Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
No, 65, and blessed indeed.

So retired, I should guess, with Arthurian fingers, yes?

I should be retired about a week after I depart this life...

Small "o."

Then both...

Indeed, if they even have any in God vs. materialism and science.
And he said, I will hide my face from them, I will see what their end shall be: for they are a very froward generation, children in whom is no faith. (Deuteronomy 32:20)

Who testifies to a past in clear contrast to liberal ethos.

We share the same concerns and disdains...

As a remnant, and declension was your argument against validity, but which works against the Orthodox as well as Catholics.

Actually, the argument was against hypocricy... For THAT is the killer of Churches... It is overcoming that keeps the Churches vibrant and alive... Without that overcoming, God will remove the lampstand...

The devil can work to beat any degree of faith both by persecution as well as by infiltration and compromise. With 78.3 % of the Russian population declared they to belong to Orthodox faith yet Russia had the highest number of abortions per woman of child-bearing age in the world according to UN data as of 2010 (NY Times).

The Atheists martyred between 30 and 40 million Christians in Russia in the 20th century on our watch... More in that one century than in the entire previous history of the Christian Faith... And the social morals went out the window under them... Just as they are heading out the window in the US with our Faith anchors slipping...

Well, no more than 1% of Russians said [2008] they attended religious services at least once a month and attenders monthly or more often attenders was 9% in 1998 and 7% in 2008, and 39% of Russians said they never attended church (and 35% around once a year or so).

That once a year attendance is Pascha... [Easter]... The Passover [Pasach] of Death into Life, where the Blood of Christ effects the Salvation of man... Have you looked at the US? Exact stats are hard to find... I know the Orthodox Faith in the US is miniscule - Under a million, even though much more in Orthodox countries world-wide...

Of course, while Orthodox may tout about 80% of Russians are Orthodox, only 15% of Russians profess belief in life after death, Russians Return to Religion, But Not to Church
http://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/

That is a strange stat...

No, Russia is no more a Christian Nation than America is, while the degree of union of church and state in Russia is one that only exists in the imagination of the more rabid separationists in America as regards a Christian faith.

Russia is in a recovery from atheist extermination of Christians lasting 80 years... And even through that extermination, 80% remained Orthodox but did not go to Church, as the Church itself was exterminated, and the clergy were co-opted by the Atheist on pain of death in the Gulag, and violated the privacy of confession, being agents of the atheistic state... Yet they stayed Orthodox in their manner of life, living the Orthodox Way as best they could outside the physical Churches... The Catacomb (underground) Church kept on, and suffered horrific persecutions... Russia is a Holy Land compared to the US which has never suffered any persecutions, but I suspect will in the decades to come... I thought they would start with Hillary's election, but God Trumped her efforts...

Russia is WAY more a Christian nation than the US...

Well, dedication is not good unless it is for what is true. Which is what i want be dedicated to.

Giving up one's life for what is Good and the Truth is a good thing to do...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

Vicomte13

Well-Known Member
Jan 6, 2016
3,655
1,816
Westport, Connecticut
✟93,837.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Actually, there are probably a hundred questions that Catholics can not answer and the one you posted may be the least of them all and I do not say that to disrespect you in any way my brother!

Here is a good one to ask.............
Where in the Bible is the ROSARY found and the directions of how it is to be done????
Simple to answer: it’s not.
Where in the Bible is the notion that the Bible is the final authority
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Thus the "either/or" argument is invalid, while you ignore (or vainly try to counter) the actual issue, which is not that obedience to leadership is not Scriptural, but the conditional nature of it, that as in the statement you are responding to, Whether by hearing or reading, the Scriptures were the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, versus assent by the laity to whatever is taught, based upon the premise of ensured veracity of leadership.

Therefore if you are going to attack wholly inspired Scripture as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, then what you need to argue for is not simply general obedience to leadership, but assent by the laity to whatever is taught, based upon the premise of ensured veracity of leadership. Or whatever you hold as being the basis for implicit assent to leadership, and which necessarily excludes any validity of principled dissent.

Perhaps you believe the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) warrants this.
[QUOTE="PeaceByJesus, post: 72210066, member: 325380"
Your problem is that in order to require implicit obedience to leadership then you must ascribe to them the same ensured veracity the writers realized while writing Scripture, and thus the question remains, what is the basis for this premise of ensured magisterial veracity?

Actually, it is simply obedience within the Body of Christ to those who have "The Rule Over You"... Paul wrote about it in Hebrews:

Heb_13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Heb_13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Heb_13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

Who has the Rule OVER you, my Brother?[/QUOTE]
Neither that or anywhere else in Scripture teaches required implicit obedience to whatever is taught - versus conditional submission - by leadership. You are thus avoiding the issue.

It is this supreme status of Scripture that you reject and replace it with mere men, which - if they are to be supreme over Scripture and warrant implicit obedience to whatever is taught - must at least possess ensured veracity. Thus i must ask you once again what the basis is for their presumed protection from error. or whatever warrants the implicit unconditional obedience that your argue for? The alternative is to allow for principled dissent based upon a higher standard.

As for me, that is actually irrelevant to the truth of the argument, but as said, I have a long record of being overall faithful to those had the oversight over me, as well accountable to leadership among us, but in which there were things in which I had to obey God rather than man (and other times when i should have).

Now are you going to answer my critically relevant question or not?
 
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Thus the "either/or" argument is invalid, while you ignore (or vainly try to counter) the actual issue, which is not that obedience to leadership is not Scriptural, but the conditional nature of it, that as in the statement you are responding to, Whether by hearing or reading, the Scriptures were the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, versus assent by the laity to whatever is taught, based upon the premise of ensured veracity of leadership.

Therefore if you are going to attack wholly inspired Scripture as the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, then what you need to argue for is not simply general obedience to leadership, but assent by the laity to whatever is taught, based upon the premise of ensured veracity of leadership. Or whatever you hold as being the basis for implicit assent to leadership, and which necessarily excludes any validity of principled dissent.


My Brother, these very Scriptures are given to you by us... I am not attacking them... For you, I am showing you from them the foolishness of thinking that this Holy Book of God is God... It is a record of events of the People of God, and in the Gospels, of God Himself on earth and in the flesh...


When a child is betrayed by its mother, that child will have a very hard time learning to trust mothers... The Reformation thought that the apostatic Latin Church was THE Church, and then this apostatic Church betrayed Her Own Children, in the arrogance of Her pride and power... So now, the re-establishment of the Rule of Love in the Ekklesia of God is very problematic... Once burned, twice shy, and the need for SOME supreme standard OTHER than the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail for an ENSURANCE of Salvation is transferred from Christ Himself in His Own Body, the Church, to something written in the Holy Book by which one can prove the Church wrong... It is this very 'proving' that is the camel being swallowed while straining the gnat of multitudinous arguments - eg the Latin Scholasticism of proving the Faith and its tenets by reference to Scripture interpreted under the so called AUTHORITY of Papal Headship of the Church... The result is that you wanted to use Scripture to defeat the Church, and in so doing you were tilting at windmills, because Rome has never been the jurisdictional ruler of the Church...

Now the teaching of the Church to catechumens is not Theology, but repentance... Because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the COMMAND for those who embrace it to enter into lifelong repentance, persevering to the end that they should be saved... And this is taught not by explaining the tenets, but by entering into the Mystery of the Faith unto purification of the heart in preparation for the Illumination of the purified heart upon emergence from the Baptismal Waters, and by the Gift of the Holy Spirit... And in this, those who have walked the talk then talk some of the walk with those who are learning to walk what is talked... And this, while not rocket science, requires teachers who know the walk, and Fathers, like the Apostle Paul, who can birth men into Christ through the Gospel of Repentance, knowing only Christ and Him Crucified, a teaching needing great Grace...

