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.
Aha.The ones "I've been shown" were not "shown" but claimed ...
I don't mind defending my faith.I'm not asking you to defend your faith.
*snip*
I'm not asking you to defend your faith.I don't mind defending my faith.
The mother of a friend is a self-professed Apostle and Prophet - who (with some regularity) receives revelations from God. She is also a Penteocostal minister (but has never had a church) and quite internet able. She sends out the divine revelations she receives and (for reasons entirely unknown to me), I'm on her long email notification list. Since she claims that God speaks to her, ergo He does- and this then is the final rule/norm for the evaluation of doctrines? Or can this be done only by you or your denomination?
.
But have you read the ECFs you claim disagree ?
What were the disagreements you found in the writings of the ECFs you have read ?
Biblical prophets were used by God to bring in new revelation and prophesy. My usage of prophets pertained to fore-telling versus forth-telling. I am sorry that I was not specific. None of the ECFs and subsequent theologians claim fore-telling. All are forth-telling what has already been told from their perspectives. None claim to be inspired and infallible.
If I may jump in, a simple one is Tertullian who said, if you teach the same as apostles, you are apostolic. IOW, let's say the Lutheran group does not trace a physical line of ministers back to an apostle, yet, they teach the same as apostles. Therefore Lutherans are apostolic.
Josiah said:The mother of a friend is a self-professed Apostle and Prophet - who (with some regularity) receives revelations from God. She is also a Penteocostal minister (but has never had a church) and quite internet able. She sends out the divine revelations she receives and (for reasons entirely unknown to me), I'm on her long email notification list. Since she claims that God speaks to her, ergo He does- and this then is the final rule/norm for the evaluation of doctrines? Or can this be done only by you or your denomination?
.
In either answer it is the tradition of men for her prophecy and the "evaluation" so what is your point then?
IOW, let's say the Lutheran group does not trace a physical line of ministers back to an apostle, yet, they teach the same as apostles.
Standing Up said:Therefore Lutherans are apostolic.
Aha.
Well then there you go.
I don't mind defending my faith.
Sorry !I most likely will refrain from either though since
we all have google and i could make a carreer out
of wild goose chases defending my faith.
Interesting conversations here to be sure.
Gnostics claimed that they were teaching the same as the Apostles also.
Yes.Or alternatively, one could assert that no one knows who is right; that is, the true teaching be out there somewhere, but no one can know for sure. A distinction, but one which I think still leads down the same path towards relativism that you mentioned.
Sure but how do we discern that it is indeed God talking?
1. I think it is only the "tradition of men" in the LDS that there is new, divine revelation in that sense of Prophet. I think elsewhere, we understand that to have ended in the First Century.
2. My point IS the evaluation. IF I'm right and the poster DOES embrace that truth matters (even just a little bit), then accountability has been embraced and ergo norming - and the issue before us is WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation. And we're FINALLY approaching the issue of the thread.
3. IF your point is that the views, customs and practices of your denomination ARE the best norm for the evaluation of the views, customs and practices of your denomination - so that if self alone agrees with self alone ergo self is correct - then I disagree with you: your rubric simply mandates that everyone is right (or more likely, exempt from the entire issue of correctness).
.
You and others still have not answered this question of relativism. Your comments here sound like relativism. You have evaded the main issue here. That those who say people interpret Scriptures differently and that's fine is basically saying, imo, that there is not absolute Truth that Christ - who is the Truth - passed down in His teaching. You keep saying the Scriptures, the Scriptures. Yes, the Scriptures are recorded accounts of their experiences with Christ God and the revelation of His being the Son of God. Still, there are many teachings in which Christ gave His people that have today and throughout history differed in their understandings of what those teachings truly mean. For example, the two main commandments of Baptism and Holy Communion. Just in Protestant groups alone, not all agree on these. So, what would the answer be? What I've been seeing in these threads is basically "well, everyone is able to interepret these passages on their own and come to what is the truth," or how they understand it. So, in other words, every view is accepted as the truth = relativism = NO TRUTH.That's what he said, He said we have Scripture.
GOD's words... THE truth
(Thy word O God is truth)
We got it, yes, we DO have the truth which
was revealed to us by God!
