Sola scriptura

[sculleywr]

Wow, this is, once again, highly convoluted and judgmental. You're making things much more complicated then they should be.

The Scriptures are God's holy and inspired word, they are not manmade teachings. Yes, there is always the chance that people will twist Scripture, but that does not take away the God-given, inherent value and truth Scripture has.

And you seem to be suggesting that Scripture and oral tradition are two separate things, they're not. Scripture is the result of oral traditions that were written down, as inspired by God Himself.

Any "tradition" that contradicts or adds excessively to Scripture should be highly questioned, and in most cases, rejected.

God has given us His word for a reason. Through it we find guidance. We know from God's word what can happen when tradition is put above Scripture, Jesus was very very clear about this.

I am not suggesting that Scripture and oral tradition are separate. I am suggesting that, as Scripture says, not everything that was said is written, as doing so would be requiring more books than existed in the world.

The fact is that there is no part of Apostolic Tradition that contradicts the Scripture, because Scripture is an integral part of Apostolic Tradition. While it may contradict modern interpretations of Scripture, it does not contradict Scripture. And we know for a fact that this Tradition is put at equal levels with the written epistles of the Apostles.

We also know that if you remove the Tradition which is above Scripture, you lose the very Canon of Scripture. The Canon of Scripture is Tradition, and because it defines the content of Scripture, any change to the Canon can change the message. Nobody can point to an alteration of the Canon which did not change the message the Scripture gives. Mohammed changed the Canon when he added the Qur'an. Protestants changed the Canon when they removed what they falsely call the Apocrypha (how can something be a hidden book when everyone knew about it?). Joseph Smith changed that canon by adding 4 new books. Jehovah's witnesses changed that canon to specifically remove references to the deity of Christ.

So it's not judgemental to say that people who claim Sola Scriptura are lying to themselves. They do not hold Scripture as the highest authority. The canon is the highest authority and always will be. Whoever sets the Canon is the authority over the Scripture. Since God did NOT set the Canon, that means that we have either the Canon of the Church, or the canons of other groups who created their own canons.

And it is not convoluted. It establishes a clear hierarchy. Sure, you can make it convoluted, but just as a 5th grader is able to grasp the basics of how the body works in a basic science class, so can the average man grasp the basics of this structure of authority.

 

[sculleywr]

No. In Thessalonians, Paul is using the word "tradition" in reference to an eschatological teaching and not as a doctrine on worship. All other appearances of the word "tradition" in the Bible is in reference to false worship or wrong religious practices.


...

That is not the meaning of Tradition. And it is not the only time he uses that word in positive terms. In Phillipians 11, he praises the people of Phillipi for following the TRADITION. Yes, some translations mistranslate the word, but in Greek, it is unambiguous. And in this case, it has nothing to do with eschatology. The word is Paradosis. Yes, as I stated before in my breakdown of the types of traditions, there are the types which are harmful to the Faith. But the Greek word Paradosis does not include any reference to whether the traditions are wrong or false. It simply means "that which is handed down". It doesn't mean eschatology. It doesn't mean anything other than that which is handed down.

It is also telling that you deflected away from your claim that we are using it to defend things which are new. I'm pinning you down on that statement because you must either reject that that is what we do or prove that we teach that Tradition is to defend the new. If you're going to win an argument, you ought to win it against what we actually teach, and not some strawman that isn't what we teach.

 

[sculleywr]

well if you to make a general case, obviously you are right since the church of God is the elect since the beginning of man. and therefore NO, it did not start with Abraham but even before abraham. And if you are describing about 'scriptures' then it is not just the written word, but the spoken word of God communicating with man- which obviously preceded Abraham himself.​

what you probably are trying to argue is that the 'church' is above and has authority over scriptures which of course is
non-sensical considering the church quotes scripture to get its legitimacy while at the same time claims to derive its source from God himself.
​

The Church doesn't quote Scripture to "get its legitimacy". It quotes Scripture because scripture is legitimate. The Church doesn't always need the Scripture, however, in order to be the Church. In point of fact, until the Printing Press was invented, most churches considered the ability to read from the Scriptures in the services an auspicious occasion to be celebrated. They would gather in a great procession starting from wherever they were storing the Scriptures (they would do this to protect them from destruction if the gathering place was discovered), and sing songs and hymns and psalms. But they did not need those Scriptures to be present to be the Church. They could still gather together and worship God and even be strong enough to repel heresy without the Scripture. They never considered it to be the highest authority in the Church, either.

