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.
How so? By reading Scripture and believing what is revealed to me in it?
So, you want verses to support my assertions? I can do that.
Acts 15:20;But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and [from] fornication, and [from] things strangled, and [from] blood.
Acts 15:21; For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Acts 15:22; Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:
Acts 15:23; And they wrote [letters] by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren [send] greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia:
Acts 15:24; Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, [Ye must] be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no [such] commandment:
Acts 15:27; We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell [you] the same things by mouth.
Acts 15:28; For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;
1) So, what was the point in the elders “writing” letters which would say the same exact things that Judas and Silas were going to “tell” them?
2) How could something be read in the Synagogue if it wasn’t written down?
Mat 17:20; And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you
Mark 5:34; And he said unto her, Daughter, thy faith hathmadetheewhole; go in peace, and be whole of thy plague
Luk 7:50; And he said to the woman, Thy faith hathsaved thee; go in peace.
If faith, according to Jesus Himself, can do all these things for us, why in the world should we put our faith in a church instead of what is revealed to us by direct inspiration from God?
Yep. You don't think the Holy Spirit is leading you in your daily walk?Do you rely on your own interpretations and dare to say it is from the Holy Spirit?
I've yet to experience a "fleeting ecstasy."I've seen people wallow on the floor and tell other people what they think God told them in a moment of fleeting ecstasy.
No. God is not the author of confusion. But what does Scripture say about wisdom and wise people. Let's see:I've seen these 'words of the Lord' contradict each other. Then, it all depends on who can convince everyone else that they're more spiritual, eh? Mass confusion, and God isn't the author of it.
Such a vehement response raises some suspicions within me. Why is it you react so harshly to what "I" a nobody as far as you are concerned do or don't believe?Passing off doctrines of men as a moving of the spirit- is detestable.
What do you think? Why do you ask such irrelevant questions? Faith comes from "each" individual persons heart. Our faith comes from within.Can faith only come through scripture ?
What's up with Abraham ?
Ditto!I don't think we're making any progress here. I pray you find the truth that you seek.
Well, if you'd like, I can follow-up with all of those "By faith . . ." verses.Can faith only come through scripture ?
What's up with Abraham ?
Can faith only come through scripture ?
What's up with Abraham ?
What do you think? Why do you ask such irrelevant questions? Faith comes from "each" individual persons heart. Our faith comes from within.
It's one thing for people to simply not understand the gist of a teaching or ideology, but quite another to continually and repeatedly misconstruing or misrepresenting something that has been explained over and over. Your refusal to accept the true meaning of Sola Scriptura only serves as a stumbling block to you. A person can accurately understand and represent something and still disagree with it. But, this refusal by "clearly" wise and intelligent people to accept what has been explained to them repeatedly implies to me that certain people feel threatened by what they know--deep down--to be the true meaning. It would in some instances be the undoing of everything they have based their belief system upon.
We only know about Abraham because it is written. But it is explained as well.
(God) Who in times past suffered all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless he left not himself without witness, in that he did good, and gave us rain from heaven, and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness.
But now what?
Heb. 1:2- Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
How does He speak to us today? Eyewitnesses wrote it down.
Perhaps on the Mountain then-
Ex. 24:4 Moses wrote down all the words of the LORD. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel.
Wow, you sound RC.
Wow, it's finally admitted. Thus it is written by Irenaeous, Vincent, Ignatius, and Justin.
Even when Justin Martyr alters the clear meaning of Scripture:
"For it was not without design that the prophet Moses, when Hur and Aaron upheld his hands, remained in this form until evening. For indeed the Lord remained upon the tree almost until evening, and they buried Him at eventide; then on the third day He rose again."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.iv.xli.html (chapter XCVII, (97), Dialogue with Trypho)
(not to derail)
See above for simple deflections:1. Please show that the following norma normans was used in the year 9:
The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO
2. THAT something is used doesn't make it the best. The LDS uses "the three legged stool" of Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium - and yet I doubt you think that's helpful or best.
WHEN a practice begins seems moot to the issue at hand, but Moses, the Apostles and Jesus all used Sola Scriptura. When was the first time Christians used the following as the norma normans?
