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 understand that you disagree with what these several Orthodox Church Fathers and Saints herein wrote. That doesn't surprise me all that much. As noted, they are herein quoted only and solely to note additional definitions and descriptions (I purposely looked for them from sainted, esteemed EO Church Fathers); IMO they rather well match the definition and description in the opening post and as defined and described by Protestants. But yes - you disagree with what they wrote in these quotes, I know. Thank you for once again making that clear! It has been well noted.
What you understand is NOT what I said but what you want to understand. I do not disagree with the fathers as you are implicating what they truly say. You cherry pick them to prove your point. In that sense you are saying what you are saying. It still does not negate the facts. Riiiiight if they externally "match" then it must be trueIt is what they "internally" say though not externally. It takes years for people to study the fathers to see what they truly say... It has been duly noted also that the quotes are taken out of their context. Until you can provide decisions of the Councils that declare that SS is an acceptred method (norma normans) you have not proved any of your points. The Church never accepted to go on SS alone.
So is "norming" sort of a majority vote? How does one determine what the norm is, to judge norming by? Also, what if, as in the case of Luther and Calvin, one determines that baptism is essential for salvation while the other doesn't?
Until you can provide decisions of the Councils that declare that SS is an acceptred method (norma normans) you have not proved any of your points. The Church never accepted to go on SS alone.
So unless he was leaving information out of that 2009 post, Josiah has never been a formal member of the Catholic Church.IN A SENSE, I converted TO Catholicism from a liberal, mainstream, Protestant denomination.
Then FROM Catholicism to Lutheranism (LCMS).
But each of these was "informal" in that the first time I was OFFICIALLY a Confirmed member anywhere was in the LCMS (about two years ago).
What about a thread on the overall differences between those 2, including communion/eucarist, baptism, the nature of Christ etc........It think that would make a good opening post for another thread though and very interesting
Recently I have found myself reading about Martin Luther and consequently I want to know more about John Calvin. They both were around at the same time yet, they ended out in disagreement and formed two different churches which have grown quite large and are large in church society today. But how do these two churches differ in theology?
I know some say Martin Luther believed in Sacramental Union and These same say Calvin argued the Eucharist is spirit and not Jesus' Body and Blood. When Jesus said "This is my Body" we have Luther claiming that it is a literal interpretation and Calvin argued it is spirit only.
These two stand out in history but in the little reading I have done there appears to be more. Salvation and how it is attained (Faith alone). And other things I did not realize.
So, with as closely related as these two are what are their differences?
Well, I don't see this as materially different from sola scriptura, since the rule claims that scripture is the norm for determining Christian truths. And in any case what good does it do us if people still disagree on the meaning of scripture after employing this rule? Even JWs believe they follow it, for all practical purposes, and yet arrive at a completely different set of beliefs.This thread is about WHAT is embraced as the rule ("straight edge") - canon ("measuring stick") - norma normans (the norm used to norm) for norming.
Well, I don't see this as materially different from sola scriptura, since the rule claims that scripture is the norm for determining Christian truths. And in any case what good does it do us if people still disagree on the meaning of scripture after employing this rule? Even JWs believe they follow it, for all practical purposes, and yet arrive at a completely different set of beliefs.
JWs used to use the King James and take pride in "reasoning from" other translations as well. The point is that widely divergent views can often be supported quite plausibly from scripture.Actually JW's believe that the scriptures are corrupted so they have rewritten many passages to meet and support JW theology in their NWT translation. A good example is John 1:1. They do not follow the same bible that the rest of Christianity follows.
People do, yes.Also, there is quite a bit disagreement on the meaning of "T"raditions so if we follow your logic then nothing should be authoritative since people disagree on the meaning of both scripture and "T"raditions.
But what we know for sure is that, with scripture alone, huge, significant disagreement occurs. What we don't find is that same level of disagreement in, for example, the early church councils where many doctrines Christians hold today we're hammered out.As I stated before the argument of interpretation is inherently human while the scriptures are inherently divine. The problem is not with the scriptures but in the natural human nature to err. This inherent quality permeates not just individuals but synods and councils since they are inherently composed of errant humans.
But what good is the claim if we have a problem "in the natural human nature to err" in interpreting it.Only scripture is inherently divine. Nothing else can make that claim.
Yeah, what good is it for God to actually tell us something.But what good is the claim if we have a problem "in the natural human nature to err" in interpreting it.
As I stated before the argument of interpretation is inherently human while the scriptures are inherently divine. The problem is not with the scriptures but in the natural human nature to err. This inherent quality permeates not just individuals but synods and councils since they are inherently composed of errant humans. Only scripture is inherently divine. Nothing else can make that claim.
But it can't do so when we disagree about what God intends-because human error has thwarted the endeavor.Yeah, what good is it for God to actually tell us something.
It doesn't have to solve the philosophical or authority issues that we have. It's intended to accomplish what God intends.
