How do we know . . . .

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I believe all that The Orthodox Church speaks of Dogmatically. On Doctrines however, I (and everyone else) are allow the privilege of accepting or not.

The Orthodox Church is not ruled from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.

That is to say, the layity and the entire Church body are in charge of maintaining Holy Tradition (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere from the beginning.)

Councils are ratified by everyone before being declared Ecumenical (accepted by the whole).

Forgive me...

 

[Uphill Battle]

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

I don't think a "non-venerator" would get far in Orthodox 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).
...

hate it when that happens.

Yes it does.

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

Forgive me...

sorry, when I hear someone refer to their branch like this, it turns my stomach.

Mormons say the same thing. So do JW's.

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

No.

an unprovable statement.

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...

you have no way of assuring that it DIDN'T happen, other than your belief that your branch of Christianity got everything right for 2000 years.

I believe all that The Orthodox Church speaks of Dogmatically. On Doctrines however, I (and everyone else) are allow the privilege of accepting or not.

The Orthodox Church is not ruled from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.

That is to say, the layity and the entire Church body are in charge of maintaining Holy Tradition (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere from the beginning.)

Councils are ratified by everyone before being declared Ecumenical (accepted by the whole).

Forgive me...

which, of course, puts them head and shoulders above the RCC in my estimation. It doesn't, however, disuade me from my objections.

 

[racer]

The RCC doesn't just use Scripture, or else they wouldn't keep the pope around.

1 Peter 4:7 Of all-things/pantwn <3956> yet The End Has-Neared/hggiken <1448> (5758); be sane then, and be sober into the prayers,

James 5:8 be ye patient!, also stand-fast the hearts of ye, that the Parousia <3952> of the Lord has-neared/hggiken <1448>(5758);

They do in a circular manner. You'll get a better grasp if you read my quote from Salmon. They base Papal Infallibility on I Tim 3:15, and Petrine Primacy on Matt 16:18, and the equality of tradtion with Scriptrure on 2 Thes 2:15; in support of both doctrines. They use Matt 16 to establish the RCCs authority to interpret Scripture. And, they are basing that assertion on their own interpretation of what Matt 16 says. That is circular argumentation if I ever saw it . . . .

 

[racer]

Where in the Bible did Jesus establish Bible Colleges?

I'm guessing the same part where he established Monestaries and seminaries . . . .

 

[racer]

Where in the Bible did Jesus establish Bible Colleges?

Montalban, you're a smart man. Put a little effort into studying Sola Scriptura . . . .

 

[Philothei]

I'm guessing the same part where he established Monestaries and seminaries . . . .

No, Christ first established Churches with his Apostles where we have Bishops, presbyteres who are the authority in the Church.... The Bible came from a worshiping community ... people/apostle wrote it.. We never advocate that the monastics or the seminaries did...

 

[Thekla]

I'm guessing the same part where he established Monestaries and seminaries . . . .

the early Christians (Acts) lived in community -- I do not see this taught in the Gospels.

 

[Uphill Battle]

the early Christians (Acts) lived in community -- I do not see this taught in the Gospels.

who, other than in this post, limited the scriptural record to the Gospels?

 

[Gary51]

I believe all that The Orthodox Church speaks of Dogmatically. On Doctrines however, I (and everyone else) are allow the privilege of accepting or not.

The Orthodox Church is not ruled from the top down, but rather from the bottom up.

That is to say, the layity and the entire Church body are in charge of maintaining Holy Tradition (what has been believed by all Christians everywhere from the beginning.)

Councils are ratified by everyone before being declared Ecumenical (accepted by the whole).

Forgive me...

It is quite clear that you follow every word and doctine of your church, at the expence of scripture!

 

[Thekla]

who, other than in this post, limited the scriptural record to the Gospels?

post #344 specifically referring to the teachings of Jesus, to which my post is a response

 

[Uphill Battle]

post #344 specifically referring to the teachings of Jesus, to which my post is a response

that post was a retort to a vapid statement. I do not believe the poster thinks that it has to be in the Gospels to be true, to the invalidation of the rest of scripture.

