The "Final Authority" = the Bible

[Rdr Iakovos]

So how in the world do the Orthodox interpreters come up with the claim that the Orthodox church is the church..?

How is scripture interpreted in order to make this claim.. ?

Is it the same way that the RCC does, as they claim that they're the church.. or the JWs..? or the mormons..? ..or whoever else claims that their organization is the church of God..

Ah, so you claim that our claim is merely a claim- that's your claim.

In fact, you make claims about what our claims are and are not, regardless of what we actually claim or counterclaim.

How is your claim to be part of some unbiblical invisible church any less a claim- or any more credible- than our biblicalclaim that the Church is indeed visible and identifiable? Or our historical validation versus your historical void?

Let's get back to the topic, without further ado, or further obfuscations, shall we?

How can the scriptures "speak for themselves?" And if they do, why do we need you or some other claim jumper to say that they do?

Scriptures are a witness, and they require a living letter to bear witness of them in both word and deed. They are canon, measure, not jurist nor jury.

The witness and deposit of faith found in the Church does nothing for those who do not recognize their need for it.

Nor would I dare to suggest that you have any need of it. After all, it seems to offend these days to suggest that the Church is something more than an idea.

 

[Trento]

What do you think those He sent then and us also now preach and teach from? The Bible. Where is the gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to us? The Bible! Is the Bible the word of God which He holds even above His own name as He says? Yes, it is, and that makes it the final authority.



.

The Bible as final authority presupposes (1) the existence of the printing press, (2) the universal distribution of Bibles, (3) universal literacy, (4) the universal possession of scholarly support materials, (5) the universal possession of adequate time for study, (6) universal nutrition, and (7) a universal education in a high level of critical thinking skills. Needless to say, this group of conditions was not true in the crucial early centuries of the Church, was not true through 1400 years of Church history. If God expects the average Christian to obtain and maintain the Christian faith without using the Bible as final authority then the Bible alone is not God’s plan. You can sit there now educated with a printed bible and forget that the Church for 1400 years instructed people in the Catholic faith. GODS plan was to have a Church do it.

 

[Trento]

So how in the world do the Orthodox interpreters come up with the claim that the Orthodox church is the church..?

..

Christian History.

 

[ETide]

Ah, so you claim that our claim is merely a claim- that's your claim.

Please tell me you're not serious James.. I've heard it straight from every Orthodox person I've encountered on these boards.. so it's a little more than my claiming it to be so.. I wouldn't suggest it if it didn't come up day in and day out.. again and again..

In fact, you make claims about what our claims are and are not, regardless of what we actually claim or counterclaim.

Well tell us James.. is the Orthodox church the church.. or is it simply a claim I've made up...?

How is your claim to be part of some unbiblical invisible church any less a claim- or any more credible- than our biblicalclaim that the Church is indeed visible and identifiable? Or our historical validation versus your historical void?

What makes me a member of the body of Christ.. the LORD's church, is that I have Christ in me.. that's what happens when the LORD adds members to His body.. He baptizes them into His body with His Spirit..

SO.. if you can see the hidden man of the heart that is within my earthen vessel..ie, the SPIRIT of CHRIST, or within any Christian for that matter.. then you can identify the church of God..

I guess you'd rather claim that it's what doors you enter through on any given day.. although this simply exemplifies that you do not understand what the church of God is..

Let's get back to the topic, without further ado, or further obfuscations, shall we?

The question I ask is relative to your comment and to the thread.. you said that the scriptures require an interpreter.. so how does the Orthodox interpreter come up with the claim that the Orthodox church is the church of God, according to the scriptures..?

How can the scriptures "speak for themselves?" And if they do, why do we need you or some other claim jumper to say that they do?

Many texts can provide information.. the bible is no different in this basic sense.. although it is also living and powerful and so it does speak in many relative ways to our own circumstances and spirit.. His words are spirit and they are life.. and His Spirit can interact with ours.. so we are to take this sword of the Spirit which is the word of God..

I look at the scriptures as I look at His creation.. take sight for instance.. there is a dominant view before us, although this view is comprised of a seemingly infinite composite of elements.. same with the word.. there is a dominant theme and there is also an infinite underlying basis for all of it..

Sound is the same way.. we hear dominant tones and yet there are infinite overtones and harmonics comprising the whole..

