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.
Yes there is, because this invisible church is being led by the Spirit into thousands of contradicting philosophies and theologies.Bingo.... and Christ cannot be divided....no schizophenia involved when it come to the true invisable church
For all of us who have vision problems, please use bigger font. The Oral Truth was not nebulous ancient traditions. That is not the nature of Tradition as held by the Orthodox Church, nor, as I understand, the Roman Catholic. Just because you don't know everything in it does not make it nebulous. There is proof that not everything that was taught orally was written down, because you couldn't contain it if you filled the world with books dedicated just to recording it. We know it was authoritative. We know that the oral teachings of Christ were equal to what was written of his teaching. But we know we do not have it all. We know for a fact that we don't even have all the written teaching of the Apostles, because there are at least two letters sent to Corinth that are not available to us.And here (with popup Bible texts) is a partial list of references to Divine written revelation being written (Scripture) and references to it, substantiating the claim that as they were written, the written word became the standard for obedience and in establishing truth claims. In full, the New Testament is stated to have approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations and more than 1,000 if one includes indirect or partial quotations, while another counts 275 direct quotes and at least 600 allusions to the Old (view many of both here. Baker's Evangelical Dictionary reports "the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek Testament (1993) lists 343 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, as well as no fewer than 2, 309 allusions and verbal parallels. (http://www.biblestudytools.com/dict...y/the-old-testament-in-the-new-testament.html) Many of which tabulations may count those in duplicate accounts. The following list does not include all of the quotations and rarely includes simple allusions to Scripture (versus clear references such as to the law), but supplies a multiplicity of viewable (place mouse over reference, and if you cannot see them use a different browser, like Firefox) references to what was written or quotes thereof, including internal references within each Testament to Scripture (not just the New referencing the Old): Ex. 17:14; 24:4,7,12; 31:18; 32:15; 34:1,27; 35:29; Lv. 8:36; 10:10,11; 26:46; Num. 4:5,37,45,49; 9:23; 10:13; 15:23; 16:40; 27:23; 33:2; 36:13; Dt. 4:13; 5:22; 9:10; 10:2,4; 17:18,19; 27:3,8; 28:58,61; 29:20,21,27; 30:10; 31:9,11,19,22,26; 33:4; Josh. 1:7,8; 8:31,32,34,35; 10:13; 14:2; 20:2; 21:2; 22:5,9; 23:6; 24:26; Jdg. 3:4; 1Sam. 10:25; 2Sam. 1:8; 1Ki. 2:3; 8:53,56; 12:22; 2Ki. 1:8; 14:6; 17:37; 22:8,10,13,16; 23:2,21; 1Ch. 16:40; 17:3,9; 2Ch. 23:18; 25:4; 31:3; 33:8; 34:13-16,18,19,21,24; 34:30; 35:6,12; Ezra 3:2,4; 6:18; Neh. 6:6; 8:1,3,8,15,18; 9:3,14; 10:34,36; 13:1; Psa. 40:7; Is. 8:20; 30:8; 34:16; 65:6; Jer. 17:1; 25:13; 30:2; 36:2,6,10,18,27,28; 51:60; Dan. 9:11,13; Hab. 2:2;
Mat. 1:22; 2:5,15,17,18; 3:3; 4:4,6,7,10,14,15; 5:17,18,33,38,43; 8:4,17; 9:13; 11:10; 12:3,5,17-21,40,41; 13:14,15,35; 14:3,4,7-9;19:4,5,17-19; 21:4,5,13,16,42; 22:24,29,31,32,37,39,43,44; 23:35;24:15; 26:24,31,54,56; 27:9,10,35; Mark 1:2,44; 7:3,10; 9:12,13; 10:4,5; 11:17; 12:10,19,24,26 13:14; 14:21,47,49; 15:28; Lk. 2:22,23.24; 3:4,5,6; 4:4,6-8,10,12,16,17,18,20,25-27; 5:14; 7:27; 8:10; 10:26,27; 16:29,31; 18:20,31; 19:46; 20:17,18, 28,37,42,43; 22:37; 23:30; 24:25.27,32,44,45,46; Jn. 1:45; 2:17,22; 3:14; 5:39,45-47; 6:31,45; 7:19,22,23,38,42,51,52; 8:5,17; 9:26; 10:34,35; 12:14,15,38-41; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9,31; 21:24; Acts 1:20; 2:16-21,25-28,34,35; 3:22,23,25; 4:11,25,26; 7:3,7,27,28,32,33,37,40,42,43,49,50,53; 8:28,30,32,33; 10:43;13:15,27,29,33,39; 15:5,15-17,21; 17:2,11; 18:13.24,28; 21:20,24; 22:12; 23:3,5; 24:14; 26:22; 28:23,26,27; Rom 1:2,17; 2:10-21,31; 4:3,7,17,18,23,24; 5:13; 7:1-3,7,12,14,16; 8:4,36; 9:4,9,12,13,15,17,25-29,33; 