Let's look at Ignatius, who learned at the feet of John and said, "where the Bishop is, there is the true Church". Does this sound like a man who thought the Church got legitimacy from the Scriptures? Not really. This man died before the close of the first century, so he definitely had the opportunity to ask a few of the Apostles what the authority was in the Church.

The Church doesn't gain legitimacy from the Scriptures simply because the Scriptures acknowledge the authority of the Church any more than the sun gains gravitational force from a science text saying it has gravitational force.

 

[sculleywr]

You promote a false concept that writer is author. You ignore the multiple passages of scripture saying Jesus through the Holy Spirit is the author, meaning originator of the truths presented in scripture. Further, you falsely state that the 13 apostles that had authority to speak God's words were the Church. By this you deceptively usurp authority to your present church leaders thinking they have the same authority as the writers of the letters contained in the N.T. The only thing a church did with the canon was to throw out the trash and copy the letters of scripture already circulating and completed 60 years after Jesus' death. From this you attribute them to be author and higher authority then God's words contained in scripture.

I have prodded you without answer, now I ask. Do you believe scripture to be God's word?


Of all the great miracles God has performed, you now dictate the mechanism that God must have used to make his word known; as if inspiration through the Holy Spirit is somehow lesser in authority than if God came down or sent an angel to dictate his word directly.

You oppose what scripture says, that God speaks through the writers of scripture.

How about I remind you of what I actually posted instead of you arguing against something you incorrectly quote of me.
The multitude of churches' job is to the support the truths Jesus gave us that are now contained in scripture, not make up new ones. I never said the church supports scripture. The church may vary well maintain canons, but Jesus' words require no support for being true. Learn that the timeless words of God surpass the fleeting churches of this age that promote God's words. As Jesus said:

Matthew 24:35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away.​

As far as you stating scripture stands on the church and is inadequate without the church, you have so contorted God's word for your own doctrine. Examine the context. The bulk of 1 Timothy 3 teaches about the support organization of a church/religious institution to support the Church/body of saints. Verse 5 mentions overseers taking care of God's church which represent the saints, not a religious institution.

5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?)​

Verses 9 and 10 say deacons should be tested to see if they hold a true faith so that their serving of the saints is good.

9 They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. 10 They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.​

Now looking at the summary Paul provides in verse 14 and 15 we see the purpose of this text is to provide instructions on how the saints are to be guided on how to conduct themselves. That means promoting the truths/teachings of Jesus to be followed by the saints in their lives. No where does the text teach about "maintaining/supporting" scripture.

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.​

Lastly in verse 16 you have Jesus as the source of all godliness, that being how the saints should strive to conduct their lives as God instructs and desires.

16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels, was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory.​

In whole, to say as you do that 1 Tim 3 teaches that a religious institutions is the support for scripture, totally misses the point of what Paul wrote and is complete fabrication. What 1 Tim 3 actually teaches is that the church supports the saints by promoting the truths of God. Elsewhere we learn that the truths of God are conveyed to us with his words in scripture.

Your "metaphor" is nothing but made up slander. How about you read scripture to see what parts make us strong and ready to battle the devil.

