-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?
- Thread starter simonthezealot
- Start date
- Status
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
Dear LLOJ,
Hardly. The Pope has spoken infallibly very rarely since the Catholic Church pronounced this dogma, and never does so in a personal manner.
This distinguishes him from those who claim that their own interpretation of Scripture is, guided by the Holy Spirit, sufficient. That would appear to be a claim to personal infallibility. I guess I'm beginning to see why some Protestants don't like the Catholic Church - don't like the idea of some other guy being infallible.
Peace,
Anglian
Hi Anglian,
No Protestant ever talks of infallibility. It's a distinctly RC doctrine and idea.
I have seen how you and the RCs interpreted Luke 11:27-29. Initially you guys didn't dare to give your interpretation because obviously those verses go against the very core of your cherished belief, a belief that you allow Tradition to supplant the Word of God. But after I taunted everyone, you guys reluctantly gave the interpretation with a long preamble.
It became patently obvious to me that you will go through incredible lengths to interpret a verse that runs counter to your cherished belief in what you claim is Tradition. In this case, your love for your unbiblical belief in Mary veneration has clouded your reading of Luke11:27-29.
I printed out that thread and showed it to my friends and everyone agreed that the way you and the RCs interpreted the verses is contrary to the clear wording of the verses. I know you are going to say, as you have said before, that what is clear to one person may not be so to another and so it's better to depend on the interpretation on a body of men who are very hung up on some of their own cherished beliefs anyway. But that is not true. There are some verses that you can't really interpret away with a long preamble on the importance of Mary veneration. Especially so if the verses are so clearly contrary to what you propose.
After that experience, I really don't wish to argue with you or the RCs any more because I think it's clear that if such obvious verses are forcibly twisted to such an extent as you have done in the other thread, you're not going to accept my words. In short, if God's word can be interpreted to lose its meaning, what chance has my argument got against people like that?
But that thread which I've saved in pdf format and printed for my friends is a good eye-opener. It gives me a real insight into how the mind of Orthodox Christians and RCs work. It helps me to understand them better and to avoid an argument with them. I always tell myself if that's how they treat God's word, who am I to expect better treatment from them? That way, the beamishboy can retire in peace and not pull out his sword from his sheath. And he can canter off to his Castle of Truth for a lovely repose.
Upvote
0
T
Thekla
Guest
Hi, Beamishboy -
I am unable to find the discussion about this verse; could you provide a link or citation (attributed quote/quotes with context)
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
What's the point in your post?
You mention verses in Luke I've not seen him discuss. Then you say you're not going to discuss it anyway, because he's twisted it out of proportion.
That's not true. Every Protestant here thinks that they're guided by the Holy Spirit in guiding them to the beliefs that they follow.
Or are you saying that they believe the Holy Spirit is tricking them?
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
Hi Thekla,
I tried to search my pdf files for the thread but I have thousands of pdf pages. I saved that many. Do you remember the title of the thread in which I posted a temporary signature with every post of mine that asks RCs to give me an interpretation of those verses. My temporary signature was in huge font and bold and bright red letterings. If you remember the title of the thread, I should be able to find it quite easily.
Anyway, I'll keep searching.
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
You're right. It's not relevant to this thread. But I was answering the point made by Anglian about Tradition. A major "tradition" is Mary veneration and from those verses, it's clear that Marian veneration is totally at odds with Christian teachings. That's why RCs and Orthodox don't want people to interpret the Bible themselves. Anyone reading those verses will know immediately our Lord's stand on this issue. But they would rather base their entire doctrine of Marian veneration by extrapolating wildly on the conversation between two women and ignore these words of our Lord Himself.
I'm merely saying "tradition" is just an excuse for not following the Bible because of some cherished belief that is too precious for us to give up after the Bible has cast its accusatory searchlight on it. We nullify the word of God by interposing "tradition".
