- Mar 18, 2014
- 38,117
- 34,056
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.
Thanks that clarified a lot.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.We have Holy Tradition, established in the first 7 Ecumenical Councils of the Church, of which the Biblical Canon is included, and then we have local pious traditions, and where Church Fathers have differing views, we call these pious opinions - theologoumenoi - And we understand them through these conflicting lenses..
Yes indeed. With the eyes which truly see. (Matthew 13:16).Have you ever SEEN such Light with your eyes?
Protestant interpretation of Scripture is subject to their own traditions. They just don't like to admit it.Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.
Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.
Thanks that clarified a lot.
Therefore the Sacred Scriptures are subject to your Holy Traditon.
One is not the other. Tradition should be made subject to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.Protestant interpretation of Scripture is subject to their own traditions. They just don't like to admit it.
Yes indeed. With the eyes which truly see. (Matthew 13:16).
However what is important is how our light shines before others. (Matthew 5:16)
One is not the other. Tradition should be made subject to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.
The apostolic epistles make such clear.
St Irenaeus had a different view:We gave you the Bible, my Brother, that's all... God gave you the Bible through the Church, in all its particulars... Your 1500 years later rebellion against the apostatic Latin Church did not give the Bible... It simply capitalized on the printing press technology...
The Holy Scriptures are the Canon of the Church...
I think you misunderstood my post. If not your claim is the Scriptures are not Holy Spirit inspired.Every heterodoxical opinion on Holy Writ claims the Holy Spirit in their mis-interpretation...
"A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord. (Matthew 10:24)And your response is???
No, i did Not say A RITUAL FORM of Ordination. For the second time, try actually reading what I wrote!!!! I never said "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination" which you referenced me as saying, but said "the PROPER ritual form of ordination." Thus unless you do not think this is not a ritual, or it is the proper form, then my statement is accurate.But did you not say that it is A RITUAL FORM of Ordination? And why now are you fleeing from that insertion of the word RITUAL by demonizing my way of argumentation?
You mean by attacking your misrepresentation of what i said and twice using it?Instead you have attacked my character
You mean your strawman SS means one cannot use a descriptive term such as "ritual" for something? And you wonder why i consider your responses fit to be ignored.IF you are going to use a non-Biblical term while you are professing to uphold the Bible as the SUPREME AUTHORITY over men, and someone notices that you have done so, demonizing that someone is singularly not helpful in the course of discussion...
And it is you who treated this as mutually exclusive as per your typical reasoning. And you wonder why i consider you fit to be ignored. But instead of getting the "hint," you continued to post your provocations and then complain at my exasperation.My Brother, it is you who argued for Biblical Supremacy and Biblical Authority over men, and it is I who argue for repentance as a way of life in the Ekklesia of God which wrote those very Holy Words...
Nice to see you finally see these as going together, but then you resort to your absurd strawman SS and already-refuted reasoning that "Bible Only" excludes ecclesiastical authority (which, as with SCOTUS, is the supreme authority in governmental judicial rule, but not the the ultimate, infallibly standard on Truth), while the idea that ecclesiastical authority does and must possess ensured veracity and warrants unconditional submission has already been refuted.I am arguing for the Divine Ascent of the Penitent in Christ's Holy Body on this earth here and now... And you are arguing for the authority of the Book of God, and I for its Author... Yes, they go together, but the etiology is not as you suggest as you oppose Latin Papal Authoritarianism with your Bible Only Reformational Authoritarianism
Which is correct, and consistent with Scripture being the supreme sure standard, regardless of your thinking to the contrary.... I argue for the willful and voluntary self denial which we recorded IN the Bible as it is instructed by Christ in the Gospels, and then the taking up of our own cross, and then following Christ by imitating the Holy Ones in the Body of Christ who serve as examples to us all...
This goes from absurdity to absurdity. I clearly showed you that principled dissent to both valid civil authority as well as religious, including by apostles themselves, could be required and was sanctioned. Which leaves you taking a verse in isolation from what is taught on the subject, and which would require unconditional submission to authority and thus ensured judicial infallibility, which is nowhere taught.Well, I know that you did prove that premise to your own satisfaction, and yes, I confess, I proved mine to my satisfaction, but really, does this mean that one of us has won and the other has lost a silly argument about "conditional submission to Church leadereship" which term is not found in Scripture, but only Paul's instruction to the faithful in the process of maturation to be imitating him as he is imitating Christ?