Eph 6:10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in his mighty power. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you can take your stand against the devil’s schemes. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms. 13 Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand. 14 Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, 15 and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. 16 In addition to all this, take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. 17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.​

How about I read your interpretation of Scripture. Those are the TOOLS of battle. They are not the training for battle. If you throw a person out into a battle with all the tools and no training, what do you think will happen to him? Most likely, he'll wet himself and get killed, and it might not be in that order. The Scriptures say the Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth, and even your statement that it supports the Truth, and then the flip flop where it now only supports the saints, means that without it, the saints are not going to be able to have any support. It is not slander to say that Christians who do not have Tradition are not fully equipped to fight the devil. Look at the Protestant world. Every day new divisions are created. Every year churches split and change their doctrines. The Protestant world is as shifting as dunes in the Sahara. If the Scripture were such a firm foundation, or were even your actual foundation, there would not be such shifting in doctrine from one massive extreme to the next. Look only at the doctrine of Salvation, something that should be a core fundamental truth in the Christian life. Protestants can't even agree on that! Is it by a spiritual lottery where the elect are just arbitrarily and randomly chosen? Can a man find it on his own as some have taught?

So when I say that the Scripture alone is not a solid foundation, it is because all evidence that can be put forward in practical sense shows that it isn't. Protestant doctrine develops and changes even faster then Roman Catholic doctrines. They are not set in stone. If you removed every denomination that depended on innovation of doctrine from the list of Christian churches, there wouldn't be a single Protestant denomination left.

 

[W2L]

The Church doesn't quote Scripture to "get its legitimacy". It quotes Scripture because scripture is legitimate. The Church doesn't always need the Scripture, however, in order to be the Church. In point of fact, until the Printing Press was invented, most churches considered the ability to read from the Scriptures in the services an auspicious occasion to be celebrated. They would gather in a great procession starting from wherever they were storing the Scriptures (they would do this to protect them from destruction if the gathering place was discovered), and sing songs and hymns and psalms. But they did not need those Scriptures to be present to be the Church. They could still gather together and worship God and even be strong enough to repel heresy without the Scripture. They never considered it to be the highest authority in the Church, either.

Let's look at Ignatius, who learned at the feet of John and said, "where the Bishop is, there is the true Church". Does this sound like a man who thought the Church got legitimacy from the Scriptures? Not really. This man died before the close of the first century, so he definitely had the opportunity to ask a few of the Apostles what the authority was in the Church.

The Church doesn't gain legitimacy from the Scriptures simply because the Scriptures acknowledge the authority of the Church any more than the sun gains gravitational force from a science text saying it has gravitational force.

Christ said "come unto me, all you who are weary".
Paul teaches us to follow his example because he follows Christ. I have those things and I'm content without having this contention.

 

[sculleywr]

Christ said "come unto me, all you who are weary".
Paul teaches us to follow his example because he follows Christ. I have those things and I'm content without having this contention.

Then why are you even here? By posting things like this, you build up contention.

I follow the example of Paul. Remember that when there was a disagreement in the Church in the book of Acts (also spoken of in the book of Galatians)? Did Paul shrink away from debate with fellow Christians when there was a debate about the Judaizers? No! He came up to Peter and rebuked him straight to his face, telling him point blank that he was being hypocritical!

Contention is inevitable wherever you gather humans together. It happens. You cannot be afraid of contention. It will happen. Running away from contention only delays it, and usually makes the inevitable conflict even worse. Imagine if you tried this kind of thing in a marriage, avoiding the disagreement instead of confronting it and acknowledging that it is real. Heck, look at what the result of two decades of politicians ignoring the contention between the races and the obviously unbalanced application of justice in our justice system in relation to the races has been. Instead of facing the problem head on and resolving it, we now have riots in the streets as the tensions built up from decades of ignoring the problem and pretending it wasn't important enough to deal with. I don't want to get into a political debate, but this is just one example of what happens when we don't acknowledge a real problem.

You cannot escape debate or disagreement. Even hermits run into it. You either acknowledge it and face it, or you let it destroy you when it blows up.

