How do we know . . . .

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Hi Othodoxy!!!! How did the RCC come to the conclusion that us Protestants, and you Orthodox are outside the CHURCH/BODY OF CHRIST?

Surely not by using the Scriptures I would think.

LLOJ [perhaps someone can bump that thread up on the OBOB board since I am declared as "persona non grata" there LOL]

http://christianforums.com/t6399100-question-for-catholics-vs-orthodox.html

...........Papal primacy, with its infamous and inane self-proclamation of infallibility, is the most damaging heresy ever to wage war against the true Church and Body of Christ, and it has been waging this war for over a thousand years. The Pope shamelessly proclaims to the world that the Papacy is the Church that Christ founded on earth. No wonder the name of Christ is blasphemed among the nations, for the Pope is not at all like Christ. Christ said of Himself,

Actually they do...

Mat 16:18


And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You knew that already though.

Forgive me...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You're quoting ACTS... written by St. Luke, not Peter, and the scriptures spoken of are the LXX.

Don't really know much about the LXX but as long as the NC/NT harmonizes with the OC/NT, that is fine with me.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Y@sha`yah53:7 He-is-oppressed/exacted. And-he one-being-humbled, and-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him.
As-flockling to-slaughter he-is-fetched. And-as-ewe before/faces ones-shearing-her she is mute. And-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him. [Acts 53:7]

Acts 8:32 The yet contexts of the Scripture which He read was this: `As a-sheep/flockling/probaton<4263> onto slaughter/sfaghn <4967> he was led; and as a-Lamb/amnoV <286> before of the one shearing Him, soundless, thus not opening the mouth of Him; [Isaiah 53:7]

We were actually discussing Isaiah 53 over here if you are interested:

http://christianforums.com/t5858522&page=13&highlight=isaiah

 

[racer]

You're quoting ACTS... written by St. Luke, not Peter,

Well then, strike me down for being human . . . I'm pretty sure I cited the book of Acts though did I not?

and the scriptures spoken of are the LXX.

Says you.

I've heard this many times. I see no redeemable value to the statement.

Of course you don't. If you did you might have to adjust your belief system.

And, you did not answer my question (well you've skipped pretty much all of my questions):

Since you believe these verses to be referring to OT Scripture only, does that belief nullify the authority of the NT? Is the NT in according to what you believe not as authortative as the OT?

 

[Thekla]

Nah. I do notice the Orthodox and RCs do not post much Scriptures and always wondered why.

In my experience - EO - the scriptures are to apply to us, to me, not to our neighbor. They "teach and measure" us.

And sometimes they're used as an interpersonal bludgeon, which I find distressing; its easier not to use them directly than to use them and end up using something precious and holy in such a disrespectful manner.

Really, at least as I read them, the OT and NT are the account of the two commandments that Christ emphasized. The whole of scripture describes the relationship between God and His creation (especially mankind, of course) and the relationship of man to man. The Gospels, Christ among us, walking with us -- here is the kernel, the center of the whole. Our example, our purpose, our challenge, our comfort. And into the description of what some of the apostles were doing. We can see through their interrelationship with others that they knew Christ. How often do they spout something like, "Look, Pal -- Jesus said this bit so blam to you ...". Instead, they were so filled with the Holy Spirit that from the outpouring their shadow healed.

In short, they didn't quote it, they lived it. As we are shown to do.

Its like in the Liturgy; we enter into the kingdom of heaven while on earth -- its all pretty much Bible quotes, prayed, chanted, heard. We are steeped and rest there with God and man. And then refreshed, we are sent back out to do battle (largely with ourselves ) again. The scriptures, with Christ as our kernel, our reference, our identity, are quoted or misquoted or not quoted in the manner of our being, our interaction with God and others.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Well then, strike me down for being human . . . I'm pretty sure I cited the book of Acts though did I not?

Says you.


Of course you don't. If you did you might have to adjust your belief system.