Because you have not answered this issue on many interpretations, but keep bringing up "read the Scriptures." We all do as Christians. This isn't the point. The point I was trying to make is there is one understanding of the teachings of Christ. Do we have all the answers of God? Nobody does, but is there a group or somebody who is closest to this truth, who does understand the true context and revelation of truth on all His teachings? I think so.I seriously cannot fathom why this is insufficient in your mind.
The scriptures say not to go astray with strange doctrines of men, not the Apostolic tradition. And yes, we ARE to go with also what is not written, according to St. Paul. We are to preserve both oral and written traditions of Christ's teachings through His Apostles. So the ECF's didn't agree on everything. They're not infallible. We got that. But what we see is that they do agree on many important issues, such as the Eucharist. This would tell us this is what Christ truly meant. We look at all of their writings together and compare. We never take one CF's writings and say that's it. This is the point. Truth is found through the consensus of the people of God through the use of all the sources through Holy Tradition. There is not ONE ultimate authority in any. Only CHRIST is the ultimate authority over His Body, as He is the Head.Interesting opinion but seriously, it's not at all a fact.
Especially in light of the fact that they were often at odds
with each other. But we disagree is all. I put no stock in men.
And Scripture says not to go beyond what is written for this
exact reason, that no man be exalted over another (imo)
So what do the rest of us have? We don't have the writings of the Apostles or God's help? This does not prove any point, sun. This just says you look at these things as your guide. That's fine, but what about everybody else who does the same, and they come up with different ideas of what particular scriptural verses mean?I look to the Apostles themselves and do not go beyond what is written.
But more than that. I have God's help.
Wow, like I said earlier, in part:
And if it's not enough that God dwells inside of us:
We have the Messiah, interceding on our behalf! (Gets better and better baby!)
We have the Written Word of God, lol (oh man God is good!)
We have the assurance that IF any man lack wisdom, He can ask
His Father who WILL give HIm wisdom!!! Glory to God!!
We have the ability to hear the very voice of GOD! (His sheep be blessed man!)
We have...promises and we have God speaking to us, and we have an unction
from the Holy one and we have been given everything we could need for life and godliness..
Like it says in the Bible,
He's given us all we need for life and godliness..
And aint THAT the truth!
Or alternatively, one could assert that no one knows who is right; that is, the true teaching be out there somewhere, but no one can know for sure. A distinction, but one which I think still leads down the same path towards relativism that you mentioned.
See, this is what I mean! Reading this looks as if any view is correct and there is no absolute truth revealed in Christ's teachings in the Bible. This is relativism and will dangerously lead someone towards secular humanism. Be careful, sun.Hmmmmm.. Why do you keep asking me this over and over and over?
I mean, I can keep saying the same answer but why?
Do you find it so hard to believe that someone can read the same book
and get (SOMEWHAT) different takes?
Happens with the Bible, happens with the law books
happens with the writings of the Early Christians..
Or do you disbelieve me, or .. am I not giving a clear
response? Or do you believe I am wrong?
Multiple choice lol.
So, you do not know what the ECF's disagreed on? You just have read that they did. Is this what you're saying by not answering Thekla?Aha.
Well then there you go.
I don't mind defending my faith.
Josiah said:1. I think it is only the "tradition of men" in the LDS that there is new, divine revelation in that sense of Prophet. I think elsewhere, we understand that to have ended in the First Century.
2. My point IS the evaluation. IF I'm right and the poster DOES embrace that truth matters (even just a little bit), then accountability has been embraced and ergo norming - and the issue before us is WHAT best serves as the rule/canon/norma normans for that evaluation. And we're FINALLY approaching the issue of the thread.
3. IF your point is that the views, customs and practices of your denomination ARE the best norm for the evaluation of the views, customs and practices of your denomination - so that if self alone agrees with self alone ergo self is correct - then I disagree with you: your rubric simply mandates that everyone is right (or more likely, exempt from the entire issue of correctness).
.
1. what about cults? Do they have a right to their interpretation?
2. what serves? your own individual evalutation
3.How is your opinion of things normalized by the scripture at best any different?
You cannot escape "man" he is the one who wrote the Bible
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?