 

[Winken]

The Body of Christ IS. We do not depend upon private interpretation and application (i/a). We ARE the i/a (no surprise there). We don't need Orthodox or RC or Protestantism. Each is a distortion of the Original. What is for us the Original? Scripture. We walk in the eternal wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Where did He get such wisdom? Before the Beginning, thereafter captured in scripture, written down as He revealed it. That became God's Word, the Bible, that which was "before the beginning," written down, as God called upon each writer. The Original would not exist without Divine Purpose and Intent. There are no additions or subtractions. No one on the face of the earth has the authority to intervene in that which is eternal.

The Holy Spirit doesn't say, "OK, now that I've got your attention, I want to add to your understanding. See, John didn't always get it. There's stuff not written down* that I want to help you out with." He does not "help you out" with one person, then provide a different "help you out" for another person (that's the reason denominations exist).

There is only the Body of Christ (The Church, not the church). It is not divided into EO, RC, and/or denominations. All of that is man's private i/a. The intellectual capacity of the early commentators got in the way of the Spiritual i/a of scripture itself and passed it along as "credible." It became traditional , based upon their i/a and elaborated on for the past 2,000 years by limitless follow-up commentation.

*Yes, I've read John 21:25. They WEREN'T written down! It was Jesus who said and did those things! Shall we begin a forum titled "Guessing"??? No! EVERYTHING is there between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21! Stop dragging those who seek to understand Christianity, those new to the Faith, and those who stand in the gap with God's Word, under the bus!!

 

[W2L]

Then why are you even here? By posting things like this, you build up contention.

I follow the example of Paul. Remember that when there was a disagreement in the Church in the book of Acts (also spoken of in the book of Galatians)? Did Paul shrink away from debate with fellow Christians when there was a debate about the Judaizers? No! He came up to Peter and rebuked him straight to his face, telling him point blank that he was being hypocritical!

Contention is inevitable wherever you gather humans together. It happens. You cannot be afraid of contention. It will happen. Running away from contention only delays it, and usually makes the inevitable conflict even worse. Imagine if you tried this kind of thing in a marriage, avoiding the disagreement instead of confronting it and acknowledging that it is real. Heck, look at what the result of two decades of politicians ignoring the contention between the races and the obviously unbalanced application of justice in our justice system in relation to the races has been. Instead of facing the problem head on and resolving it, we now have riots in the streets as the tensions built up from decades of ignoring the problem and pretending it wasn't important enough to deal with. I don't want to get into a political debate, but this is just one example of what happens when we don't acknowledge a real problem.

You cannot escape debate or disagreement. Even hermits run into it. You either acknowledge it and face it, or you let it destroy you when it blows up.

Its not about us failing to acknowledge anything. WE are supposed to love not hate. We are not the world and cannot be blamed for what they do. Everything about your posts are contentious, and like a dark cloud without any rain.

 

[sculleywr]

Its not about us failing to acknowledge anything. WE are supposed to love not hate. We are not the world and cannot be blamed for what they do. Everything about your posts are contentious, and like a dark cloud without any rain.

Love doesn't avoid contention. Love confronts the existence of real problems. Would I be being contentious if you claimed that I was a practicing homosexual and I corrected you on that? No. It is the same when I make a statement about Who God is and the nature of what He taught. Truth cannot be sacrificed in the name of love, because then your love is as fake as a 3 dollar bill. Love without truth has no power, just as truth without love has no power.

So when I say you are incorrect, it is not because I hate you. It is because what you are stating is from a human, namely yourself, and therefore has the capacity of being incorrect. It is not seeking contention. It is acknowledging that the contention already exists. The division existed long before we met, sir. My acknowledgement of that division is not the creation of it. I did not create the Grand Canyon by acknowledging that it is there.