And, you did not answer my question (well you've skipped pretty much all of my questions):

Since you believe these verses to be referring to OT Scripture only, does that belief nullify the authority of the NT? Is the NT in according to what you believe not as authortative as the OT?

No of course not... but I don't go around saying that Paul was preaching from the NT when it did not yet exist.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

Actually they do...

Mat 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

You knew that already though.

Forgive me...

I hate to be redundant, but I have to refer you back to Mr. Salmon. He articulates this point so much better than I:


http://www.tracts.ukgo.com/george_salmon.htm

Lecture 3.​

THE ARGUMENT IN A CIRCLE.
. . . The craving for an infallible guide arises from men's consciousness of the weakness of their understanding. In temporal matters we are constrained to act on our own judgment. When we have important decisions to make we often feel ourselves in great doubt and perplexity, and some times the decision we ultimately make turns out to be wrong, and we have to pay the penalty in loss or other suffering. A loss, however, affecting only our temporal interests may be borne; but it seems intolerable to men that, when their eternal interests are at stake, any doubt or uncertainty should attend their decisions, and they look out for some guide who may be able to tell them, with infallible certainty, which is the right way. And yet it is easy to show that it is in the nature of things impossible to give men absolute security against error in any other way than by their being them selves made infallible; and I shall hereafter show you that when men profess faith in the Church's infallibility, they are, in real truth, professing faith in their own.

It is common with Roman Catholics to speak as if the use of private judgment and the infallibility of the Church were things opposed to each other. They are fond of contrasting the peace, and certainty, and assurance of him whose faith rests on the rock of an infallible Church, with the un certainty of him whose belief rests only on the shifting sands of his own fallible judgment. But it must be remembered that our belief must, in the end, rest on an act of our own judgment, and can never attain any higher certainty than whatever that may be able to give us. We may talk about the right of private judgment, or the duty of private judgment, but a more important thing to insist on is the necessity of private judgment. We have the choice whether we shall exercise our private judgment in one act or in a great many; but exercise it in one way or another we must. We may either apply our private judgment separately to the different questions in controversy—Purgatory, Transubstantiation Invocation of Saints, and soforth—and come to our own conclusion on each; or we may apply our private judgment to the question whether the Church of Rome is infallible, and, if we decide that it is, take all our religious opinions thenceforward on trust from her. But it is clear that our certainty that any of the things she teaches us is right cannot be greater than whatever certainty we have that our private judgment has decided the question rightly whether we ought to submit unreservedly to her teaching; and it will appear, before we have done, that this is at least as difficult a question as any in the controversy.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Don't really know much about the LXX but as long as the NC/NT harmonizes with the OC/NT, that is fine with me.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Y@sha`yah53:7 He-is-oppressed/exacted. And-he one-being-humbled, and-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him.
As-flockling to-slaughter he-is-fetched. And-as-ewe before/faces ones-shearing-her she is mute. And-not he-is-opening mouth-of-him. [Acts 53:7]

Acts 8:32 The yet contexts of the Scripture which He read was this: `As a-sheep/flockling/probaton<4263> onto slaughter/sfaghn <4967> he was led; and as a-Lamb/amnoV <286> before of the one shearing Him, soundless, thus not opening the mouth of Him; [Isaiah 53:7]

We were actually discussing Isaiah 53 over here if you are interested:

http://christianforums.com/t5858522&page=13&highlight=isaiahhttp://christianforums.com/t5858522&page=13&highlight=isaiah

The LXX support the NT best.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

No of course not... but I don't go around saying that Paul was preaching from the NT when it did not yet exist.

Forgive me...

Nor do I. I say that Paul preached/taught some of the New Testament, not from it.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Nor do I. I say that Paul preached/taught some of the New Testament, not from it.

You were answering the question...

"What gives scripture it's authority?"

I don't see how you have answered the question here.

Forgive me...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You were answering the question...

"What gives scripture it's authority?"

I don't see how you have answered the question here.

Forgive me...

So what Scriptures give the Orthodox and RC's authority over us "protestants"?
How come Orthodoxs don't quote much Scriptures btw? Afraid it might "bite"?