So the matter does not stand on the premise that the Church is a sin-hole filled with evil men who teach false doctrines about unerring Biblical Truth who are the "Church Leadership" to which all must assent... That is crackers... Instead it is about people wanting to become freed from the slavery of sin and Godlessness approaching the Body of Christ to learn how to do so in repentance unto Baptism into Christ...

Perhaps you believe the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) warrants this.

I don't believe it at all... There are people who can get into positions of leadership that are mistaken, or wrong, or even evil, and sow all manner of psychodrama... We both have but to look to our own churches to know that is true... But Paul in Hebrews tells us to submit ourselves to those having the Rule over us, to obey them as having to give account for our souls... He does not tell us to get our hands on a Bible and study it before repentance and Baptism...

Arsenios said:
Actually, it is simply obedience within the Body of Christ to those who have "The Rule Over You"... Paul wrote about it in Hebrews:

Heb_13:7 Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.
Heb_13:17 Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.
Heb_13:24 Salute all them that have the rule over you, and all the saints. They of Italy salute you.

Who has the Rule OVER you, my Brother?

Quote=PeaceByJesus]Neither that nor anywhere else in Scripture teaches required implicit obedience to whatever is taught - versus conditional submission - by leadership. You are thus avoiding the issue.[/quote]

Then tell me, what do these passages mean? What exactly IS this "Rule over you" that Paul instructs us concerning remembrance, imitation, obedience, submission and salutation, who must give account for your soul? You accuse me of avoiding the issue, and assert "conditional submission", and you do so without ANY Biblical warrant which should come from Hebrews, had it existed...

It is this supreme status of Scripture that you reject and replace it with mere men,


And that is what you understand by the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, the Ekklesia of God...
Mere men...
Which is also an easily demonstrable anti-Scriptural tenet born of betrayal by an apostatic Mother...

I must ask you once again what the basis is for their presumed protection from error.

I will answer you from Scripture, if you don't mind: The First Council at Jerusalem recorded in the Book of The Acts of the Apostles.... There was a false belief, that to become a Christian one had to first become a Jew, because Christ was a Jew born under the Law... And the Church convened and argued boisterously, came to agreement, and the first Patriarch of Jerusalem, Iakovos, made the Ruling and sent copies to all the Churches...

That's Book!

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others

My Brother, these very Scriptures are given to you by us... I am not attacking them... For you, I am showing you from them the foolishness of thinking that this Holy Book of God is God... It is a record of events of the People of God, and in the Gospels, of God Himself on earth and in the flesh...


When a child is betrayed by its mother, that child will have a very hard time learning to trust mothers... The Reformation thought that the apostatic Latin Church was THE Church, and then this apostatic Church betrayed Her Own Children, in the arrogance of Her pride and power... So now, the re-establishment of the Rule of Love in the Ekklesia of God is very problematic... Once burned, twice shy, and the need for SOME supreme standard OTHER than the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth against which the Gates of Hell shall not prevail for an ENSURANCE of Salvation is transferred from Christ Himself in His Own Body, the Church, to something written in the Holy Book by which one can prove the Church wrong... It is this very 'proving' that is the camel being swallowed while straining the gnat of multitudinous arguments - eg the Latin Scholasticism of proving the Faith and its tenets by reference to Scripture interpreted under the so called AUTHORITY of Papal Headship of the Church... The result is that you wanted to use Scripture to defeat the Church, and in so doing you were tilting at windmills, because Rome has never been the jurisdictional ruler of the Church...

Now the teaching of the Church to catechumens is not Theology, but repentance... Because the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the COMMAND for those who embrace it to enter into lifelong repentance, persevering to the end that they should be saved... And this is taught not by explaining the tenets, but by entering into the Mystery of the Faith unto purification of the heart in preparation for the Illumination of the purified heart upon emergence from the Baptismal Waters, and by the Gift of the Holy Spirit... And in this, those who have walked the talk then talk some of the walk with those who are learning to walk what is talked... And this, while not rocket science, requires teachers who know the walk, and Fathers, like the Apostle Paul, who can birth men into Christ through the Gospel of Repentance, knowing only Christ and Him Crucified, a teaching needing great Grace...

So the matter does not stand on the premise that the Church is a sin-hole filled with evil men who teach false doctrines about unerring Biblical Truth who are the "Church Leadership" to which all must assent... That is crackers... Instead it is about people wanting to become freed from the slavery of sin and Godlessness approaching the Body of Christ to learn how to do so in repentance unto Baptism into Christ...
Which is so much prolix esoteric insubstantial sophistry in lieu of an actual argument. You attack Scripture as not being God, but esentially replace it with your church as being God. Neither are God in person, but only one is the wholly inspired revelation of God.

You assert you gave us the Scriptures, which certainly is a surprise to the Jews to whom "were committed the oracles of God" (Romans 3:2) yet which does not make them the assuredly correct judges of it any more than it makes your church.

=You minimize Scripture as "a record of events of the People of God, and in the Gospels, of God Himself on earth and in the flesh," while the very Scriptures say they, as the assured word of God, are more than that, as they are salvific, spirit and life, Even as "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple. The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes." (Psalms 19:7-8)

Enlightening the eyes as to who and what God and man is, and revealing and convicting man of his need for salvation and how to be saved and how to please God, and equipping him to do so, "That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Timothy 3:17)

And tells of Heaven and Hell, and as a sword defeats the enemy of our souls. "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Hebrews 4:12)

Then with your typical either/or mentality, your instead assert "Now the teaching of the Church to catechumens is not Theology, but repentance," and of entering into "the Mystery of the Faith unto purification of the heart" and freedom from "the slavery of sin and Godlessness," as if that was opposed to this being what the study of Scripture materially enables with its "introduction in righteousness."

Instead, you only speak of "teachers who know the walk, and Fathers, like the Apostle Paul, who can birth men into Christ through the Gospel of Repentance, knowing only Christ and Him Crucified," as if knowing what one is to repent from does not presuppose revelation of the word of God, which Scripture most assuredly is.

And as if the Christ they knew was not that of Scripture, and who appealed to Scripture as substantiating His messiahship, and who opened their eyes to the very word of God which you minimize in scope and depth.

And as if "knowing only Christ and Him Crucified" was opposed to all He wrote being revelation of what this means and requires, expressing what to "live is Christ" is about.
It is no wonder you appeal to subjective esoteric knowledge, "direct revelation" as judged by your church to be so, as supreme.
But Paul in Hebrews tells us to submit ourselves to those having the Rule over us, to obey them as having to give account for our souls... He does not tell us to get our hands on a Bible and study it before repentance and Baptism
What it is with these constant either/or false dichotomies, as if a exhortation to submit to leadership is opposed to the laity doing what noble men did, searching the Scriptures whether these things were so, and whereby the laity can "prove all things," (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and "try the spirits whether they are of God," (1 John 4:1) and do what NT leadership did, which is that of subjecting the teaching of leadership to Scripture, which is how the church began? You think the apostles wanted the laity to make the same error that those who crucified Christ?

For in contrast to the "we gave you the Bible, thus you should submit to all we say" argument, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23) </p>

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved by Scripture as being supreme, (Mark 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And which is certainly not opposed to magisterial authority, but not as above Scripture as being assuredly True, while the authority of the NT church was under men of supreme Scriptural integrity "not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Co. 4:2) "in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God..." (2 Co. 6:4)

Quote=PeaceByJesus]Neither that nor anywhere else in Scripture teaches required implicit obedience to whatever is taught - versus conditional submission - by leadership. You are thus avoiding the issue.[/quote]
Then tell me, what do these passages mean? What exactly IS this "Rule over you" that Paul instructs us concerning remembrance, imitation, obedience, submission and salutation, who must give account for your soul? You accuse me of avoiding the issue, and assert "conditional submission", and you do so without ANY Biblical warrant which should come from Hebrews, had it existed...
I am sorry. I did not think you were that unfamiliar with Scripture, for the conditional nature of obedience to man is clearly evident and well-established.