 

[Geralt]

of course not, there is no authority sense of the church apart from its legitimacy in alignment with scripture.

for the word "church" is not a separate entity in itself but refers to the people who rules it and the people in general who comprises it. and what authority rules people or men & women hearts THAT BINDS THEIR CONSCIENCE other than the written revelation of God in scripture.

dont tell me when your church tell's you to jump you jump ? of course not, your moral conscience dictates to qualify everything with truth and error, and in the end it is not man's opinion to qualify it (even if compiled throughout history and tagged as tradition) but God's own directive through the teaching and preaching of the gospel from the apostles and prophets which serve as the foundation of the church. this proves our faith is towards God, and not faith in system which cannot respond, has no power and therefore is tantamount to idolatry.
​

The Church doesn't quote Scripture to "get its legitimacy". It quotes Scripture because scripture is legitimate. The Church doesn't always need the Scripture, however, in order to be the Church. In point of fact, until the Printing Press was invented, most churches considered the ability to read from the Scriptures in the services an auspicious occasion to be celebrated. They would gather in a great procession starting from wherever they were storing the Scriptures (they would do this to protect them from destruction if the gathering place was discovered), and sing songs and hymns and psalms. But they did not need those Scriptures to be present to be the Church. They could still gather together and worship God and even be strong enough to repel heresy without the Scripture. They never considered it to be the highest authority in the Church, either.

Let's look at Ignatius, who learned at the feet of John and said, "where the Bishop is, there is the true Church". Does this sound like a man who thought the Church got legitimacy from the Scriptures? Not really. This man died before the close of the first century, so he definitely had the opportunity to ask a few of the Apostles what the authority was in the Church.

The Church doesn't gain legitimacy from the Scriptures simply because the Scriptures acknowledge the authority of the Church any more than the sun gains gravitational force from a science text saying it has gravitational force.

 

[W2L]

Love doesn't avoid contention. Love confronts the existence of real problems. Would I be being contentious if you claimed that I was a practicing homosexual and I corrected you on that? No. It is the same when I make a statement about Who God is and the nature of what He taught. Truth cannot be sacrificed in the name of love, because then your love is as fake as a 3 dollar bill. Love without truth has no power, just as truth without love has no power.

So when I say you are incorrect, it is not because I hate you. It is because what you are stating is from a human, namely yourself, and therefore has the capacity of being incorrect. It is not seeking contention. It is acknowledging that the contention already exists. The division existed long before we met, sir. My acknowledgement of that division is not the creation of it. I did not create the Grand Canyon by acknowledging that it is there.

Love is not contentious. Love is kind and gentle. Also, politics have nothing to do with us. Those things only cause us to be divided over the deception that politicians propagate. They divide us over lies. They play on our fears, anxieties and our concerns. They make us think we can change the world but in the end it just keeps getting worse, and that because politics change us, and cause us to be more ungodly. Its a trap.

I wished you could be such a person who was seeking peace, love, mercy, joy, and then ran into a poster like yourself. You would quickly see how your posts are darkness instead of light. They sound more like a noisy gong than love.

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

It is not slander to say that Christians who do not have Tradition are not fully equipped to fight the devil.

Not what you said in your "metaphor", which is actually an analogy. I will quote what you said and point out the specific false statements made in it for the purpose of belittling protestant churches. The purpose being to point out your contentious posts and your refusal to even acknowledge it when pointed out by multiple people.

Returning to my metaphor of the Body, the Scripture is the heart of the Tradition of the Church. Without the Body, the Heart cannot function, and without the heart, the body cannot function. Protestants have a bodiless heart. Their heart has no oxygen from the Lungs of Tradition. It has no nutrients from the stomach of Tradition. It has no electrical impulses from the Brain of Tradition (the Brain being Christ Himself). They try to put it into a new body, but the bodies they try to put it in will, in the end, reject the heart transplant.

False statement one, Protestants have no traditions.
False statement two, Protestants do not have Christ as head of their church.
Your slander is saying that Protestants are going to die, which is what happens in a body that rejects its heart.

 

[mikpat]

Well, I'll repeat some of my info that was a uhhhh rejected by the Security Police.