So with that last sentence -- to get this straight -- the New Testament wasn't written by Christ's appointed, Apostolic ministry groups?The council came first to determine the scripture based on that then we cannot say the Bible came first
Who determined which book to be included in the canon? Or do you accept all writtings of Christian written as inspired even the ones that are not included in the canon? So I can understand this...So with that last sentence -- to get this straight -- the New Testament wasn't written by Christ's appointed, Apostolic ministry groups?
Human error is not overridden by God, as became flatly clear when Apostolic Successionist groups began excommunicating each other over minor issues or practice in 180 AD, and of course even later on with the Great Schism in the 1000's.But it can't do so when we disagree about what God intends-because human error has thwarted the endeavor.
JWs used to use the King James and take pride in "reasoning from" other translations as well. The point is that widely divergent views can often be supported quite plausibly from scripture.
Charles T Russell started using the KJV but quickly stopped using any bible after he wrote his 6 volume "Scripture Studies". His works became the go to text that the Russellites would use instead of scripture.
In fact, in the Sept. 15, 1910 issue of Watchtower Russel wrote "The six volume of Scripture Studies are practically the bible, totally arranged with Bible proof texts given, we might not improperly name the volumes the Bible in an Arranged Form. That is to say, they are not mere comments on the bible but they are practically the bible itself.
Furthermore, not only do we find that people cannot see the divine plan in studying the bible by itself, but we see, also, that if anyone lays the "scripture studies" aside, even after he has used them. after he has become familiar with them, after he has read them for 10 years, if he then lays them aside and ignores them and goes to the bible alone, though he has understood his bible for 10 years, our experience shows that within two years he goes into darkness "
Widely divergent views are supported by both "T"radition and scripture. Cults, such as the JWs and Mormons, support their divergent views with both "T"radition and scripture. The divergent views among the apostolic churches is a perfect example of divergence by "T"radition instead of solely by scripture. Belonging to an apostolic church or even the RC does not grant one immunity from error.
I think you omit history. The 1054 chism ultimately occured because of divergent views of both scripture and "T"radition. Scripture is the only absolute truth via God's special revelation.But what we know for sure is that, with scripture alone, huge, significant disagreement occurs. What we don't find is that same level of disagreement in, for example, the early church councils where many doctrines Christians hold today we're hammered out.
There is no solution. Man errs. This IS undeniable. Your church interprets scripture and "T"radition a certain way while the EO interprets it their way while the OO interprets it their way while the Anglicans interprets it their way while the Baptist interprets it their way, and so on............But what good is the claim if we have a problem "in the natural human nature to err" in interpreting it.
Neither.Who determined which book to be included in the canon? Or do you accept all writtings of Christian written as inspired even the ones that are not included in the canon? So I can understand this...
Who determined which book to be included in the canon? Or do you accept all writtings of Christian written as inspired even the ones that are not included in the canon? So I can understand this...
Councils determined which books will be included in the canon not what was written in the books they approved. BUT determining which books they are included or not was indeed an act of the Holy Spirit as that was in itself a counciliar and had to be not through consensus but "uniformed agreement". Determining the books of the Bible was NOT an act of one person but MANY and in the way that the first council took place (it is in Acts) in Jerusalem. So the Apostolic Tradition was and indeed is active in our times through our counciliar ecclesiology. That is actually the inate factor that kept the Ancient Church going in determining heresy NOT the scripture as no where in the history you will find that.Neither.
No council changed reality about who wrote the New Testament. They only witnessed to what had happened previously -- that is, what preceded.
And so the precedent: New Testament.
Which is why we need to look for another place where the buck stops-otherwise we're hopelessly mired in a state of partial ignorance.There is no solution. Man errs. This IS undeniable. Your church interprets scripture and "T"radition a certain way while the EO interprets it their way while the OO interprets it their way while the Anglicans interprets it their way while the Baptist interprets it their way, and so on............
How God decided how many books? God did not "write" people did and yeah they were God inspired indeed the same with the ones who gave us the NT they were inspired but the Holy Spirit does not 'retire" and God's revelation is not dead in our times it is alive and works in us. Scripturist do seem to imply that God acted only in giving us the Bible. On the contrary God never stoped inspiring us or guiding his people and will not stop doing so until the end of times. The Holy Spirit was is and will be active in our world until the end of times. We the people are His mouthpiece and if we accept that then we have to accept that the Bible def. did not came out of nothing but people wrote it and people radified it. Of course God maintains scripture as he maintains the whole world.God decided which books. It is His special revelation and He is perfectly capable of maintaining it.
Councils determined which books will be included in the canon not what was written in the books they approved. BUT determining which books they are included or not was indeed an act of the Holy Spirit as that was in itself a counciliar and had to be not through consensus but "uniformed agreement". Determining the books of the Bible was NOT an act of one person but MANY and in the way that the first council took place (it is in Acts) in Jerusalem. So the Apostolic Tradition was and indeed is active in our times through our counciliar ecclesiology. That is actually the inate factor that kept the Ancient Church going in determining heresy NOT the scripture as no where in the history you will find that.
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?