In Romans 13 for instance, we have an even stronger expression of required obedience:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)

Likewise,

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

Taken by themselves, as you take Hebrews 13:17, this excludes the validity of any dissent, yet throughout Scripture we see God-fearing souls engaging in such. In Exodus 1 the "the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them [to kill the male Hebrew children], but saved the men children alive. (Exodus 1:17) And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. (Exodus 1:21)

Likewise Daniel and Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed–nego disobeyed the king due to the requirement which was contrary to obedience to God.

Moreover, even though dissent from the supreme Hebrew magisterium was a capital crime, (Dt. 17:8-13) and the Lord upheld general obedience to that office, yet as said, they church began in dissent from them, following men who, in the eyes of those who say in the seat of Moses, had no valid authority. (Mark 11:27-33) But whom these itinerant preachers reproved based upon Scripture as being supreme. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye. (Acts 4:19) And thus they preached "that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (1 Corinthians 15:3-4)

Thus rather than your ignorant assertion that "conditional submission", is "without ANY Biblical warrant which should come from Hebrews, had it existed," it clearly is taught (and more examples can be provided) while it is actually your required unconditional submission that is unscriptural.

It is this supreme status of Scripture that you reject and replace it with mere men,
And that is what you understand by the Body of Christ Who is Her Head, the Ekklesia of God...
Mere men...
Which is also an easily demonstrable anti-Scriptural tenet born of betrayal by an apostatic Mother...
All your assertions cannot overcome the manifest fact that the very gospel of the NT church - without which there would be no church - rested upon Paul, Scripture, being that "Which he [God] had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," (Romans 1:1-2) which "is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." (Romans 16:26) And thus souls validated what was preached from Scripture.

I will answer you from Scripture, if you don't mind: The First Council at Jerusalem recorded in the Book of The Acts of the Apostles.... There was a false belief, that to become a Christian one had to first become a Jew, because Christ was a Jew born under the Law... And the Church convened and argued boisterously, came to agreement, and the first Patriarch of Jerusalem, Iakovos, made the Ruling and sent copies to all the Churches...
That's Book!
Arsenios
Exactly, we know this from Scripture, and the judgment of James was Scripturally substantiated, and which the very gospel and the restrictions were, and which manner of substantiation was basis for the validation of this judgment, versus ensured magisterial veracity, thus requiring submission to whatever is taught by them and ipso facto invalidating the validity of any dissent. The council was neither teaching Roman purgatory nor praying to created beings in Heaven, or calling leadership “hiereus,” as a separate sacerdotal class, or such like Catholic distinctives, but were seeing Scripture fulfilled and affirming the evangelical gospel of faith purifying the heart in the washing of regeneration, (Acts 15:7-9) and providing Scripture-based disciplines.

Thus rather than validating your form of sola ecclesia, the supreme status of Scripture remains, though as with SCOTUS, the judicial authority of powers that be remain for those under them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
What it is with these constant either/or false dichotomies, as if a exhortation to submit to leadership is opposed to the laity doing what noble men did, searching the Scriptures whether these things were so, and whereby the laity can "prove all things," (1 Thessalonians 5:21) and "try the spirits whether they are of God," (1 John 4:1) and do what NT leadership did, which is that of subjecting the teaching of leadership to Scripture, which is how the church began?

The issue I am presenting to you is that of fundamentality, not dichotomy - Which comes first and causes the second which in turn causes more... Reading Scripture is derived from having Scripture, which derives from a person writing scripture, which derives from someone having something to write that becomes a part of Scripture, which derives not from Scripture, but from God, and is gives to His Holy Ones... And their holiness is derived from God through living holy lives separated from evil, yet being tempted and overcoming or failing and further repenting...

You think the apostles wanted the laity to make the same error that those who crucified Christ?

Do you not know that the crucifiers of Christ were the oh so literate and erudite Scribes and Pharisees? Whose job it was to read carefully all Scripture and argue it incessantly one with another, and who were all agog when a 12 year old kid addressed them from Knowledge? And that the Apostles were but simple men of God?

I am sorry.
I did not think you were that unfamiliar with Scripture, for the conditional nature of obedience to man is clearly evident and well-established.

Oh I am far more scumly in knowledge of the Bible than you, no question - I am very unfamiliar with Scripture compared to you... If I have caused you sorrow for this reason, I do not know how I can ease your angst... Would asking your forgiveness for my ignorance be beneficial? Or do you prefer sorrow?

In Romans 13 for instance, we have an even stronger expression of required obedience:

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1-5)
"

Non-responsive - The question was: "WHO ARE these who HAVE the RULE over YOU who must give account for your soul?" You answer that they are the same as the worldly rulers in your quote?

Likewise,

OK - It is now MY turn for sorrow! Likewise indeed!

Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

Do you really not know the diffeerence between worldly rulers and those appointed by the Apostles in obedience to Christ? I do not believe that for a New York second!

Taken by themselves, as you take Hebrews 13:17, this excludes the validity of any dissent, yet throughout Scripture we see God-fearing souls engaging in such. In Exodus 1 the "the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them [to kill the male Hebrew children], but saved the men children alive. (Exodus 1:17) And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses. (Exodus 1:21)

That's right - The lowly, unlettered midwives disobeyed Pharoah the hater of God, and obeyed God, (and not the Scripture they were studying), instead of Pharoah the God-hater... Do you really co-equate "Them having the Rule over you" in Hebrews with God-hating Pharoah and worldly rulership???

The rest of your post sure seems to affirm this idea... eg More "Likewise"...

Where the Ekklesia of God is co-equated with God-haters and worldly rulers...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The issue I am presenting to you is that of fundamentality, not dichotomy - Which comes first and causes the second which in turn causes more...
Actually no, you have mainly engaged in either/or argumentation, faith in Scripture. versus faith in God, etc.
Do you not know that the crucifiers of Christ were the oh so literate and erudite Scribes and Pharisees? Whose job it was to read carefully all Scripture and argue it incessantly one with another, and who were all agog when a 12 year old kid addressed them from Knowledge? And that the Apostles were but simple men of God?
That simply is you shooting your own foot, for the issue is submission to valid leadership which you only promoted as unconditional, and now you want to sanction dissent from it based upon their character? The Lord Himself enjoined obedience to them as siting in the seat of Moses, with the only dissent being sanctioned being when they or what they taught was contrary to the word of God, which is why the Lord reproved them from Scripture.
Oh I am far more scumly in knowledge of the Bible than you, no question - I am very unfamiliar with Scripture compared to you... If I have caused you sorrow for this reason, I do not know how I can ease your angst... Would asking your forgiveness for my ignorance be beneficial? Or do you prefer sorrow?
Seeing as i exposed your ignorance thus your recourse is that of parody of my prefatory sarcasm.
Non-responsive - The question was: "WHO ARE these who HAVE the RULE over YOU who must give account for your soul?" You answer that they are the same as the worldly rulers in your quote?
OK - It is now MY turn for sorrow! Likewise indeed! Do you really not know the diffeerence between worldly rulers and those appointed by the Apostles in obedience to Christ? I do not believe that for a New York second!
You should be sorry since once again the issue is obedience to leadership, with this being enjoined to both secular or religious. You have no argument unless you can show obedience is only enjoined to the latter, or that a class of the latter can require unequivocal submission. Whether it was me submitting to strict fundamental Baptist pastoral leadership for years, or with leadership among brethren, no where was this to be unequivocal submission.
That's right - The lowly, unlettered midwives disobeyed Pharoah the hater of God, and obeyed God, (and not the Scripture they were studying), instead of Pharoah the God-hater... Do you really co-equate "Them having the Rule over you" in Hebrews with God-hating Pharoah and worldly rulership???
The rest of your post sure seems to affirm this idea... eg More "Likewise"...
Where the Ekklesia of God is co-equated with God-haters and worldly rulers..

