Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
There are two difficulties here.
1. No Scriptural canon is established by Scripture, so the canon itself is purely tradition.
2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.
The problem is that, in most cases, those who claim to follow sola scriptura follow many traditions which contradict the direct claims of Scripture and claim their belief is simply them teaching what Scripture teaches. The idea that the Scripture is a higher authority than the Church is, itself, a tradition that contradicts the Scripture's placement of Scripture as profitable, but the Church as pillar and ground of the Truth.
The fact is that when Scripture's plain meaning came into conflict with several Protestant doctrines, people changed the very canon of the Old Testament. On what authority did they base the editing of the Canon? Because the canon they used wasn't in existence in the time of Christ.
Correct. Anglicans strive for unity - even with Anglicans, as Jesus prayed for us all.Sanction doesn't break communion, you are in full communion with Christians what are conducting same-sex marriages insides churches.
Augustine and Aquinas do, however not in the simplistic way that many suggest, so walk very carefully here Sister. From the Father through the Son is a valid understanding of a theology Double Procession. I personally do not think Filioque is a particularly good way to express the matter theologically, and I believe, as I have said before, that it has no rightful place in the Nicene Symbol.Scripture doesn't teach a double-procession. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son. That is, the Son is the dative, the Father is the genitive, these are very distinct. The Nicene Creed is a translation of the Greek, and so in this context, the filioque is genitive, which is not Scriptural.
This represents you taking something I have said beyond what I said again. This is not what I said, and you my dear are very much aware of it. Please do not think I am annoyed about that. Just accept it from me, I am."Use their brains" here means freedom to deny things like the Virgin Birth.
I would be much happier to say that Christianity is a relationship. Relationships are rarely, if ever, binomial.Christianity is, however, black and white.
Scripture might be difficult to comprehend, but there is a way of understanding it that has been passed on since ancient times. You can have multiple understandings of various verses and passages, and that is fine, so long as they don't conflict. If you have an understanding of a part of Scripture, check to see if it is harmonious with how Scripture was always understood in the Church. If it's not, your understanding is wrong.None of us think that we hold a view that contradicts Scripture, but I think the reality is that none of us have a 100% accurate understanding of everything Scripture, so we all have views that contradict the truth of Scripture. There are very likely some things that you are right about that I am wrong about, and vice versa, so we should dispense with the idea that we are ones who hold to the plain meaning of Scripture while everyone else holds views that clearly contradicts it. So we can disagree on interpretations of Scripture and even what constitutes as Scripture, but we should be in agreement that whatever it is that is God's word, it is truth, so it is the standard by which we should measure everything else against to see if it is true. If a tradition does contradict God's word, then we should reject that tradition instead of rejecting God's word.
Correct. Anglicans strive for unity - even with Anglicans, as Jesus prayed for us all.
Augustine and Aquinas do, however not in the simplistic way that many suggest, so walk very carefully here Sister. From the Father through the Son is a valid understanding of a theology Double Procession. I personally do not think Filioque is a particularly good way to express the matter theologically, and I believe, as I have said before, that it has no rightful place in the Nicene Symbol.
Christianity is Truth, which is binomial when of the Absolute.I would be much happier to say that Christianity is a relationship. Relationships are rarely, if ever, binomial.
Live Long and ProsperMatthew 5:30
Matthew 18:17
2 Thessalonians 3:6
1 Corinthians 5:11
Augustine is a saint, but he was also a Nestorian and had many faults in his theology because he didn't study the Fathers due to dislike of reading Greek.
Aquinas says it just in the way I suggest, he suggests that the persons of the Trinity are distinguished purely by relations.
Christianity is Truth, which is binomial when of the Absolute.
No, the Pope accepted under pressure from Henry II of Germany, no Arian epidemic was extant then.It seems you don't fully address the history of the western Church in your estimation of things and are being uncharitable, believing too much in a romanticized history given by some Orthodox polemicists.
The Filioque in the west was included locally first, as a way to try to address the Arian controversy in the West (whole Gothic and Frankish tribes were Arian). You are right that various Popes at times opposed it, but eventually it became a received tradition just due to the persistence of Arianism itself. The same is true with the Minor Doxology ("..as it was in the beginning, both now and ever and to the ages of ages...") These were all in response to the Arian controversy and did not arise necessarily out of a plot to change the faith from orthodoxy.
