Sola Scripturists guide on the authority of the Bible

[Standing Up]

Those are both problems, which is why we have more than one bishop to preserve the faith. Sometimes a bishop needs to be replaced of course. Even all of Jesus 12 apostles weren't good.

And what do you use to decide? Scripture and apostle-tied-tradition or tradition that arose independently?

 

[Standing Up]

What exactly are you asking for with regards to the condemnation of Arianism besides the council decision? I think if you read the history on it you will see that there are many theological nuances discussed; the answers to which are not expressly contained in scripture. Of course the decision won't contradict scripture, because it is the truth. Truth tends to be consistent...

Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh, Arius was born in 250 AD, the proper understanding of the episcopate and the eucharist outside of scripture was expressed as early as 80 AD by St. Clement:

Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

As mentioned in the other thread, Arianism appears to have arise out of tradition beginning with Paul of Samosats (sic?), not out of scripture. Arius, however, does appear to pick up scripture in his support, which argues for its pre-eminence. IOW, no scripture, no Christian audience. Probably should start a separate thread though.

Clement has no NT priest for a NT sacrifice so-called. Read it w/out glasses

 

[Montalban]

Note before reading: not being in scripture is NOT anti-scripture

You should read the other thread about it.

From what I see, they both argued from scripute, but no tradition either way. The ones with the whole of scripture prevailed over the singular verse selections in much the same way that the devil said, it is written, and Christ said, it is written and you've misunderstood the whole council of God as revealed in scripture.

PS. You also should know that Arianism arose at the time when the bread change and office of priest became the norm. IOW, with the bread there was a time when Christ was not, then He is. See the connection between the two false teachings?

When they met, called for by the emperor, what scripture did they use to convene?

Note not being in scripture is NOT anti-scripture

 

[Montalban]

As mentioned in the other thread, Arianism appears to have arise out of tradition beginning with Paul of Samosats (sic?), not out of scripture. Arius, however, does appear to pick up scripture in his support, which argues for its pre-eminence. IOW, no scripture, no Christian audience. Probably should start a separate thread though.

Arians used the Bible to prove Arianism:

That Wisdom was God's first creation Proverbs 8:22
That Christ was subordinate to God John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, Matthew 3:17, John 8:42, John 20:17,
1 Corinthians 15:28
That Christ obeyed God Psalms 45:7, John 17:22, Acts 2:36 and. Philippians 2:5-11
They argued God was unchangeable but Christ was:. Luke 2:52, John 12:27 and Hebrews 5:8
They argued that both John 17:11 and John 17:22 paralleled the unity of the Father and the Son with the unity of human believers

From (and there's more there...)
http://www.davidsinclairmc.com/christianarticles/The Scriptural Support for Arianism.pdf

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Believe they have nuances about doctrines that EO don't agree with. In any event, we all differ on the OT. Which other NT groups did I miss?

I think Armenian Apostolic for one...

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Clement has no NT priest for a NT sacrifice so-called. Read it w/out glasses

Can you rephrase that?

 

[Ortho_Cat]

And what do you use to decide? Scripture and apostle-tied-tradition or tradition that arose independently?

Tradition, there is only one source, which includes the entire deposit of faith.

 

[Standing Up]

I think Armenian Apostolic for one...

In thinking some more about this, we could come down a few ways.

A multitude of canons, depending on your group.

A multitude of traditions, depending on your group.

Seriously, they all contradict, clash, and cause confusion and schism. And let in horrible things.

Or, we can come down on the foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone. If we do that, then it seems to me the question about what rule of faith to use resolves itself.

So, how do we do that? Is there some guide?

 

[Montalban]

The guide is studying the church and seeing which is, and where is that church today.

 

[Montalban]

Can you rephrase that?

It's one of his pet theories; that the Bible contains only deacons and priest-bishops, and that Clement supports this.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

In thinking some more about this, we could come down a few ways.