 

[Thekla]

that post was a retort to a vapid statement. I do not believe the poster thinks that it has to be in the Gospels to be true, to the invalidation of the rest of scripture.

o.k.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

ad hominem

Forgive me...

 

[Philothei]

that post was a retort to a vapid statement. I do not believe the poster thinks that it has to be in the Gospels to be true, to the invalidation of the rest of scripture.

if the acts provide us with information away from the Gospels... should we count that as oral tradition? the Acts were written after "the fact" and express the "early Church community" so sola scriptura is invalid....

 

[Uphill Battle]

if the acts provide us with information away from the Gospels... should we count that as oral tradition? the Acts were written after "the fact" and express the "early Church community" so sola scriptura is invalid....

how so? Acts is part of scripture.

 

[Philothei]

But they do reflect or not the Apostolic community?

 

[Uphill Battle]

But they do reflect or not the Apostolic community?

I'm not really sure what you're driving at.

 

[Philothei]

That's okay keep riding....lol... I am trying to say that what is recorded in the acts is nothing but.... oral tradition. The events that were recorded were oral tradition. ... So if Ignatius the descedant of an Apostle wrote later his own writings based on that oral tradition and the 4 gospels why would not be valid?? In Timothy it says that the Bible is enough but it does not say that it is ONLY the Bible that is enough for us to live by...
Also it says that many things were omitted from the Bible because a book could not contain all of the life of Christ and his ministry... so right there it leaves room for addtiion of tradition. It is not tradition of men it is theological tradition. Where does it say sola srcriptura (latin term cChrist never used...BTW) ?

 

[racer]

So he was taught from Scriptures and taught a 'lesson' not found in the Gospels?

No, He taught the Gospel, however, the Bible (Scripture) had yet to be compiled into one written text. Nobody asserts that the Bible fell into our hands, completed in written form.

OOPS!

Yep! Oooops again--for you. You have agains shown your ignorance as to the meaining of Sola Scriptura.

We say that God's message leads us to salvation, if we live that message.

You say God's message leads to salvation, only if it's written, and only read, because living it means nothing.

Wrong again. We do not say that being in written form is what give the Gospel authority. The authority comes from God--It was authoritative when God thought. It was authoritative when Jesus spoke it and the apostles preached it. If you minister can stand in front of his flock and preach the gospel from memory and needs no Bible in front of him, it is authoritative. That's why I keep telling you you need to brush up on your understanding of the ideology of Sola Scriptura.

Since he doesn't present any written texts that he learnt from then he doesn't say "Follow the book I learnt from" but "Follow the teachings I give you by word and by epistle"

You're adlibbing again, he doesn't say "by word andmouth." He says, "either by word OR our epistle."

 

[Uphill Battle]

That's okay keep riding....lol... I am trying to say that what is recorded in the acts is nothing but.... oral tradition. The events that were recorded were oral tradition. ... So if Ignatius the descedant of an Apostle wrote later his own writings based on that oral tradition and the 4 gospels why would not be valid?? In Timothy it says that the Bible is enough but it does not say that it is ONLY the Bible that is enough for us to live by...
Also it says that many things were omitted from the Bible because a book could not contain all of the life of Christ and his ministry... so right there it leaves room for addtiion of tradition. It is not tradition of men it is theological tradition. Where does it say sola srcriptura (latin term cChrist never used...BTW) ?

using your same logic, the writings of Ignatius should have been canonized with the rest. They were not.

Question: do you, or do you not believe that God insprired scripture? I assume you do. Do you not then, think that he is responsible for the inspiration of the CANON of scripture as well?

lastly, you are still demonstrating a lack of understanding as to why someone would use sola scriptura.

It is not that the bible says "use only me" it is that the bible is the only record that a Sola Scripturist will trust as authoritative.

you want us to believe that for 2000 years, the same church has taught the exact same thing about everything, every caveat, piccadilly and iota. If we are honest with ourselves, we'd have to state that man cannot do this.

look at the Pauline epistles. It took less than a few decades for people to begin screwing things up badly. And then you want to tell me that despite all that, 2000 years of perfection have passed?

not buying it.