You mean how dare God enjoin obedience to God-hating emperors and worldly rulership, as well as those who sat in the seat of Moses. Perhaps you could realize that that basis for these warranting conditional disobedience was because their a supreme standard over them, which you reject as being over your church.

Faced with the the fact that what is actually without any Scriptural teaching is unconditional submission to any leadership men, and that every kind of leadership is shown open to valid dissent based upon the higher standard of the word of God, then you are left to resort to your specious flailing and failing "argument by outrage," as if somehow your flowery leadership is above being subject to the supreme standard which the Lord reproved those who sat in the seat of Moses by, nor does your leadership even come close to the comprehensive attestation of the apostles as being of God, (2 Corinthians 6:4-10)

Best to give it up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Actually no, you have mainly engaged in either/or argumentation, faith in Scripture. versus faith in God, etc.

Which is more fundamental: God or Scripture? Faith in God, or faith in Scripture? I believe both are profoundly good, but you believe that Scripture trumps God, because Jesus had to prove Himself with Scripture??? I really do not believe you think that...

The Church simply disciples Christ to the faithful by repentance from sin and turning to God... Each person, in this effort, is actively denying the self, and embracing the Cross of suffering so as to overcome the world, as did Christ... And we are to follow Him, yes? And in this effort of overcoming sin in the race set before us which we are to run, the time will come when God will give us our personal Pentecost in purity of heart, and we will then become one with Him... God and man directly connected with no intermediaries... This is what the Church disciples... It is what the Church has always discipled... And when that happens, as it does indeed happen, man becomes divinized by/in God and he becomes a channel of Grace to all men... That IS Salvation in this life... And to do that, the enterprise takes far more than reading and studying books - It takes overcoming sin... And this is not done by the intellect and reading, but by taking up one's own cross and following Christ in suffereing...

This is what Scripture means by saying we have the Mind of Christ...
And it is from this vantage that we even CAN understand Scripture...
Repentance is prior to understanding Theology...
Theology is only known in union with God...
Study from books is not Theology...

God caused Scripture to be written for us...
And God causes us to understand Scripture...

Luk_24:45
Then opened he their understanding,
that they might understand the scriptures,


Scripture does not cause us to understand Scripture.
But the reading of Scripture is a beginning...
And in old age, it is a comfort...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which is more fundamental: God or Scripture? Faith in God, or faith in Scripture? I believe both are profoundly good, but you believe that Scripture trumps God, because Jesus had to prove Himself with Scripture??? I really do not believe you think that...
Where did I say Jesus had to prove Himself with Scripture? I said He did, in the sense of substantiating His claims to men, and in rebuking false teaching and providing what is of God.
The Church simply disciples Christ to the faithful by repentance from sin and turning to God... Each person, in this effort, is actively denying the self, and embracing the Cross of suffering so as to overcome the world, as did Christ... And we are to follow Him, yes? And in this effort of overcoming sin in the race set before us which we are to run, the time will come when God will give us our personal Pentecost in purity of heart, and we will then become one with Him... God and man directly connected with no intermediaries... This is what the Church disciples... It is what the Church has always discipled... And when that happens, as it does indeed happen, man becomes divinized by/in God and he becomes a channel of Grace to all men... That IS Salvation in this life..
Which mystical maturity (which i must seek) is not to be espoused without a solid basis for it, which foundation Scripture is as the only wholly inspired and substantial body of Divine Truth. Which, as written, became the standard for faith and obedience, which is the point here, not that souls are not to grow in grace.
And to do that, the enterprise takes far more than reading and studying books - It takes overcoming sin... And this is not done by the intellect and reading, but by taking up one's own cross and following Christ in suffereing...
Once again you argue as if i argued for merely intellectual knowledge, rather than reading and studying books being consistent with not only overcoming sin, but of growing in the grace and knowledge of God, letting the word of Christ dwell in one richly, and being instruments of righteousness in confronting the world of sin with the claims of Christ, who died and rose according to the Scriptures, and reproving error... Enough with your strawmen and false dichotomies.
This is what Scripture means by saying we have the Mind of Christ...
Reading the words of Christ reveals the mind of Christ so you can have it as God reveals it, and works in the believer.
And it is from this vantage that we even CAN understand Scripture...
Rather, you do not attain to this vantage except by obeying the light God already gave you, understanding the milk of the word and going on to the meat.
Repentance is prior to understanding Theology...
Indeed, but Repentanceis grounded in Biblical Theology.
Theology is only known in union with God...
Which union and theology comes by the revelation of the word of God, which Scripture most assuredly is. And the rest is details.
Study from books is not Theology...
Theology is not apart from the study from books, despite your exaltation of direct reveals based upon the ensured veracity of your church.
And God causes us to understand Scripture...
Luk_24:45
Then opened he their understanding,
that they might understand the scriptures,
Scripture does not cause us to understand Scripture.
But the reading of Scripture is a beginning...
And in old age, it is a comfort
...
What a contrivance. God substantiates His messiahship to the His disciples by the Scriptures, and opens up their understanding to it, and calls His word spirit and life, and what man is to live by, and more to be desire then even honey or gold, and a powerful revelatory two-edged sword, obedience to which is what brings great reward, yet with your exaltation of the esoteric, you marginalize it as merely being a beginning and a comfort for old men, while God says and shows that His word is far more than just your seminal kick starter and nursing home devo, while the infallible Orthodox (pick one) church is what warrants unconditional obedience.

I never realized how cultic the Orthodox could be.

I think we are done.
 
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

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
PeaceByJesus said:

No,m i said Rome, but since you stated that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading" which also was Rome's attitude, then as said, "what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since [under the premise]they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and 'NOT for their reading.'"


.

You mean first of all that density is indicated in thinking that the context I referred to was the very early church, and secondly that i did not acknowledge the that "the degree of availability and literacy was a hindrance to private reading of Scripture," and that I was referring to the Orthodox:

For I said,

Or course, we know Rome later on much hindered personal reading of Scripture,
which is what we nowhere see in Scripture itself, and while the degree of availability and literacy was a hindrance to private reading of Scripture, what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading."


Moreover, I also showed you that, "the degree of availability and literacy" notwithstanding, yet contrary the uncritical statement that "the Laity were in the early Ekklesia, ILLITERATE," apparently "thick" Chrysostom did not think this was so universal:

The Scriptures were not given us for this only, that we might have them in books, but that we might engrave them on our hearts...And this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this..." "keep the Bible in your hands; for in it you shall see the lists, and the long races, and his grasps, and the skill of the righteous one. For by beholding these things you shall learn also how to wrestle so yourself, and shall escape clear of devils..." - CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 32 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests....— New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

Furthermore, comprehension also requires us to understand that it is your assertion that Scripture was not intended for reading by laity, versus hearing it, and which is contrary to such testimony as above.

Also, as regards literacy in the early church, even if only 10 to 15 percent of the population was "literate" based upon the criteria of being able to not only read but to write, yet this percent can have a powerful impact. And there is evidence of significant literacy in the contentious debate over just how literate people were in the ancient near east around the time of Christ.

...by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, the abundant graffiti preserved on the walls show that many townsfolk of quite humble origins were able to read and write. The Roman army could function only on the basis of a widespread literacy which would enable its administrative work to carry on. So we should suppose that most free people of any means would secure for their children at least a basic competence in reading, writing and, in all probability, numeracy...Pliny's literate slaves were far from unique, as witnessed by the advice of a writer on farming; that slaves in a position of responsibility on a farm should be able to read, write, and handle accounts (Varro, Rerum rusticarum 1.17.4). Slaves with such accomplishments must have been available. And we have the undeniable fact that many schoolteachers were slaves or freedmen.

So literacy in the first century AD, though not universal, stretched far down the social scale, and we must therefore assume that schooling of some form was part of the childhood experience of many inhabitants of the Empire. As in Jewish society, the original ideal of the Romans was that each child should be taught what they needed to know and understand by their parents, and the place of the father as his son's instructor was highly valued by conservatively-minded Romans...