The Divine Liturgy of the EO
The Holy Services of the EO
The Holy Mysteries (Baptism, Chrismation, Holy Confession, Holy Eucharist, Holy Orders, Holy Crowning, Tonsuring of Monastics, Holy Unction, Funeral Service) of the EO
The Byzantine Chant of the EO
The Temple Architecture of the EO
Since all the following lived before 1500 AD, how did they know about Sola Scriptura if no one had thought of this praxis yet?
"Let God-inspired Scripture decide between us; and on whichever side be found doctrines in harmony with the word of God, in favor of that side will be cast the vote of truth." Basil of Caesarea (c. 330 - 379 A.D.)
"In order to leave room for such profitable discussions of difficult questions, there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments. The authority of these books has come down to us from the apostles through the successions of bishops and the extension of the Church, and, from a position of lofty supremacy, claims the submission of every faithful and pious mind....In the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as in Scripture, butthere is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself." - Augustine (Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11:5)"The holy and inspired Scriptures are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth. St. Athanasius (Against the Heathen, I:3)
"Regarding the things I say, I should supply even the proofs, so I will not seem to rely on my own opinions, but rather, prove them with Scripture, so that the matter will remain certain and steadfast." St. John Chrysostom (Homily 8 On Repentance and the Church, p. 118, vol. 96 TFOTC)
"Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Holy Trinity, NPNF, p. 327).
"We are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." St. Gregory of Nyssa (On the Soul and the Resurrection NPNF II, V:439)
"What is the mark of a faithful soul? To be in these dispositions of full acceptance on the authority of the words of Scripture, not venturing to reject anything nor making additions. For, if all that is not of faith is sin' as the Apostle says, and faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God,' everything outside Holy Scripture, not being of faith, is sin." Basil the Great (The Morals, p. 204, vol 9 TFOTC).
"We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture." St. Basil the Great (On the Holy Spirit, Chapter 7, par. 16)
For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech. Even to me, who tell you these things, give not absolute credence, unless you receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures. St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in NPNF, Volume VII, p. 23.)
Neither dare one agree with catholic bishops if by chance they err in anything, but the result that their opinion is against the canonical Scriptures of God. St. Augustine (De unitate ecclesiae, chp. 10)
.
.
What do you think? Why do you ask such irrelevant questions? Faith comes from "each" individual persons heart. Our faith comes from within.
Irony for 500, AlexIt's one thing for people to simply not understand the gist of a teaching or ideology,
Not at all. As I have stated (ibid), Sola Scriptura, as explained in these latter days, is nothing more than a redacted and truncated sense of the kanona, in English, canon, or measure.but quite another to continually and repeatedly misconstruing or misrepresenting something that has been explained over and over. Your refusal to accept the true meaning of Sola Scriptura only serves as a stumbling block to you. A person can accurately understand and represent something and still disagree with it. But, this refusal by "clearly" wise and intelligent people to accept what has been explained to them repeatedly implies to me that certain people feel threatened by what they know--deep down--to be the true meaning. It would in some instances be the undoing of everything they have based their belief system upon.
(and I still don't know if EO's care about truth or not),
Interesting question, although phrased differently than I would prefer:Perhaps you are arguing for this:
2 Cor. 3:3 being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Aside from the fact that it is written, how does an EO know that an RC is wrong (or vice-versa)? What rule/plumbline do you use? Each side, I suppose, can easily quote Tradition/ECF for their side. So what does one use?
If you read the very next paragraph of my post, i gave examples of unwritten tradition. Secondly you are misinformed about why sola scripture is a heresy. Its a heresy because all those who follow it are not faithful to scripture. Orthodoxy is the only church to be faithful to scripture while all the sola scritptualists' innovate. Now what is your beef with Justin Martyr ? Considering scriptures were subjective at the time and we dont really know what his source was, why do you accuse him of being unfaithful to something he didnt have full access to? Where do you find fault in the above passage? I dont even think CJ has a problem with the above so im assuming your low church protestant, and your sola scripture mentality has a problem with how he worded something. I hope CJ sets you straight and tells you that the above isnt against (sola) scripture. Better yet why dont you two fight over how infants shouldnt be baptised since its not scriptural or in the case of CJ, it is scriptural.
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?