• 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.

If Protestantism is true, why they are not united? (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
You claim the truth was in hiding, now prove it by showing where the truth was hiding in the third century.
Or through the political squabbling of the 5th century.
I don't think I ever claimed the truth was in hiding. I may have claimed it is invisible to uncircumcised eyes, though........
:)

First I have ever heard that term. Means a "covering" over the eyes?

2 Corin 3:14
but their minds were hardened:
for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remaineth unlifted;
which veil is done away in Christ.

Revelation 1:1
An-un-covering/veiling/apokaluyiV <602> of Jesus Christ, which gives to him, the God,
to show to His bond-servants which-things is binding to be becoming in swiftness.



.
 
Upvote 0

Rick Otto

The Dude Abides
Nov 19, 2002
34,112
7,406
On The Prairie
✟29,593.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
:)

First I have ever heard that term. Means a "covering" over the eyes?
Acts7:51: Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
 
Upvote 0

LittleLambofJesus

Hebrews 2:14.... Pesky Devil, git!
Site Supporter
May 19, 2015
125,549
28,532
75
GOD's country of Texas
Visit site
✟1,237,330.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
Originally Posted by Rick Otto .
I don't think I ever claimed the truth was in hiding. I may have claimed it is invisible to uncircumcised eyes, though........
Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus
:)

First I have ever heard that term. Means a "covering" over the eyes?
Acts7:51: Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.
Yes, the Jewish rulers were often referred to as "stiff necked".

But you said "uncircumcised eyes". That could also sybolize blindness?



.
 
Upvote 0

Gxg (G²)

Pilgrim/Monastic on the Road to God (Psalm 84:1-7)
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2009
19,769
1,429
Good Ol' South...
Visit site
✟211,037.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Well, here is Irenaeus on Tradition AND Scripture side by side:

2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;..

2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Irenaeus on Tradition - from Adversus Haereses
In this, we see the Tradition is placed next to existent Scripture in authority, so that it, TOO comes from the Apostles.


Let's see some of the other lines from that series:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.
Here we see that the Tradition, unlike the written Scripture, was manifested throughout the whole world.

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
And now we see that Scriptures from the Apostles did exist, but that their Tradition existed in marriage thereto.

To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent. Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address. Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.


And finally we see that, without a written Scripture, the Gauls were capable of knowing the truth thanks to the Tradition, rebuffing the heresies of Marcion and clinging to Christ.
Thanks for that, Bruh...

Seeing that and what others already noted when it comes to the issue of how Sola Scriptura (as advocated in the Protestant Reformation) was never what the Early Church focused on when it came to the scriptures, it seems rather plain that much of what the Protestant Reformation did was take a problem that was already solved - and then forgetting the formula that was used to fix the original problem when future generations (present to them, of course) ended up taking one part of the original formula and corrupting it....

As another said best elsewhere (early church | becoming orthodox ):

Protestants in general take the view that the Bible is “self-authenticating” which to me personally seems like a pretty meaningless and contrived explanation. For the Orthodox Christian there is another way to address this question:

How could the Church discern what was true Scripture from what was not? The answer is to be found in the fact that the Bible was not the starting-point of the Christian faith, but a resumé of it: not the whole revelation, but a part: not the foundation of the Church, but its product. The Church preceded the Bible; indeed, we would be at a loss to explain the existence of Christians in the early years after Our Lord’s ministry and resurrection if, as many modern Christians insist, the Scriptures are the essential groundwork of the faith! As Fr. Alexander Turner puts it, the “Christian church had been a going concern in full operation, with its established procedures, organization and sacraments” for two decades before the first of the New Testament writings, St. Paul’s epistles, were composed. (The Bible and the Church by C.G. Pallas)

That said, Fr. Thomas Hopko did an excellent job discussing the ways that the Protestant Reformation did indeed deserve to be called one of the most impactful periods of Church history on Orthodoxy, with the Orthodox being influenced by Roman Catholic and Protestant thinking. ..even though others still take issue with the ways he has critiqued the Evangelical World when noting that speaking on scripture/celebrating it within the Protestant culture still does not reflect scripture in the same way as the Church noted it in light of the OT Practice (or the early Reformers like Luther who was not against Tradition, counter to many Protestants who came after him since Luther did not even agree with others saying that none of the traditions in which the Scriptures were interpreted were true - more noted in Trinity, Eucharist, Tradition and the Challenge of Sola Scriptura | Eclectic Orthodoxy ).