By the first century BC, both Romans and Jews were experiencing the strong attractions of an alternative form of education: the Greek model. It took education out of the home and placed it in a new institution, the school. - W.A. Strange, Children in the Early Church: Children in the Ancient World, p. 25


In addition, the page i linked to provided details that the hindrance of personal access to the Bible in the vernacular came later. Also, comprehension and reasoning requires us to understand that hindrance of personal Bible reading can be accomplished by not endeavoring to enable the laity to read, as well as not providing the Scriptures in their tongue, in addition to requiring special permission and giving to just a few, mainly out of fear it would otherwise do more harm than good.

The preface to the Douay–Rheims Bible states,

Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...

In our own country...[was] no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church.. . - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582

In contrast, the Puritans placed such a priority on Bible literacy that they passed a law (The Old Deluder Act of 1647) requiring townships of fifty households to school children to write and read. And while the printing press had been invented, Bibles were not abundant and they schooled proficient students to read Latin.
..
Once again, per usually, your argument is that of a false dichotomy, an either/or assertion that is not false, since the Lord establishing a holy people does not mean He did not come to write (by His Spirit moving men) a Holy Book, which in fact He did. For the reality is that without the written word there would be no NT church, and since as before, God has men provide and preserve His word thru writing - this manifestly being His chosen means of long term reliable authoritative preservation - then thus consistent with this principle the Lord instructed His Spirit to inspired men to write the words He promised to give to His Spirit. (John 16:12-15)

So you say of your holy ones, but as with the preaching of the apostles, noble truth-loving souls subject such to testing by Scripture, by which - directly or indirectly - the Lord and His church showed that He was the Christ, in word and in power.

You false dichotomy strikes again. It is not that either Scripture is the means by which one is converted or that it is by a supernatural encounter, but that these work together. Paul understood from the Scriptures that the God of his fathers provided supernatural encounters to some of them, and of why types they were (not that of mere circus shows), and how he should respond, and of the significance of washing with water. He would not have been long duped by some angel Moroni and the use of seer stones.

And being grounded in the Scriptures, he was able to bring others into a supernatural relationship with Christ by faith, without such rare overt supernatural manifestation, though unlike perfunctory professions in ritual baptisms, true regeneration is a supernatural event with effecting profound basic changes in heart and life. Thanks be to God.

Some are persuaded more by by overt supernatural testimony, (Rm. 15:19) yet miracles themselves are not the basis for what Truth is, but are attestive accompaniments to the Truth. (Mk. 16:16)
.
When you make subjective supernatural dreams and visions etc. "direct Revelation from God" as you describe it, the basis, the standard for Truth, so that "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," and set faith in Scripture in contrast to faith in God ("You can put your faith in Scripture... I place mine in God...) and Scripture as only being "a means and help to encounter God," and not also the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, as is it abundantly shown to be, then you are close to Gnosticism.

When the assured word of God, the Scriptures, are not your supreme standard but subjective esoteric "direct Revelation from God" is, then in essence you are much one of the many strands of Gnosticism, with enough Scriptural Truth to keep you from going as far off the rails as they did.

Nothing more more needs to be said. This has taken too much time already.
PeaceByJesus said:

No,m i said Rome, but since you stated that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading" which also was Rome's attitude, then as said, "what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since [under the premise]they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and 'NOT for their reading.'"


.

You mean first of all that density is indicated in thinking that the context I referred to was the very early church, and secondly that i did not acknowledge the that "the degree of availability and literacy was a hindrance to private reading of Scripture," and that I was referring to the Orthodox:

For I said,

Or course, we know Rome later on much hindered personal reading of Scripture,
which is what we nowhere see in Scripture itself, and while the degree of availability and literacy was a hindrance to private reading of Scripture, what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading."


Moreover, I also showed you that, "the degree of availability and literacy" notwithstanding, yet contrary the uncritical statement that "the Laity were in the early Ekklesia, ILLITERATE," apparently "thick" Chrysostom did not think this was so universal:

The Scriptures were not given us for this only, that we might have them in books, but that we might engrave them on our hearts...And this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this..." "keep the Bible in your hands; for in it you shall see the lists, and the long races, and his grasps, and the skill of the righteous one. For by beholding these things you shall learn also how to wrestle so yourself, and shall escape clear of devils..." - CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 32 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests....— New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

Furthermore, comprehension also requires us to understand that it is your assertion that Scripture was not intended for reading by laity, versus hearing it, and which is contrary to such testimony as above.

Also, as regards literacy in the early church, even if only 10 to 15 percent of the population was "literate" based upon the criteria of being able to not only read but to write, yet this percent can have a powerful impact. And there is evidence of significant literacy in the contentious debate over just how literate people were in the ancient near east around the time of Christ.

...by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, the abundant graffiti preserved on the walls show that many townsfolk of quite humble origins were able to read and write. The Roman army could function only on the basis of a widespread literacy which would enable its administrative work to carry on. So we should suppose that most free people of any means would secure for their children at least a basic competence in reading, writing and, in all probability, numeracy...Pliny's literate slaves were far from unique, as witnessed by the advice of a writer on farming; that slaves in a position of responsibility on a farm should be able to read, write, and handle accounts (Varro, Rerum rusticarum 1.17.4). Slaves with such accomplishments must have been available. And we have the undeniable fact that many schoolteachers were slaves or freedmen.

So literacy in the first century AD, though not universal, stretched far down the social scale, and we must therefore assume that schooling of some form was part of the childhood experience of many inhabitants of the Empire. As in Jewish society, the original ideal of the Romans was that each child should be taught what they needed to know and understand by their parents, and the place of the father as his son's instructor was highly valued by conservatively-minded Romans...

By the first century BC, both Romans and Jews were experiencing the strong attractions of an alternative form of education: the Greek model. It took education out of the home and placed it in a new institution, the school. - W.A. Strange, Children in the Early Church: Children in the Ancient World, p. 25


In addition, the page i linked to provided details that the hindrance of personal access to the Bible in the vernacular came later. Also, comprehension and reasoning requires us to understand that hindrance of personal Bible reading can be accomplished by not endeavoring to enable the laity to read, as well as not providing the Scriptures in their tongue, in addition to requiring special permission and giving to just a few, mainly out of fear it would otherwise do more harm than good.

The preface to the Douay–Rheims Bible states,

Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...

In our own country...[was] no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church.. . - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582

In contrast, the Puritans placed such a priority on Bible literacy that they passed a law (The Old Deluder Act of 1647) requiring townships of fifty households to school children to write and read. And while the printing press had been invented, Bibles were not abundant and they schooled proficient students to read Latin.
..
Once again, per usually, your argument is that of a false dichotomy, an either/or assertion that is not false, since the Lord establishing a holy people does not mean He did not come to write (by His Spirit moving men) a Holy Book, which in fact He did. For the reality is that without the written word there would be no NT church, and since as before, God has men provide and preserve His word thru writing - this manifestly being His chosen means of long term reliable authoritative preservation - then thus consistent with this principle the Lord instructed His Spirit to inspired men to write the words He promised to give to His Spirit. (John 16:12-15)

So you say of your holy ones, but as with the preaching of the apostles, noble truth-loving souls subject such to testing by Scripture, by which - directly or indirectly - the Lord and His church showed that He was the Christ, in word and in power.

You false dichotomy strikes again. It is not that either Scripture is the means by which one is converted or that it is by a supernatural encounter, but that these work together. Paul understood from the Scriptures that the God of his fathers provided supernatural encounters to some of them, and of why types they were (not that of mere circus shows), and how he should respond, and of the significance of washing with water. He would not have been long duped by some angel Moroni and the use of seer stones.

And being grounded in the Scriptures, he was able to bring others into a supernatural relationship with Christ by faith, without such rare overt supernatural manifestation, though unlike perfunctory professions in ritual baptisms, true regeneration is a supernatural event with effecting profound basic changes in heart and life. Thanks be to God.