Scripture is like this to me.. and its living and abiding nature is proven over and over by the fact that men have not even begun to exhaust the wealth contained therein..

So, the Orthodox are no different than anybody else.. they have not exhausted the wealth of scripture.. they're growing and learning like everyone else.. (those in Christ that is).. They may claim that they're it.. but again.. they're no different..

Scriptures are a witness, and they require a living letter to bear witness of them in both word and deed. They are canon, measure, not jurist nor jury.

The witness and deposit of faith found in the Church does nothing for those who do not recognize their need for it.

Nor would I dare to suggest that you have any need of it. After all, it seems to offend these days to suggest that the Church is something more than an idea.

To me James.. it is simply ridiculous how people continuously go on and on about how they're in the true church.. over and over again.. as if everyone else has missed it..

I suppose that this claim is necessary to those who have no understanding of what the church of God is.. because if they did know what His church was.. there wouldn't be the nonsense of claiming that it is the Orthodox church... or the RCC, or the chruch of LDS.. or the JWs.. etc etc etc..

Not much has changed.. those that claimed to be able to see in Christ's day were the one's who were blind..

 

[ETide]

Christian History.

Yeah, because it's certainly not according to the word of God.. that's for sure.

Thank you.

 

[Trento]

Yeah, because it's certainly not according to the word of God.. that's for sure.

Thank you.

The Word of God” in the NT is defined as Apostolic teachings, practices, liturgy, preaching, traditions, authority but also this includes the writings that made up the NT..
The Apostles were lead to all truth by the Holy Spirit and whatever they passed down through the Church was the objective truth of God’s revelation in Jesus.
Corinthians 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.

1 Thessalonians 2:13
And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

Those that would limit “The word of God” to personal interpretation of Scripture, vandalise the very Scripture they promote (as the source of their personal “insights” and private opinions that form the bases of their very own religion.) as it does not support their rebellious activities..
The longer I read posts on this site the stronger is my Catholic Faith as I see nothing but futile scratching and gouging against the pillar and foundation of truth (1Tim 3:15)

Ephesians 3:10
His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms.
Anyway after that intro, the point I want to make is that one cannot get blood from a stone.

It is impossible to obtain the objective truth that is revelation – the encounter with Christ ( He is truth itself) by a system based on subjective opinion.

It is inevitable that thousands of religions will result from sincere people forging a personal understanding using Scripture in isolation of revealed truth, given and passed down by the Apostles through the Church instigated for that purpose (Eph.3:10).
Promoting Scripture alone is a formula made to create division and uncertainty within the people of God.- It validates any individual's position against all others with no way to have a final authorative decision.
If wrong conclusions are made they are made in ignorance as Scripture does not, can not speak out and say " hey that is the wrong understanding" , or have the writer speak out from the written record "hey that is not what I taught through the Church", "that is not the understanding I had when I wrote" etc; etc; - the reader stays in ignorance until they compare their "insights" with the teachings of Christ's Church.
Take the very means of salvation.

We have those of the Pentecostal persuasion promoting some truth in knowing the necessity of sanctification for salvation but distorting the emphasis so much to claim those who are Baptised in the Spirit and speak tongues go to Heaven and those who do not to Hell – all this “proved” by Scripture alone.

We have those who claim salvation is by election alone – that God decides before we are born to send us to Hell or to Heaven and we are totally passive to His salvation. Again this is “proved” by Scripture alone.

We have those who claim salvation is by fiducial faith alone – a legal declaration of alien righteousness based on the premise of being less than perfect under the Law and the need for someone to “pay the price” – allowing one to continue in sin but deemed righteous.

We have arguments about whether Baptism regenerates, is necessary, the nature of Grace, the need for charity/love for salvation as well as faith, the need and understanding of sanctification/holiness – all different but all from the same source devising every wind of doctrine.

The constant daily diatribe says “where is that in Scripture?? Fact is Catholic teachings are all in complete harmony with Scripture properly understood (which may exclude many here) and have to be as it was the Catholic Church that selected the NT.
The Catholic Church did not add anything to Scripture – it added Scripture to the Church.

Scripture does not suggest that “The Word of God” is held by Scripture alone – or by personal interpretation alone - that is a Protestant fallacy.

