Sola scriptura

[sculleywr]

And scripture supports that "opinion" in what way?

Because Scripture doesn't say it happened, it didn't happen. Good to know John was lying when he said "And many other things Jesus did," and then said that if everything Christ did were written down every single book in the world would be incapable of containing it... I shall have to keep that in mind. Christ didn't really do anything that wasn't written in Scripture. I bet that He didn't eat any more than the Bible said He did, too, right?

 

[Albion]

No, there is no evidence in writing. I trust it because Christ said the Gates of Hades would not prevail over his Church, and if the Church taught false doctrines, that would mean the Gates of Hades prevailed. You might ask, "Well how do you know the ORTHODOX Church is the one he was referring to?"

No, I'm going to say that you can make a dogma or doctrine out of almost any idea then, so long as you cite that verse and interpret it incorrectly. Honestly now, what kind of a standard or authority is that to be put ahead of the word of God??

First of all, no Protestant denomination is older than the Reformation

This thread is not about Protestant denominations--or the Orthodox or Roman ones for that matter. It's about Scripture being our ultimate and deciding guide to the essential doctrine that the people of God must believe.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

So 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not carry much weight with the Orthodox I take it?

No, it's just that posing as a prophet doesn't.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You like to act as if the Spirit is your authority, but I'm sorry, you have presented, as yet, no evidence to the effect and you CAN present no evidence to that effect.

1 Corinthians 2:14......it ain't that hard......

 

[sculleywr]

So 1 Corinthians 2:14 does not carry much weight with the Orthodox I take it?

Actually, it's the very reason I'm against SS, because with SS, you are your own Pope. The highest authority in your life is in the mirror. It isn't Scripture, because you choose what you take from it and how you choose to use it. Scripture doesn't control you. You use Confirmation Bias to focus only on the portions that are in line with your own pre-set ideals.

 

[Albion]

I don't have any proof, but you think they didn't sing in worship?

You don't have any proof.

You actually don't have anything relating to Christ teaching a certain musical style.

But it's better than Scripture.

Does this just about summarize our respective positions with regard to divine revelation, then?

 

[civilwarbuff]

No, it's just that posing as a prophet doesn't.

And that relates to 1 Corinthians 2:14 exactly how?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This is what I was questioning from your comment:
"No, there is a way Christ taught his Apostles to worship when they worshiped together. There was certainly a particular way they sang hymns. Although Christ himself most likely wasn't innovating a new style here, but following an ancient one."

So, I will ask again: and scripture supports that "opinion" in what way?

It doesn't.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Actually, it's the very reason I'm against SS, because with SS, you are your own Pope. The highest authority in your life is in the mirror. It isn't Scripture, because you choose what you take from it and how you choose to use it. Scripture doesn't control you. You use Confirmation Bias to focus only on the portions that are in line with your own pre-set ideals.

No, my highest authortity in life is God and I am lead by the Holy Spirit.
Who are you lead by, the Orthodox Church?

 

[civilwarbuff]

It doesn't.

Thank you for being honest....

 

[sculleywr]

You don't have any proof.

You actually don't have anything relating to Christ teaching a certain musical style.

But it's better than Scripture.

Does this just about summarize our respective positions with regard to divine revelation, then?

The fact that the style of worship is in line with the style of worship that both preceded and proceeded from it is quite a strong proof. The problem is that you're asking for proof, which means you really just want a TARDIS ride back to the first century.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

And that relates to 1 Corinthians 2:14 exactly how?

Claiming the Holy Spirit is your authority in your arguments is posing as a prophet, unless you are quoting an extant teaching of the Spirit's open to us all. It is quite literally just saying, "God is my authority, what's yours?" Well of course God is our authority, but you'll have to do better than that when making an argument, you have to show how God is your authority and why your opinion is supported by him.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Thank you for being honest....

I don't adhere to Sola Scriptura, so that's not really an issue for me.

Do you Scripture is a comprehensive record of every single thing Christ taught in his years of ministry.