Some are persuaded more by by overt supernatural testimony, (Rm. 15:19) yet miracles themselves are not the basis for what Truth is, but are attestive accompaniments to the Truth. (Mk. 16:16)
.
When you make subjective supernatural dreams and visions etc. "direct Revelation from God" as you describe it, the basis, the standard for Truth, so that "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," and set faith in Scripture in contrast to faith in God ("You can put your faith in Scripture... I place mine in God...) and Scripture as only being "a means and help to encounter God," and not also the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, as is it abundantly shown to be, then you are close to Gnosticism.

When the assured word of God, the Scriptures, are not your supreme standard but subjective esoteric "direct Revelation from God" is, then in essence you are much one of the many strands of Gnosticism, with enough Scriptural Truth to keep you from going as far off the rails as they did.

Nothing more more needs to be said. This has taken too much time already.

Good to be back i hope you had a great Christmas

In the 16 Century Latin was a common/universal Language much as english is today and most people understood it . there were multiple languages at that time and Latin united the roman empire . Greek was another common language .

At that time the Catholic Church read the full NT and OT ( except for genealogies ) in a three year cycle . The Orthodox Churches were also liturgical and did the same .

The Bible at that time were hand written and were worth the price of a small car . They were changed in Catholic Churches and Libraries to prevent them from being stolen.

When the printing press was invented the first copy of the Bible ( believe it or not ) was Catholic version and the first version of scripture in the vernacular was a Catholic version . ( Reference " Where We Got the Bible " Rt. Rev Henry G Graham )

At that point of history illiteracy was common , but people would hear all of the Scripture at Mass . Or they could go to any university to read it .

As Martin Luther said " without the Catholic Church we would have no knowledge of the scriptures " . Out Monks Catholic/Orthodox copied,( hand written scripture ) for 1500 years If you cn show me one official document from the Catholic/Orthodox church which denied scriptures to the faithful I would like to see it .
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Indeed so!



Indeed so - ekklesiastic or private, those are the alternatives... And because Latin Rome is not in Communion with us for the last thousand years, the next question becomes: "Which Christian Communion? The Latins, or the EOC? Or some other? The Bible is not flesh and blood, you see, so when it is interrogated, it cannot speak, but the Churches can and do and have, and there is a good concensus across time on most issues in the Bible, and on those where there is not, then the interpretations are relegated to pious opinions...



The Church of the Reformation was the Apostatic Latin Church of the West in Rome... It was not the EOC... We of the East have never had a Reformation like the authoritarian Church of the Latins did...



The Eastern Church has as many sinners as any, but the Church is the Body of Christ, and is not made up of men, but of Christ... We confess: "And I BELIEVE IN one, holy, catholic and Apostolic EKKLESIA..." Christ is the Head of His Own Body... Latin Rome went off the rails of Communion with the East in Her Own authoritarian self-importance and thereby illegitimately birthed the Reformation...



I totally get that!



Better not!



Well, may God continue to bless you... The Orthodox understand God's Word as Jesus Christ, and the Church as the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Bible as the Holy and God-inspired writings of His Body, Whose Head Christ IS...



Yes...



Truer truth has never been uttered!



Yup...



I have watched those who do so use ONLY Bible quotes back and forth arguing with each other without offering so much as even one word of their own - It is an amazing thing to watch the Bible arguing with itself at the hands of two Bible believers who believe in letting the Bible interpret itself...



This is why the Bible is best interpreted by the worshipping community that wrote it and preserved it and worships with it from those beginnings... You will notice that theological innovation is not a feature of this Patristic and concensual approach... If you cannot find, say, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the first thousand years of Christianity, then it can be safely discarded... The same goes with Sola Scriptura...



Exegetical interpretation forms the basis for layered multiple meanings of virtually every Biblical text...
Especially the Prophets and the Psalms... If you are going to restrict your understanding of the Bible to the material meanings alone of the Bible [exegesis], you will not find access to the reason why God caused it to be written...

Arsenios
My sentiments exactly , but it is we RC would disagree with you regarding mimplication regarding the Roman Church .

Arsenios I hope you had a great Christmas ( I dream of the day our Churches unite )
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I agree with Chrysostom - We have always provided texts in the local language, and when there is only an oral language we give them a written one - Viz The Kyrillic Alphabet and that of the Aleuts in Alaska... And many others... The Latins erred in their Latin only for clergy only etc...

So I don't get your rant... Sorry...



It was read publically in Services, in Greek LXX, for all to understand...
By hearing... Not by all reading... Don't know why this is giving you so much difficulty...




In a pre-literate culture, texts are read aloud publically...



Ho-hum...

Look, here is how it works in pre-literate cultures, where some have literary skills - These skills are still the possession and tools of a pre-literate mind, and so when a text out of the Bible is read aloud, it is REMEMBERED... And when they get home, if they so desire, they write down what they heard, OK? They were too existentially marginal to be able to AFFORD their own Bible... But we find a LOT of little texts on small fragments... 'Paper' alone was prohibitively costly...



The Book is written for the sake of the Holy People, not vice versa... Hardly a false dichotomy, yes?



The New Testament was written by Christ's Church...
They wrote it FOR the Church...
It was read IN the Church...
For the HEARING of the Church.

Paul even instructed that his letters be READ [not distributed by Cc's] IN the Churches...
This is not hard...



What Scriptures did Paul preach from? He preached Christ crucified in works of power in fear and trembling, becoming all things for all men that he might save some... Paul did manage to convert some Jews... Others not so much... He used their own OT texts...



Nor did Paul preach from visions... But what he discipled was for his disciples to know God as he did, and as Ananias who Baptized and restored his vision did, and as Christians generally did in those first centuries of the faith... And THIS preparation was the preaching of the Cross, that we follow Christ crucified in denial of self and in calling upon the Name of the Lord...



Private? Personal? A private miracle with God?



I don't do this, but you seem to do so in your own private miraculous personal "True Regeneration" narrative...



That is true...



Your marriage is with the Book of God...

Ours is with God...

That is how we GAVE the Book TO you, you see...



A very underwhelming accusation...



Yes, we DID establish the Canonicity of Scripture, so it IS assured...



That straw man is YOUR bugaboo, not ours... We agree with the Bible we wrote that the Prophet is subject to the Prophets, remember?



One little series of questions on the issue of the Truth:

Is the Truth a Person in your understanding?
Do you KNOW the Truth?
Did Adam KNOW Eve?
Why is Eternal Life KNOWING the One True God?
Do you need to KNOW God to HAVE Life Eternal?

Arsenios

By the Book, one knows ABOUT God...
By God, we can KNOW God...
In Thy Light shall we SEE Light...


AMEN AMEN AMEN I SAY
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Then you don't "get" what you said. Which is that rather than possessing the Scriptures for personal reading as Chrysostom encouraged, you said the Laity in the early Ekklesia, and often even the clergy, were ILLITERATE... "May I repeat: ILLITERATE..." and that "these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study." "God intended His words to be...read aloud to the faithful for their hearing. NOT for their reading... Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading."

But rather than your typical either/or assertions, the inspired writings were intended for both, as has been shown despite your assertions to the contrary.


So now its "Not by all reading," versus "Not by reading," while the point is that the Scriptures were the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, enlightening the eyes, converting the sou, making wise the simple, obtaining great rewards for the obedient, etc., as abundantly shown, and thus should be personally studied by lovers of Truth as such.

It is your assertion that Scripture was not intended for reading by laity, versus hearing it, and which is contrary to such testimony as above.


Which simply does not mean Scripture was not also intended for reading by laity any more than the many signs/inscriptions in a pre-literate culture were, and this term does not mean all were illiterate.

And there is evidence of significant literacy in the contentious debate over just how literate people were in the ancient near east around the time of Christ.

Which actually testifies to the importance and esteem of both Scripture and the written word, versus "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," as if it was either one or the other, to for the former, as the established Divine revelation, is the judge of the latter.

