How do we know . . . .

[racer]

To a degree I agree that everyone must make up their own mind. I choose to understand that my own opinion is limited and that the Holy Spirit's not just going to validate my opinion, no matter what I come to. I also judge that God wanted unity of faith and left in place guide-lines for keeping this - with teachers (the Apostles) who then taught others to teach

That's why Peter and others are called Shepherds.

Further, Jesus said that the Church he established would not fail.

As long as Christianity thrives on this planet The Church prevails. What denomination that church is does not matter . . . .

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As long as Christianity thrives on this planet The Church prevails. What denomination that church is does not matter . . . .

Even the Mormons and JW's?

 

[disasm]

So, you agree that the content of oral and written teacings is the same? That nothing is taught orally that is not preserved in Scripture?

Everything Tradition is scriptural. That doesn't mean it's in scripture, but it doesn't go against scripture, and it always points back to the Church.

This statement implies that you believe the content of oral and written Scripture to be different?

The words are different, the message and teachings are the same.

Then how does belonging to a supposed infallible church make any difference?

The Church knows what you need to become perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. You may find tidbits here and there looking on your own, but only in the Church can you find the fullness of teaching and Truth.

Why do you presume that those who disagree with you do not do this?

Because when someone says this Scripture verse means this on a forum, and the Church hasn't always taught your new meaning, you've taken Scripture out of the context of Tradition.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Because when someone says this Scripture verse means this on a forum, and the Church hasn't always taught your new meaning, you've taken Scripture out of the context of Tradition.

Providing of course one goes by Orthodox or RC Traditions. What about the Tradition in Revelation?

Reve 2:5 Be remembering then!, whence thou hast fallen and reform! And the first works do! If yet no, I am coming to thee swiftly, and shall be moving/kinhsw<2795> (5692) the Lamp-stand/lucnian <3087> of Thee out of the Place of her, if ever no thou should be reforming.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Everything Tradition is scriptural. That doesn't mean it's in scripture, but it doesn't go against scripture, and it always points back to the Church.

why nobody sees the danger in this, is beyond me.

for instance, someone could forward that you could be given the spiritual gift of prophecy, by hopping on your left foot every Friday for 1 hour, between the hours of 3 and 5 PM. (Jerusalem Standard Time.) Nothing in scripture would say anything against this, it is certainly not a Contra-scriptural teaching. So tell me why shouldn't somebody accept that as truth, if someone else called it their Tradition?

you would say that it is invalid, because it doesn't match YOURS.

The words are different, the message and teachings are the same.

The Church knows what you need to become perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect. You may find tidbits here and there looking on your own, but only in the Church can you find the fullness of teaching and Truth.

IOW, we got the straight goods, y'gotta come here to get it.

Because when someone says this Scripture verse means this on a forum, and the Church hasn't always taught your new meaning, you've taken Scripture out of the context of Tradition.
.

YOUR church. YOUR tradition. YOUR accepted truth. Y'gotta remember we don't accept your tradition as all truth, with the corner on everything that Is and was.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

why nobody sees the danger in this, is beyond me.

for instance, someone could forward that you could be given the spiritual gift of prophecy, by hopping on your left foot every Friday for 1 hour, between the hours of 3 and 5 PM. (Jerusalem Standard Time.) Nothing in scripture would say anything against this, it is certainly not a Contra-scriptural teaching. So tell me why shouldn't somebody accept that as truth, if someone else called it their Tradition?

you would say that it is invalid, because it doesn't match YOURS.

IOW, we got the straight goods, y'gotta come here to get it.


YOUR church. YOUR tradition. YOUR accepted truth. Y'gotta remember we don't accept your tradition as all truth, with the corner on everything that Is and was.

All Tradition is subject to the testing of every member of The Church in the manner of St. Vincent of Lerins.

Ancient History Sourcebook:
St. Vincent of Lerins:
The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434

From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium​

A.D. 434​

[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] *​

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.​

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.​

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.​

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.​

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

All Tradition is subject to the testing of every member of The Church in the manner of St. Vincent of Lerins.

Forgive me...

um... do you not see the logistical problem with that sentiment?