 

[Albion]

The fact that the style of worship is in line with the style of worship that both preceded and proceeded from it is quite a strong proof.

Oh, we know the general style of Hebrew worship, etc., but the claim was that Christ had taught his Apostles a certain style. As was admitted, there's no evidence of that ever happening, but our friend believes it BY TRADITION, i.e. custom, folklore, etc. It's a guess and deals with something that isn't essential to anyone's salvation anyway. And THIS is supposed to be superior to the word of God in Scripture.

 

[sculleywr]

No, my highest authortity in life is God and I am lead by the Holy Spirit.
Who are you lead by, the Orthodox Church?

You CLAIM to be led by the Spirit. So does Joseph Smith. What makes you more right than Joseph Smith? Nothing.

The fact is that you are led by your personal PERCEPTION of what MIGHT or MIGHT NOT be the Spirit. For all I know, the spirit you follow could as easily be Satan himself. I have no way to know that. Or you might be lying both to me and yourself about what you follow, which is pretty much taking us back to the original statement. Because not even YOU can know for certain that you are following the Spirit, since you are not wiser than the demons that would want to trick you into thinking exactly that, the reality is that it is your personal perception that rules. I follow the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. I stand upon that. The Church was established as that and never fell. You stand on a perception.

And no, even if Satan himself were personally deceiving you into believing you follow the Spirit, it does not mean I am saying you follow Satan intentionally. It means you follow a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

[Albion]

Do you Scripture is a comprehensive record of every single thing Christ taught in his years of ministry.

Nope. And that's not a function of Sola Scriptura.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

This is what I was questioning from your comment:
"No, there is a way Christ taught his Apostles to worship when they worshiped together. There was certainly a particular way they sang hymns. Although Christ himself most likely wasn't innovating a new style here, but following an ancient one."

So, I will ask again: and scripture supports that "opinion" in what way?

It doesn't, it's not covered by Scripture.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Nope. And that's not part of Sola Scriptura.

Do you think his other teachings are unimportant? Or that they were simply completely forgotten?

 

[sculleywr]

Oh, we know the general style of Hebrew worship, etc., but the claim was that Christ had taught his Apostles a certain style. There's evidence of that ever happening, but our friend believes it BY TRADITION, i.e. custom, folklore, etc. It's a guess and deals with something that isn't essential to anyone's salvation anyway. And THIS is supposed to be superior to the word of God in Scripture.

A certain style. Is it not possible that, when leading them, Christ used and taught in the style which the Jews used at the time? Is it really guessing to think that Christ taught to worship liturgically since the Old Testament Scriptures taught to worship liturgically? The Scriptures taught it.

Let's apply Occam's Razor. Which assumes more out of the two below?

1. That the Jewish people referred to a person who taught nothing like the Scriptures themselves taught as a rabbi?
2. That the Jewish people recognized this Person to be a rabbi because his teachings were in line with Scriptures?

It is only logical to assume that, given no evidence to the contrary, the worship of the Christians was fundamentally similar to the Scripturally-ordained worship of the Jews. It is NOT logical to assume that the lack of mention of worship methodology in Scripture means that Christ completely changed the way of worshiping. Do you not think that Christ would mention this somewhere? Or possibly the Apostles? Why did not even those who were personal friends of the Apostles mention this radical change?

It's just absolutely bizarre to think that Christ would fundamentally alter the method of communal worship without making some mention of it and without someone making mention of it outside of the Scriptures, as well. I mean seriously, someone would have taken notice of this at some point.

 

[Albion]

Do you think his other teachings are unimportant?

No. But on the other hand, I think we should concern ourselves with what he actually did teach, not all manner of speculation and guesswork that someone years later thought sounded mystical or devout or otherwise uplifting. We know for a certainty that he did teach and do much that is not recorded in scripture. What's more the Bible itself says that what IS recorded there is adequate. So why would you or anyone think it important to guess at or wonder about such things as how hermits should live? These are not to be wrongly attributed to Christ and justified by use of the word tradition.