Upvote
0
T
Thekla
Guest
the passage from Luke is not pertinent to this thread, but I feel that a clarification is in order:
the extended explanation was needed due to the seepage of a late occurring bias into the translation/and or understanding of the verse. As this misapprehension has now become a "western tradition", to set the matter aright merits an explanation and discussion. Also, as I mentioned then, "rather" is used as an affirmative in chapter 1 of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe .
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
So you're saying that tradition is disproved because you have en example from Scripture that doesn't serve the tradition?
Marian veneration is not based on that passage. That's for starters! Secondly, if it's a tradition it doesn't need to be founded on Scripture, you're suggesting that we base a tradition on sola scriptura. Does that make sense to you?
However Marian devotion does have support in the Bible
The Angel of the Lord called her blessed amongst women
Luke 1:42
Mary herself says that she will be blessed thought the generations
Luke 1:48
This specifically is not part of the thread, except insofar as a 'tradition' exists that is not against the Bible as you maintain.
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
But that is precisely why I find your kind of interpretation so SHOCKINGLY wrong. To found an entire doctrine on something so flimsy as a conversation between two women when Mary said all generations would call her blessed in elation when the verses I quoted show quite clearly that Jesus thought differently. The verses are Luke 11:27-28.
It's the extremely warped interpretation of the clear words of Luke 11:27-28 as given by some of the other posters in that thread that made me convinced that they've fixed their mind and they will continue to venerate Mary whatever Scriptures may say.
Luke 11:27-28 (New International Version)
27As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, "Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you."
28He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
Anyway, I really don't want to say any more about the subject. To some people, tradition has the power to subvert Scriptures even if they want to kid themselves that they aren't doing that. We just have to agree that we are different and move on. We don't have to have fellowship together but we can still be friends the way I can be friends with Buddhists, Muslims and Jews.
Upvote
0
Ramon96
Eastern Orthodox Christian
Problems with your interpretation:
1) Saint Paul taught that the Bible is "a" Rule of Faith, not "the" Rule of Faith, as you said. So thank-you for proving my point! No where in these texts do we see the word "only". No one have argue that Scriptures is not "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness".
2) It says Scripture is “useful” for these purposes, not that Scripture is sufficient for them; nor does it say or imply that something else might not also be useful. Apparently, you believe that the word "profitable" is the same thing as "sufficient". Scripture is helpful, it is a resource, an aid. This verse, nor the word "useful", nor its synonyms imply that it is the only rule of faith. It says that it is something useful for one's faith. And us Orthodox do not deny this. But we also follow what Saint Paul said 2 Thes 2:15. The belief that Saint Paul's oral teachings ["unwritten"] can be found in his epistles is both not found in the text nor was it taught by the Holy Apostles. Your belief that "Paul was urging the Thessalonians to test all truth-claims by Scripture, and by the words they had heard personally from his own lips" is also something not found in the text [2 Thes 2:15]. If we imply that interpretation, the text will render senseless.
3) The context makes clear that the Scripture St. Paul means is the Jewish "Bible", the Christians’ Old Testament. Read 2 Timothy 3:15. The only Scriptures that St. Timothy could have known from childhood were the Sacred Scriptures of the Jews. The other NT books were later canonized by the Church, to which they are equal to the Scriptures Saint Paul talked about.
By carefully studying this verse it is clear to see that it does not say that the Bible alone is our sole rule of faith. The Bible did not defined itself. Thereby, another recognized authority or governing body declare that certain books were Scripture and others weren't. Something outside the Bible has to verify the sacredness of the Scriptures. What was that sanctioned body? That is my friend is the Church!
Try Again Simon!
Also, when will you answer my questions that I have asked you a couple of days ago? Also, I will repeat:
The fact that you accept 27 Books in the NT is because it was the Church Authority in the 4th Century that declare it so. You reject the Gospel of Thomas or whatever because it is not included in your Bible and that is because the Church did not accept that book as Scripture. The fact that you use the words "Holy Trinity" or "Trinity" was because that was the language of the ECF, not because of Scriptures. The fact that you accept the Orthodox Definition of the Holy Trinity is because that definition was taught by the First Ecumenical Council, because no where in Scriptures do we find a clear definition of the Holy Trinity, so you have to rely on what the Church said in the 1st Ecumenical Council. Thereby, it is clear that you did not go to the Holy Bible to find out what the "Holy Trinity" is; in other words you did not go to the Holy Bible to find the definition of the Holy Trinity. Believe it or not, you appeal to the ECF's more than you know.
