Is Satan behind the division of the many denominations we find? Or, is it the Lord?

[Albion]

The words "sola scriptura" literally translate "by Scripture alone".

No, they do not. A literal translation would be "Scripture Alone."

That being the case, it is then necessary to understand what about Scripture is to be 'alone.' We've been attempting to explain that to you. It's not that it alone is to play any part in our religious lives. Nor is it that we do not use intelligence or reasoning in apprehending the correct answers.

It is that Scripture alone determines what is essential doctrine--not customs, theories, folklore, popular myths or any of the other factors that have been used to define new doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, and Purgatory, none of which is indicated by Scripture.

 

[☦Marius☦]

No, they do not. A literal translation would be "Scripture Alone."

That being the case, it is then necessary to understand what about Scripture is to be 'alone.' We've been attempting to explain that to you. It's not that it alone is to play any part in our religious lives. Nor is it that we do not use intelligence or reasoning in apprehending the correct answers.

It is that Scripture alone determines what is essential doctrine--not customs, theories, folklore, popular myths or any of the other factors that have been used to define new doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, and Purgatory, none of which is indicated by Scripture.

What you don't seem to understand, is that scripture is part of sacred tradition. Also the Canon was determined in relevance to the prevailing ideas of the apostolic church. There is no part of sacred tradition that contradicts the Bible. At least for Orthodox. I don't think you are actually comprehending what I'm trying to get across.

 

[☦Marius☦]

No, they do not. A literal translation would be "Scripture Alone."

That being the case, it is then necessary to understand what about Scripture is to be 'alone.' We've been attempting to explain that to you. It's not that it alone is to play any part in our religious lives. Nor is it that we do not use intelligence or reasoning in apprehending the correct answers.

It is that Scripture alone determines what is essential doctrine--not customs, theories, folklore, popular myths or any of the other factors that have been used to define new doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, and Purgatory, none of which is indicated by Scripture.

Also how typical that you would call something like the dormition of the theotokos "folklore". That tradition is as old as the church.

 

[☦Marius☦]

No, they do not. A literal translation would be "Scripture Alone."

That being the case, it is then necessary to understand what about Scripture is to be 'alone.' We've been attempting to explain that to you. It's not that it alone is to play any part in our religious lives. Nor is it that we do not use intelligence or reasoning in apprehending the correct answers.

It is that Scripture alone determines what is essential doctrine--not customs, theories, folklore, popular myths or any of the other factors that have been used to define new doctrines such as the Assumption of Mary, Papal Infallibility, and Purgatory, none of which is indicated by Scripture.

When I was in a Baptist Mission college a few years back, we always recited the words "by scripture alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone". The professors went on and on about how the Holy Spirit would "reveal" things to the individual. And how the Catholic Church kept the Bible from being translated so that they could hoard the knowledge and keep new theology down. We were elevated "Bible believing" Baptists, who could just read the word and that was enough- at least until you went against the mainstream of the southern Baptist convention, because that would get you kicked out of the school. Every church has dogma, and to go outside the dogma is to go outside that church. It's rediculous to try to claim otherwise. The reason our traditions are the right ones, are because they are the (theological theological of the apostles (I'm talking about the OC). That's the difference.

 

[GUANO]

The Body of Christ is a corporate entity recognized by God alone and is not recognized by nation's or states. Denominations are corporate entities recognized by the state and subservient to them. Corporate entities are idols in the strictest definition of the term. Denominations themselves, while they may be intentioned as good, are satellites of the state, which is a godform or egregore, a type of spiritual being created by man to watch over and rule them. They are dangerous entities though we all have one.

 

[Albion]

What you don't seem to understand, is that scripture is part of sacred tradition.

I know that is the way the Catholic churches look at it. No problem there.

However, it is the dogmas that are NOT based on Scripture that are in question.

There is no part of sacred tradition that contradicts the Bible.

I hear that all the time, but I just named a few doctrines that have no Biblical basis. This is the stuff of Sacred Tradition.

That said, I am aware that the RCC has created more doctrines via Tradition than the EOC.

 

[Albion]

Also how typical that you would call something like the dormition of the theotokos "folklore".

Actually, I did not. IMHO, everyone here would do well to read carefully what has been posted before taking exception to it.

That tradition is as old as the church.

Yes, it is that old, but it is just a tradition, a custom, and based on nothing more than people saying that the grave that they presumed to have been the Virgin's (no one actually knows) was empty when opened.

There are all sorts of possible explanations for that if the grave is even the right one. So that is a doctrine created out of nothing more than folklore, and that only what has been conjectured by the people in a limited part of the Christian world.