The oldest Church in Christendom was established by St Thomas the Apostle who went to India. It is dated in the State of Kerala from 52AD. It still functions today. It still resides with the same teachings it promoted 2000 yrs, ago, the same as St Patrick took to Ireland. It is part of the same Church that 300 yrs after it was founded constructed and proclaimed the NT. It is a Catholic Church.

 

[ETide]

blah blah blah Trento.. same ol same ol..

All praise to the RCC ! !

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

There are major fables in the catholic church...It's like Mary worship, when the Bible directly states there was NO one born of man greater than John.
Catholics do not worship Mary.

We are now the truest church because we are established firmly upon the truth of the word of God. We don't make up things.
You made something up in your previous paragraph.

Nor bow to any man,
How patently Western. Orientals- among them the Jews- gave honor by bowing.
nor pray to saints when the Bible says we are all saints.
You request the intercession of saints, just like Catholics do.
I could go on and on about the false teachings of the catholic church, but most of us know already.
I'm glad you stopped going on and on, for it makes the job of correcting yourfalse statements easier.

If the word of God says there was no one greater born of man than John, then why are catholics worshipping Mary?
The question is why you ignore the scripture that says that the very angel of God said that she was blessed among women, and that all generations would call her so.

And now we've got all these pedophiles in the catholic church.
The rate of pedophilia and adultery is higher among Evangelicals than Catholics. In both cases, it is horifying. Please not log in the Protestant eye before digging at Catholic speck.

It's very sad; these pedophile priests were just alive to dead works. Why didn't that eucharist work for these pedophiles?

Hey, dontcha think all that gold paving at the vatican could help a lot of poor people? I do.
I bet you could sell your PC and help poor people. When can we expect that?

I also recently read in the Bible don't worship a golden cup. Sounds like these are all empty traditions to me, made up for monies. Catholism is based on a lot of idol worship.
So says you. I'm not Catholic, and I can see quite clearly that the Holy Trinity is the locus and end of their worship.

As far as faith and works, both go hand in hand, but we don't believe we can buy our dead relatives a stairway to heaven by indulgences to make the rich richer.

As far as all the protestants churches I've been, they are right on. No false teachings whatsoever. And, if there are changes in the church, that comes from Anglican-protestants who work much like the catholic church. This pope or leader says one thing about the Bible, the next says another. Catholism is not on very solid ground then as it constantly changes according to what the pope says, as opposed to worshipping God and trusting his word. Anglicans work a bit like that, but not really. They have a heirarchy, but not like the pope, and they have a clearer understanding of the word as far as orthodox and conservative Anglicans as opposed to liberal anglicans. As far as non-denominational, we have no authority other than God's word and his Holy Spirit inside us.
Many Evangelicals and non-denoms would disagree with your statement.

Where in scripture does it say we need anything else? Jesus said "my father's house is a house of prayer!" Right? That's what church gatherings are for.
I been to non-denom services where there was no more than 2 minutes prayer in between rock songs and bible preaching. A catholic service is typically 3/4 prayer.

And also people keep bringing up this "tell it to the church" thing... well, I asked what are you going to tell to the church if you don't know what the Bible says? Catholics have only recently been reading the Bible as far as I know, as where I grew up the services for catholicism were all still in Latin, and people here don't speak Latin, they speak English. My family has had catholic friends and they all say "they don't believe in reading the Bible"? But, they like to go to church to hear a service in a language they don't even understand???????????
I think you just labored to undermine a phrase from Christ, who was the one who said "tell it to the Church."
As for reading the bible in a language you understand: You are reading a translation. If you wish to pontificate on the matter, learn to read it in the original languages.

I think the catholic church has survived on mystisms and somewhat like Islam terriorists in that they say if you leave the church you will not go to heaven and you have to wait in purgatory to be judged. What hogwash and how sad to terrorize and ensalve people like that for centuries.
Not content to compare Catholicism to Mormonism, you have now compared them to Islamic suicide bombers.
I think you have no idea what you are talking about. I might suggest that youeither learn more about Catholics, or abstain from further comment.
Just a suggestion

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Please tell me you're not serious James.. I've heard it straight from every Orthodox person I've encountered on these boards.. so it's a little more than my claiming it to be so.. I wouldn't suggest it if it didn't come up day in and day out.. again and again..
Apparently you didn't follow my play on words. No offense, but if you're not able to follow a play on words, you're not suited to interpret scripture.

