Protestants explanation of this verse(s), Part 1

[Rdr Iakovos]

Whatever you'd like to see it, I guess. You must now stick with your definition and also see 'other' groups of believers as such. Example: You can no longer call 'Baptists' a denomination.

Baptist is a general tradition. Southern Baptist is a denomination.

I understand you and your 'institution' may not see it this way, but others do.

If it satisfies you to be argumentative, please feel free to do so. I won't engage in 'no I'm not/yes you are,' however.

Unbroken? This is merely personal opinion, for the RCC say the same thing. Obviously, one of you is wrong.

It's not personal opinion, it's historically verifiable.
Regarding Rome: They continue in their unbroken tradition.
We have both changed, also. We would maintain that they have moved away from a couple of key points. That doesn't break their tradition, it strains and limits our communion

I love how you use the word 'modicum' to describe my church and relationship with Jesus. I do not have just a tiny bit of Him, You either have ALL of Him or none...there is not middle ground. This is why there is one huge Church, and it's made up of ALL believers. You claim your church has the 'full' truth. I claim everyone who believes in Jesus has the 'full' truth.

Actually, you don't seem to love what I said at all...rather, you appear to bristle with offense, I haven't addressed your faith at all, I don't even know what tradition you belong to.

In point of fact, I think that I have a pebble of truth from the mountain who is Truth. If you think you have lots under your belt, good for you. I find the more I get to know Him, the less I really perceive. If all the books in the world cannot contain his deeds, then what shall we say of His person?

I said that Orthodoxy has the fullest truth, imo. You have misquoted me by saying "the full truth."

We do not attempt to say where the Holy Spirit and the Church is not.

I'm glad you know me better than I do.

Sarcasm is a Greek compound which literally means 'tear the flesh.' I care not to engage in it.

My statement is not a statement of knowing you, it was a statement of knowing knowledge and how it is acquired. No one reads the scripture without influence, it's simply not possible. Also, even what you read here influences your bible understanding- even if it merely hardens your position.

Note: when I say 'you,' I also mean 'me.'

I was just trying to make a point about how sometimes the majority isn't always right...you went around this point.

I didn't 'go around the point'- I posed a rebuttal which addressed your hyperbole. Just because the majority isn't right does not negate the fact that the Church is not present in one individual.

I don't have someone telling me what to believe. You do. Big difference.

You don't acknowledge your influences, we acknowledge ours. Subtle difference.

You've set this question up in favor of an answer you'd wish to hear. Your question assumes your tradition, is in fact truth (wisdom), and that my beliefs were never held by any original discples. Not fair.

Oh, it's quite fair, and you have distorted my question. My question could just as well be directed to, for example, atheists or social liberals, or adolescents (not thta all liberals are adolescents- they simply share a tendency to throw the baby out with the bath water).
I will assume that you will not answer this question, so let's just pretend it was rhetorical.

You mean I have errored in believing what you believe. Sorry.

No, I wrote what I meant: you have incorrectly referred to the regional churches of Asia Minor in the late first century as 'institutions.' The Church at Ephesus included all the churches around the region, under the direction of the local elder (bishop) and elders (presvyteros).
Also, they were all in relationship with one another, through their apostolic headship. We see this not only historically, but even within the letters of Paul, and recorded in Acts.

And? Why can't scriptures be my guide? Why can't the Holy Spirit be my counselor? Are you saying we must resort to 'more' fallable humans to gain this truth your denomination provides?

I was citing scripture and good folk wisdom. I identified no one group in my answer, but made an appeal that most Protestants would agree with.

As I stated and proved, I am not part of a denomination. I am not telling you that you should be a part of the Orthodox Church, either. Do as you are led.

So when Paul wrote a letter to a city, he sent himself along with it?

No, he would send the letter, for example, to the Church at Corinth, stating that he wished to and planned to be with them. He cites time that he spent with, teaching and imploring the churches regarding tradition and right doctrine, for example Thessaloniki.

You do know this, yes?

 

[racer]

Well, can your church trace it's roots back to the Apostles through succession, like Catholics and Orthodox Christians can?

Well, in spite of the fact this is a ridiculously juvenile question (makes me want say, nana-na-nana ), I will ask you this, what has such a claim, founded or not, done for your church? Catholics and Orthodox both claim to be the ONE TRUE CHURCH, and we all know that both can't be. Therefore, ownership of the "claim" that only your churches can be traced back to the apostles, does nothing to further this assertion.

Our churches can be traced just as yours can. All of us can trace our roots back to the beginning of Christianity, so what's your point?

