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.
Thank you.There is no dogmatic canon. "Dogma" meanings "teaching". In ancient Christian thought, it meant what was taught by Christ to the Apostles. Christ never passed on a specific canon of Scripture.
Councils don't bind so much as affirm, that is they defend Christ's doctrine from being distorted, they express it. The Synod of Jerusalem was primarily convened to combat the heresy of Calvinism, which it did: doesn't matter if the Ethiopians, Copts, Armenians, or the rest of the Oriental Orthodox attended, since they are not Calvinists anyway.Thank you.
Is the Synod of Jerusalem (1692) binding on all Eastern Orthodox churches save Ethiopian?
However Satan in his pride is still trying to prevail by using Sola Scriptura, etc... The proof is in the pudding! The proof is the 33,000 + Christian churchess interpreting the Scripture their way or the highway, it is not the Lords way.
Is that the way Jesus treated scripture in his day? Further some have posted scripture verses that profess to the truthfulness and it being God's word.Uh . . . I missed the part where you proved the truth of point number 2.
I also missed the part where you proved the actual content and extent of "scripture".
The Synod did confirm a canon but it is not binding?Councils don't bind so much as affirm, that is they defend Christ's doctrine from being distorted, they express it. The Synod of Jerusalem was primarily convened to combat the heresy of Calvinism, which it did: doesn't matter if the Ethiopians, Copts, Armenians, or the rest of the Oriental Orthodox attended, since they are not Calvinists anyway.
Further, as I have stated multiple times, how one interprets scripture has absolutely nothing to do with the truth of scripture, which only scripture has incontrovertibly. Not all Catholics interpret scripture the same so they must according to you also be driven by Satanic pride. In all the denominatins, I see prophecy being fulfilled, some good, some bad.
The canon is, well, a "canon". A "canon", in Orthodox terminology, means a Church rule that wasn't taught directly by Christ. Such rules are flexible and sometimes change, their purpose is to manage various issues that pop up. Some stay really strong, others don't last very long, it depends on how well they work. Councils can create canons, but they can only witness doctrine.The Synod did confirm a canon but it is not binding?
You are correct it is off topic. I shall remember that the next time I see a response invoking the 40,000 Protestant churches.I'm not going to argue about things that will require a lot of depth to address, because that will hijack this thread way off topic. If you want to discuss Petrine supremacy, I would be happy to, but not in this thread. Make another one.
I think we can agree the Bible is the core text of Christian theology, since it is infallible and extensive. What I don't think we can agree on is that you can just interpret it however comes to you and claim the Holy Spirit is guiding you, since that is NOT what the Church Fathers did.You are correct it is off topic. I shall remember that the next time I see a response invoking the 40,000 Protestant churches.
The OP is about the authority of Holy Spirit Inspired Scriptures. The transcendent standard the Church fathers used to test truth claims and refute heretics.
I think we can agree the Bible is the core text of Christian theology, since it is infallible and extensive. What I don't think we can agree on is that you can just interpret it however comes to you and claim the Holy Spirit is guiding you, since that is NOT what the Church Fathers did.
The office is completely useless unless it is drawing from the continuous method and tradition of teaching stretching back to the first teachers established by Christ. Being able to interpret the Bible as a teacher is useless unless it's an interpretation which is harmonious with ancient interpretation.Of course as stated earlier Westminster affirms the Biblical teaching and pastoral offices. Most Protestant and Evangelical churches do not throw out tradition ; but that traditions must be tested and derived from the transcendent standard of Holy Scriptures.
I think we can agree the Bible is the core text of Christian theology, since it is infallible and extensive. What I don't think we can agree on is that you can just interpret it however comes to you and claim the Holy Spirit is guiding you, since that is NOT what the Church Fathers did.
Religions have scripture. The true religion has true scripture. You look for a way out of defending your belief of traditions.I mean it is impossible to prove that every word of scripture is true so it is hypocritical to demand that people prove the unwritten tradition is true.