That Scripture was only written for the sake of the Holy People, but not for Holy People to write such for unbelievers to be converted thereby, is not true, for it also was. (John 20:31)

And saying "Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to write a Holy Book... He came instead to establish a Holy People" is a false dichotomy, and is akin to saying Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to preach to the whole world...He came instead to establish a Holy People." For rather than being mutually exclusionary, they both go together in the plan of God.

God choose a people to reveal Himself to the world, both by preaching and writing His word.

No, this is not hard...
  • The NT is based on and abundantly references the prior written Scriptures.
  • Which being the word of God was to be preached in and to the world. (Jeremiah 22:29)
  • For the world to hear, whereby lost souls were converted by the Truth of the Scriptures, "which are able to make thee wise unto salvation which is in Christ Jesus."
  • And which oral preaching was subject to testing by the written word as the established authoritative word of God.
  • We know what true direct revelation was by it having been recorded as inspired written revelation which is the supreme standard by which Truth claims are tested.
  • If the reading of Scripture was commanded and exhorted, then personal reading should follow, as able and available.

Exactly, versus only being for believers, and the texts were God's own.

As shown, he did preach the gospel which "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12) But which was tested and established upon Scripture, and "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:2)

Writing, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

Being a devout Jews of the Scriptures.

Indeed, and with no conflict with my positions, versus "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," as if it was either one or the other, to for the former, as the established Divine revelation, is the judge of the latter.
True regeneration is a supernatural event with effecting profound basic changes in heart and life. Thanks be to God.

Thank God. Yet the validity of which is subject to testing by the assured written word of God, thus there is not conflict.

When you make subjective supernatural dreams and visions etc. "direct Revelation from God" as you describe it, the basis, the standard for Truth, so that "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation,"

Wrong, and a flailing failing argument.
and set faith in Scripture in contrast to faith in God ("You can put your faith in Scripture... I place mine in God...)

Thus you put faith in false dichotomies, while you also said you believe in the church, but do not say that of Scripture. But as explained, to believe in God is to believe what He said and inspired, and to believe the latter is to believe the former.

Conversely, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)
You need to give this up.

Same fallacy. You simply cannot separate God from His word, even while exalting direct revelation.

Another fallacy, that the NT church which began with common souls having entered into a Scripture-based covenant with the God of Scripture, with its very existence being a fulfillment of Scripture and its preaching reflecting its basis thereof, is somehow not married to the revelation of God.

A warranted one in essence based upon certain statements.

Another fallacy, that the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation are the assuredly correct authorities on what is of God. Instead, both men and writings of God were established as being so long before there was a church which presumed it was essential for this.

are not your supreme standard but subjective esoteric "direct Revelation from God" is...

Not when the standard for your Prophets is their own "direct Revelation from God," or wherever their traditions came from which distinctives are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed.


It is a person who cannot be separated from His own words, which we have as Scripture. T

Yes, as a person of 100% Truth/Light, and as revealed by His via His words. The resurrection is also personified as a person, (John 11:24) yet this has a necessary manifestation.

To some degree, and not as much as he must have wished he had.

Because to know Him who is eternal and is life is to know eternal life. Likewise to whom Him who is the Truth is to know His word which is Truth, (Jn. 17:17) and to know the latter is to know the former.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

Indeed, and by receiving His word one comes to know the God of revelation.

Which means that by the Light of His word and receiving it, one will not simply know ABOUT God but will KNOW God. And feeding upon, and being nourished and built up by it, and by walking in that light one will receive more light.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

And if hearing the word is needful and commanded, and which preaching is tested by, thus personal reading is to be encouraged.

Scripture does not interpret itself . Were the first Christian Bishops Baptists, Lutherines , Catholic ,Orthodox , 7 Day Adventists .....................

Just read the early Church Fathers , all of them ( which is not a impossible task - it took me 2 years ) and see if they had a consensus of understanding . Read the documents of the 7 Ecuminical Councils and see what they focused on . They evidence does not point to a divided Protestisim but a common share belief .

The Orthodox and Rome have our own dispute as to who deviated from the path . But we share a common belief in many things . It is well documented and historically validated .

The argument that there were different opinion amongst some early Church Fathers is true , but consenis was built and settled at the 7 Councils . The Council of Jerusalem in the book of Acts was our model . By reading these documents, you may find some disturbing Catholic/Orthodox things.

You will not find such a consensus in Protestantism .
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Arsenios
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

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Which is how traditions of men were passed on, which would have failed the test of "searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so."

Its not restricted to them, as EOs pass on doctrines that developed as they were thought to enrich the Faith, prayer to created beings in Heaven being just one that I cited before.

Where in the Bible is private interpretation of Scripture specifically forbidden, that of belief being based upon the weight of evidential warrant from it, versus implicit faith in what the church says? I asked this before and received not answer.

Agreed, with the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and the gospels) being the Scriptures.

If you make later church teaching interpretive of wholly inspired Scripture, or if you disallow the laity from validly engaging in this test and restrict it to the "Prophets" as meaning the leadership, then you ascribe to them ensured unquestioned veracity as a group, which is what Rome developed.

Meaning specifically what, based upon the few Greek words in that text? (1 Timothy 3:15)

Which is another of your specious false dilemmas, for the freedom and responsibility of the believer to examine the evidential warrant church for a Truth claim - which Catholics actually engage in even when disputing whether something is in accord with the writings of the Church from the beginnings, except their determinitive souls is not the Scriptures - is not opposed to the judicial governmental authority of the church to decide matters of dispute. Having authority does not require or mean they cannot err.

The "either/or" situation seems to be that you either believe that dissent by the laity to those who sit in valid authority can never be correct, or they may be, but which does not necessarily negate the authority of their office.

And the "feeling" is mutual.

The Reformation far from perfect and complete, and both failed to go far enough (leaving some Catholic distinctives, including the use of the sword of men by the church) as well as going too far (in division and against a central magisterium), but it was necessary.

A unity of significant messinesses (which technical Rome attacks) it seems with differences even as to purgatory and the canon of Scripture.

As said the Reformation far from perfect and complete, and both failed to go far enough as well as going too far.

Now after 5+ hours, how did i get provoked to get back in this thread?

The further you get from the reformation the more confusing/divided things get amongst Protestants , Pentecostals ........................................ . Martin Luther himself said " I tried to get rid of one pope and I created ten. " This is a historical quote . not made up . It is a reality your not willing to admit to .
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Then you don't "get" what you said. Which is that rather than possessing the Scriptures for personal reading as Chrysostom encouraged, you said the Laity in the early Ekklesia, and often even the clergy, were ILLITERATE... "May I repeat: ILLITERATE..." and that "these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study." "God intended His words to be...read aloud to the faithful for their hearing. NOT for their reading... Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading."

But rather than your typical either/or assertions, the inspired writings were intended for both, as has been shown despite your assertions to the contrary.


So now its "Not by all reading," versus "Not by reading," while the point is that the Scriptures were the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, enlightening the eyes, converting the sou, making wise the simple, obtaining great rewards for the obedient, etc., as abundantly shown, and thus should be personally studied by lovers of Truth as such.

It is your assertion that Scripture was not intended for reading by laity, versus hearing it, and which is contrary to such testimony as above.


Which simply does not mean Scripture was not also intended for reading by laity any more than the many signs/inscriptions in a pre-literate culture were, and this term does not mean all were illiterate.

And there is evidence of significant literacy in the contentious debate over just how literate people were in the ancient near east around the time of Christ.

Which actually testifies to the importance and esteem of both Scripture and the written word, versus "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," as if it was either one or the other, to for the former, as the established Divine revelation, is the judge of the latter.

That Scripture was only written for the sake of the Holy People, but not for Holy People to write such for unbelievers to be converted thereby, is not true, for it also was. (John 20:31)

And saying "Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to write a Holy Book... He came instead to establish a Holy People" is a false dichotomy, and is akin to saying Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to preach to the whole world...He came instead to establish a Holy People." For rather than being mutually exclusionary, they both go together in the plan of God.