To see the response of Ireneus is not surprising - especially when seeing Jewish cultural backgrounds. For Oral History was a key facet of Jewish culture, even before the 1st Century [/URL]...and Liturgy itself in the Eastern tradition is FULL of scriptural focus due to following the oral tradition of Jewish culture) - the idea that the Bible alone is the primary authority for faith and morals is not taught in the Bible...and likewise, the idea that the Bible is to be the sole source of authority for the Christian is not taught in the Bible. The Church recognizes one and only one source of authority for Her faith and practice: the apostolic tradition...and thee Divine Scriptures are part - albeit the most important part - of that tradition, but to set Scriptures up as something over and apart from tradition is to have the tail wagging the dog. For that will always go back to the Scriptures being based solely on people's opinions - and that does not honor the scripture, more pointed out here in Sola Scriptura | Orthodox-Reformed Bridge and here:










Scriptures developed in a context and were to be seen in a setting - the Church
- and there has always been a way to see them. Even other Anglican Ministers such as N.T Wright have pointed out this simple reality - more shared in How Can The Bible Be Authoritative? by N.T. Wright - and others have noted it as well when it comes to the concept of PRIMA scriptural...the model that the Early Church advocated


As said before, the Orthodox Church sees the Bible as inspired by God and authoritative...even though Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15wrote, “Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" - something he repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 consistent with what Christ noted when it came to his comments on examples( John 13:15 ) when it came to being cautious of any tradition that goes against things the Lord desired/noted in the name of honoring God (Matthew 15:5-7).

But anyone Talking on the Word of God while ignoring the Early Church Councils and what the vast consensus of the Bishops/leaders in the Church said (when they made scripture) is inconsistent with claiming to defend Scripture - for Scripture did not exist in a vacuum or come out of nowhere since the Early Church (the Fathers - including early Jewish Fathers in the first century ) also debated/helped to cannonize what was to be scripture - as noted best by Fr. James Bernstein in Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Well, here is Irenaeus on Tradition AND Scripture side by side:

2.1. When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, "But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world." And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth;..

2.2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.
Irenaeus on Tradition - from Adversus Haereses
In this, we see the Tradition is placed next to existent Scripture in authority, so that it, TOO comes from the Apostles.-snip-

No, Irenaeus points only to the authority of Scripture. He does not say the same about tradition. In fact, he refutes those who claim some tradition that does not tie directly and unequivocally to Apostles.

Tradition must source to apostles. EO, OO, RC all claim their unique Traditions do, but clearly they cannot prove their claims. It is impossible because they all contradict each other on numerous dogmas. Or guess what, there wouldn't be an EO, OO, RC, or P.

So, for the earliest church, #1 Scripture alone is the authority. In so far as #2 Tradition is concerned, it must source clearly to an apostle; and to do that, is to agree with #1. Scripture (27 books of the NT) is all we have that we (EO, RC, OO, P) all agree upon.
 
Upvote 0

Standing Up

On and on
Sep 3, 2008
25,360
2,757
Around about
✟73,735.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Gxg (G²);66293294 said:
-snip-As said before, the Orthodox Church sees the Bible as inspired by God and authoritative...even though Saint Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15wrote, “Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" - something he repeated in 1 Corinthians 11:1-3 consistent with what Christ noted when it came to his comments on examples( John 13:15 ) when it came to being cautious of any tradition that goes against things the Lord desired/noted in the name of honoring God (Matthew 15:5-7).-snip-[/url]

Cutting through all the verbiage, tell us 2 or 3 traditions extant in Paul's time to which we should hold.
 
Upvote 0

Mama Kidogo

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Jan 31, 2014
2,944
307
USA for the time being
✟27,035.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
On the other hand...
it seems plain to others that the Reformation removed the corrupting influence.
The real presence of Jesus Christ is not a corrupting influence. The belief in baptism for the remittance of sin is not a corrupting influence.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
It would most likely waste our time. You don't seem to be able to appreciate Constantine's obvious political reasons for legalization, so you likely won't be cognizant of political motives in religious activities. Once one learns to see wolves in sheep's clothing, one begins to notice sheep in wolve's clothing. It's a result of living in a world that calls evil good & evil, good.
Again, the veiled insult returns. You're telling me that I don't have the faith to believe it. That's malarkey.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Therefore, of course, they proved themselves to be fallible humans who either approved these doctrines by default or, at best, provided no guidance regarding their veracity, leaving to a future generation to deal with aspects of Christianity that had escaped their attention.
Or the third, and more likely option: the doctrine didn't exist, so they had no response to it. By your logic, the lack of a constructed response to the Pastafarians in the early Church means that they all believed God to be a flying spaghetti monster.

Occam's Razor: When several competing theories explain the situation, the one with the least assumptions is most likely to be true.

There is only one assumption with the theory that Sola Scriptura didn't exist until its inception with the first Reformers in the 16th and 17th century.