 

[racer]

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

He says, hold fast to traditions whether by word of mouth or letter. Simply put, whether your read it for yourself, or hear it preached in your church, heed it.

Which, is what Protestants believe. Do as instructed in Scripture, whether your read it for yourself, or your pastor/Sunday school teacher reads/teaches it to you.

OK, so where in this verse does Paul say that once we have a defined cannon, we no longer then should hold to the traditions by word of mouth? Why are you adding something to this verse or the meaning of this verse that does not exist?

Why should we presume that some things would be preserved in written form, while nobody would bother to put other things in writing? Is there a purpose for that?

How do you infer from this text that Paul is implying that some things would never be written down?

Why do you infer that Paul is asserting that what was written and what was spoken were separate sets of traditions instead of different modes of delivery?

 

[racer]

The day you or any other Protestant can prove that everything Jesus and the Apostles taught was written in the Bible, I'll leave the Church.

1) Well, if I was looking for proof of anything regarding my Christian faith---gee, I wouldn't be Christian.

2) The day you or any Catholic/Orthodox can prove that God left some evasive, elusive, unidentifible, unwritten, yet authoritative tradition--that even those who believe can not guess at--I'll join your church.

 

[racer]

and the prayer of faith will save the sick man

Notice what is actually responsible for the healing--the prayer of faith.

 

[racer]

Or perhaps I happen to believe in something bigger than the understanding my own fallible mind gives me, and like to understand based on 2000 years of inspired Church (The pillar and bulwark of Truth) interpretation.

Gee, I hate to be the one to break it to you, but regardless of what you choose to believe, you have your "own fallible mind" to thank.

 

[racer]

The doctrines of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary and that she lived a sinless life are both directly contrary to the Bible which teaches that ALL (without exception) have fallen short, that no one is righteous, not one, etc.

Also, your church maintains that she died a bodily death before she was assumed into heaven, how can she have died if she was exempt from the stain of Original Sin?

A big one---the Papacy.

 

[racer]

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a denomination. A one dollar bill is a denomination. So is a ten dollar bill.

Well, then there are no denominations . . . . . I'll go for that.

 

[racer]

From the official American PCA website:

"The PCA is one of the faster growing denominations in the United States, with over 1450 churches and missions throughout the USA and Canada. There were over 306,000 communicant and non-communicant members as of December 2000. "



It would appear that the PCA is a denomination, and see themselves as such.

But, not according to your definition. Or, do your own definitions only apply to yourself. Hmmmm? Sounds a lot like self-interpretation.

 

[racer]

Again, here's what Augustine said:

CHAP. 18.--ONLY IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS PERFECT TRUTH ESTABLISHED ON THE HARMONY OF BOTH TESTAMENTS.

33. I could, according to the little ability I have, take up the points separately, and could expound and prove the truths I have learned, which are generally more excellent and lofty than words can express; but this cannot be done while you bark at it. For not in vain is it said, "Give not that which is holy to dogs." Do not be angry. I too barked and was a dog; and then, as was right, instead of the food of teaching, I got the rod of correction. But were there in you that love of which we are speaking, or should it ever be in you as much as the greatness of the truth to be known requires, may God vouchsafe to show you that neither is there among the Manichaeans the Christian faith which leads to the summit of wisdom and truth, the attainment of which is the true happy life, nor is it anywhere but in the Catholic teaching. Is not this what the Apostle Paul appears to desire when he says, "For this cause I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, from whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that He would grant unto you, according to the riches of His glory, to be strengthened with might by His Spirit in the inner man: that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the height, and length, and breadth, and depth, and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled with all the fullness of God?" Could anything be more plainly expressed?

34. Wake up a little, I beseech you, and see the harmony of both Testaments, making it quite plain and certain what should be the manner of life in our conduct, and to what all things should be referred. To the love of God we are incited by the gospel, when it is said, "Ask, seek, knock;" by Paul, when he says, "That ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend;" by the prophet also, when he says that wisdom can easily be known by those who love it, seek for it, desire it, watch for it, think about it, care for it. The salvation of the mind and the way of happiness is pointed out by the concord of both Scriptures; and yet you choose rather to bark at these things than to obey them. I will tell you in one word what I think. Do you listen to the learned men of the Catholic Church with as peaceable a disposition, and with the same zeal, that I had when for nine years I attended on you: there will be no need of so long a time as that during which you made a fool of me. In a much, a very much, shorter time you will see the difference between truth and vanity.

 

[racer]

Augustine’s Confessions, Book XIII

Chapter XV.—Allegorical Explanation of the Firmament and Upper Works, Ver. 6.

