If you and I both see the same car wreck, we will have two different
stories to tell, from two different pov's.
Was the car wreck not "self explanatory"? Sure it was.
God's word was written FOR us, BY Him.
If one has a question, they can ask Him
and what He has done for others, He'll
continue to do in/for us.
Who did you 'think' should explain God's Word to you?
The level of disagreement over the bible seems to be well beyond that.
Like every Christian until very recently; that it's meant to be understood in the community of God's people.
Well it should be as that was by design.
But it has everything to do with closing
of the ears and hard hearts.
No reading God's word alone with the author?
So it only self-explains to people who agree with you?
Why not just address my words, rather than twist them?
Well, you didn't "rephrase" anything.Rephrasing what you've written can reveal the nature of what it is you've said.
Well, sure. The Christian churches throughout the Roman Empire of the first two centuries used these books and considered them to embody God's will and intention for his people. There's nothing about that which makes any particular church council the "originator" or "authorizer" of God's word, nor is it historically accurate to think that the church thought of these writings no differently than it did of the opinions of various bishops or teachers, folklore, custom, or the like.
But that is exactly the intent when anyone says that the Bible was the doing of the Church, rather than correctly describing the Bible books as having been compiled or recognized for what they are (revelation).
I can agree, it would make sense to be consistent regardless of who we would be agreeing with - truth is truth the same. However, to the Orthodox, it's a silly claim that the Ecumenical councils were only due to the Roman Catholic Church, or other similar claims to being the full and oldest Church. This is because the Schism is interpreted as the bishop of Rome leaving the Pentarchy - the 4 others of the traditional 5 Patriarchates. So I guess when it happens and an Orthodox person can respond, it's just easy to take it for granted.
There's a lot of Protestants I would like to bash, but then I'd be called the Antichrist
As God suggested, in His body/church metaphorI'll say to the best of my ability what I learned from my mentor (may he rest in the peace of God). The original Church is Catholic (the Universal Church). We Roman Catholics are, more accurately, Catholics of the Roman Rite. As JPII suggested in his two-lung metaphor, we view the Orthodox Church as vitally and essentially a part of the Universal (Catholic) Church.
One must assume that God knows what He's talking about:Is it okay to debate word-of-faith-doctrine?
The name it and claim it stuff?
The God wants you to be wealthy stuff?
The if you're sick it's because you lack faith stuff?
Is the RCC the right lung or left lungI'll say to the best of my ability what I learned from my mentor (may he rest in the peace of God). The original Church is Catholic (the Universal Church). We Roman Catholics are, more accurately, Catholics of the Roman Rite.
As JPII suggested in his two-lung metaphor, we view the Orthodox Church as vitally and essentially a part of the Universal (Catholic) Church.
Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus.
I saw this thread on the OBOB earlier mentioning "2 Lungs". Did this concept arise from out of the RCC or EOC?
And what are the EOs views on it.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7468666/
Orthodox and Catholic Bond Deepens: Will the Two Lungs of the Church Breathe....
*snip*
"Lungs"....hmmm, that's a new way to look at it...
I believe this phrase originated with Pope John Paul II. Some Orthodox ecumenists may have adopted the phrase.
Recently there has been a backing away from this phrase by both. It is a heresy and developing it to its ultimate conclusion may even be a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.
This.
The Romans are in schism with the Orthodox, they do not share in our sacramental life nor are they in communion of belief. The Romans don't see it this way.
The two cannot be two "lungs" of the same Church if they are not in communion of belief. This is a simple logical conclusion.
I have been guilty of bashing Catholic doctrine - especially the Pope....Now don't get me wrong, I still disagree with some of their teachings, however bashing them isn't how you make friends. So, no more bashing for me....
Uh...sure. Why would you think this is a point you ought to make?
It is incorrect to say that the Church does not recognize the NT as revelation. That is just off the mark as to what the Church teaches. The point was that the NT emerged in the context of the Church.
That sounds so much more soothing than, "Without The Church, there would be no bible!
For some reason, Christians are really into bashing any religious belief or practice or whatever that is any different than their own particular one.
I don't think that Jesus did that.
Then I'll try to retain that wording; but seriously, Rick, Christianity emerged in community, and by and large, remains so.
The issue is people trying to pass off the idea that the Roman Church gave Christianity its bible.
So, say something like Christians gave Christianity its bible. (in this way it accounts for OO, RC, EO, P bibles.)
Well, you didn't pay attention because I said that the NT emerged within the context of the Church, which I identified as the Catholic (Universal) Church.
Nice!Except that is still not accurate. The books each part (OO, EO, RC, P) accepts is not universal (except P's).
Given this, we could say Protestants (of that earlier time) gave us the Bible.
Or we could identify Protestants as the Catholic (Universal) Church. Sound good to you?
I could probably dig up 10-15 posts by you in the past few days in which you are bashing Protestants as a group. Some of them are quite nasty.
Except that is still not accurate. The books each part (OO, EO, RC, P) accepts is not universal (except P's).
Given this, we could say Protestants (of that earlier time) gave us the Bible.
Or we could identify Protestants as the Catholic (Universal) Church. Sound good to you?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?