.
                          I think you're mostly confusing belief and praxis here. I am referring to the latter. I agree that all services can be called 'liturgy.' Again, however, the structure of most Protestant services is built around the sermon, Pentacostal services tend to be built more around the experience of the Holy Spirit, and some (like the Catholic Churches) are built around the Eucharist.
                          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.
                          Which IMO is a complete mis-reading motivated by a bias against fixed prayer; the early disciples certainly regarded what Jesus gave as such (already in the Didache it's being repeated three times a day).
                          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.
                          Keep in mind I'm a convert from fundamentalism, and I've experienced a broad range of worship styles. Yes, a scripted liturgy can come off as dead; I've experienced that in a mainline church myself. On the other hand, I have yet to experience that in any of the 10 or so Orthodox churches I've attended (which is not to say it couldn't happen).
                          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 agree that no style is immune to corruption; a fixed liturgy, however, makes doctrine relatively immune to corruption. (I'd argue that the Reformation was not the most corrupt period in the Roman Catholic church, but that's a subject for another thread.)
                          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".
                          I'm not sure you're getting my point. The church of today should be the church of yesterday, with the same values; the message hasn't changed. It is all one church, past, present, and future.
                          Instead of worrying so much about what we wear to church,
                          Was rather more important to me as a Protestant.
                          how closely we follow the rote rituals,
                          Woe betide the Protestant minister who decides to change the order of the service. And even hymns and worship songs can easily be sung by rote.
                          which baptized Christians can and cannot take communion with us, and the like,
                          Some Protestant denominations practice closed communion. And no one worries about that in my church except for the priest (or the deacon, if present).
                          there is more of a sense of, you know, getting back to basics that I think the Reformation affords modern believers.
                          That would be nice if anyone could agree on what "the basics" are. They can't, which has been a problem since the Lutherans and Calvinists attempted to come together.
                          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.
                          The Orthodox Liturgy of the Word (the first half of the Divine Liturgy) is recognizably similar to the synagogue service from whence it sprang.
                          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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                            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?
                            No.
                            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?
                            You DO recognize that the New Testament came after Deuteronomy, yes?

                            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


                            • #44
                              You DO recognize that the New Testament came after Deuteronomy, yes?
                              I don't think the New Testament modified the law.

                              In Orthodox understanding, an ecumenical council has the authority to decree normative . . . praxis.
                              That sounds a bit like modifying the law.

                              However, their decrees cannot contradict what is already authoritative, and need to be supported by past belief.
                              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.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                                I don't think the New Testament modified the law.

                                That sounds a bit like modifying the law.
                                Christians are not under 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.
                                He disagrees with the Nicene Creed; he doesn't think it, for example, should be authoritative (and I wager that he would still think it should not be authoritative even if he agreed with it, because it's not scripture).
                                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.
                                Working...
                                X