16. Or who but Thou, our God, made for us that firmament1 of authority over us in Thy divine Scripture?2 As it is said, For heaven shall be folded up like a scroll;3 and now it is extended over us like a skin.4 For Thy divine Scripture is of more sublime authority, since those mortals through whom Thou didst dispense it unto us underwent mortality. And Thou knowest, O Lord, Thou knowest, how Thou with skins didst clothe men5 when by sin they became mortal. Whence as a skin hast Thou stretched out the firmament of Thy Book;6 that is to say, Thy harmonious words, which by the ministry of mortals Thou hast spread over us. For by their very death is that solid firmament of authority in Thy discourses set forth by them more sublimely extended above all things that are under it, the which, while they were living here, was not so eminently extended.7 Thou hadst not as yet spread abroad the heaven like a skin; Thou hadst not as yet noised everywhere the report of their deaths.

17. Let us look, O Lord, "upon the heavens, the work of Thy fingers;"8 clear from our eyes that mist with which Thou hast covered them. There is that testimony of Thine which giveth wisdom unto the little ones.9 Perfect, O my God, Thy praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings.10 Nor have we known any other books so destructive to pride, so destructive to the enemy and the defender,11 who resisteth Thy reconciliation in defence of his own sins.12 I know not, O Lord, I know not other such "pure"13 words which so persuade me to confession, and make my neck submissive to Thy yoke, and invite me to serve Thee for nought. Let me understand these things, good Father. Grant this to me, placed under them; because Thou hast established these things for those placed under them.



18. Other "waters" there be "above" this "firmament," I believe immortal, and removed from earthly corruption. Let them praise Thy Name,—those super-celestial people, Thine angels, who have no need to look up at this firmament, or by reading to attain the knowledge of Thy Word,—let them praise Thee. For they always behold Thy face,14 and therein read without any syllables in time what Thy eternal will willeth. They read, they choose, they love.15 They are always reading; and that which they read never passeth away. For, by choosing and by loving, they read the very unchangeableness of Thy counsel. Their book is not closed, nor is the scroll folded up,16 because Thou Thyself art this to them, yea, and art so eternally; because Thou hast appointed them above this firmament, which Thou hast made firm over the weakness of the lower people, where they might look up and learn Thy mercy, announcing in time Thee who hast made times. "For Thy mercy, O Lord, is in the heavens, and Thy faithfulness reacheth unto the clouds."17 The clouds pass away, but the heaven remaineth. The preachers of Thy Word pass away from this life into another; but Thy Scripture is spread abroad over the people, even to the end of the world. Yea, both heaven and earth shall pass away, but Thy Words shall not pass away.18 Because the scroll shall be rolled together,19 and the grass over which it was spread shall with its goodliness pass away; but Thy Word remaineth for ever,20 which now appeareth unto us in the dark image of the clouds, and through the glass of the heavens, not as it is;21 because we also, although we be the well-beloved of Thy Son, yet it hath not yet appeared what we shall be.22 He looketh through the lattice23 of our flesh, and He is fair-speaking, and hath inflamed us, and we run after His odours.24 But "when He shall appear, then shall we be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is."25 As He is, O Lord, shall we see Him, although the time be not yet.

 

[racer]

On Christian Doctrine, Book II, Chapters 4, and 5

Chapter 4—Origin of Writing

But because words pass away as soon as they strike upon the air, and last no longer than their sound, men have by means of letters formed signs of words. Thus the sounds of the voice are made visible to the eye, not of course as sounds, but by means of certain signs. It has been found impossible, however, to make those signs common to all nations owing to the sin of discord among men, which springs from every man trying to snatch the chief place for himself. And that celebrated tower which was built to reach to heaven was an indication of this arrogance of spirit; and the ungodly men concerned in it justly earned the punishment of having not their minds only, but their tongues besides, thrown into confusion and discordance.
Chapter 5—Scripture Translated into Various Languages

And hence it happened that even Holy Scripture, which brings remedy for the terrible diseases of the human will, being at first set forth in one language, by means of which it could at the fit season be disseminated through the whole world, was interpreted into various tongues, and spread far and wide, and thus became known to the nations for their salvation. And in reading it, men seek nothing more than to find out the thought and will of those by whom it was written, and through these to find out the will of God, in accordance with which they believe these men to have spoken.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

But, not according to your definition.
Or, do your own definitions only apply to yourself. Hmmmm? Sounds a lot like self-interpretation.