Anyway, what I said was is that you claim that our claim is JUST a claim. You say that we are like the Mormons who claim that they are the Church also. No doubt there will be counterfeits where the real is.

I might add that your view of the Church, so cosmic and feel good, Jesus in me, I know and feel it, is similar to the perspective of the New Agers.



Well tell us James.. is the Orthodox church the church.. or is it simply a claim I've made up...?
Indeed the Holy Orthodox Church is the Church. Whether you are part of the Church or not is God's place to say.



What makes me a member of the body of Christ.. the LORD's church, is that I have Christ in me.. that's what happens when the LORD adds members to His body.. He baptizes them into His body with His Spirit..
Did you have spiritual water or stuff that made you wet? Was it a cardboard cutout Pastor, or did he have flesh?
Did Thomas put his fingers in the side of an idea, or flesh and blood?



SO.. if you can see the hidden man of the heart that is within my earthen vessel..ie, the SPIRIT of CHRIST, or within any Christian for that matter.. then you can identify the church of God..

I guess you'd rather claim that it's what doors you enter through on any given day.. although this simply exemplifies that you do not understand what the church of God is..
For the astute reader, I would like to point out the fallacy that was just perpetrated. ETide just invented a statement that I have never made, then used it to prove that I am wrong.

I'll giv reps to anyone who can identify that fallacy....



The question I ask is relative to your comment and to the thread.. you said that the scriptures require an interpreter.. so how does the Orthodox interpreter come up with the claim that the Orthodox church is the church of God, according to the scriptures..?
First, give me the link to where you have obtained the self interpreting, self-preaching bible. I want one of those.

The Orthodox Church doesn't need to use a book to invent fables about its origins. There is a clear, unbroken, historically demonstrable worship tradition and apostolic succession in each of our jurisdictions. Said successions predate the writing of scripture, but are found in scripture. In fact, one has to turn a blind eye not to see the appointment of elders and bishops, the electing of offices, the dispensation of authority, and so forth. Ignatius spoke cleary of these things 10 years after the death of John the Beloved.

Now show me the self-preaching bible in the scriptures.





Many texts can provide information.. the bible is no different in this basic sense.. although it is also living and powerful and so it does speak in many relative ways to our own circumstances and spirit.. His words are spirit and they are life.. and His Spirit can interact with ours.. so we are to take this sword of the Spirit which is the word of God..

I look at the scriptures as I look at His creation.. take sight for instance.. there is a dominant view before us, although this view is comprised of a seemingly infinite composite of elements.. same with the word.. there is a dominant theme and there is also an infinite underlying basis for all of it..

Sound is the same way.. we hear dominant tones and yet there are infinite overtones and harmonics comprising the whole..

Scripture is like this to me.. and its living and abiding nature is proven over and over by the fact that men have not even begun to exhaust the wealth contained therein..

So, the Orthodox are no different than anybody else.. they have not exhausted the wealth of scripture.. they're growing and learning like everyone else.. (those in Christ that is).. They may claim that they're it.. but again.. they're no different..
Anywhere in that solioquy was there an answer to my question? No? Carry on.



To me James.. it is simply ridiculous how people continuously go on and on about how they're in the true church.. over and over again.. as if everyone else has missed it..
Yes, it is rather absurd, the way you go on and on about it. IT's not the topic at hand, and you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

I suppose that this claim is necessary to those who have no understanding of what the church of God is.. because if they did know what His church was.. there wouldn't be the nonsense of claiming that it is the Orthodox church... or the RCC, or the chruch of LDS.. or the JWs.. etc etc etc..

Not much has changed.. those that claimed to be able to see in Christ's day were the one's who were blind..
And all this has bupkus to do wth my original thesis, which is that the bible does not speak for itself. You've been laboring feverishly on this thread to speak for it this bible which supposedly speaks for itself.
That you are blind to THAT is what is provoking this banal dialogue.

 

[PassthePeace1]

For the astute reader, I would like to point out the fallacy that was just perpetrated. ETide just invented a statement that I have never made, then used it to prove that I am wrong.

I'll giv reps to anyone who can identify that fallacy....

I'd call that a strawman.

 

[ETide]

..
Apparently you didn't follow my play on words. No offense, but if you're not able to follow a play on words, you're not suited to interpret scripture.

Your word games don't change the fact that the Orthodox continuously make nonsensical claims that they're the church of God.. which clearly shows that you folks have no idea what the church of God is.