10:11,15,19; 11:2-4,8,9,26,27; 12:19,20; 13:8-10; 14:11; 15:3,4,9-12,21; 16:16,26,27; 1Cor. 1:19,31; 2:9; 3:19,20; 4:6; 6:16; 7:39; 9:9,10; 10:7,11,26,28; 14:21,34; 15:3,4,32,45,54,55; 2Cor. 1:13; 2:3,4; 3:7,15; 4:13; 6:2;16; 7:12; 8:15; 9:9; 10:17; 13:1; Gal. 3:6,8,10-13; 4:22,27,30; 5:14; Eph. 3:3,4; (cf. 2Pt. 3:16); Eph. 4:8; 5:31; 6:2,3; (cf. Dt. 5:16); Col. 4:16; 1Thes. 5:27; 1Tim. 5:18; 2Tim. 3:14,16,17; Heb. 1:5,7-13; 2:5-8,12,13; 3:7-11,15; 4:3,4,7; 5:5,6; 6:14; 7:17,21,28; 8:5,8-13; 9:20; 10:5-916,17,28,30,37; 11:18; 12:5,6,12,26,29; 13:5,6,22; James 2:8,23; 4:5; 1Pet. 1:16,24,25; 2:6,7,22; 3:10-12; 5:5,12; 2Pet. 1:20,21; 2:22; 3:1,15,16; 1Jn. 1:4; 2:1,7,8,12,13,21; 5:13; Rev. 1:3,11,19; 2:1,8,12,18; 3:1,7,12,14; 14:13; 19:9; 21:5; 22:6,7;10,18,19 (Note: while the Bible reveals that there is revelation which is not written down, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) yet interestingly, a study of the the phrase “the word of God” or “the word of the Lord” shows that revelation that is referred to as being that normally was subsequently written down. Nor was the oral truth referred to in 2Thes. 2:15 that of nebulous ancient traditions (which can also result in different interpretations, such as the Roman Catholics and EOs example), but what Paul referred to was known instruction by a manifestly Divinely inspired apostle, whose manner was to reason out of the Scriptures, (Acts 17:2) and whose words were examined for veracity by Scripture. (Acts 17:11) And there is no proof that this truth also was not subsequently written down.
Irenaeus, John Chrystostom, Athanasius. Where is the evidence? The evidence could be dumped on top of your house as written books, which would cause a significant amount of damage to your house, forcing you to spend a while outside of your house while it was being repaired, and you would STILL ignore it.Well, it's NOT Prima Scriptura since there is nothing for it to be "Prima" in comparison to!
Seriously, we have evidence of Scripture being cited as the cause of this or that belief from the first century onward, but where is there any evidence of "Holy Tradition?" There is none.
Yet its devotees claim that Tradition is to be preferred over Scripture and that the Apostles and Church Fathers and the Bible itself all supposedly support Tradition! Where? It's entirely phony. There is none such.
So this fact constitutes support for Scripture in itself.
Yes there is, because this invisible church is being led by the Spirit into thousands of contradicting philosophies and theologies.
Irenaeus, John Chrystostom, Athanasius. Where is the evidence?
Ok, then, I'll ask you the question too. Do you think that the fact that the Apochrypha tends to lend support for some controversial Catholic-as well as EO- teachings contributed to the rejection by the Reformers?And just how many distinctive Cath. teachings do these specifically actually support, versus what Caths extrapolate out them, which is only limited by what is needed? Purgatory from 2Mac. 12? Even the Orthodox substantially differ with Rome on many things, including her purgatory.
Moreover, if the Apocrypha did so then why was the canonical status doubted and debated down thru the centuries and right into Trent. Which provided the first indisputable RC definition of the Bible - after the death of Luther, approx. 1400 years after the last book was penned?
For all of us who have vision problems, please use bigger font.
The Oral Truth was not nebulous ancient traditions.
There is proof that not everything that was taught orally was written down,
We know that the oral teachings of Christ were equal to what was written of his teaching.
Besides that, it took 300-400 years for the Church to identify Scripture
, which they did by way of Tradition. If Tradition were nebulous, it would not be possible for them to use it for that.
Ok, then, I'll ask you the question too. Do you think that the fact that the Apochrypha tends to lend support for some controversial Catholic-as well as EO- teachings contributed to the rejection by the Reformers?
Well, it's NOT Prima Scriptura since there is nothing for it to be "Prima" in comparison to!