Therefore, I assert that the doctrine of sola scriptura is not taught plainly in this passage, and you have not deliver a Scripture that teach Sola-Scriptura.
But it was Tradition that was used by the Church to defined the canon of the NT, which is not found in "Scripture". Rick Otto try to solve this problem by making an illogical theory that the Church used the OT to defined the canon of the NT. But we can see how that doesn't work!
Blessings,
Ramon
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Sola Scriptura.
You flatter yourself. I've been busy. I'll look for it since you weren't courteous enough to repost it or tell me where to find it.
"Properly"? LOL.
Again, you flatter yourself presumptuously.
I use the quote function creatively. Try to keep up.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
Firstly, I just said it's not based on those verses. I'm not arguing from Sola scriptura, you are.
How is the verses you cite cancelling out what I cited anyway? She says she'll be blessed. She is. He says others will be blessed, and they are.
Less you think the Bible contradicts itself.
But you're making up then a contradiction in order to have me 'subvert' the Gospel, and then you're calling me to account based on a verse that is not the central point of my belief in the matter.
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
It doesn't prove that at all. For instance Jesus says "You have heard 'Love your neighbour', BUT I say to you", so what was 'written' was referred to, but it is not the 'truth' of Jesus' lesson, but in fact what he says is the 'new covenant' to love one's neighbour as to love oneself.
Else we'd all be Jews in our interpretation of what was WRITTEN.
You mean that when I post something and you ignore it, I'm not courteous because I didn't take into account you were off doing something else. That's a novel take. You've also ignored my reply regarding your claim at circular logic, unable are you to show why the books of the NT are to be adhered to.
That's you though, you create new meaning. You don't seem capable of accepting a criticism that you have to make some excuse up.
You straw-manned my post in your post #595. No reply - perhaps you were too busy. You were caught straw-manning another in their post #600 in which you give the lamest of excuses post #602
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ramon96
Eastern Orthodox Christian
Maybe not on Paper it didn't.. But it existed before the foundation of the world. For Gods word will never pass away and is what holds the universe together.
But you keep ignoring the context of that Scripture [which speaks about the Law of Moses, or the Books of Moses, specifically]. Everything you said after "Maybe not on Paper it didn't" does not prove your point and it does not demise what I have said about the Scripture Simon posted, which doesn't prove Sola-Scriptura.
Blessings,
Ramon
Upvote
0
Montalban
Well-Known Member
BUMP
Paul himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. Scripture itself was not sufficient for Pau!
He also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
By Protestant 'logic' Paul had no right to do so, however once it's written down in the Bible it's now okay!
He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thessalonians 4:2). He doesn't use Scripture as authority.
Paul himself handed on faith...
"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Corinthians 15:3,11).
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (I Corinthians 11:2)
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle
(II Thessalonians 2:15)
The Ethiopian gives a clue to being 'taught' the Word...
Acts 8
30
Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. Do you understand what you are reading? Philip asked.
31
How can I, he said, unless someone explains it to me? So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
In other words, he called upon a minister (deacon) to guide him in his readings of the word.
Also, the Ethiopian finds faith, but needs to be baptised (a sacrament).
Acts 10
Cornelius the Roman soldier, finds faith in God, but needs Peter to come to his house before he receives the Holy Spirit. Faith alone was not enough.
In fact, the very name Acts of the Apostles not Faith of the Apostles tells you something. If faith were alone, then the Bible would have finished at the time Christ rose into heaven; instead it goes on to show what the Apostles did; they taught, they organised, they conferred the gifts of the Holy Spirit upon people.
It is clear that the Ethiopian's desire to learn was not enough. He had to be taught.
St. Ignatius, taught by St. Peter himself, and writing before the Bible was compiled wrote...
