The BIBLE only is the standard for truth... (3)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dorothea

One of God's handmaidens
Jul 10, 2007
21,553
3,534
Colorado Springs, Colorado
✟240,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I would think so. From parents to children, much as we do now :)
You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become
convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings
which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation
through faith which is in Christ Jesus.


They memorized Scripture
(Thy Word have I hid in my heart
that I might not sin against you)


Oh that we would be so wise and obedient as them.
If any man speak, let him speak as the oracles of God

Like apples of gold in settings of silver Is a word spoken in right circumstances.
Like an earring of gold and an ornament of fine gold Is a wise reprover to a listening ear.…


:wave:
:) I was thinking of those 500 years of nothing written and also not everyone could read back then, even in the early Christian era, but I would think in Moses' time, too. I had read all these stories were passed by word of mouth to those around them and to the children, from generation to generation just on that, not with much written, if at all then. It would be interesting to research that and find out more about that.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
However, on that matter, since the Scriptures are the op topic; given that the filioque (in English especially and certainly) changes the teaching of Christ on the matter in the Scriptures, would you sacrifice the teaching of the Scriptures to escape the threat of Islam, or stand by your beliefs preferring a ruler who wouldn't force compliance with a teaching that is not found in Scripture ?
You are inconsistent on this.
One the one hand, you speak of the Traditions of EO, RCC, Copts as being roughly the same, mostly cultural differences, etc. etc., but then when it is convenient you change your argument to fundamental changes to the teaching of Christ, a different Christ in fact according to this latest argument you have put forth.

Since Tradition itself is vague and undefined, it is of no great surprise that the arguments can change with the circumstances that they are made in, as now, as throughout history.
A scriptural case can and has been made for the 'and the Son'; a scriptural case can and has been made for the exclusion of such a prhase.

The usual objections made by EO agaisnt the filioque, on theological grounds, are as often as not countered by the Catholic side by statements that that was not what was meant by the filoque at all.

For their parts, Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius Scholarius were no doubt being sincere enough in their convictions, and no doubt the 699 to 1 vote against their positions was motivated by a whole lot of factors, including desparation.

Bottom line is that even the combined armies of the East and West were no match for the Ottoman armies, the ceremony of union that had already occurred was erased from legitimacy, and the Caliph's Patriarch was hand picked to do what the caliph correctly saw was in his own interests, which was to ensure that the leaders of the EO from that time on would have no truck nor trade with the RCC.

IN terms of this thread, because Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius are now St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Gennadius because of their heroic stance against the authorities of a council of biships and emperors, it is clear that neither bishops nor councils can any longer be held to be Standards of Truth by EO.

The list of six or seven other standards of truth in addition to the Bible continues to decline as possibilities for the mantle of standards of truth.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, and as I already mentioned, Hebrews 6 says instructions were given. What were those instructions? I understand if you don't have anything to present.

Not the thread. You asked for what doctrines. I suggest Heb. 6.

Once again, kind of a strange, legalistic and pharisaical question, but if you must know, I celebrated Easter on the same day the over-whelming majority of Christians did, even some who claim the BIBLE only is the standard for truth.

Not at all. RC and EO are so adamant about following traditions, after all that's what they do. But when presented with an actual Pauline tradition, they turn and say, well not that tradition.

So, which is it? Are you going to follow scripture or tradition? If tradition, then let me know and I'll tell you when "easter" will fall in 2015. If scripture, let me know and I'll tell you when "easter" will fall in 2015.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0
T

ToBeBlessed

Guest
Originally Posted by sunlover1 View Post
Simon, why do you say The "only" standard, when clearly God is the standard?
Or did you mean the only standard besides the obvious ?​
Of course God is the standard.

But besides His written word, what other source of absolute truth do we have?

Some have claimed to get special revelations from God, but they turn out to be cult leaders. They see visions, hear voices, God spoke to their heart, an angel came and revealed more scripture, etc.