Hi:
I find it interesting that some wish to label us a 'denomination,' but take offense at being labeled a denomination, as if the term is deragatory. I use the term descriptively, not in a demeaning sense.

I think my illustration was pretty clear:
We do not see ourselves as a denomination, any more than the Church at Ephesus saw itself as a denomination.

I responded to the post which said that the PCA was the true church with a response from their adminstrative site which referred to themselves as a denomination.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

1) Well, if I was looking for proof of anything regarding my Christian faith---gee, I wouldn't be Christian.

2) The day you or any Catholic/Orthodox can prove that God left some evasive, elusive, unidentifible, unwritten, yet authoritative tradition--that even those who believe can not guess at--I'll join your church.

Hello:
You just applied two different standards of 'proof:'
One, of unproved faith; the other, of substantiated 'proof.'

The 'proof' you ask- we are not clear what it is- but you said that you would not require proof regarding your Christian faith. This seems to me to be a contradiction.

I agree with what you say in your first statement, and apply it to the second. Of course, to me, my faith is informed by evidence.

Is it evidence that you are asking for, or proof?
puzzled
James

 

[racer]

Hi:
I find it interesting that some wish to label us a 'denomination,' but take offense at being labeled a denomination, as if the term is deragatory. I use the term descriptively, not in a demeaning sense.

I'm not at all offended when someone refers to my church as a denomination. I find it ironic that you "defined" denomination as money to refute your faith being labeled a denomination, yet wish to still apply it to the rest of us. I'm sure if I check Webster's dictionary, there will a definition which lines up with differing groups of Christian faith.

I think my illustration was pretty clear:

I'm sure you do.

We do not see ourselves as a denomination, any more than the Church at Ephesus saw itself as a denomination.

I'm aware of that. It's just your example in this particular instance excluded all Christian groups. You'll have to come up with one better than that to further your argument.

I responded to the post which said that the PCA was the true church with a response from their adminstrative site which referred to themselves as a denomination.

Ummm . . . . but, you completely missed the point. We know our churches are identified according to denomination. We avoid existing in pointless states denial as much as possible. However, your analogy did away with the concept of defining different groups of Christianity as "denominations" all together. You don't see that?

 

[racer]

Hello:
You just applied two different standards of 'proof:'
One, of unproved faith; the other, of substantiated 'proof.'

We both agree that there is no sound scientific evidence supporting the belief in God. Right? We pretty much base our belief on common sense and how our heart guides us--and history to some extent for some of us. So, I answer God's calling based upon the tug of my heart and what has been taught to me according to what has been revealed in Scripture, which is often confirmed with History. Therefore, before I let "words of men" trump the words of God, I'm going to need some solid evidence or a logical reason as to why I should.

The 'proof' you ask- we are not clear what it is- but you said that you would not require proof regarding your Christian faith. This seems to me to be a contradiction.

See above. But, actually, what's given to us in Scripture is direction, not scientific evidence or evidence. This is most of what I base my belief in God upon. However, when espousing the authority of oral tradition, we have yet to be directed to any identifiable source by any identifiable authority.

I agree with what you say in your first statement, and apply it to the second. Of course, to me, my faith is informed by evidence.

Such as?

Is it evidence that you are asking for, or proof?

Either, or would do, if there is something significant, identifiable, locatable, and substantiated by and not contradicted by the word of God revealed to us in His Gospel--scripture.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I'm not at all offended when someone refers to my church as a denomination. I find it ironic that you "defined" denomination as money to refute your faith being labeled a denomination, yet wish to still apply it to the rest of us. I'm sure if I check Webster's dictionary, there will a definition which lines up with differing groups of Christian faith.

Firstly, what you have termed my 'definition' was in fact an illustration. An illustration is a story or metaphor used to teach or demonstrate a concept or concepts. A definition is a set of words/terms used to give the specific abstract meaning of a term.

Regarding Mr Webster:
4 : a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body

We do not have a single legal and administrative body, as I pointed out before.

I'm aware of that. It's just your example in this particular instance excluded all Christian groups. You'll have to come up with one better than that to further your argument.

According to you, I excluded other Christian groups, when in fact, I spoke (initially) only of the Orthodox communion.

As I have stated and now repeat, my use of the term denomination has been applied not as a deragatory term, but as descriptive. I have only identified one group as a denomination, based upon their self-description.

Ummm . . . . but, you completely missed the point. We know our churches are identified according to denomination. We avoid existing in pointless states denial as much as possible. However, your analogy did away with the concept of defining different groups of Christianity as "denominations" all together. You don't see that?

