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.
I guess you don't have a response that actually addresses what I wrote?
Perhaps I should have gone over this in more detail because I didn't realise you wouldn't notice the circular logic.
That you and I agree that Moslems are wrong does not mean that they don't use scripture to believe it backs up their ideas.
Even the demons believe and tremble.
The Dalai Lama also 'believes' in the Bible too.
The Quran is not Christian scripture. The Dalai Lama is not Christian. Next.
They believe they're using it correctly. Just as we use the OT and Jews object to that.
Of course you can continue applying circular logic that they're incorrect because they are.
Yet they apply sciptures to get to error
Yet they apply sciptures to get to error
Just like "T"radition is used to get to error.
-snip-
The point is StandingUp's novel theory of events based as it is on his say-so
The questions was can the Bible be used by Arians, yes it can. And it was.
Scripture gave them support.
What lead them to fail was that the church, not just relying on scripture understood it by the guidence of tradition.
Basically I met his challenge to show proofs.
Just like "T"radition is used to get to error.
it does beg the question, doesn't it?
What traditions did Arius use?
I note in another thread you've already championed one heresy by denying Mary the title Theotokos.
I guess I should say "Welcome Nestorian!"
I do wonder about the interpretation of Paul's statement to Timothy (2cnd epistle) re: "the scripture is sufficient ...".
In 2 Timothy 3:15 he says, " ... and from a child thou hast known the holy (ieros, not agia) scriptures ...". He then, in 3:16 states " ... all scripture given by inspiration of God ...".
What is the difference between the ieros graphe (as graphe means written, and is sometimes used to refer to the Law writings, and sometimes any writing), and graphe; what is included ?
You mean like "Christian"?I guess you like to put people in neat little boxes.
I am not going to play your game. Good night.
It does seem that he has been rather elusive with us on defining what this "rule" is to consist of...
lol
One more time. Arius used the bible. AND Arius also used tradition. That tradition is traced to Paul of Samosata. The question is what did Paul of S use? Not scripture that I see, but rather tradition apart from scripture.
To refute Arius, they used scripture. BUT I have yet to see anyone post the tradition the refuters used.
SO, we have Arius ultimately using tradition. We have the others (Athanasius for example) using scripture.
PS. You Montalban provided none of that information I just provided. But please go get some tradition that they used to refute Arius, if you can. Then, and only then, may you have the semblance of an arguement. Otherwise, please leave my name out of your comments because they misrepresent me.
Forgive me, but why all this talk about Arius? It is rather inconvenient to have to look up sources, etc. from 2000 years ago when we have modern day non-trinitarians among us today to use for examples! (In fact, if you go over to the un-orthodox theology section, i'm sure you will be able to find many of them, and perhaps some on here as well.)
Ok, so let's take a scenario then. Let's say we put you in a room with a Oneness Pentecostal (who denies the Trinity) and we give you each a bible. Let's say that all the silly traditions, like the councils, etc. never existed, and we don't have any writings of the church fathers to worry about (i'm sure some of you are fantasizing right now). Both of you are to use only scripture alone to defend your points. You defend the Trinity, and the pentecostal defends the non-trinity.
After some time has elapsed, you both gather your verses which support your side. You may pull verses up like John 10:30:
And the pentecostal may pull up verses like John 14:28:
You both have your verses which 'seemingly' support your side, and both of you are insistent upon your view. So who wins? Neither of you have authority over another, both of you insist that the only authority in the room is scripture. Both of you insist that the Holy Spirit taught you the correct doctrine from scripture. How would you convince him without recourse to tradition, injecting your own tradition (i.e. personal interpretation) or deferring to some type of outside authority (e.g. the Church)?
This is a practical, real world example of why sola scriptura simply fails to establish doctrine with any consistent or persuasive ability. There must be (and in fact always is) other factors at play which ultimately win out, and it usually comes down to the person's ability to persuade another with their own interpretation of scripture (the fallible interpretation of man, mind you). Arguments about doctrine which use only sola scriptura will always result in a stalemate with both sides ardently defending their opposing viewpoints from scripture, simply because you are pitting the ultimate authority against the ultimate authority; i.e. an unstoppable force against an immovable object. Surely this strange paradox isn't the plan that God had in mind to leave us with??
Point?It's been the way throughout. Unable to prove their own point they bait-switch
lol
I have learned SO much in the past week or two, reading
about "traditions"... even though it's an elusive subject...
So even though it's a sad thread and all of them are very telling
if one just sits and reads through the posts with an open mind,
good comes out of it in the end.
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?