It refers to you responses, and here you are also using a verse in isolation to teach what it does not, for "Open rebuke is better than secret love." (Proverbs 27:5)Condemning a brother in a discussion and telling him that ignoring him is an act of mercy on your part flies in the face of Scripture... Even Christ's very Words:
In-credible! God inspires (not usually commands or requests) men to write His Truth, but since men are fallible and who wrote His Truth at His behest then it cannot be all correct! And all this time I was told all Scripture was given by inspiration of God, via men ,moved by the Holy Spirit, whether they knew it or not, and that all such things are possible with God. But your reasoning is just that, your erroneous reasoning.Arsenios said: ↑
We do not see the Bible as infallible of itself, becuse it is written by fallible and holy men of God at His behest, but, (and this is the but that gets trashed in the Sola Scriptura nonsense, but) PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD, the Bible is utterly True and is the Holy Book of God.
No, i did Not say A RITUAL FORM of Ordination. For the second time, try actually reading what I wrote!!!! I never said "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination" which you referenced me as saying, but said "the PROPER ritual form of ordination." Thus unless you do not think this is a ritual, or it is the proper form, then my statement is accurate.
You mean by attacking your misrepresentation of what i said and twice using it?
What? You mean your strawman SS means one cannot use a descriptive term such as "ritual" for something? And you wonder why i consider you fit to be ignored.
With that, I am out of here.
Absolutely! One is apostolic, the others are not.One is not the other.
Lovely theory. Nobody does it in practice.Tradition should be made subject to the Holy Spirit inspired Scriptures.
The apostolic epistles make such clear.
Which is just what i called it in the first place from what i see (and cannot see any proof reading edits i may have made, as usual before seeing replies, which my last post also needed), and not merely "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination."All you need to do is point out that you called the Laying on of Hands as "the PROPER ritual form of ordination", and not merely "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination" and the conversation then could continue without rancor.
Which is just what i called it in the first place from what i see (and cannot see any proof reading edits i may have made, as usual before seeing replies, which my last post also needed), and not merely "A RITUAL FORM of Ordination."
And again, regardless of your strawman, there is nothing inconsistent with my position on Scripture as supreme by describing what is seen in scripture, in laying on of hands in ordination is indeed the proper ritual means of doing so. It is the only means men engaged in, except that prophets do not seem to have any, outside of Elijah casting his mantle upon Elisha, (1 Kings 19:19) while no one did so to John the Baptist (maybe because he was a Baptist)
And neither did i say "mere ritual" or infer the same. Taking part in a ritual hypocritically can cost you your life. (1 Cor. 11:29-30)
Now see, your charges must have work me out of sleep!
I was simply speaking of heterodoxical opinions and the claims of their proponents...I think you misunderstood my post. If not your claim is the Scriptures are not Holy Spirit inspired.
Forgive me, I missed the difference... These Scriptures are the ones read in our Church Services - It simply means that their reading in these Services by the Church doing them is now functioning as the Ground and the Pillar of the Faith of Christ... They are useful as reproof of error, because they are written... I don't think he is proposing that the Scriptures have replaced the Church as the Ground and Pillar of the Truth... Christ IS the Truth, and He is the one Who established His Body upon the earth, and CAUSED the writing of Scripture by His Body...St Irenaeus had a different view:
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. (Against Heresies Book 1.1)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103301.htm
And the disciple has to follow his teacher in order to understand what his teacher is teaching..."A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant above his lord. (Matthew 10:24)
May you rest well...Now see, your charges must have worked me out of sleep!
The Ritual of the Laying on of Hands IS in-deed the proper means of Biblical Ordination into the presbytery by the church! What's your objection now?So just for fun - We just finished a two and a half hour set of Services: Orthros and the Divine Liturgy, at 1:45AM, so I am up for a few minutes - IF you grant that the Laying on of Hands is the PROPER ritual means of Biblical Ordination into the Priesthood, would you then affirm the converse feature of that sentence? eg That the Ritual of the Laying on of Hands IS the proper means of Biblical Ordination into the Priesthood?
I personally think not... But am very eagerly hoping to be contradicted in this thought!
Arsenios
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?