A multitude of canons, depending on your group.

A multitude of traditions, depending on your group.

Seriously, they all contradict, clash, and cause confusion and schism. And let in horrible things.

Or, we can come down on the foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone. If we do that, then it seems to me the question about what rule of faith to use resolves itself.

So, how do we do that? Is there some guide?

Attempting to re-create the Church from the NT is a failed hypothesis...just ask this guy, he tried it.

Peter E. Gillquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While still on staff at Campus Crusade, Gillquist and some of his colleagues began studying church history, and came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the only unchanged church in history.[1] In 1973 Gillquist and his colleagues in Chicago established a network of house churches throughout the United States, aiming to restore a primitive form of Christianity, which was called the New Covenant Apostolic Order. Researching the historical basis of the Christian faith, Gillquist and his colleagues found sources for this restoration in the writings of the early Church Fathers. This led the group to practice a more liturgical form of worship than in their previous evangelical background. Originally known as the Christian World Liberation Front, and then the New Covenant Apostolic Order; in 1979, the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) was organized.
A desire for Apostolic Succession led most members of the EOC to join the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1987 after first investigating the Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Archdiocese, and the OCA, the primary goal being to preserve their own self-appointed hierarchy. Gillquist and other EOC leaders traveled to Istanbul to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople but were unable to complete any substantial progress toward their goal. However, they were able to meet with the Patriarch of Antioch during his historic visit to Los Angeles that year. After further discussions, Gillquist led 17 parishes with 2,000 members into the Church of Antioch in 1987. This group became known as the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission, lasting until 1995 when it was disbanded and the parishes put under the standard diocesan framework of the archdiocese.

 

[Hairy Tic]

Some of the books of the apocrypha were understood as books that were profitable to read but not canon. It wasn't until your denomination declared them canonical in the counter reformation and non ecumenical council of Trent that they were officially made part of your canon. Do you deny this?

## You bet

Trent was not making a new determination, but re-affirming an old one. The same canon is set out in 1439, over 100 years earlier. And probably before that.

Judith (say) is deutero-canonical, but still canonical - & the same goes for Revelation & 2 Peter & some others in the NT. The Catholic deuterocanonical books of the OT are the same in status as the "disputed" books admitted to the NT canon: they were "doubted of for some ages" - then accepted.

Again, the names are irrelevant. We all know the earthly history. Naming them only proves that God used them for His purpose not that they independently approved God's purpose. You are chasing a rabbit trail here.

## This is intelligible - but not very convincing. Anyone can say that kind of thing, but without some sort of historical evidence - as the issue is one of history, as well as one of faith - their position would lack credibility.

 

[Montalban]

Attempting to re-create the Church from the NT is a failed hypothesis...just ask this guy, he tried it.

Peter E. Gillquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While still on staff at Campus Crusade, Gillquist and some of his colleagues began studying church history, and came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the only unchanged church in history.[1] In 1973 Gillquist and his colleagues in Chicago established a network of house churches throughout the United States, aiming to restore a primitive form of Christianity, which was called the New Covenant Apostolic Order. Researching the historical basis of the Christian faith, Gillquist and his colleagues found sources for this restoration in the writings of the early Church Fathers. This led the group to practice a more liturgical form of worship than in their previous evangelical background. Originally known as the Christian World Liberation Front, and then the New Covenant Apostolic Order; in 1979, the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) was organized.
A desire for Apostolic Succession led most members of the EOC to join the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1987 after first investigating the Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Archdiocese, and the OCA, the primary goal being to preserve their own self-appointed hierarchy. Gillquist and other EOC leaders traveled to Istanbul to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople but were unable to complete any substantial progress toward their goal. However, they were able to meet with the Patriarch of Antioch during his historic visit to Los Angeles that year. After further discussions, Gillquist led 17 parishes with 2,000 members into the Church of Antioch in 1987. This group became known as the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission, lasting until 1995 when it was disbanded and the parishes put under the standard diocesan framework of the archdiocese.