There are thousands of denominations that have as their Bible a philosophy for their congregation, fine, uhhh great, lovely God loves a cheerful giver.
it is not controrvesial that the Bible is for, addressed to the ordinary people of God, but common sense tells us that the Bible can be understood. The problem lies not with the clarity of the Bible but with the people who SO often twists, misinterprets, alter the Bible to suit their frame of reference, their philosophy of life……..WOW.

But not to offend the administrators——-I'll leave it with: Peter 1, 2-21——- hope that this is "refreshed".

AMDG

 

[AnticipateHisComing]

I follow the example of Paul. Remember that when there was a disagreement in the Church in the book of Acts (also spoken of in the book of Galatians)? Did Paul shrink away from debate with fellow Christians when there was a debate about the Judaizers? No! He came up to Peter and rebuked him straight to his face, telling him point blank that he was being hypocritical!

That was a most critical point that needed working out to a conclusion recorded for all of history in scripture. Read a little bit later in your story to find another point of contention that was not settled resulting in Paul and Barnabas splitting. So learn that not all contentions have to be settled with one "winning" over the other. This is the agree to disagree end.

Acts 15:36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord.​

Contention is inevitable wherever you gather humans together. It happens. You cannot be afraid of contention. It will happen. Running away from contention only delays it, and usually makes the inevitable conflict even worse. Imagine if you tried this kind of thing in a marriage, avoiding the disagreement instead of confronting it and acknowledging that it is real. Heck, look at what the result of two decades of politicians ignoring the contention between the races and the obviously unbalanced application of justice in our justice system in relation to the races has been. Instead of facing the problem head on and resolving it, we now have riots in the streets as the tensions built up from decades of ignoring the problem and pretending it wasn't important enough to deal with. I don't want to get into a political debate, but this is just one example of what happens when we don't acknowledge a real problem.

You cannot escape debate or disagreement. Even hermits run into it. You either acknowledge it and face it, or you let it destroy you when it blows up.

Learn that contention existed before scripture. It was part of the first murder. Contention will always exist in this world. Your thinking that all differences in this world whether social, racial or spiritual can be solved by persistent debate is naive and not true. Scripture does not promise this. Scripture does say there is peace in Christ, but this age will never be populated with all Christians.

Now understand that the immature love to get heated up in debates. They think that whoever is the most emotional or screams the loudest is correct. Some people have a personality that avoids confrontations. Some have a personality that seeks confrontation. Make no mistake about it, those that seek confrontations are not righteous in their actions.

Scripture calls for passion among followers which is often found in the young, but then leaders in the church are told to be more mature in their faith.

 

[sculleywr]

of course not, there is no authority sense of the church apart from its legitimacy in alignment with scripture.

for the word "church" is not a separate entity in itself but refers to the people who rules it and the people in general who comprises it. and what authority rules people or men & women hearts THAT BINDS THEIR CONSCIENCE other than the written revelation of God in scripture.

dont tell me when your church tell's you to jump you jump ? of course not, your moral conscience dictates to qualify everything with truth and error, and in the end it is not man's opinion to qualify it (even if compiled throughout history and tagged as tradition) but God's own directive through the teaching and preaching of the gospel from the apostles and prophets which serve as the foundation of the church. this proves our faith is towards God, and not faith in system which cannot respond, has no power and therefore is tantamount to idolatry.
​

The problem is that means that you must, by definition, exclude the Head of the Church from the Church. If your definition of the Church does not include Christ as the Leader of the Church, then it is easy to see why your definition of the Church allows it to fall before the opposition of the gates of hell. Remember, the Gospel exists APART from the Scripture. The Gospel is the foundation of both the Church AND the Scripture. It is not possible to fully contain the Gospel in any book, however, because the Gospel is Jesus Christ, the Son and Word of God Himself.