Tradition is subject to the testing of members of the church.

who is the church? those who accept this tradition.

how do you become part of the church? accept those traditions.

IOW, the only way you can be party to the "testing" is to accept it in the first place.

oh look... around the mulburry bush again.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

um... do you not see the logistical problem with that sentiment?

Tradition is subject to the testing of members of the church.

who is the church? those who accept this tradition.

how do you become part of the church? accept those traditions.

IOW, the only way you can be party to the "testing" is to accept it in the first place.

oh look... around the mulburry bush again.

I was about to post essentially the same thing but you beat me to it.

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/lb/LB1.htm

According to the Emphatic Diaglott the correct rendering of the latter part of this passage is: "The Book of the Life of the Lamb." Now, what is meant by this term &#8211; THE BOOK OF THE LIFE OF THE LAMB? The wise man said, "...of the making of many books there is no end..." (Eccl. 12:12).

Even in the church world there are books setting forth every kind of viewpoint relating to God, the Bible, doctrine, Christian experience, and church order. However the subject material of most of these books largely contains a message of religious tradition and spiritual death.

 

[disasm]

why nobody sees the danger in this, is beyond me.

for instance, someone could forward that you could be given the spiritual gift of prophecy, by hopping on your left foot every Friday for 1 hour, between the hours of 3 and 5 PM. (Jerusalem Standard Time.) Nothing in scripture would say anything against this, it is certainly not a Contra-scriptural teaching. So tell me why shouldn't somebody accept that as truth, if someone else called it their Tradition?

Your absolutely correct. That's the reason we need something to trace back to. The test of whether it is correct or not is whether is was always taught. I know you disagree with this statement, but this is why we always look backward we always say, elder so and so taught this, and he learned it from this Saint, who read this theologian's homilies, which quoted this verse from Scripture, that referred to this Apostle... It's always important to have a History of what Christianity has always taught so you can distinguish between the new beliefs that have randomly popped up, even if they are under the guise of being straight from Scripture, and the beliefs the Church has always held since day one.

you would say that it is invalid, because it doesn't match YOURS.

No, I would say it's invalid because it hasn't always been taught.

IOW, we got the straight goods, y'gotta come here to get it.

YOUR church. YOUR tradition. YOUR accepted truth. Y'gotta remember we don't accept your tradition as all truth, with the corner on everything that Is and was.

If you can show your beliefs have always been held by all Christians everywhere dating back to the Apostles, I'm excited for you, but no one I've met that isn't in the Church is willing to try to prove that. They'd much rather use textual criticism, and scientific evidence to prove their points, or in the worse case, say it's right because the Holy Spirit told me it's right. Now that's a dangerous venture, and I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just saying that's what most people tend to do when you ask them to show the line of where that belief came from.

I have to sincerely say, I really like your enthusiasm UB. I see a spark in you constantly searching for the Truth, and that's a good quality to have. Keep it up.

Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me the sinner.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

um... do you not see the logistical problem with that sentiment?

Tradition is subject to the testing of members of the church.

who is the church? those who accept this tradition.

how do you become part of the church? accept those traditions.

IOW, the only way you can be party to the "testing" is to accept it in the first place.

oh look... around the mulburry bush again.

Thus protecting what has been believed by all Christians everywhere from the beginning. Please read St. Vincent's canon closely... it's very short.

Why would you wish to belong to a group when you do not believe as they believe?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What would happen if you allowed others who do not believe the same to become members and change things the way they see fit?

Would "what has always been believed" still be the same for that group? No.

The Truth was handed down once and for all by Christ to the Apostles.

Either we maintain it, or we lose it. Many have given their lives for this simple principle.

Forgive me....

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

What would happen if you allowed others who do not believe the same to become members and change things the way they see fit?

Would "what has always been believed" still be the same for that group? No.

The Truth was handed down once and for all by Christ to the Apostles.

Either we maintain it, or we lose it. Many have given their lives for this simple principle.

Forgive me....

