ChristsSoldier115
Mabaho na Kuya
- Jul 30, 2013
- 6,765
- 1,601
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- In Relationship
Its called doing what you did to conclude that EO was the church denomination for you. Reading and studying history.
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.
Its called doing what you did to conclude that EO was the church denomination for you. Reading and studying history.In many cases the answer with Scripture is:
1. I don't know
2. I don't know
3. How I understand what they say
4. How I choose to apply it.
Protestant exegesis is centric on the individual, while Orthodox exegesis is Church-Centric
The first 3 questions are the same, but the fourth question becomes:
How has the Church always understood this passage?
My bigest beef with protestants is our inability to combat heresy effectively. I only know of angelicans, lutherans, and methodists having a system in place with something. Baptists, sadly, do not, as far as I can tell. Lets not even jump into the ocean of non-denoms.Either way, it is much more difficult to use the Tradition of a unified Church than it is to use simply Scripture alone. For one, the Orthodox Church will quickly excommunicate any member that starts teaching heresy, and if a new heresy is invented by outsiders, attempting to use the Apostolic Tradition to justify it, we will also quickly respond. It is this that has kept Orthodoxy without change in known history. Protestant denominations have done nothing but change. Most of the denominations today wouldn't be possible without innovations that occurred since the Reformation. This results in making Christianity sound like an Eminem song. Will the real Christianity please stand up? please stand up? please stand up?
The moment you started using Roman Catholics as a foil in your response to an Eastern Orthodox post AND compared them to a cult was the moment you got one post away from the block train and lost any veracity in my eyes. So basically you should assume I didn't read anything in this post after that sentence.No, as actually like Joe Smith and others, their veracity was and is not dependent the degree of Scriptural substantiation, which is the harder but SCriptural means of unity, but instead they basically effectively operated under the RC model of sola ecclesia, in which the leadership presumes a peculiar anointing of ensured veracity so that Scripture assuredly means what they said, and implicit assent is required.
Thus, like in cults, faithful RCs are not to objectively examine evidences in order to ascertain the veracity of official RC teaching, as "He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips." (Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means")
...in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent." — John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.”
Which even pertains to history and tradition:
It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”
But cults actually enforce the SE model more strictly, as Rome used to do, and thus they have more unity. It is much harder to have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)
That is true, as it refers to the corporate body of Christ consisting of only believers, and certainly does not refer to the organic church, including Rome.
Actually it did, with Peter following His Lord by explaining the miracle of Pentecost from Scripture, preaching the gospel of God, "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: " (Romans 1:2; 16:26)
And the Lord began His public ministry referencing Scripture and after His res. He substantiated from that same and opened the understanding of the disciples to it, not to tradition. And in between that time and in the preaching of the apostles all things were explicitly or implicitly subject to examination by Scripture as the supreme source.
The Lord did provide new revelation, consistent with the principal of progressive and new but conflative complementary revelation, but Rome does not claim to provide new revelation or speak as inspired writers of Scripture.
Again your every argument is an argument against you, as that was not actually against Scripture but a fulfillment of it, as the New Covenant was "not according" to that of Mt. Sinai, and James, who provided the definitive judgment, substantiates this with Scripture.
And the decree that the Gentiles abstain “from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” (Acts 15:20,29; cf. 21:25) was itself based upon Scripture. (Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)
Wrong, as this shows a very superficial view of Scriptural judgments and or of Scripture, as the New Covenant is clearly Scriptural, as is the principal of progressive conflative complementary revelation, which we see in Scripture and see what James said, but which Rome does not speak as wholly God-inspired men. You can only wish such things as praying to departed beings in Heaven was consistent with Scripture, versus basically adding to it what the Spirit never inspired.
What are you talking about? Eph. 3 is about the One New Man, that of the coporate body of Christ, not a particular organic church: "That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel." (Ephesians 3:6)
The next chapter speaks of offices within that church, but no church in the NT corresponds to the distinctive Catholic church. Here is a list by the grace of God.
Esp. as the term is used by Caths, but you cannot compare one particular church with many, and cults actually are tops in unity, yet comparing the fruit under two different models is valid. And in which as said, those who esteem Scripture the most as the wholly inspired and accurate word of God testify to far greater unity than the over fruit of Rome.