I notice that tendency a lot in your rhetoric in fact. You posted some quotes by Luther without seriously engaging with Luther's thought or trying to understand his logic. Luther saw moralism as a great enemy of faith, a point I would happen to agree with. Moralists are always the most superficial, unspiritual, and pharisaical, and they don't have much compassion for their victims. Perhaps he said some rash things but I believe if you dealt seriously with his thought you would realize the kernel of truth behind his words and actions.
Also, there were plenty of Orthodox saints that said and did bizarre things (Holy Foods) and plenty of anti-Semites (Chrysostom, John of Kronstadt, etc.). So pointing to Luther to bash Protestants isn't very fair since you claim to be an Orthodox Christian.
Augustine was not a Nestorian. He was formerly Manichean. But I'm not sure that influenced his theology to any significant degree.
Saint Augustine said Mary was only the Mother of Christ's humanity, not his divinity, I would say that's Nestorian.
Post-Christian Judaism is, quite literally, completely an outgrowth of Phariseeism, so by your standards, Christ was an antisemite.
It's from his commentary on John 2:4. Saint Augustine then goes on to say that the miracle Christ performs (turning water into wine) is "according to his divine nature", as opposed to his human nature; this is extremely Nestorian, to ascribe Christ's actions to one nature or the other, as opposed to ascribing them to his hypostasis.The real issue, was he consistently Nestorian? He may have simply been trying to emphasize that Mary is not the origin of the divine nature.
You miss my point. My point is that a religious movement is greater than one particular individual. Lutherans do not follow everything Luther did, said, or taught, he is not the Lutheran Pope. But that doesn't mean his teachings are worthless, either. Some nuance is necessary here.
Correct, the major epidemic of Western monasticism is that it wasn't ascetic. If Luther decried that, that would be one thing; rather he loathed asceticism. He very blatantly denounced celibacy.That's an un-nuanced characterization of Luther. The dissolution of monasteries in western Europe you can blame on greedy secular rulers in Germany or Scandinavia more than you can on Luther.
He had a measure of respect for monastics such as St. Anthony, and he didn't see anything wrong with being a monk if one found that way of life suited to a persons disposition (indeed, there were and are Lutheran monastics in Germany, and even today there are Lutheran monasteries and religious orders). What he did object to was the idea that it was spiritually meritorious to be a monk vs. a lay vocation.
2. There is no verse that says Scripture is comprehensive, meaning the doctrine of Sola scripture is itself not derived from Scripture.
"Sacrament" is just a Western translation of what the Orthodox call holy mysteries.This argumentation is as difficult as Sola Scriptura. If you say so:
-> there is no verse that says Sacraments as well.
-> there is no verse that says Tradition should be included for making doctrines, too.
You have a most dim view of God's word and lack appreciation of God's protection of it in the Bible throughout history. I really doubt that most Catholics would profess what you do; that scripture is not the highest authority.
You offer up a similarly simple "proof" as the OP that SS is invalid because the Bible is the result of words handed down. This proves nothing and you continue to ignore my points; that the opposing view that there are incontrovertible truths outside of scripture is the real debate.
And the moment that Scripture becomes something you can change, you are no longer placing Scripture as the highest authority. When you change Scripture because it contradicts your traditions, then you have a problem, and if you use the modern 66 book canon, then you have a changed scripture that was changed in accordance with your traditions.None of us think that we hold a view that contradicts Scripture, but I think the reality is that none of us have a 100% accurate understanding of everything Scripture, so we all have views that contradict the truth of Scripture. There are very likely some things that you are right about that I am wrong about, and vice versa, so we should dispense with the idea that we are ones who hold to the plain meaning of Scripture while everyone else holds views that clearly contradicts it. So we can disagree on interpretations of Scripture and even what constitutes as Scripture, but we should be in agreement that whatever it is that is God's word, it is truth, so it is the standard by which we should measure everything else against to see if it is true. If a tradition does contradict God's word, then we should reject that tradition instead of rejecting God's word. And if you are in agreement with that, then you are in agreement with Sola Scriptura.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?