Anyway, what I said was is that you claim that our claim is JUST a claim. You say that we are like the Mormons who claim that they are the Church also. No doubt there will be counterfeits where the real is.

Yes, many folks do persist in this nonsense..

I might add that your view of the Church, so cosmic and feel good, Jesus in me, I know and feel it, is similar to the perspective of the New Agers.

I wouldn't expect you to understand Christ in me..

Indeed the Holy Orthodox Church is the Church. Whether you are part of the Church or not is God's place to say.

Of course this is impossible to back up with the word of God.. but it's not as though that matters to those who make such claims..

Did you have spiritual water or stuff that made you wet? Was it a cardboard cutout Pastor, or did he have flesh?

Did Thomas put his fingers in the side of an idea, or flesh and blood?

I'd imagine that the holy water is your idea.. but if you're speaking of my baptism in water.. it was real.. and it was after I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.. and after He had sealed me with His Holy Spirit of promise.. but again.. I wouldn't expect you folks to understand.. you're used to a man dunkin a baby in water and then declaring that they're born again.. in Christ..

For the astute reader, I would like to point out the fallacy that was just perpetrated. ETide just invented a statement that I have never made, then used it to prove that I am wrong.

I'll giv reps to anyone who can identify that fallacy....

Now that's impressive Jim.. how do you do it..

First, give me the link to where you have obtained the self interpreting, self-preaching bible. I want one of those.

Why James.. you're in such a better place than anyone apart from the one true holy Orthodox church.. what more could you need than a claim like that.. ?

The Orthodox Church doesn't need to use a book to invent fables about its origins. There is a clear, unbroken, historically demonstrable worship tradition and apostolic succession in each of our jurisdictions. Said successions predate the writing of scripture, but are found in scripture. In fact, one has to turn a blind eye not to see the appointment of elders and bishops, the electing of offices, the dispensation of authority, and so forth. Ignatius spoke cleary of these things 10 years after the death of John the Beloved.

But there's no mention of your holy Orthodox church being the church of God.. it's something you must claim, as scripture reveals nothing remotely close to your nonsense.

Anywhere in that solioquy was there an answer to my question? No? Carry on.

I wouldn't expect you to understand the sword of the Spirit..it's obviously not part of your holy Orthodox church..

Yes, it is rather absurd, the way you go on and on about it. IT's not the topic at hand, and you're the one who keeps bringing it up.

I must agree that it's a waste of time to point out nonsense to those who can't see..

And all this has bupkus to do wth my original thesis, which is that the bible does not speak for itself. You've been laboring feverishly on this thread to speak for it this bible which supposedly speaks for itself.

That you are blind to THAT is what is provoking this banal dialogue.

Again, I must agree that it's pointless to point these things out.. even the LORD said to leave you folks alone..

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Your word games don't change the fact that the Orthodox continuously make nonsensical claims that they're the church of God.. which clearly shows that you folks have no idea what the church of God is.
My, my...what happened to the premise that the Church is in the believer- you seem to now be quite certain where the Church is, and I'm not in it.

Not to worry, I'm not offended, I'm just noting the shifting nature of your aguments and of what you proclaim to be true.

Of course this is impossible to back up with the word of God.. but it's not as though that matters to those who make such claims..
We've backed it up in triplicate, especially those portions in your New Testament that are not highlighted in yellow or underlined. He didn't say "your name is Peter, and upon this book I'll build my Church." He didn't breath on the pages and say "be filled with the Holy Spirit." There are not chapters in the gates of heavenly Jerusalem, but there are Apostles.

The Church is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, not upon the ink and paper.

Jesus said that He would build His Church, and He has. The Church did not go on hiatus, nor did she lose Her way.



I'd imagine that the holy water is your idea.. but if you're speaking of my baptism in water.. it was real.. and it was after I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.. and after He had sealed me with His Holy Spirit of promise.. but again.. I wouldn't expect you folks to understand.. you're used to a man dunkin a baby in water and then declaring that they're born again.. in Christ..
This is what we like to call flat satire. It lacks the yeast of true levity.

My point was and is that your baptism was not only spiritual, but physical-just as is the Church. So while I was granting your baptism the benefit of the doubt, you were angling to insult and belittle ours.

If grace is grace, your agreement with or understanding of your baptism means nothing. That is, unless you believe you are saved by our understanding or your feelings.