It was the sacred duty of the Church to preserve and deliver the Gospel, and if the Protestants are to be believed, the Church utterly failed to do that, because for 1500 years (give or take), nobody believed in the foundational belief of Protestantism, that being the belief that Scripture is the foundation of the Church. Scripture is a tool. It cannot be a firm foundation, or else the 15000 churches that all claim it as their foundation would not be divided. We can quibble about how many churches there actually are, but the fact is that there are three foundations to choose from in the world as relates to those who claim to be Christian. There is the Apostolic Tradition, which is not allowed to change in its core nature. There is Sacred Tradition in the RCC, which is allowed to develop and change over time (a doctrine most fully described by Thomas Aquinas). And there is the Sola Scriptura foundation. If we are looking for evidence of firmness and strength, only two show stability, and only one shows unchanging nature.

 

[sculleywr]

Not what you said in your "metaphor", which is actually an analogy. I will quote what you said and point out the specific false statements made in it for the purpose of belittling protestant churches. The purpose being to point out your contentious posts and your refusal to even acknowledge it when pointed out by multiple people.

False statement one, Protestants have no traditions.
False statement two, Protestants do not have Christ as head of their church.
Your slander is saying that Protestants are going to die, which is what happens in a body that rejects its heart.

I didn't say Protestants have no Traditions. I said they lack the Apostolic Tradition. I also never made any statement about the Head of the Church as Christ not being their intention. They want Christ as the Head of the Church, however the Christ they have is a Christ of their own design, not the Christ of the Apostles.

Sure, there is SOME Truth in what Protestants preach, because nobody gets everything wrong. But the LIFE is in the fullness. Protestantism, as a belief, will die. It lacks the Life of the fullness of the Truth. Even Protestants will say "no one Church has the whole Truth". Shoot, that's pretty much the bread and butter of the modern Protestant denominations. With very rare exceptions, such as some Independent Fundamentalist groups, most Protestants do not believe they can find the Truth in the Church any more. At least, they don't believe the Church to be the place where we can find the fullness of the Truth.

If a person finds that claim to be belittling, they should examine whether or not it is because they have artificially inflated their position in the world.

And as I said to W2L, pointing out the division is not the creation of contention. It is the acknowledgement of contention. I did not create the contention caused by the Protestant Reformation's movement away from the Church. I did not say that the Protestants intended to move away from the Church. In point of fact, I have even stated that noted Heretics like Arius and Novation did not intend to move away from the Truth. It isn't like Protestants woke up one day and said "I want to give up the Truth". To be honest, it is impossible for most Protestants to give up the Truth as far as the Orthodox Church sees it, because to give it up, you must have all of it to begin with. It is not a statement about individual salvation. The nature of the Church and the salvation of the individual are not one and the same. A person can be saved and never even hear of the Church, and a person can be a member of the Orthodox Church and find himself burning at the end. The nature of the Church is not dependent on the individuals comprising its membership, with the exception of one Member: Jesus Christ. The nature of the Orthodox Church is the same as its Head. It is not that way because of any individual except for Christ.

 

[sculleywr]

That was a most critical point that needed working out to a conclusion recorded for all of history in scripture. Read a little bit later in your story to find another point of contention that was not settled resulting in Paul and Barnabas splitting. So learn that not all contentions have to be settled with one "winning" over the other. This is the agree to disagree end.

Acts 15:36 Some time later Paul said to Barnabas, “Let us go back and visit the believers in all the towns where we preached the word of the Lord and see how they are doing.” 37 Barnabas wanted to take John, also called Mark, with them, 38 but Paul did not think it wise to take him, because he had deserted them in Pamphylia and had not continued with them in the work. 39 They had such a sharp disagreement that they parted company. Barnabas took Mark and sailed for Cyprus, 40 but Paul chose Silas and left, commended by the believers to the grace of the Lord.​

Learn that contention existed before scripture. It was part of the first murder. Contention will always exist in this world. Your thinking that all differences in this world whether social, racial or spiritual can be solved by persistent debate is naive and not true. Scripture does not promise this. Scripture does say there is peace in Christ, but this age will never be populated with all Christians.