God choose a people to reveal Himself to the world, both by preaching and writing His word.

No, this is not hard...
  • The NT is based on and abundantly references the prior written Scriptures.
  • Which being the word of God was to be preached in and to the world. (Jeremiah 22:29)
  • For the world to hear, whereby lost souls were converted by the Truth of the Scriptures, "which are able to make thee wise unto salvation which is in Christ Jesus."
  • And which oral preaching was subject to testing by the written word as the established authoritative word of God.
  • We know what true direct revelation was by it having been recorded as inspired written revelation which is the supreme standard by which Truth claims are tested.
  • If the reading of Scripture was commanded and exhorted, then personal reading should follow, as able and available.

Exactly, versus only being for believers, and the texts were God's own.

As shown, he did preach the gospel which "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12) But which was tested and established upon Scripture, and "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:2)

Writing, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)

Being a devout Jews of the Scriptures.

Indeed, and with no conflict with my positions, versus "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," as if it was either one or the other, to for the former, as the established Divine revelation, is the judge of the latter.
True regeneration is a supernatural event with effecting profound basic changes in heart and life. Thanks be to God.

Thank God. Yet the validity of which is subject to testing by the assured written word of God, thus there is not conflict.

When you make subjective supernatural dreams and visions etc. "direct Revelation from God" as you describe it, the basis, the standard for Truth, so that "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation,"

Wrong, and a flailing failing argument.
and set faith in Scripture in contrast to faith in God ("You can put your faith in Scripture... I place mine in God...)

Thus you put faith in false dichotomies, while you also said you believe in the church, but do not say that of Scripture. But as explained, to believe in God is to believe what He said and inspired, and to believe the latter is to believe the former.

Conversely, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)
You need to give this up.

Same fallacy. You simply cannot separate God from His word, even while exalting direct revelation.

Another fallacy, that the NT church which began with common souls having entered into a Scripture-based covenant with the God of Scripture, with its very existence being a fulfillment of Scripture and its preaching reflecting its basis thereof, is somehow not married to the revelation of God.

A warranted one in essence based upon certain statements.

Another fallacy, that the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation are the assuredly correct authorities on what is of God. Instead, both men and writings of God were established as being so long before there was a church which presumed it was essential for this.

are not your supreme standard but subjective esoteric "direct Revelation from God" is...

Not when the standard for your Prophets is their own "direct Revelation from God," or wherever their traditions came from which distinctives are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed.


It is a person who cannot be separated from His own words, which we have as Scripture. T

Yes, as a person of 100% Truth/Light, and as revealed by His via His words. The resurrection is also personified as a person, (John 11:24) yet this has a necessary manifestation.

To some degree, and not as much as he must have wished he had.

Because to know Him who is eternal and is life is to know eternal life. Likewise to whom Him who is the Truth is to know His word which is Truth, (Jn. 17:17) and to know the latter is to know the former.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

Indeed, and by receiving His word one comes to know the God of revelation.

Which means that by the Light of His word and receiving it, one will not simply know ABOUT God but will KNOW God. And feeding upon, and being nourished and built up by it, and by walking in that light one will receive more light.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

And if hearing the word is needful and commanded, and which preaching is tested by, thus personal reading is to be encouraged.

Depends on which cow they are getting their milk from . Whos truth ? Which Minister ? Which cow are they milking ?

St Augustine 392 ad" the Catholic church is the work of divine providence achieved through, the prophecies of the prophets, through the incarnation and teaching of Christ through the journeys of the apostles, through the suffering , the crosses , the blood and death of the martyrs , through the the admirable lives of the saints ... when , then ,we see so much help on Gods part , so much progress and so much fruit ,Shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church ? For starting with the Apostolic chair down through the succession of Bishops ,even unto the open confession of all mankind , it has possessed the crown of teaching authority."

This is not my quote He says some interesting things about Rome too .
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Roman Catholicism claims, as the state church of countries such as France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, virtually all of the citizens of those countries as Christians, so I suggest that a Catholic member here might be able to address your concern that these countries are "functionally atheist".
It seem the faith is not being passed on as we are seeing a over all decline of faith . That should worry all of us . Thats coming from a catholic . We are all being attacked . No more Christmas it is happy holidays , no nativity scene..... Preaching on the streets/ illegal ....
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I also have wondered about the impact of Islam on European religion. Unfortunately, from what I can see from my limited perspective, the vast majority of Europeans' religious beliefs remain quite secular. I would appreciate hearing from someone with more insight than I have.
Islam is the death of European culture . It is estimated ( forgot the year ) France will be majority muslim country . They are having more babies then everyone else . They are arriving in Europe in record numbers . Omar Kadafi said " we do not have to invade europe through military means we just have to have more babies then them ". Egypt , Syria , Lebanon were majority christian countries at one time . Be afraid , be very afraid . The crusades where a defensive war ( pilgrims were being attacked on their way to Jerusalem and Constantinople asked Rome to intervene ( and in all wars bad things happen , but the majority had good intentions and others were condemned by the bishop of Rome for the attack on our Orthodox brethren where he said , paraphrasing , ' no wonder they think we are dogs...') . In the dark ages ( before Protestantism ) the armies of Islam marched into France and it was the Catholic knights who pushed them out . Again another historical fact .
 
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

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The literate people of those times were the educated elite, and a few self taught merchants... You are in effect saying that the 19th century novel [Dostoyevski and Hugo, for instance] were written for Kindle Fire reading comupters... For you seem to be arguing that Scripture was given for everyone to have their own personal Bible, when the times themselves did not and could not have allowed for it...

You seem to think that I regard private revelation as the ultimate authority for interpreting and validating an interpretation of Scripture... I do not... My whole thrust here has been that the written is for the sake of Union with God in Holy Power... Which your passages below affirm,

Because to know Him who is eternal and is life is to know eternal life. Likewise to whom Him who is the Truth is to know His word which is Truth, (Jn. 17:17) and to know the latter is to know the former.

This knowing above means being united to as in marriage, only infinitely more so...

Joh 5:24
ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
Amen Amen I am saying to you all

ὅτι ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων τῷ πέμψαντί με
that he hearing My teaching and believing in Him having sent Me

ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον,
is having Life Eternal

καὶ εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται,
and unto judgement is not coming

ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.
but has passed from Death unto Life...

This is speaking of the mature in the Faith of Christ...
This is the Lord the Word referring to His word which means His teaching, which is conveyed by words in part, and by His deeds far more... τὸν λόγον, the word, is a huge term, and here means His teachings, and not His written words, as you seem to assume... The early Church went for decades without the Gospels, which were then written down... The Faith came before the Gospels, and the Epistles, and The Apocalypse...



Agreed, meaning enfleshing His teachings in one's purified heart and living them... It is progressive and a matter of degrees...



The written is a start, yes, and as you say, one must then WALK the TALK... It is the walking that matters, because the demons believe and tremble, but do not so walk, yes?

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

Here you make my point: The written is the milk of the Word, and not the meat... It is the starting point for the immature, the babes in the Faith, but the meat unto perfecting a person in the faith comes by DEEDS... ["Go... Sell ALL... Give to the poor... Then come... Follow Me (to Golgotha)]



The attainment is by deeds, not study... Reading and hearing are but the beginnings, the milk...



It is to be encouraged no question... But it was written within and for a predominantly illiterate culture... The educated classes simply had the responsibility to see to the copying, distribution and reading of the texts for the faithful...

So I tried to have a little mercy on you and kept this shorter...

Remember, in this post-modern nihilistic culture, YOU may be the ONLY Bible that many will EVER read...
Reading and believing are a start, but we are to LIVE the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

Arsenios
i haven't had time to be on line or figure things out , but thank you for you past information God bless
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.