Now that's impressive Jim.. how do you do it..
Cheeky and witty retorts are my forte. Know what you're good at, and stick with that.


Why James.. you're in such a better place than anyone apart from the one true holy Orthodox church.. what more could you need than a claim like that.. ?
Look, another claim that I haven't made, being made in my name. ETide, I am not a man of few words- you really could work with what I am actually saying.



But there's no mention of your holy Orthodox church being the church of God.. it's something you must claim, as scripture reveals nothing remotely close to your nonsense.
Excuse me while I slip into something more comfortable- like a flak jacket and hip waders.
In all seriousness, are you are ever going to return to the subject at hand?




I wouldn't expect you to understand the sword of the Spirit..it's obviously not part of your holy Orthodox church..
I saw this sword of the spirit being yielded once at a prophetic conference, back when I was an Evangelical. I got close and got a look- it was made out of cardboard, covered in tinfoil.

The authentic sword of the spirit, metaphorically speaking, is the holy scriptures. We use swords in aikido- and I have yet to see a sword wield itself.



I must agree that it's a waste of time to point out nonsense to those who can't see..



Again, I must agree that it's pointless to point these things out.. even the LORD said to leave you folks alone..
I see that you are using a different standard of biblical proof here- does it say in the scripture to leave the holy Orthodox Church alone? NO? Then what was your intent in citing this?

 

[orthodoxy]

I respectfully disagree...

None of the verses offered speak of the Bible at all. They speak of the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures. "OT" "NT" and "Bible" are our labels. This thread isn't about the NT Canon - which we all completely agree on, so there is zero reason to discuss that in this forum where we discuss issues where consensus is lacking.

Back to the topic?

right now tell me where Jesus Christ "ordained (John 15:16)" and "sent (John 20:21-23)" a book to preach the gospel. I cant find that anywhere on the planet much less in the bible.....

Luke 10:16 "He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Says nothing about recieveing a book or rejecting a book, only rejecting those He sent, who are 12 that represent the Church. The bible is merely a "fruit" that remains part of the Church Jesus sends.

the unworthy,

kyril

 

[orthodoxy]

What do you think those He sent then and us also now preach and teach from? The Bible. Where is the gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to us? The Bible! Is the Bible the word of God which He holds even above His own name as He says? Yes, it is, and that makes it the final authority.



See above. God isn't the final authority, is that what you're saying?



It has in it everything we need and is complete as far as God is concerned or He would have had more in it. It's sufficient for us. All the books in the world couldn't contain all Jesus said or did but God has given us all we need. I see you saying that God's word the Holy Scrpiputres are any authority in anything and I think He would disagree with that.



Well, we look at what they say is so and then we look at what the Bible, the word of God, says is so and we don't find a match.

What do you think those He sent then and us also now preach and teach from?

So you agree Jesus sent men to preach His gospel and not a book. Very good. BTW the New Testament did not exist for many years after Jesus sent His men out. They only had the OT scripture.

The Bible.

The Septuagent a jewish book not the KJV nor the NIV.

Where is the gospel of Jesus Christ revealed to us?

His Church and the Eucharist (breaking of bread). Luke 24:30-31;35And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them. And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.
35And they told what things were done in the way, and how he was known of them in breaking of bread.
.

Is the Bible the word of God which He holds even above His own name as He says?

Jesus Christ places the bible above His own name? Your are kidding right?

Philippians 2:8-10 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death— even death on a cross! Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

I guess Paul needs to read the KJV as interpreted by the protestant mind.

Yes, it is, and that makes it the final authority.

Jesus said "tell it to the Church" Matthew 18 O' ye rebellious one that makes the Church the final authority according to Jesus Christ. He did not say "tell it to my book" as much as the protestant thinks his bible "talks".

See above. God isn't the final authority, is that what you're saying?

Jesus Christ is God. The Church is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the final authority. Again where did Jesus Christ give the bible "final authority" over a Christians life?

It has in it everything we need and is complete as far as God is concerned or He would have had more in it. It's sufficient for us. All the books in the world couldn't contain all Jesus said or did but God has given us all we need. I see you saying that God's word the Holy Scrpiputres are any authority in anything and I think He would disagree with that.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Giving the bible anything beyond that responsiblity is adding to the bible authority which is not there.