No, I don't "see that" because it isn't there. Perhaps it would be pointless for you to deny your status as a denomination- I haven't said, I don't know, and I really am not concerned.

My illustration, which you now call an analogy but elsewhere termed a definition, points out what you already believe: that there was an original Church, the standard. That we say that we are that offends many. That is not our intent, nor are we sating this in a triumphalist fashion. We were termed a denomination,and I refuted this.

The Eastern Orthodox Church is not a denomination, plain and simple.

Those that are in denominations, no doubt, have legitimate and sincere relationships to and with the Risen Christ- many have a much nearer walk than my own, I do not doubt. I do not say that there is no Presence in their denomination/churches. There is value in currency, it was once called a promisory note. No doubt, Wisconsin Synod Lutherans call upon the promises of Christ, and He seems to deliver.

Any further discussion of this matter will likely not be edifying. I wish you well, and withdraw from the debate of the matter.
Iakovos

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

We both agree that there is no sound scientific evidence supporting the belief in God. Right? We pretty much base our belief on common sense and how our heart guides us--and history to some extent for some of us. So, I answer God's calling based upon the tug of my heart and what has been taught to me according to what has been revealed in Scripture, which is often confirmed with History. Therefore, before I let "words of men" trump the words of God, I'm going to need some solid evidence or a logical reason as to why I should.



See above. But, actually, what's given to us in Scripture is direction, not scientific evidence or evidence. This is most of what I base my belief in God upon. However, when espousing the authority of oral tradition, we have yet to be directed to any identifiable source by any identifiable authority.



Such as?



Either, or would do, if there is something significant, identifiable, locatable, and substantiated by and not contradicted by the word of God revealed to us in His Gospel--scripture.

Again, you are accepting one thing on faith, and demanding proof for the other. Only thing is, the proof you request must meet your standard of faith from your standard of faith.

In order to prove that the Church persevered in us after the writing of holy scripture, we would be required to use post-biblical (extra-biblical) sources, which you do not accept. To prove our point biblically, you would have to accept our suppositions and presuppositions about scripture, as opposed to your suppositions and presuppositions.

In other words, you have set up an impenetrable circularity.

One closing note: We Orthodox do not use or accept the formulation of the Council of Trent, where it was said that Holy Tradition stands beside Holy Scripture. We see our Holy Tradition as coming from scripture, within scripture.
James

 

[Asinner]

In other words, you have set up an impenetrable circularity.

Very true. Therefore, if scripture and tradition cannot be used as proof, perhaps looking for where Christ is made manifest is enough evidence? Where is there Grace, Humility, Love, Miracles, Saints, Persecution? Where is the hard sayings and the narrow path? Herein lies your proof . . .

God Bless

 

[Jig]

Baptist is a general tradition. Southern Baptist is a denomination.

Denomination:

1. A large group of religious congregations united under a common faith and name and organized under a single administrative and legal hierarchy.

If it satisfies you to be argumentative, please feel free to do so. I won't engage in 'no I'm not/yes you are,' however.

I was just making it clear that opinions are just that, opinions.

It's not personal opinion, it's historically verifiable.

And just because someone did it 1700 years ago makes it correct?

Regarding Rome: They continue in their unbroken tradition.
We have both changed, also. We would maintain that they have moved away from a couple of key points. That doesn't break their tradition, it strains and limits our communion.

So, you both believe the same thing, but don't agree on it?

I said that Orthodoxy has the fullest truth, imo. You have misquoted me by saying "the full truth."

Which means you believe your denomination holds a higher and fuller truth then what I know as truth.

We do not attempt to say where the Holy Spirit and the Church is not.

Great, so admit, that it is very possible that Christ's true Church could be ALL believers and not just a single group/denomination that adheres to certain doctrines and tradition, just as long as they have the common belief in Jesus's death and resurrection.

But wait, doesn't your denomination say it is the one true Church of Christ?

Note: when I say 'you,' I also mean 'me.'

How very odd.

You don't acknowledge your influences, we acknowledge ours. Subtle difference.

Your greatest influence should be God. I've decide to place my life and future into His hands and to let Him guide me. I don't follow a set of doctrines or certain dogmas that could hender my interpretation of His word.

No, I wrote what I meant: you have incorrectly referred to the regional churches of Asia Minor in the late first century as 'institutions.'

Prove to me that they were united under the same doctrines and dogmas.

As I stated and proved, I am not part of a denomination. I am not telling you that you should be a part of the Orthodox Church, either. Do as you are led.

I believe you are part of a denomination, read the definition I provided above.