Standing Up
On and on
And what do you use to decide? Scripture and apostle-tied-tradition or tradition that arose independently?
Upvote
0
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.
Those are both problems, which is why we have more than one bishop to preserve the faith. Sometimes a bishop needs to be replaced of course. Even all of Jesus 12 apostles weren't good.
What exactly are you asking for with regards to the condemnation of Arianism besides the council decision? I think if you read the history on it you will see that there are many theological nuances discussed; the answers to which are not expressly contained in scripture. Of course the decision won't contradict scripture, because it is the truth. Truth tends to be consistent...
Arianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Uh, Arius was born in 250 AD, the proper understanding of the episcopate and the eucharist outside of scripture was expressed as early as 80 AD by St. Clement:
Early Christians Believed in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist
You should read the other thread about it.
From what I see, they both argued from scripute, but no tradition either way. The ones with the whole of scripture prevailed over the singular verse selections in much the same way that the devil said, it is written, and Christ said, it is written and you've misunderstood the whole council of God as revealed in scripture.
PS. You also should know that Arianism arose at the time when the bread change and office of priest became the norm. IOW, with the bread there was a time when Christ was not, then He is. See the connection between the two false teachings?
Arians used the Bible to prove Arianism:As mentioned in the other thread, Arianism appears to have arise out of tradition beginning with Paul of Samosats (sic?), not out of scripture. Arius, however, does appear to pick up scripture in his support, which argues for its pre-eminence. IOW, no scripture, no Christian audience. Probably should start a separate thread though.
I think Armenian Apostolic for one...
Can you rephrase that?
In thinking some more about this, we could come down a few ways.
A multitude of canons, depending on your group.
A multitude of traditions, depending on your group.
Seriously, they all contradict, clash, and cause confusion and schism. And let in horrible things.
Or, we can come down on the foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone. If we do that, then it seems to me the question about what rule of faith to use resolves itself.
So, how do we do that? Is there some guide?
## You betSome of the books of the apocrypha were understood as books that were profitable to read but not canon. It wasn't until your denomination declared them canonical in the counter reformation and non ecumenical council of Trent that they were officially made part of your canon. Do you deny this?
## This is intelligible - but not very convincing. Anyone can say that kind of thing, but without some sort of historical evidence - as the issue is one of history, as well as one of faith - their position would lack credibility.Again, the names are irrelevant. We all know the earthly history. Naming them only proves that God used them for His purpose not that they independently approved God's purpose. You are chasing a rabbit trail here.
Attempting to re-create the Church from the NT is a failed hypothesis...just ask this guy, he tried it.
Peter E. Gillquist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
While still on staff at Campus Crusade, Gillquist and some of his colleagues began studying church history, and came to the conclusion that the Orthodox Church was the only unchanged church in history.[1] In 1973 Gillquist and his colleagues in Chicago established a network of house churches throughout the United States, aiming to restore a primitive form of Christianity, which was called the New Covenant Apostolic Order. Researching the historical basis of the Christian faith, Gillquist and his colleagues found sources for this restoration in the writings of the early Church Fathers. This led the group to practice a more liturgical form of worship than in their previous evangelical background. Originally known as the Christian World Liberation Front, and then the New Covenant Apostolic Order; in 1979, the Evangelical Orthodox Church (EOC) was organized.
A desire for Apostolic Succession led most members of the EOC to join the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America in 1987 after first investigating the Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Greek Archdiocese, and the OCA, the primary goal being to preserve their own self-appointed hierarchy. Gillquist and other EOC leaders traveled to Istanbul to meet with the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople but were unable to complete any substantial progress toward their goal. However, they were able to meet with the Patriarch of Antioch during his historic visit to Los Angeles that year. After further discussions, Gillquist led 17 parishes with 2,000 members into the Church of Antioch in 1987. This group became known as the Antiochian Evangelical Orthodox Mission, lasting until 1995 when it was disbanded and the parishes put under the standard diocesan framework of the archdiocese.
That's where you have to see for yourself... who split from who?What gets me is the confusion between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox, because both
claim to be the "true" Church and both claim to have given us the Bible. Why the confusion and division?
I came to the Orthodox church through study of history. If I accept the Bible then I must accept the church that produced it.
That's what we're left with believing by those Protestants who accept the Bible, and the Councils, but still think that the church became apostate and added teachings.
I am further convinced that God is not behind such confused thinking
That's where you have to see for yourself... who split from who?
This one RC said it quite clearly in that threadWell, that doesn't help much, because the EO claim the CC split from them and the CC claim the EO split from them. For example, http://www.christianforums.com/t7546075/.
http://www.christianforums.com/t6790703-31/#post43066817Because the Orthodox Church is not the church with Peter. Its not the "true" church. Its just not and to me is so obvious... the EO are EASTERN, not universal... and to me they are so obscure and not well known, how can it be the city built on a hill which can not be hid?<snip>
Arians used the Bible to prove Arianism:
That Wisdom was God's first creation Proverbs 8:22
That Christ was subordinate to God John 14:28, 1 Corinthians 11:3, Colossians 1:15, Revelation 3:14, Matthew 3:17, John 8:42, John 20:17,
1 Corinthians 15:28
That Christ obeyed God Psalms 45:7, John 17:22, Acts 2:36 and. Philippians 2:5-11
They argued God was unchangeable but Christ was:. Luke 2:52, John 12:27 and Hebrews 5:8
They argued that both John 17:11 and John 17:22 paralleled the unity of the Father and the Son with the unity of human believers
From (and there's more there...)
http://www.davidsinclairmc.com/christianarticles/The Scriptural Support for Arianism.pdf
<snip>
I think those might have been listed on this threadTradition (in fact INERRANT, APOSTOLIC tradition right from Jesus) says that it is de fide DOGMA that the Pope in Rome is INFALLIBLE, Purgatory, Original Sin, Transubstantiation, the Assumption of Mary, the Immaculate Conception of Mary -
I'm going to have to go with Mr. O'Briens answer.
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?