Certainly, and one that unities evangelicals, as being justified by faith on Christ's account, not our own, with the heart being purified by faith and born again, as Peter preached, (Acts 10?:43; 15:7-11) which both Arminians and Calvinsts hold to, versus becoming good enough to be with God via sprinkling an infant and then (for most) thru purgatory later. Salvation by grace thru merit.
If you want to get more technical, such as the manner of atonement, or what the Dominicans and the Jesuits went at each other for years over, that of the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom. "Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis
Being led into all Truth was put on hold, but score one for an umpire, which i do not oppose in principal.
Considering that there is no method for determining Christian truth, we are left with the personal interpretation of Scripture being more authoritative than Scripture itself. The problem is that Protestants DON'T all agree on what SS is. That a vast majority of Protestants equate SS to be however they read the Bible, as evidenced by massive stacks of curricula that could be found in any Christian university's library and substantiated in quotes even as early as the classical reformation, and also in the way that a huge number of denominations, especially non-denominational gatherings, apply it, is a complicating factor you seem to ignore.Honestly, I think that would be a very worthwhile and interesting discussion. I've thought so for some time. However, it never is possible to get to that point, since every opponent of Sola Scriptura immediately begins his argument against SS by saying it's all about interpreting Scripture when it's not.
If we all agreed on what SS is, regardless of what we think of it, moving then to the topic you suggest here would seem a natural.
The problem is that one must first accept that there is only one Church and that the Church survived according to the prophecy of Christ in Matthew 16. The reason most people stay where they are is that they have accepted the relativism that has infiltrated much of the west.Its called doing what you did to conclude that EO was the church denomination for you. Reading and studying history.
It seems to me that Baptists are only a step above non-denominational churches when it comes to identity. What with all the Independent Baptist churches running around. I posit that's why Westboro can wear the Baptist title and not have any effective opposition to its use.My bigest beef with protestants is our inability to combat heresy effectively. I only know of angelicans, lutherans, and methodists having a system in place with something. Baptists, sadly, do not, as far as I can tell. Lets not even jump into the ocean of non-denoms.
It seems to me that Baptists are only a step above non-denominational churches when it comes to identity. What with all the Independent Baptist churches running around. I posit that's why Westboro can wear the Baptist title and not have any effective opposition to its use.
The problem is that under Sola Scriptura, Swedenborg and the Jehovah's Witnesses came to their power USING Sola Scriptura. No. The Body of Christ is one Body with one Faith following one Christ. That is a narrow definition. But it is the definition of Ephesians 3. The fact is that the Church did not begin substantiating everything it said with Scripture. The Council in Acts directly goes against Scripture's commands to follow the dietary and physical portions of the Mosaic law,
However, they are still considered Baptist. Because unlike Traditional Churches and even the older Protestant churches, Baptists don't have a central creed. The KJV Only church I grew up in Jacksonville is considered just as much Baptist as Highland Park Baptist Church was in Chattanooga (I don't know if Church of the Highlands, which HPBC became, is Baptist, since it no longer carries the title).When looking for organizational or administrative structure that can rule on doctrines being acceptable or not - the Southern Baptist Convetion is the largest Baptist denomination (but there are others as well). Unaffiliated Community churches may have a Baptist leading out - but it does not mean they adhere to all statements of the SBC
The fact is that Scripture very clearly commanded the following of the food laws. It is an obvious contradiction of Scripture to state that you can somehow love God without following His commandments. Since the loving of God is how one obtains eternal life, according to Christ, and one who loves God will "keep His commandments", The fact remains that they are saying that certain commands of the almighty God are no longer commandments of God.Until you actually read Acts 15.
There the dietary law of Lev 17 is upheld - which is that no meat may be eaten with blood in it.
What is more - Acts 15 makes no mention of "Love God with all your heart" - nor does any NT text outside of the Gospel.
Neither does Acts 15 tell gentiles to "Love your neighbor as yourself" - though both James 2, and Romans 13 continue to affirm this as applying to gentiles.
Neither does Acts 15 tell gentiles to "Honor your father and mother" -- though Eph 6:2 continues to affirm this for gentiles saying that this is still binding and is the "First commandment" in that still binding unit-of-ten "with a promise".