Well, we look at what they say is so and then we look at what the Bible, the word of God, says is so and we don't find a match.

Ditto goes for the protestants that make themselves popes.

the unworthy

kyril

 

[seanHayden]

You have confused me to the point of spinning.

Scripture is the final authority in this way, anything claimed to be Christian doctrine, must not contradict scripture.

Is this difficult?

Let me write it another way,

If a doctrine contradicts scripture, then it is false.

Lets make this an argument,

God preached the Good News to men. These men and their followers wrote down what God said. What is written down is called scripture. Therefore, to know what God has said, people read scripture. If someone says God said something, and this something contradicts what is in scripture, then God didn't say it.

 

[relspace]

Where did Jesus Christ "ordain and send" the bible into all the world to preach the gospel?

He did not. And yet the Bible is the product of that mission for these apostles then wrote down that message that they were sent out to preach. So even though we do not have these apostles in person we have their instruction in the words that they have written.

Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

He did not. For scripture is not the "final authority", God is. The Bible is simply the last thing which the church produced before human beings started to take the role of "final authority" upon themselves.

What makes the protestant faith think the RCC is the Church to rebel and protest against?

Aside from recognizing that the RCC's claims to be the oldest church in the world is bogus, frankly what is the difference. Well perhaps that is overstating things a bit, for the abuses which had people in Western Europe utterly fed up were problems of the RC not the EO. Yet now I think many protestants would say thank God for those abuses, for they have given us the cause to liberate ourselves from an overly ritualized and authoritarian expression of Christianity.

 

[Warrior Poet]

You have a great misunderstanding of personal interprtation and gleaning personal meaning going on at this point in the thread.

Warrior Poet

 

[Knowledge3]

Where did Jesus Christ "ordain and send" the bible into all the world to preach the gospel?

The Apostles and Church Fathers decided to form a collection of writings in a single book, and various interpretations and translations were produced over Christian history regarding the Bible.

Where did Jesus Christ proclaim the scripture as the "final authroity" in a Christians life?

Jesus taught and referred to the scriptures as did the Apostles who wrote the NT letters.

How can a book that is not complete in the stories and teachings of Jesus Christ be the "final authority" in anything?

It is not.

What makes the protestant faith think the RCC is the Church to rebel and protest against?

By that, you are defining multiple denominations and different faiths that can reach different conclusions for different people.

The RCC is easy to protest because that is what began the Protestant Reformation in the historical aspect.

 

[ETide]

My, my...what happened to the premise that the Church is in the believer- you seem to now be quite certain where the Church is, and I'm not in it.

Nothing has happened to the church of God.. and it has always consisted of those whom God has set into His body.. each one has Christ in them, their hope of glory.. and while it's still a mystery to many.. it is not a mystery to those who do have Christ in them..

Paul would write of it in this way..

[bible]Colossians 1:26-27[/bible]

Peter in his first epistle.. would write of that hidden man of the heart.. which is precious in the sight of God..

[bible]1 Peter 3:3-4[/bible]

And while the church of God manifests itself in many visible ways.. there certainly is an unseen aspect to it which is biblical.. as we do have this treasure in earthen vessels.. yes, it's the hidden man of the heart that is unseen.. yet having Christ in us is our hope of glory..

This is the church of God.. the habitation of God through the SPIRIT which dwells in each person whom He has sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise..

As for whether or not Christ is in you.. this is not for me to judge.. what I can know with certainty though, is that the church of God is not limited to the doors of the Orthodox church, nor the RCC, nor any other denomination that would claim it to be so.

Not to worry, I'm not offended, I'm just noting the shifting nature of your aguments and of what you proclaim to be true.

Originally I had asked you how the Orthodox interpreters come up with the claim that the Orthodox church is the church.. I'd say that you have avoided that seeing that there is no scriptural support for such a claim..

We've backed it up in triplicate, especially those portions in your New Testament that are not highlighted in yellow or underlined. He didn't say "your name is Peter, and upon this book I'll build my Church." He didn't breath on the pages and say "be filled with the Holy Spirit." There are not chapters in the gates of heavenly Jerusalem, but there are Apostles.

Now here's an interpretive matter.. Peter is not what Christ's church is built upon, but rather his confession of Christ being the Son of the living God..