To commemorate the 'falling asleep' of the Virgin is another matter and my church has that day on the calendar, too.

 

[Albion]

When I was in a Baptist Mission college a few years back, we always recited the words "by scripture alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone". The professors went on and on about how the Holy Spirit would "reveal" things to the individual. And how the Catholic Church kept the Bible from being translated so that they could hoard the knowledge and keep new theology down. We were elevated "Bible believing" Baptists, who could just read the word and that was enough- at least until you went against the mainstream of the southern Baptist convention, because that would get you kicked out of the school. Every church has dogma, and to go outside the dogma is to go outside that church.

Well, this proves nothing except that the Baptists you knew had a rather unusual interpretation of parts of the Bible. It doesn't in any way affect the concept of Sola Scriptura. If there is more that you and I are to say about Sola Scriptura, let's be sure it is about Sola Scriptura.

 

[fhansen]

If one is seeking to form a religion based on the whims of man and not the will of God, then it won't work very well.

Yeah, read, then watch the fireworks erupt between the readers, each claiming to follow "the will of God".

 

[Phil 1:21]

Yeah, read, then watch the fireworks erupt between the readers, each claiming to follow "the will of God".

I've seen quite a few fireworks shows between Catholics over the same type of thing. In the end though, I'll trust the word of God over the word of Rome. To each his own though.

 

[☦Marius☦]

However, it is the dogmas that are NOT based on Scripture that are in question.


I hear that all the time, but I just named a few doctrines that have no Biblical basis. This is the stuff of Sacred Tradition.

Something having no Biblical Basis, and something actually contradicting scripture are two different things. For instance purgatory. No biblical basis, yet it doesn't go against scripture either. The problem with the RCC is that they dogmatize such things and call it "Holy Tradition". Orthodox never dogmatize things they can't be sure of from scripture.

Actually, I did not. IMHO, everyone here would do well to read carefully what has been posted before taking exception to it.


Yes, it is that old, but it is just a tradition, a custom, and based on nothing more than people saying that the grave that they presumed to have been the Virgin's (no one actually knows) was empty when opened.

There are all sorts of possible explanations for that if the grave is even the right one. So that is a doctrine created out of nothing more than folklore, and that only what has been conjectured by the people in a limited part of the Christian world.

To commemorate the 'falling asleep' of the Virgin is another matter and my church has that day on the calendar, too.

Idk about Catholics, but our tradition states that the apostles were all carried mystically to the location of the Theotokos' body, and that she was resurrected and glorified afterwards.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Well, this proves nothing except that the Baptists you knew had a rather unusual interpretation of parts of the Bible. It doesn't in any way affect the concept of Sola Scriptura. If there is more that you and I are to say about Sola Scriptura, let's be sure it is about Sola Scriptura.

Definitions are not timeless, as language changes so do words and their meanings. While Sola Scriptura may have one meaning to the older protestant denominations, it has an entirely more evolved one to evangelicals, which is what I was trying to convey. I have had years of experience with evangelicals both educated and not, and the mainstream of thought is that Sola Scriptura means you cannot have theology outside what is given by the Bible. They believe this even though they clearly don't practice it.

 

[Radagast]

While Sola Scriptura may have one meaning to the older protestant denominations, it has an entirely more evolved one to evangelicals, which is what I was trying to convey.

That's certainly not true for the evangelicals I know.

But even if it was, it would still be necessary to distinguish between Sola Scriptura and some modern reinterpretations of it (which are sometimes called Solo Scriptura).

 

[Albion]

Something having no Biblical Basis, and something actually contradicting scripture are two different things.

That's true, but neither should be made into a dogma by any church. God reveals his will and intentions in revelation/Scripture. He has no part in all the rest, so making custom or legend the basis of any such doctrine should be seen as automatically wrong. By the way, that does not mean that the idea is necessarily wrong, but without God's hand in determining such teachings, we know that they cannot be made binding upon the faithful.

For instance purgatory. No biblical basis, yet it doesn't go against scripture either . The problem with the RCC is that they dogmatize such things and tsome doctrines....Idk about Catholics, but our tradition states that the apostles were all carried mystically to the location of the Theotokos' body, and that she was resurrected and glorified afterwards.

Legend.

Sola Scriptura would hold that it is wrong to make such a belief into an official church teaching because it doesn't have divine revelation to support it. By the way, there are many alleged burial places for the Virgin, so this that you've explained cannot be the consensus of the whole church throughout all of time.