While the Holy Spirit will guide the saved, there is no more revealed words that we can accept.

So the only absolute revelation from God is His word.

The word of God is a finished revelation in terms of the words. There is no more absolute revelation besides the word of God which was completed in the book of Revelation.

:thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
sunlover1 said:
Thank you. Now these are things that you say Paul gave but were not written? And, just out of curiosity, did you write all of this out from your own memory? Thanks.

I wrote a lot from memory, but I've been studying early church history for the better part of 4 years. That is a summation of the Tradition that influenced the compilation of the Canon. Much of it is based on the podcast "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick.
 
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I wrote a lot from memory, but I've been studying early church history for the better part of 4 years. That is a summation of the Tradition that influenced the compilation of the Canon. Much of it is based on the podcast "Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy" by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick.
Amazing.
Nicely done.
And I am guessing that most of these things are
understood from the Bible, and some are things
that were given, as you mentioned, orally.
So my question, is which ones are oral teachings
of Pauls?
I have been looking for this list for a long time,
but even one or two examples would be enough
to prove that this "oral" tradition is working.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Standing Up
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
:) I was thinking of those 500 years of nothing written
??
You mean the intertestamental period?
Nothing was being written but I can't see why they wouldn't
still have what they had before that period.
?? Maybe I'm missing your point :)
Oh you mean because nothing was written, what can we know
of that intertestamental time?

and also not everyone could read back then, even in the early Christian era, but I would think in Moses' time, too. I had read all these stories were passed by word of mouth to those around them and to the children, from generation to generation just on that, not with much written, if at all then. It would be interesting to research that and find out more about that.
I think that they relied on prophets more,
but that now we have a more "sure" word.


Good thing we found out that reading is fundamental.
Makes it rather easier to study , to show ourselves approved,
as workmen who rightly divide the Word of Truth.

:study:
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
sunlover1 said:
Amazing. Nicely done. And I am guessing that most of these things are understood from the Bible, and some are things that were given, as you mentioned, orally. So my question, is which ones are oral teachings of Pauls? I have been looking for this list for a long time, but even one or two examples would be enough to prove that this "oral" tradition is working.

Iconography comes from Luke. If you are brave enough to visit the churches in Syria, you can see what might be the only remaining icon originally painted by the Apostle Luke.

Archaeologists dug up what they claim was possibly Peter's house church in Antioch. They found whitewashed Icons throughout it. They were destroyed when the Islamic movement spread the doctrine of iconoclasm. This doctrine was later adopted by certain Christians and denounced in the seventh ecumenical council. It was then picked up again in the reformation. (They don't tell you the bare walls of Baptist churches are a heritage of Islamic influence very often) first and second century Christian and Jewish sites were rich in icons.

The entire list, however, traces back to the Apostles as unchanged doctrinal lineage. You can find references to these in Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, and more.

The problem in today's world is that many people are not willing to do the legwork required to actually show this evidence, so they either reject it as a knee jerk reaction, or they accept it blindly, and so they have a shallow faith that would not stand up to a challenge when it arises. And that challenge WILL arise.

The list simply tells what to look for. I didn't include ecclesiology, because it was late, but it is part of the Creed.

In ecclesiology, we believe in a doctrinally and practically unified Church that is, as Paul told Timothy, the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Irenaeus wrote that the Tradition which came of the Apostles is directly preserved within the Church, which is the function of salt. We believe in the succession of the Apostles ordination unbroken to every Orthodox Bishop, Presbyter, Deacon, and even the tonsured Readers. Every baptized Orthodox Christian is therefore directly connected to the Apostles by virtue of the ordination of the Priest or Bishop.

The Church is to be an evangelical (but not Protestant) entity, put on earth to bring all men in contact with God. The Church is a hospital, a university, a workplace, a hotel, a resort for the soul, a mediator between divided people, a conciliar leader, and many more. It is here where the sick with sin receive the very Body of Christ as their medicine of immortality, broken and poured out for all of us (borrowed from a Jars of Clay song partially).