Learn from the Old Testament. God wants us to learn of him and his ways. He from the beginning of "religion", with the Jews, gave books. The people of God followed these books and took them to be true because they were followers of God. The words in them do not have to be proven.Sacred Scripture is a collection of ancient documents. How do you know which ancient documents are what they claim to be, and which ones truly belong in the collection? For example, how do you know that Paul's letter to the Hebrews was actually written by Paul?
Not true. God's words are true, written or not. God still reveals his truths to us through the Holy Spirit. Now here is the tricky part. How do you know that when a man speaks, it is a true revelation from God/"unwritten word of God" or as Jesus said, it is "merely human rules"? Matthew 15:3-9 The point of SS is that it is the only source of incontrovertible truth. That means we don't have to question or guess to its authenticity and truth. There may be other truths out there. Traditions may have merits. But, these details must be tested against scripture and are not necessary for salvation.It is the supporters of SS who claim the written word of God is better than the unwritten word of God.
You mince words, playing a game that your traditions are God's word. Prove it. So far none has.That is a completely false accusation. I consider God's word the highest authority and don't want anyone to doubt it.
1. To those who accept the evidence that it is, yes.
2. To those who accept the evidence that it is, yes.
3. To those who accept the evidence that it is, yes.
4. To what end?
5. Um, I think you're going too far here. What do you mean by "incontrovertible," exactly? What sort of truth are you talking about? All truth? Spiritual truth? Would you say 1+1=2 is incontrovertibly true? I would. Does this mean, to your way of thinking, that a mathematics textbook would also be "incontrovertible"?
What is the difference?Hmmm...I certainly hold to the idea of Sola Scriptura but I think "There is only Sola Scriptura" is a bit over-the-top.
Yes, the apostles in the early church did establish their truth. Their truth was proved true by being called by Jesus, Old Testament scripture and their great miracles. Their words were true because Jesus said he would speak through them through the Holy Spirit. These proofs testified to the truths spoken. Traditions do not have these.Did the Early Church establish the truth of Scripture? Did it confer spiritual authority upon the canon of Scripture? I don't think so. The Early Church (not the RC church) merely recognized the truth and divine origin of Scripture and adopted those texts so recognized as the word of God. The Early Church, however, did not make Scripture true and/or divinely inspired. Those texts constituting the canon of Scripture were authoritative and God-breathed long before the RC Church formally acknowledged that they were.
I mean it is impossible to prove that every word of scripture is true so it is hypocritical to demand that people prove the unwritten tradition is true.
Samir was just throwing out a red herring, because he's got nothing.Which truths do you find unproven?
Your argument, common among Protestants, that one doesn't need teachers because one simply gets all one needs to directly from the Holy Spirit, is not really convincing. We can judge it by its fruits, it leads to a bunch of people saying contradictory things and claiming to get them from the Spirit like it's "using the Force" or something. It leads to gobblygook, and more vitally, it leads to prelest. Human beings are far from perfect and infallible, but that doesn't mean you can consider yourself above them and think yourself to be a prophet unto yourself. Christ is sending the Spirit to HIS CHURCH, and the Church keeps a uniform understanding. Once your out of it, teachings start to completely contradict and splinter, and that is why the Protestant claim that a cacophony of sects are "one Church" is so ludicrous. If you were one Church, you'd have one voice, one doctrine.
A couple hundred posts and no proof for their traditions. Maybe some of them will at least realize their hypocrisy when asking for proof of SS.Brother, I think it is useless to try to prove this truth to those who think they already have it figured out. In another one of these threads, Catholics are arguing against SS because if it is true, it means the Catholic church is not the highest authority. How are you going to get someone to admit that? They have too much at stake, which is why they are desperately trying to prove that SS is not true. Pray for them instead, I would say.
How daft. The Sola Scriptura we are discussing is the Old Testament and New Testament. Obviously, this can only happen after the canon is closed; that means the letters of the NT were first written. We are well past that point in time now.Sola Scriptura wasn't a teaching of Christ's, I don't think, since he taught a lot that wasn't in Scripture.
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?