...Yet its devotees claim that Tradition is to be preferred over Scripture
Ah ok, Its been like 4 years since I've read of the incident. I am going off of memory. Funny, every baptist church I have been to preaches of synergism then if that is what it is. I guess the handful baptist churches you have attended taught otherwise? Well, since you are a former baptist you already know all baptist churches in america disagree on theology most of the time.No, we never agreed that IconoGRAPHY was bad. We don't study Icons. We write them (Graphia means "to write"). The opinion was forced by robber councils with puppets set up. In order for it to be the opinion of the Church, it must be accepted by the Church. This is why the Seventh Council is called Ecumenical, while the robber councils are not. This is also why the Eighth Ecumenical Council, which anathematized filioquism, is accepted in the East, but not the west, despite the fact that the Pope himself, alongside his legates, voted for the anathematization.
Your accusation of change is about as strong as rotten wood. It holds nothing up.
As to synergism, it is the belief that salvation is the result of an active relationship with God. It is not the idea that we can work for salvation, as many Protestants (especially Baptists) claim. It is the belief that the faith through which we are saved must be a living faith. It is not works of the law that enliven faith. In fact, the works themselves have nothing to do with the enlivening of Faith. It is the love in the works which enliven the faith, opening the door through which Grace enters our hearts. Through this, we proceed through the Christian life to Theosis, which is the unification of our will with the divine will, through which we gain knowledge of God, which is how we obtain eternal life.
No, as you are tragically mistaking whatever falls under the brad umbrella which is such a broad definition that you could fly Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian Santeria Unification 747 thru it, while the body of Christ only consists of true born again believers (even a few Catholics). And as such it alone is the one true church, while the organic fellowships they are in are an unholy admixture of tares and wheat.
And as said, those who most esteem Scripture the most (as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God) as far more unified in basic core beliefs than the overall fruit of Catholicism.
Not that the RC model of sola ecclesia cannot produce greater unity, for cults manifest that, yet that is not the Scriptural means of unity, as instead the church began with establishment of Truth claims being based on Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Nope. Baptists preach that salvation is a one-time event. It occurs and then you are "Eternally Secure". Synergism assumes that Salvation is not an event, but the entire life of the Christian. Aside from Free Will Baptists (from my memory), Eternal Security is one of the most universal Baptist dogmas. I know it didn't start with the Baptist denomination, but nearly every Baptist church I have been to has it. It is also part of the largest Baptist convention, the SBC. Synergism teaches that Salvation is not completely and fully realized until the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, although our trajectory is fixed after death. A person can willfully choose to reject Christ, regardless of his previous commitments. God will ALWAYS honor our Free Will.Ah ok, Its been like 4 years since I've read of the incident. I am going off of memory. Funny, every baptist church I have been to preaches of synergism then if that is what it is. I guess the handful baptist churches you have attended taught otherwise? Well, since you are a former baptist you already know all baptist churches in america disagree on theology most of the time.
The sort of strange irony is that some sola scriptura protestants do not follow it correctly themselves, and the strangest of denominations come up with the most curious of doctrines.Nope. Baptists preach that salvation is a one-time event. It occurs and then you are "Eternally Secure". Synergism assumes that Salvation is not an event, but the entire life of the Christian. Aside from Free Will Baptists (from my memory), Eternal Security is one of the most universal Baptist dogmas. I know it didn't start with the Baptist denomination, but nearly every Baptist church I have been to has it. It is also part of the largest Baptist convention, the SBC. Synergism teaches that Salvation is not completely and fully realized until the Marriage Supper of the Lamb, although our trajectory is fixed after death. A person can willfully choose to reject Christ, regardless of his previous commitments. God will ALWAYS honor our Free Will.
However, further discussion of this is off topic. PM me or start another discussion on that one.
While Synergism is taught in certain Protestant denominations, such as some of the more Traditional Anglican parishes, That is more result of their opinions on Tradition. High Church Anglicans have a much closer view on Ecclesiastical Authority to the Orthodox than they do to their Protestant roots. What they hold to might be more closely called "Prima Scriptura" (which I actually saw for the first time on this thread, and then in another discussion I was having on Facebook literally today, so my grasp on the topic is a bit tenuous and any Traditional Anglican could shed more light on it, such as the priest I'm having my discussion with). Essentially, they view the Scripture the way we view the Pope. It is the first within Tradition, and all other Traditions are centered around it.
Protestants can take varying views on Tradition, but the majority either don't acknowledge its existence or directly deny its importance. Most Protestants wouldn't know what Athanasius's contribution to the Christian world was, despite the fact that the Creed upon which most Christology is based is heavily inspired by the man who was then only a Deacon. Granted, a lot of that is because the majority of almost every church is populated by the infamous pew surfers, but I have run into people with degrees in Biblical Studies and homiletics that don't know John Chrystostom from Martin Luther.