Yepperz. Many converted Jews, RCs, Orthodox and Protestants, but then that was also prophecied by Jesus and the OC Prophets was it not?.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matt 23:34 `Because of this, lo!, I am Commissioning toward ye Prophets and Wisemen and Scribes, out of Them Ye shall be Killing/apokteneite <615> (5692) and ye shall be Crucifying/staurwsete <4717>(5692),...............

Matt 24:9 then they shall be delivering ye up into tribulation, and they shall be Killing/apoktenousin <615> (5692) Ye, and ye shall be being hated by all of the nations thru/because-of the Name of Me;

Reve 11:7 `And whenever they should be finishing/teleswsin <5055> (5661) the testimony/witness of them, the wild-beast, the one ascending out of the Abyss, shall be doing with them, battle, and shall be conquering them, and shall be Killing/apoktenei <615> (5692) Them

 

[Uphill Battle]

Your absolutely correct. That's the reason we need something to trace back to. The test of whether it is correct or not is whether is was always taught. I know you disagree with this statement, but this is why we always look backward we always say, elder so and so taught this, and he learned it from this Saint, who read this theologian's homilies, which quoted this verse from Scripture, that referred to this Apostle... It's always important to have a History of what Christianity has always taught so you can distinguish between the new beliefs that have randomly popped up, even if they are under the guise of being straight from Scripture, and the beliefs the Church has always held since day one.

and automatically assumes that it is 100% guaranteed correct, because of the source. Doesn't give credence to possibiliy that something could be wrong, something could have slipped in, someone could have lied, someone could have been sincerely mistaken, something could be nothing more than legend made truth.... all these things are very possible, and the Orthodox mentality is that this did not happen, and moreso, COULD not. Sorry, I don't trust 2000 years of humanity to pull this off. Humankind can't make it through a few decades without blowing it. Pauline epistles testify to this effect.

No, I would say it's invalid because it hasn't always been taught.

which, in my estimation, amounts to the same thing.

If you can show your beliefs have always been held by all Christians everywhere dating back to the Apostles, I'm excited for you, but no one I've met that isn't in the Church is willing to try to prove that.

or from another POV, gutsy enough to claim it. All we really have is assertion that this is what was "always taught" and ironically, more than one group says the same thing. Trust factor doesn't go up because of that claim, it goes down.

They'd much rather use textual criticism, and scientific evidence to prove their points, or in the worse case, say it's right because the Holy Spirit told me it's right. Now that's a dangerous venture, and I'm not accusing you of this, I'm just saying that's what most people tend to do when you ask them to show the line of where that belief came from.

I'd like to think that the most of it is just plain reading comprehension, coupled with just a bit of study, and a dash of Holy Spirit to fill in the blanks. We can't even know Christ as Lord without the Holy spirit revealing that much to us. I don't think it's a this or that, it's an all. Free thought, study, dependance on God... the whole mix.

I have to sincerely say, I really like your enthusiasm UB. I see a spark in you constantly searching for the Truth, and that's a good quality to have. Keep it up.

thanks, I guess. However, be careful not to slip into the teacher mode. I'm not looking for a pat on the head and a cookie.

Thus protecting what has been believed by all Christians everywhere from the beginning. Please read St. Vincent's canon closely... it's very short.

so, then, that guarantees the circular claim, as I've mentioned.

It isn't really "tested" at all. It's accepted, or not.

Why would you wish to belong to a group when you do not believe as they believe?

Forgive me...

I wouldn't. But then, the "scare-tactic" of the "you have to get it here and here alone" may put that thought in someones head. I know a few that are where they are because they fear to be wrong. It's kind of sad.

What would happen if you allowed others who do not believe the same to become members and change things the way they see fit?

the key would be "believe about what?"

you say it means believe everything that the Orthodox church says you must believe. For instance, I doubt I'd be able to be Orthodox if I didn't believe in praying to Saints. It wouldn't fly. But then, I go to a church where Peccidillos don't matter as much. I sit and worship next to a theistic evolutionist, and I'm a YEC. Next guy over is a premilleniasts, me, not so much. One guy believes that teetotalling is correct. I don't agree, but it doesn't matter.

the Orthodox list of "essentials" is long, and IMHO, not matching up with the light yoke that Christ was refering to.