Acts 15 is not a downsize or rewrite of scripture at all. There was no command in the OT to not eat food offered to idols and in 1Cor 8 and 1Cor 10 Paul continues to maintain that Jews are not bound by that - and never have been.
Acts 15:1-2 stated clearly that the issue is the man-made invented-rule that gentiles cannot be saved without becoming circumcised Jews - a thing never required in scripture.
However, they are still considered Baptist. Because unlike Traditional Churches and even the older Protestant churches, Baptists don't have a central creed.
The fact is that Scripture very clearly commanded the following of the food laws. It is an obvious contradiction of Scripture to state that you can somehow love God without following His commandments. Since the loving of God is how one obtains eternal life, according to Christ, and one who loves God will "keep His commandments", The fact remains that they are saying that certain commands of the almighty God are no longer commandments of God.
In the end, it is not downsizing that's happening. What's happening is turning a command into a non-command.
And it isn't universally accepted among all Baptists. In fact, the SBC recently changed their 7 part confession. They had this big ceremony at Tennessee Temple where the president of the school and the board all signed to follow the new confessionI'm not Baptist but know the history of their confessions. This is the oldest dating back to 1644:
http://www.reformedreader.org/ccc/1646lbc.htm
irrelevant information is irrelevant.
No. I argued that if the Church had used the Sola Scriptura method in the Council of Jerusalem, the Church would have determined in favor of the Judaizers, because the Scripture that was extant at their time commanded the following of those laws, as well as circumcision. However, the Council found in the opposite of the Sola Scriptura determination of the time.Perhaps I misunderstood. Did you argue the Mosaic dietary laws are still in effect? If so that would mean you are either Ethiopian Orthodox or Coptic Orthodox church of Alexandria.
No. I argued that if the Church had used the Sola Scriptura method in the Council of Jerusalem, the Church would have determined in favor of the Judaizers, because the Scripture that was extant at their time commanded the following of those laws, as well as circumcision. However, the Council found in the opposite of the Sola Scriptura determination of the time.
Honestly, I think all non-denoms are just baptist chruches of another name. They definitely feel very baptist like in how they do things. I've only been to two. I think a lot of former baptist pastors are leading these churches because they can somehow appeal to more people if they claim the fluidity that non-denoms have. I think we're going off topic again. lolIt seems to me that Baptists are only a step above non-denominational churches when it comes to identity. What with all the Independent Baptist churches running around. I posit that's why Westboro can wear the Baptist title and not have any effective opposition to its use.
The fact remains that it was not a Sola Scriptura council. Regardless of the visions of the Apostles, it wasn't the visions that convinced anyone aside from the Apostles, and that only the ones who saw the visions. For the rest of the leaders present at the Council, had they relied on Sola Scriptura, the visions would have been irrelevant. It was the authority of the Apostles, and not the Scriptures, which was found to be the deciding factor. And this authority was given to people the Apostles deemed worthy of the leadership of the Church, as wise men depositing money into a bank.And how did the Council come to this conclusion? By direct revelation by Risen and Ascended Christ to Peter and Paul. Which was divinely recorded for us in Acts and in Paul's epistles.
The Council of Jerusalem did appeal to not only the testimony of Peter and Paul but to TaNaKh as well:
Acts 15:
6 And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
19 Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God:
20 But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.
21 For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.
Then in Acts 11 we see Peter's report of his encounter with Cornelius:
Acts 11:
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God.
2 And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him,
3 Saying, Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them.
4 But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying,
5 I was in the city of Joppa praying: and in a trance I saw a vision, A certain vessel descend, as it had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four corners; and it came even to me:
6 Upon the which when I had fastened mine eyes, I considered, and saw fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
7 And I heard a voice saying unto me, Arise, Peter; slay and eat.
8 But I said, Not so, Lord: for nothing common or unclean hath at any time entered into my mouth.
9 But the voice answered me again from heaven, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
10 And this was done three times: and all were drawn up again into heaven.
11 And, behold, immediately there were three men already come unto the house where I was, sent from Caesarea unto me.
12 And the Spirit bade me go with them, nothing doubting. Moreover these six brethren accompanied me, and we entered into the man's house:
13 And he shewed us how he had seen an angel in his house, which stood and said unto him, Send men to Joppa, and call for Simon, whose surname is Peter;
14 Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved.
15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?
18 When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.
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?