I have to ask you to give us some examples of what you have in mind, because I don't want to deny your comment out of hand, but I don't think very many or very conventional Protestants do as you are saying they do.The sort of strange irony is that some sola scriptura protestants do not follow it correctly themselves, and the strangest of denominations come up with the most curious of doctrines.
When some interpret scripture so literally that they deny all common sense under the guise of super piety and "God wisdom". They also tend to ignore all context just for the sake of trying to sound sagely by quoting scripture for everything, even if the verse doesn't really pertain to the subject considering its surrounding context of said verse, but they continue to use it in such a manner anyhow and create their own personal religions and attend church as a pretext really. I wouldn't call them protestant I guess, but I don't know what else to call them.I have to ask you to give us some examples of what you have in mind, because I don't want to deny your comment out of hand, but I don't think very many or very conventional Protestants do as you are saying they do.
I agree that you may be speaking of people who aren't actually Protestants, but the bigger issue here that I see is that you are saying that they are not using Sola Scriptura correctly. But I'm not sure that we can say that.When some interpret scripture so literally that they deny all common sense under the guise of super piety and "God wisdom". They also tend to ignore all context just for the sake of trying to sound sagely by quoting scripture for everything, even if the verse doesn't really pertain to the subject considering its surrounding context of said verse, but they continue to use it in such a manner anyhow and create their own personal religions and attend church as a pretext really. I wouldn't call them protestant I guess, but I don't know what else to call them.
Some people object to using too much space, and the link is there (which page offers pop up viewing of each reference), and if you want it larger just hold down the ctrl key and tap the + key. Substitute the latter with the - key to make it smaller again.
I mean the form "oral tradition," exists in is, with no beginning or end and highly subject to undetectable fabrication or corruption (and which technically is only held to be inspired in that form, versus not even as expressed in "infallible" church statements).
Out of which Rome can channel make binding beliefs in extraScriptural event approx. 1800 years after it allegedly occurred, and despite it [FONT=Arial, sans-serif] lacking even early historical testimony [/FONT]and the opposition of RC scholars:
Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .
But,
subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .
Indeed, nor is there proof that what is necessary is not written, nor does Rome provide all that was not written. And by presuming that she is privy to certain beliefs out of this form and can autocratically make them as binding then Catholicism ends up perpetuating errors that developed as well as fables.
Take (out of many examples) prayer to angels and departed "saints." Out of approx. 200 prayers in Scripture there is not even one to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord (except by pagans), and who alone is shown able to hear all such and answer them, and instruction on who to pray to is also always to the Lord. But late developed and unScriptural tradition is perpetuated under the premise that the church can teach this as a common practice despite the Holy Spirit not supporting it in His wholly inspired Word.
You know that by Scripture, and the Lord and apostles and NT church established its Truth claims Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, not the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is a faithful RCs real basis for assurance of Truth.
From rebuking the devil (Mt. 4:4ff) to rebuking religious leaders, (Mt. 22) to substantiating His mission and Messiahship to the disciples, and opening their mind to this Source, then the Lord invoked wholly inspired tradition as the assured word of God. Which oral preaching was subject to testing by, not vice versa, thus Scripture is supreme.
That is most amazing statement, and reveals the church-centric mentality of Catholics. For it has a church beginning as a new religion, without its gospel and existence having its foundation in Scripture, writings of which were already held as authoritative before a church of Rome presumed she was uniquely essential for know what men and writings were really of God.
And actually the church as the people of God, if not all, recognized what most of Scripture consisted of long before 400AD, while doubts and disagreement continued down thru the centuries over certain boos, and right into Trent, which provided the first indisputable defined of the whole canon.
He was asking for the evidence that the early Church used Tradition. Also, not Roman Catholic. Check my profile or the thing next to this post and respond in kind. Using Rome as a foil gets kind of old when their definition of Tradition is different than ours.How can you hold the various uninspired writings of men, the relative few that we have, and which can contradict each other as well as Rome, and are subject to variant interpretations, to be determinitive of doctrine over wholly inspired Scripture?
Do you agree with all each one wrote? No, and despite invoking them, a faithful RC's real source and basis for assurance of doctrine is Rome based on the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, which is unseen and unnecessary in Scripture.
Thus it is not who the "fathers" were and what they said, nor what Scripture says, but what Rome says each consist of and mean.
Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And yet Sola Scriptura stole the authority to combat heresy from the Protestants because heretics can and do claim to be simply teaching the Bible truth.The sort of strange irony is that some sola scriptura protestants do not follow it correctly themselves, and the strangest of denominations come up with the most curious of doctrines.
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?