I came to the Orthodox church through study of history. If I accept the Bible then I must accept the church that produced it.

It makes no sense that God forces a group of 'apostates' to confirm it, then comes back at the Ecumenical Councils and works with the church, to go away again.

That's what we're left with believing by those Protestants who accept the Bible, and the Councils, but still think that the church became apostate and added teachings.

Further when their best argument here is "We may be wrong, but so are you", combined with wave after wave of straw-man then I am further convinced that God is not behind such confused thinking

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

What gets me is the confusion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, because both
claim to have given us the Bible. Do the Eastern Orthodox also believe that their church is the one "true"
Church? I know the Catholic Church believes it and claims it. So, why all the confusion and division?

 

[ivebeenshown]

What gets me is the confusion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, because both
claim to be the "true" Church and both claim to have given us the Bible. Why the confusion and division?

That's where you have to see for yourself... who split from who?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I came to the Orthodox church through study of history. If I accept the Bible then I must accept the church that produced it.

Montalban -

Several questions for you....


1. Then truth must matter to you, you converted to where you think truth prevails. So, if truth matters - then accountability matters, norming (the evaluation of truthfulness/validity/correctness) matters and there must be some rule/standard for such. You rejected your previous denomination (so you believe denominations CAN be wrong - and that ergo includes your new one - and you embrace norming - including for your new one. How very Protestant of you! So, what's the rule/canon/norma normans/standard? Is it history (in which case, what documented historical event tells you that the EO is unaccountable and exempt from truth but the RC and OO are accountable and in fact wrong at many points)?


2. How did the EO denomination inform the ancient Hebrews that the Ten Commandments was/is Scripture? How did it do that? They accepted it as such and according to you the EO "produced" it so how did the EO produce the Ten Commandments? Jesus referred to Scriptures over 50 times (as recorded in Scriptures). How did the EO produce that for Him? How did the EO inform Him what was and was not Scripture? And since the EO produced it, why does no denomination on the planet now (or ever in history) agree with what it regards as Scripture?


3. Do you believe that President Obama is right about ANYTHING (say, his likely belief that the USA currently has 50 States)? Does that mandate that ERGO he is infallible, unaccountable, exampt from the issue of truth and WHATEVER he says is what Jesus says? Is it, in fact, typical that a teacher can be right at some points and wrong at other points?







Furthermore....

That's what we're left with believing by those Protestants who accept the Bible, and the Councils, but still think that the church became apostate and added teachings.

You have Protestantism confused with Restitutionalism. Take that rebuke to the LDS - the largest Restitutionalist denomination in the USA.

I am further convinced that God is not behind such confused thinking

Perhaps, but then the EO has agreement with only ONE - itself. Exclusively, uniquely, solely. It has a grand unity of ONE: self alone with self alone. No better than the LDS which also has agreement only with ONE: itself and a grand unity of ONE: self alone with self alone. So what? How does agreement with NONE mean that ergo that one is infallible, unaccountable, exempt from Truth? Or that ergo self alone is correct (so that the LDS ergo is correct)?










.

 

[DiligentlySeekingGod]

That's where you have to see for yourself... who split from who?

Well, that doesn't help much, because the EO claim the CC split from them and the CC claim the EO split from them. For example, http://www.christianforums.com/t7546075/.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, that doesn't help much, because the EO claim the CC split from them and the CC claim the EO split from them. For example, http://www.christianforums.com/t7546075/.