 

[Albion]

Definitions are not timeless, as language changes so do words and their meanings. While Sola Scriptura may have one meaning to the older protestant denominations, it has an entirely more evolved one to evangelicals, which is what I was trying to convey.

None of that has anything to do with Sola Scriptura, as has been explained repeatedly.

 

[☦Marius☦]

That's true, but neither should be made into a dogma by any church. God reveals his will and intentions in revelation/Scripture. He has no part in all the rest, so making custom or legend the basis of any such doctrine should be seen as automatically wrong. By the way, that does not mean that the idea is necessarily wrong, but without God's hand in determining such teachings, we know that they cannot be made binding upon the faithful.


Legend.

Sola Scriptura would hold that it is wrong to make such a belief into an official church teaching because it doesn't have divine revelation to support it. By the way, there are many alleged burial places for the Virgin, so this that you've explained cannot be the consensus of the whole church throughout all of time.

Well obviously there are always going to be those, who claim to know better than the early church. There were early Christians who believed in archons and the demiurge- does that mean they were right?

I believe in the church councils. The apostles clearly started them as a means to decide problems in the faith, and just because you have it easy and don't have to deal with genocidal heresies doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Arianism, Paulicianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, all beliefs- all claiming Biblical support- and all willing to kill for it. The councils put an end to that together through the work of the Holy Spirit. But you clearly don't believe that.

Gods hand is there in determining the teachings AT COUNCILS. No believer is to operate on his own. The body is to function as a whole. Most of the times these horrible heresies rose up, it was under a SINGLE leader. One voice going against the whole is reminiscent of the pride of Lucifer. If its good enough for the church fathers- its good enough for me. I'm sorry you don't share that belief.

 

[Albion]

Well obviously there are always going to be those, who claim to know better than the early church.

I know that it sounds wise and even reverent to honor the Church Fathers, and they do have importance, but they do not create doctrine. They do not speak infallibly. Their speculations and theological theories are not a second revelation from God equal to the Holy Scriptures.

I believe in the church councils.

Me, too, but the councils did not create dogmas. And what did Nicaea cite--right there in the creed--as the source? Scripture. Does it say a thing about Sacred Tradition? No.

The apostles clearly started them as a means to decide problems in the faith, and just because you have it easy and don't have to deal with genocidal heresies doesn't mean that they didn't exist. Arianism, Paulicianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, all beliefs- all claiming Biblical support- and all willing to kill for it. The councils put an end to that together through the work of the Holy Spirit. But you clearly don't believe that.

Why say a thing like that? I'm sorry to read something like this after what I thought was a pretty good exchange of ideas.

 

[☦Marius☦]

I know that it sounds wise and even reverent to honor the Church Fathers, and they do have importance, but they do not create doctrine. They do not speak infallibly. Their speculations and theological theories are not a second revelation from God equal to the Holy Scriptures.


Me, too, but the councils did not create dogmas. And what did Nicaea cite--right there in the creed--as the source? Scripture. Does it say a thing about Sacred Tradition? No.


Why say a thing like that? I'm sorry to read something like this after what I thought was a pretty good exchange of ideas.

So instead of listening to the fathers, some of whom studied under the apostles, or performed miracles (giving authority to their words), I should follow what some random Protestant denomination believes because it satisfies my corrupt fallen logic? There has to be a standard

And I didn't mean to offend, I wasn't accusing you of those heresies, but your clear rejection of the validity of sacred tradition ( and I'm not talking about the RCC's spin on it but the entire concept), means you reject the theological traditions laid down by the councils and the work of the Holy Spirit through the church. Yes Rome is in the wrong on much- but the Orthodox have always tried their best to maintain the traditions we were given. We don't innovate, and we haven't dogmatized
anything since the last Ecumenical council.

 

[Radagast]

...your clear rejection of the validity of sacred tradition ( and I'm not talking about the RCC's spin on it but the entire concept)

Well, before you continue your hostile abuse of Protestants, perhaps you should get together with the Catholics first and decide which Tradition is the Sacred one we're supposed to follow. Then get back to us after that.

 

[☦Marius☦]

Well, before you continue your abuse of Protestants, perhaps you should get together with the Catholics first and decide which Tradition is the Sacred one we're supposed to follow. Then get back to us after that.

Obviously the one that kept the councils, and didn't put a man in charge of the church instead of Christ. Just compare the two and you can see which one actually considers it's traditions sacred. And where have I abused Protestants exactly? All I stated were facts from the Orthodox perspective. You either believe them or you don't. I respect your opinions, but I do not agree with them.