Now understand that the immature love to get heated up in debates. They think that whoever is the most emotional or screams the loudest is correct. Some people have a personality that avoids confrontations. Some have a personality that seeks confrontation. Make no mistake about it, those that seek confrontations are not righteous in their actions.

Scripture calls for passion among followers which is often found in the young, but then leaders in the church are told to be more mature in their faith.

Yes, contention will always exist. But we will not ignore contentions on salvation, the authority of the Church, or the nature of the Trinity, because all of these are inexorably tied to the nature of God. We will not declare unity where no such unity exists.

 

[W2L]

I didn't say Protestants have no Traditions. I said they lack the Apostolic Tradition. I also never made any statement about the Head of the Church as Christ not being their intention. They want Christ as the Head of the Church, however the Christ they have is a Christ of their own design, not the Christ of the Apostles.

Sure, there is SOME Truth in what Protestants preach, because nobody gets everything wrong. But the LIFE is in the fullness. Protestantism, as a belief, will die. It lacks the Life of the fullness of the Truth. Even Protestants will say "no one Church has the whole Truth". Shoot, that's pretty much the bread and butter of the modern Protestant denominations. With very rare exceptions, such as some Independent Fundamentalist groups, most Protestants do not believe they can find the Truth in the Church any more. At least, they don't believe the Church to be the place where we can find the fullness of the Truth.

If a person finds that claim to be belittling, they should examine whether or not it is because they have artificially inflated their position in the world.

And as I said to W2L, pointing out the division is not the creation of contention. It is the acknowledgement of contention. I did not create the contention caused by the Protestant Reformation's movement away from the Church. I did not say that the Protestants intended to move away from the Church. In point of fact, I have even stated that noted Heretics like Arius and Novation did not intend to move away from the Truth. It isn't like Protestants woke up one day and said "I want to give up the Truth". To be honest, it is impossible for most Protestants to give up the Truth as far as the Orthodox Church sees it, because to give it up, you must have all of it to begin with. It is not a statement about individual salvation. The nature of the Church and the salvation of the individual are not one and the same. A person can be saved and never even hear of the Church, and a person can be a member of the Orthodox Church and find himself burning at the end. The nature of the Church is not dependent on the individuals comprising its membership, with the exception of one Member: Jesus Christ. The nature of the Orthodox Church is the same as its Head. It is not that way because of any individual except for Christ.

You lack proper understanding about Authority. Paul didn't want people to follow him simply because God said so, no, that wasn't the point at all, and paul made this very clear. He rebuked people for glorying in men rather than GOd. He rebuked contention over such things as well, saying they were carnal and infantile. Paul wanted others to follow him so others would know how to follow Christ. Its not about following apostles but following Christ. If a person follows Christ they prove that they don't need human teachers. The goal is to follow Christ not apostles. That's the purpose the Lord sent them for, so they would know how to follow Him.

 

[sculleywr]

You lack proper understanding about Authority. Paul didn't want people to follow him simply because God said so, no, that wasn't the point at all, and paul made this very clear. He rebuked people for glorying in men rather than GOd. He rebuked contention over such things as well, saying they were carnal and infantile. Paul wanted others to follow him so others would know how to follow Christ. Its not about following apostles but following Christ. If a person follows Christ they prove that they don't need human teachers. The goal is to follow Christ not apostles. That's the purpose the Lord sent them for, so they would know how to follow Him.

And here you create a strawman that isn't what I was saying at all. Rewind, reread, then respond properly to what I said.

 

[W2L]

And here you create a strawman that isn't what I was saying at all. Rewind, reread, then respond properly to what I said.

Its not a strawman but is the essence of everything you post on this topic.

Of course I have no doubt you will argue about it, because your denominationalism blind you, causing you to stumble around in the dark. I see Christ, you see EO. If only you would share Christ instead of EO. Don't try to say EO is the body either, because you only accuse everyone else of being false, or heretics. Its your denomination that blind, not us. If you could see you would observe Christ in us, instead of the lack of EO.