AND.. the LORD does say that we do not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceeds from the mouth of God.. and all scripture proceeds from His mouth..as it is God breathed.. we're washed by the water of the word.. and we're sanctified by it.. His word is truth, and we're sanctified by His truth.

The Church is built upon the Apostles and Prophets, not upon the ink and paper.

And it is a habitation of God through the SPIRIT.. the eternal Spirit.. we're not to set our affections on earthly things.. but on things that are above..

Jesus said that He would build His Church, and He has. The Church did not go on hiatus, nor did she lose Her way.

Who claimed that it has..? He is still building His church, adding members to it as it pleases Himself.. and what pleases Him is faith.. for those that come to Him must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him.

My point was and is that your baptism was not only spiritual, but physical-just as is the Church. So while I was granting your baptism the benefit of the doubt, you were angling to insult and belittle ours.

Now who is the one making claims..?

I agree that my baptism literally happened.. although baptizing in water doesn't save a person.. for even John baptized with water.. but HE shall baptize us with the Holy Spirit..

This is what adds members to His church.. the body of Christ.. I was already a believer and in Christ when I was baptized..

[bible]1 Corinthians 12:13[/bible]

As for your baptism.. if it was done in unbelief.. ie, when you were an infant or had no faith in the Son of the living God.. then I too have experienced that.. I don't remember it, because I was an infant at the time.. although my mom assured me that it happened.. and it had absolutely no bearing on my becoming a child of God..

If grace is grace, your agreement with or understanding of your baptism means nothing. That is, unless you believe you are saved by our understanding or your feelings.

Every instance of water baptism in the scriptures involves people who believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and who obeyed the command to be baptized.. in my case.. I did believe on the Lord Jesus Christ when I was baptized as an adult, after I trusted in Him for the forgiveness of my sins..

The authentic sword of the spirit, metaphorically speaking, is the holy scriptures. We use swords in aikido- and I have yet to see a sword wield itself.

This is why we're admonished to take the sword of the spirit.. it's a two edged sword that can cut to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit.. and it is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart..

His word truly is living and powerful, and it is authoritive.. when He speaks.. He speaks as one having authority..

I see that you are using a different standard of biblical proof here- does it say in the scripture to leave the holy Orthodox Church alone? NO? Then what was your intent in citing this?

I was speaking with respect to leaving those alone who claim that they're it.. such as the Orthodox, the RCC, the JWs.. the LDS.. or any other denomination which would claim that it is the church of God.

 

[linssue55]

Those who deliberately ignore the errors of those who have gone before us in recorded history are doomed to repeat them again.
The History of sola scriptura in short form.
Martin Luther was trying to convey to his followers back in the 1520s that he had some sort of authority in order to justify his movement to separate from the Catholic Church. However, he obviously failed to do so, and thus quickly moved on to the next and much more destructive stages.
By his own actions in his separation from the one legitimate Church founded by Jesus Christ, Luther lost the one leg of authority, as he could not claim the Papacy and the Magisterium for himself. Secondly, since he formed his own church, he could not claim Catholic Apostolic tradition. Since he could not claim Apostolic tradition either, he lumped it in with man made tradition and thereby condemned all tradition.
All that was left was Holy Scripture which he took from the Catholic Church, and claimed that it alone was all that was needed, thus was born the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.


Why is it false? Remember how Jesus prayed that we all should be one united? Well soon after Shards had splintered off from his Lutheran church, with Munzer going this way, Calvin going that way, Zwingli going another way, and with all scattering the flocks.
Immediately the errors of Sola Scripturs emerged, for who did the scattering?
The damage of individual interpretation of Holy Scripture had taken its toll immediately.
Luther sounded as if he lamented what he had started when he made the following remarks,

"This one will not hear of Baptism, and that one denies the sacrament, another puts a world between this and the last day: some teach that Christ is not God, some say this, some say that: there are as many sects and creeds as there are heads. No yokel is so rude but when he has dreams and fancies, he thinks himself inspired by the Holy Ghost and must be a prophet."
De Wette III, 61. quoted in O'Hare, THE FACTS ABOUT LUTHER, 208.
"Noblemen, townsmen, peasants, all classes understand the Evangelium better than I or St. Paul; they are now wise and think themselves more learned than all the ministers."
Walch XIV, 1360. quoted in O'Hare, Ibid, 209.

Are you listening? Like I said I am unmovable when it comes to Sola Scripture. You are wasting your time.