Would "what has always been believed" still be the same for that group? No.

I've yet to see any subsatiation of "always believed" beyond a circular appeal to authority.

The Truth was handed down once and for all by Christ to the Apostles.

what truth? Everything that the EO says so? I disagree. I can't see any reason to believe Christ was anywhere near as concerned about some of the things that EO goes on about.

Either we maintain it, or we lose it. Many have given their lives for this simple principle.

Forgive me....

they gave their life for Christ. I would think it would be doubtful that many martrys exist because of disagreement over proper liturgy, or how the bread and wine should be consumed (as in format, not RP or not RP) or some such.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=OrthodoxyUSA; What would happen if you allowed others who do not believe the same to become members and change things the way they see fit?

Dude, that is what happens.

Would "what has always been believed" still be the same for that group? No.

"What has always been believed" is a bit flawed as a concept by its ambiguity of assumptions such as "believed by whom", and that this body of beliefs has never matured thru correction as in the Peter & circumcision case.

The Truth was handed down once and for all by Christ to the Apostles.

So we should correlate & corroborate the details each apostle offers to see the continuity & integrity of their witness.

 

[Gary51]

What would happen if you allowed others who do not believe the same to become members and change things the way they see fit?

Then you end up with thousands of different denominations...

Your church is just one of those denominations...

Do you believe all your church teaches?....

Do all the other denominations believe all their churches teachings?...

If not, you get more denominations!

 

[Montalban]

Then you end up with thousands of different denominations...

Your church is just one of those denominations...

Do you believe all your church teaches?....

Do all the other denominations believe all their churches teachings?...

If not, you get more denominations!

Yes, I for one believe in it all, all that I know, and even what I don't know, I trust my church.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

We are not required to venerate the Saints nor icons. We are required to assert that doing so is not idol worship.

UB, I wrote a very nice post... and then lost it all.

I will try again later to answer to your latest post (#333).

Mathetes the kerux, you still here? I hope to get to know you better.


Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

As long as Christianity thrives on this planet The Church prevails. What denomination that church is does not matter . . . .

Yes it does.

The one that has been here from the beginning will survive till the end. There is no other.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

why nobody sees the danger in this, is beyond me.

for instance, someone could forward that you could be given the spiritual gift of prophecy, by hopping on your left foot every Friday for 1 hour, between the hours of 3 and 5 PM. (Jerusalem Standard Time.) Nothing in scripture would say anything against this, it is certainly not a Contra-scriptural teaching. So tell me why shouldn't somebody accept that as truth, if someone else called it their Tradition?

Would that be consistant with "what all Christians everywhere have believed from the beginning"?

No.

Traditions are what has been handed down (from the beginning). We can't make up something and call it tradition, everyone else in our Churches would attest that it's not true. It's a protection mechanism.

Traditions are not trivial matters and we do not treat them as such.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

for the record.

This is Canon xxxvj. of Hippo., 393. The last phrase allowing the reading of the &#8220;passions of the Martyrs&#8221; on their Anniversaries is omitted from the African code.

Canon XXIV. (Greek xxvii.)
That nothing be read in church besides the Canonical Scripture.
Item, that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in church under the name of divine Scripture.
But the Canonical Scriptures are as follows:

Genesis.
Exodus.
Leviticus.
Numbers.
Deuteronomy.
Joshua the Son of Nun.
The Judges.
Ruth.
The Kings, iv. books.
The Chronicles, ij. books.
Job.
The Psalter.
The Five books of Solomon.
The Twelve Books of the Prophets.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.
Ezechiel.
Daniel.
Tobit.
Judith.
Esther.
Ezra, ij. books.
Macchabees, ij. books.
The New Testament.
The Gospels, iv. books.
The Acts of the Apostles, j. book.
The Epistles of Paul, xiv.
The Epistles of Peter, the Apostle, ij.
The Epistles of John the Apostle, iij.
The Epistles of James the Apostle, j.
The Epistle of Jude the Apostle, j.
The Revelation of John, j. book.

Let this be sent to our brother and fellow bishop, Boniface, and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things which we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Forgive me...