This one RC said it quite clearly in that thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t7546075/#post57044656

Because the Orthodox Church is not the church with Peter. Its not the "true" church. Its just not and to me is so obvious... the EO are EASTERN, not universal... and to me they are so obscure and not well known, how can it be the city built on a hill which can not be hid?<snip>

http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703-31/#post43066817
Great Schism and effect on Christianity and Theology

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Arians used the Bible to prove Arianism:

That Wisdom was God's first creation Proverbs 8:22
That Christ was subordinate to God John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, Matthew 3:17, John 8:42, John 20:17,
1 Corinthians 15:28
That Christ obeyed God Psalms 45:7, John 17:22, Acts 2:36 and. Philippians 2:5-11
They argued God was unchangeable but Christ was:. Luke 2:52, John 12:27 and Hebrews 5:8
They argued that both John 17:11 and John 17:22 paralleled the unity of the Father and the Son with the unity of human believers

From (and there's more there...)
http://www.davidsinclairmc.com/christianarticles/The Scriptural Support for Arianism.pdf

Okay, thank you, and if this thread was about arbitration, we could discuss if what he quoted supported his position - but that discussion would be derailing and is not permitted. Start a thread on arbitration if it matters to you...




But what you seem to be suggesting is that a denomination's current "Tradition" is MORE inerrant, MORE inspired by God, MORE reliable, MORE objectively knowable by all and alterable by none, MORE ecumenically (say by 50,000 denominations) and historically (say to 1400 BC) embraced than is Scripture and so should trump it as the rule (or at least be regarded as EQUALLY all those things and thus be EQUAL rule). But you've done NOTHING to support those claims - nothing.


All you've left us with is 50,000 competing "traditions" - all supporting the views of itself. LDS tradition, Methodist Tradition, EO Tradition, OO Tradition, RC Tradition - so much varient Tradition that you have constantly ignored the request to tell us what it is (the space at CF would not permit you to list it). Tradition (in fact INERRANT, APOSTOLIC tradition right from Jesus) says that it is de fide DOGMA that the Pope in Rome is INFALLIBLE, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary - TRADITION right from Jesus, Infallible, inerrant, divinely inspired Tradition ALL teaches these things as issues of de fide dogma, but you don't accept them! Why? Because there's no agreement on what Tradition is or is not. Orthodox, Catbholics and Mormons talk about Tradition constantly - and yet, it's a phantom, they can't identify it. Every Catholic Bishop on the planet believes it is a FACT that right there in infallible, Apostolic Tradition is that the Pope is Infallible and supreme - but you say it doesn't! How can ANYONE actually look at that Tradition and resolve the issue - they can't, it's a phantom, it doesn't exist, it's all based on what is NOT known, what was NOT recorded, what Jesus did NOT say. IMO, what IS known is a better norma normans. Your's fails at many, many points - but primarily because it doesn't exist in any objective form that any can actually examine. ANYONE can say that ANYTHING is true because of "Tradition" and since no one knows what that "Tradition" is - they're right. ANYONE can say "Jesus said - it just was never recorded." Studied Mormonism?


You love to say "Tradition" but what is stunning is your inability to say what that is or which denomination has "it." IMO, the reality is this: "Tradition" in your denominations is simply what that denomination believes and practices. So, using it's own views and practices as the rule/canon for its own practices is simply self looking in the mirror at self - to see if self looks like self. He will. It has NOTHING to do with truth, it's an evasion and circumvention of the issue.







.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

<snip>

Tradition (in fact INERRANT, APOSTOLIC tradition right from Jesus) says that it is de fide DOGMA that the Pope in Rome is INFALLIBLE, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary -

I think those might have been listed on this thread

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-88/#post43628407
Roman church errors and inventions

Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-87/#post43630346

Inventions:
-Infallability of the Pope
-Papal supremacy
-Immaculate coneption
-purgatory
Errors:
-Vatican I and II(not the councells but their decisions....although II was worse than I)
-indulgencies
-crusades
-Vatican City.... (never should have been a "seperate state"but goes hand in hand with the Papal supreority)

Then there are a few that say there are no RC errors and inventions

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602-86/#post43636094

Originally Posted by terryobrien80 None

I'm going to have to go with Mr. O'Briens answer.