This, I will confidently proclaim, is the Apostolic Faith, preserved by God's providence in fulfillment of Jude 3 for all of the saints in every century. Not just a text, but a living Truth, available today as if you were able to ask Paul himself.
 
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
You are inconsistent on this.
One the one hand, you speak of the Traditions of EO, RCC, Copts as being roughly the same, mostly cultural differences, etc. etc., but then when it is convenient you change your argument to fundamental changes to the teaching of Christ, a different Christ in fact according to this latest argument you have put forth.
Actually, my position has been this:

1. look at what is still held in common by the Tradition Churches, what the varieties are, their importance, and when the varieties arose
2. Latin does not have separate terms for 'send' and 'proceed', which contributed mightily to the matter
3. English does, so why do SS Churches accept the filioque version of the Creed ?

Since Tradition itself is vague and undefined, it is of no great surprise that the arguments can change with the circumstances that they are made in, as now, as throughout history.
A scriptural case can and has been made for the 'and the Son'; a scriptural case can and has been made for the exclusion of such a prhase.
Yes, but I have asked for the Scripture that supports the use of the filioque in English, and would like for someone to provide this.
Christ states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, a term that demonstrates origin; where does Christ state that the Holy Spirit has His eternal origin in the Son ?

The usual objections made by EO agaisnt the filioque, on theological grounds, are as often as not countered by the Catholic side by statements that that was not what was meant by the filoque at all.
Yes (see my statements above) and thus this aspect of the schism can be and should be a matter for discussion to reach understanding (in the Latin usage).
There are other matters (ecclesiology) which must be discussed as well - such as abrogating the agreement at the Council which produced the Creed that changes to the Creed could not be made without a full Council (which didn't happen).

For their parts, Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius Scholarius were no doubt being sincere enough in their convictions, and no doubt the 699 to 1 vote against their positions was motivated by a whole lot of factors, including desparation.
I think they were sincere as well - and ultimately both were against the union. They, many priests, monks, bishops, and the laity stood for the faith once received and the adherence to the teaching of Christ in the Scriptures. And this is something we are all charged with doing.

Bottom line is that even the combined armies of the East and West were no match for the Ottoman armies, the ceremony of union that had already occurred was erased from legitimacy, and the Caliph's Patriarch was hand picked to do what the caliph correctly saw was in his own interests, which was to ensure that the leaders of the EO from that time on would have no truck nor trade with the RCC.
Yet how did this change the teachings we received ? It didn't. The patriarch himself is not the sole guarantor of the faith; as before, it is the responsibility of the whole Church and each member of the Church.

That the Ottoman yoke interrupted further talks is clear; but, like the matter of the Copts and Chalcedon, this indeed provides an opportunity for those interested to determine what was held in common and its survival in each Church.

IN terms of this thread, because Mark of Ephesus and Gennadius are now St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Gennadius because of their heroic stance against the authorities of a council of biships and emperors, it is clear that neither bishops nor councils can any longer be held to be Standards of Truth by EO.
The truth is the truth; this is not determined by the role of the person who iterates truth.

In fact, there are a number of Councils that were refused, because their findings were not true.

This may be foreign to others, but Councils, bishops, patriarchs, monks, laity, elders - none are assumed to be automatically correct. It is the truth, the faith once delivered, Tradition which includes the right interpretation of the Scriptures - that "judges" these - not vice versa.

The list of six or seven other standards of truth in addition to the Bible continues to decline as possibilities for the mantle of standards of truth.
From your perspective, sure. But as above, for the EO it is the truth that matters, and Tradition is included.

The received teachings interpret the Bible; in fact, Tradition interprets your Bible. It was the received teachings, Tradition, that were used to supply the separation of words and division of these words further into "sense units" (which are now presented in your Bible as sentences, etc.). This was done by people illumined by God who held to Tradition - what was received - and battled to preserve it for me and you and every other Christian, and by the grace of God they won ... despite great sacrifice.