There is a plentitude of assumptions with your theories. Pardon me if I don't accept theories with a host of unproven assumptions in comparison to one.
 
Upvote 0

Mama Kidogo

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Jan 31, 2014
2,944
307
USA for the time being
✟27,035.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
So, the obvious question is, Do you believe that there were political motives engaged by Constantine in his meddling in the Church?

So now one is asked to judge the heart and motives of one he never met.:doh:
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Or we could just say that you don't understand it.

We've explained it to you a number of times, but if you still don't understand what "invisible" means in this case, maybe we should just let it go at that. :thumbsup:
Invisible means there is no evidence to the argument. No evidence means no reason I ought to accept it.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
On the other hand...
it seems plain to others that the Reformation removed the corrupting influence.
And then it kept removing everything else. Protestantism removed the context in which Scripture was given. It threw the baby out with the bathwater, and because of that, it is a divided, disunited mess of conflicting doctrine.
 
Upvote 0

Mama Kidogo

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Jan 31, 2014
2,944
307
USA for the time being
✟27,035.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
And then it kept removing everything else. Protestantism removed the context in which Scripture was given. It threw the baby out with the bathwater, and because of that, it is a divided, disunited mess of conflicting doctrine.
Pretty much.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
No, Irenaeus points only to the authority of Scripture. He does not say the same about tradition. In fact, he refutes those who claim some tradition that does not tie directly and unequivocally to Apostles.

Tradition must source to apostles. EO, OO, RC all claim their unique Traditions do, but clearly they cannot prove their claims. It is impossible because they all contradict each other on numerous dogmas. Or guess what, there wouldn't be an EO, OO, RC, or P.

So, for the earliest church, #1 Scripture alone is the authority. In so far as #2 Tradition is concerned, it must source clearly to an apostle; and to do that, is to agree with #1. Scripture (27 books of the NT) is all we have that we (EO, RC, OO, P) all agree upon.

Let's see, so a bunch of people had no Scripture, so they therefore had no ability to know the Truth, according to you. But according to Irenaeus, they did. Your interpretation of Irenaeus ignores 4.1-4.3, thus meaning your interpretation is out of context.

Besides that, there was no New Testament in the time of Irenaeus. There were only a bunch of letters, both of true Apostolic origin and forgeries, floating around. No church had the same set of Scriptures, and none accepted all 27 as we know them.

Of course, I bet you think John just took the letters to the Patmos Publishing House and had them bound up to be distributed to all people. At least, that is the only assumption that fits your current statements.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
Cutting through all the verbiage, tell us 2 or 3 traditions extant in Paul's time to which we should hold.

Liturgical services. They were Jewish, so they just took the service traditions of the Jews and ran with it. There was sermonizing too, but Liturgy was a big part of the Apostolic era. It is actually shown through in the letters, too, where Paul would use very standardized methods of greeting, blessing, and farewells in his letters.

Feasts and Fasts. The Apostles and their disciples still kept the feasts and fasts of the Jewish calender. For instance, Paul was arrested while celebrating Pentecost in the temple.
 
Upvote 0

sculleywr

Orthodox Colitis Survivor
Jul 23, 2011
7,789
683
Starke, FL
✟37,569.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Others
So, the obvious question is, Do you believe that there were political motives engaged by Constantine in his meddling in the Church?
I wouldn't call calling the leaders of the Church together according to the already established customs of the Church is really meddling. Surely he had political motives. The disagreement among the people of the Church with Arianism was starting to tear his already fragile empire apart. But it isn't really meddling when you ask the Church to do the same thing it has done since Acts 15. The larger scale is the only difference between Nicaea and the thousands of Councils that preceded it.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,127
33,264
✟584,012.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Pretty much.

Yeh, it threw out the sale of indulgences, the domination of the worldly and immoral Renaissance Popes, the trafficking in phony relics, Purgatory, and so many other corrupt practices and abuses of Scripture. I'm surprised that you'd so easily jump on the bandwagon of defending the status quo as it was at the lowest point in the history of the Christian Church. :sorry:
 
Upvote 0

Mama Kidogo

Τίποτα νέο μυθιστόρημα τίποτα
Jan 31, 2014
2,944
307
USA for the time being
✟27,035.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Yeh, it threw out the sale of indulgences, the domination of the worldly and immoral Renaissance Popes, the trafficking in phony relics, Purgatory, and so many other corrupt practices and abuses of Scripture. I'm surprised that you'd so easily jump on the bandwagon of defending the status quo as it was at the lowest point in the history of the Christian Church. :sorry:
If only it ended there. It tossed out the Liturgy, the Eucharist and Baptism as well.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.