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god/qeoV <2316> of the Age, this, blinds the minds of the faith-less, into no to be radiant the lighting of the Good Message of the glory of the Christ, who is an Image of the God/YHWH.

 

[racer]

You were answering the question...

"What gives scripture it's authority?"

I don't see how you have answered the question here.

Forgive me...

Try actually reading my posts then, this is my OP, you know . . . .

 

[Thekla]

So what Scriptures give the Orthodox and RC's authority over us "protestants"?
How come Orthodoxs don't quote much Scriptures btw? Afraid it might "bite"?

2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god/qeoV <2316> of the Age, this, blinds the minds of the faith-less, into no to be radiant the lighting of the Good Message of the glory of the Christ, who is an Image of the God/YHWH.

I gave kinda an answer back in 484

it got buried in the subsequent exchange ...

 

[Montalban]

Because is spite of all of this talk, we've yet to be given the other supposed half . . . .

We're not a church that hides doctrines. And we don't 'develop' them either.

 

[Montalban]

No, the problem is you refuse to educate yourself regarding the "true" definition of Sola Scriptura.

When flustered by challenge many who have no real basis for their beliefs oft claim that the truth is just somewhere else out there.

 

[Uphill Battle]

When flustered by challenge many who have no real basis for their beliefs oft claim that the truth is just somewhere else out there.

bull. You've had it explained numerous times. Just because you stick you fingers in your ears and pretend otherwise, doesn't make your argument valid. If you're going to be deliberatly obtuse, it will be pointed out.

 

[Montalban]

But what did he say that we have no record of?
Just name one thing peter taught orally that
wasnt recorded.

Recorded by him?


You're asking "Where on paper is there a record of soemthing no one's put on paper to record..."

A really odd question

You're asking me to prove things I've never asserted.
We have different definitions of SS.

Yes, you are the one who said that only the word was infallible.

But what are all these oral things you are speaking
of that I disregard because they werent written?

See above re your odd question

There are traditions regarding the parents of Mary that we know Mary told John, and thus the other Apostles would have been told.

We calculate the 'day' as being from evening to evening such as the Jews do, so 'Wednesday' is (by Western dating) Tuesday evening to Wednesday evening

 

[Montalban]

bull. You've had it explained numerous times. Just because you stick you fingers in your ears and pretend otherwise, doesn't make your argument valid. If you're going to be deliberatly obtuse, it will be pointed out.

And so you still go with the "It's been said somewhere else"

 

[Rick Otto]

There's nothing odd about asking for evidence of the unwritten information, teachings, etc. of tradition.
What is tradition, or better yet if you will, Tradition's most oft-repeated gem of divine wisdom, revelation, &/or instruction etc.
Share with us a Tradition not found in scripture.
Especialy one that is salvation essential.
I'm eager to learn.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There's nothing odd about asking for evidence of the unwritten information, teachings, etc. of tradition.
What is tradition, or better yet if you will, Tradition's most oft-repeated gem of divine wisdom, revelation, &/or instruction etc.
Share with us a Tradition not found in scripture.
Especialy one that is salvation essential.
I'm eager to learn.

Would you consider the partaking of The Holy Eucharist to be among the things taught verbally as essential but not explained "clearly enough" in scripture?

We, of course, say that it is found in scripture... others argue that it is not.

Forgive me...

 

[Rick Otto]

Would you consider the partaking of The Holy Eucharist to be among the things taught verbally as essential but not explained "clearly enough" in scripture?

No, sorry... but thanks. I see it clearly enough in scripture.
I see communion with Christ & fellowship in that communion as themetic, but I don't see ceremonial sacramentology being instituted. For me, ceremony and sacraments are exterior and tho they served well to indoctrinate me, they now seem to serve the religion and not God.
But that isn't a condemnation of them, that is just my experience & perspective on them. I don't think that means everyone should relate to The Eucharist the way I do.
Know what I mean?