We held and hold to the faith once received in the form of Holy Tradition, which includes the Scriptures, the crown of Tradition.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dorothea
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟58,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
:) I was thinking of those 500 years of nothing written and also not everyone could read back then, even in the early Christian era, but I would think in Moses' time, too. I had read all these stories were passed by word of mouth to those around them and to the children, from generation to generation just on that, not with much written, if at all then. It would be interesting to research that and find out more about that.

In both Moses' and apostles' times, they spoke and then were told to write it down for future generations (Rom 10).

Passover meal has a very formal q/a (oral to teach meaning/understandings) from what I understand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sunlover1
Upvote 0
T

Thekla

Guest
Amazing.
Nicely done.
And I am guessing that most of these things are
understood from the Bible, and some are things
that were given, as you mentioned, orally.
So my question, is which ones are oral teachings
of Pauls?

I have been looking for this list for a long time,
but even one or two examples would be enough
to prove that this "oral" tradition is working.

The Traditions do not "belong" to particular apostles per se, but all are 'of the whole'. (Ie not the teaching of Paul, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, etc. but of the worshiping community received and maintained from these and carried/maintained as opposed to 'individualistic'. Thus, as I stated previously, the Church fathers in their writings cite previous fathers, the Scriptures, etc. For example, Athanasios the Great states: "God became man that we might become gods", which was first written down by Irenaeos of Lyons.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sunlover1

Beloved, Let us love one another
Nov 10, 2006
26,146
5,348
Under the Shadow of the Almighty
✟94,511.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Iconography comes from Luke. If you are brave enough to visit the churches in Syria, you can see what might be the only remaining icon originally painted by the Apostle Luke.

Archaeologists dug up what they claim was possibly Peter's house church in Antioch. They found whitewashed Icons throughout it. They were destroyed when the Islamic movement spread the doctrine of iconoclasm. This doctrine was later adopted by certain Christians and denounced in the seventh ecumenical council. It was then picked up again in the reformation. (They don't tell you the bare walls of Baptist churches are a heritage of Islamic influence very often) first and second century Christian and Jewish sites were rich in icons.
Just out of curiosity, why call them icons rather than drawings?

The entire list, however, traces back to the Apostles as unchanged doctrinal lineage. You can find references to these in Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Irenaeus of Lyons, and more.
References.
So no, we can't "prove" it, we just believe it by faith?
IOW, you "believe" that these things are things Paul
might have said but not included in Scripture?
The problem in today's world is that many people are not willing to do the legwork required to actually show this evidence, so they either reject it as a knee jerk reaction, or they accept it blindly, and so they have a shallow faith that would not stand up to a challenge when it arises. And that challenge WILL arise.
Evidence?
You mean the drawings of men/women?
I am not sure what you mean by evidence
or what the evidence is supposed to prove.
 
Upvote 0

THIS

I only want God's Truth
Apr 22, 2014
995
12
Hidden with Christ in God, see Colossians 3:3.
✟1,226.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The traditions Paul spoke of in the New Testament are IN the written Word. The traditions the Catholics follow are NOT in the written Word.
The Catholics traditions go against the Word of God. As Jesus says, they nullify God’s word.
[FONT=&quot]Mark 7:7 They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We worship God in vain if it comes from the doctrines of men and not from God; as Peter told the Jewish council in Acts 5:29, “We ought to obey God rather than men”.[/FONT]

The books taken out of the Bible were originally written in Greek. In the Old Testament times, God spoke through the lips of Prophets in Hebrew or Aramaic to Jews, not to Greeks.


The New Testament never quotes from the any of the apocryphal books. The books: Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon, are part of COLLECTIONS of Old Testament books. Other books within the same collection were quoted in the New Testament.


Nehemiah, Ezra, and Esther are included in the history collection of Jewish books and Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon are included in the poetry collection. By quoting one book from the collection, it automatically confirms the entire collection.
 