Epistle to the Ephesians
CHAPTER 5
5:1 For if I in a short time had such converse with your bishop, which was not after the manner of men but in the Spirit, how much more do I congratulate you who are closely joined with him as the Church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that all things may be harmonious in unity.
This reflects the Epistle;
Titus 1:7 Since a bishop is entrusted with God's work, he must be blamelessnot overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain.
Upvote
0
beamishboy
Well-Known Member
I don't know much about sola scriptura and I've not heard of it before coming into CF. But all I know is that your cherished "tradition" flies in the face of scriptures, as I've stated above. Obviously, something is seriously wrong with your "tradition".
What a "tradition" adherent does is after he's settled as to what he's sold on, he'll then go round scriptures by stretching the interpretation in such a way that no reasonable, intelligent person can accept. Time was when it was more acceptable because people were illiterate and Protestantism which is based on literacy trumps "tradition" because it's contrary to scriptures.
To accept Anglian's interpretation of that Lukan passage, I'll first have to divest myself of all learning and literacy. The beamishboy will have to turn from a learned knight to an unlettered peasant. Sorry folksies, the beamishboy can't do that.
What a "tradition" adherent does is after he's settled as to what he's sold on, he'll then go round scriptures by stretching the interpretation in such a way that no reasonable, intelligent person can accept. Time was when it was more acceptable because people were illiterate and Protestantism which is based on literacy trumps "tradition" because it's contrary to scriptures.
To accept Anglian's interpretation of that Lukan passage, I'll first have to divest myself of all learning and literacy. The beamishboy will have to turn from a learned knight to an unlettered peasant. Sorry folksies, the beamishboy can't do that.
Upvote
0
Rick Otto
The Dude Abides
- Nov 19, 2002
- 34,112
- 7,406
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
Let's take a right turn here and lighten up,... you know, keep it friendly even if we don't think the other guy is keepin' it real.
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
You flatter yourself. I've been busy. I'll look for it since you weren't courteous enough to repost it or tell me where to find it.
You haven't been fun enough for me to bother with ya that much & besides you can get beside the point and ambiguous like whatever "adhering" to the books of the NT is supposed to mean. That could be a whole new area of argument.
This thread is broad enough to carry that, but you wouldn't believe all the horrendous garbage I've been thru since at least Friday morning,... so don't take it personal, bro. I'm just on a limited bufget of time & energy.
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
"Properly"? LOL.
Again, you flatter yourself presumptuously.
I use the quote function creatively. Try to keep up
When I push the quote button it will quote everything that you say, but not what you were responding to in saying it. There are more problems with it than that, but it would be too time consuming to explain such a forgiveable thing, in my estimation.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Sola Scriptura.
I know it doesn't. I wasn't suggesting it did. I was just yankin' your chain, M.
Let's take a right turn here and lighten up,... you know, keep it friendly even if we don't think the other guy is keepin' it real.
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
You flatter yourself. I've been busy. I'll look for it since you weren't courteous enough to repost it or tell me where to find it.Yes.
No, I remember addressing that. Maybe you missed it like you originaly did the "eye for an eye" answer. Sorry I don't have time to go looking for it to show it to you.
You haven't been fun enough for me to bother with ya that much & besides you can get beside the point and ambiguous like whatever "adhering" to the books of the NT is supposed to mean. That could be a whole new area of argument.
This thread is broad enough to carry that, but you wouldn't believe all the horrendous garbage I've been thru since at least Friday morning,... so don't take it personal, bro. I'm just on a limited bufget of time & energy.
Originally Posted by Rick Otto
"Properly"? LOL.Again, you flatter yourself presumptuously.
I use the quote function creatively. Try to keep up
Please try to understand before you try to condemn.
When I push the quote button it will quote everything that you say, but not what you were responding to in saying it. There are more problems with it than that, but it would be too time consuming to explain such a forgiveable thing, in my estimation.
I have to be selective with what I respond to, not to dismiss your accusation, but take a look at Ben Johnson in Soteriology. That guy can whip out a dozen tangents responding to one issue.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