Upvote 0

SolomonVII

Well-Known Member
Sep 4, 2003
23,138
4,918
Vancouver
✟147,506.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Greens
Actually, my position has been this:

1. look at what is still held in common by the Tradition Churches, what the varieties are, their importance, and when the varieties arose
2. Latin does not have separate terms for 'send' and 'proceed', which contributed mightily to the matter
3. English does, so why do SS Churches accept the filioque version of the Creed ?

My guess is that for most people who hold to Scripture as the standard of truth, the minutaie and translation possibilities about the filioque are of absolutely no importance to them.
It is understood well enough as it is, it changes nothing essential to the faith and belief systems either way, and seems to be from the era of endless debates on obscure philosophical points and concentrating on arcane mumbo jumbo that have nothing to do with accepting Jesus into your heart and walking in the way of Christ that most people who adhere to Scripture are most interested in.

The idea that such arcane and picky details could still be separating Christian communities from each other, from the point of view of someone who looks to Scripture as the standard of truth, is such a ludicrous proposition that no one want to proceed down that kind of rabbit hole, even if that is where you want to try to send us.

Maybe sometime in the next two to four thousand years, if we are all still here, EO and RCC will be able to move on from their 'oopsie' moment of bad translation, or whatever it is that still keeps them from communing with each other, but for the rest of us, we have moved on from that kind of discussion long ago.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟22,569.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Just out of curiosity, why call them icons rather than drawings?

Essentially, to differentiate between Images used to worship God and images that display a likeness.

References.
So no, we can't "prove" it, we just believe it by faith?
IOW, you "believe" that these things are things Paul
might have said but not included in Scripture?

Proof is something we don't look for, because the desire for epistemological proof would rule out faith. Yes, we have faith, but we have two sides of the coin, not diametrically opposed. reason shows that the earliest Christians understood the Scriptures and the Apostolic writings (the earliest Christians did not call Apostolic letters Scripture. They referred to them as part of Tradition until the advent of the Marcionist canon) in light of these doctrines. It is faith, however, that God would preserve ALL of His Truth that leads us to accept these teachings.

Evidence?
You mean the drawings of men/women?
I am not sure what you mean by evidence
or what the evidence is supposed to prove.
Evidence doesn't prove. It points toward. And the evidence being the multitude of writings of the early Church, the existence of Icons in the first century churches, and the succession of the priesthood through the ages.

And it points toward an exclusive claim that one Church is the universal Church, solely having full connection back to the Apostles.
 
Upvote 0

THIS

I only want God's Truth
Apr 22, 2014
995
12
Hidden with Christ in God, see Colossians 3:3.
✟1,226.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I have heard this a lot, can you prove this strange idea.

Paul did not contradict in person that which he wrote.

The Catholics do things as their tradition, and those things go against what the scriptures say.
 
Upvote 0

topcare

The Eucharist is Life
Apr 8, 2014
3,560
1,609
✟12,064.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Paul did not contradict in person that which he wrote.

Yet no one has said he did except you Protestants.

The Catholics do things as their tradition, and those things go against what the scriptures say.

No, not really. The strange thing Protestants learn about Catholics have them say this.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

THIS

I only want God's Truth
Apr 22, 2014
995
12
Hidden with Christ in God, see Colossians 3:3.
✟1,226.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yet no one has said he did except you Protestants.



No, not really. The strange thing Protestants learn about Catholics have them say this.

I am not a Protestant. They do things too that are against the scriptures.

I can prove to you easily that the Catholics do things against the scriptures in the name of tradition.

Here are some things...

Jesus says call no man 'father', and that they are 'brothers' in Christ.

The Catholics call their brothers in Christ 'father'.

Jesus says do not take the seat of most importance.

The Catholics popes take the seat of most importance.

The Word of God says to repent and be baptized.

The Catholics baptize babies who cannot repent.

God says do not make an image and bow to it.

The Catholics make many images and bow to them.


And other such things the Catholics do.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.