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.
1 Cor. 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
What do you think?
Here you go, folks, if this is accurate.
Arianism: Up to this point the Trinitarian debate had taken place entirely in the West. We now move to the East, where the debate became a great controversy. It lasted sixty years, involved the entire eastern church, the western church in part, and occupied the attention of eleven emperors. The long discussion began with Arius, a presbyter in the church in Alexandria. [FONT=CG Times (W1)]He was a disciple of Lucian, who in turn was a student of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch from 260 to 272[/FONT][FONT=CG Times (W1)]. Paul was an Adoptionist (Dynamic Monarchian). He taught that the Logos or Reason of God dwelt in the man Jesus. This Logos had also been in Moses and in the prophets; in Jesus, however, it was present in much larger measure. As a result, he was united with God in a relationship of love as no other man had been. Therefore, God "adopted" Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection and gave him a sort of deity. [/FONT]
Trinity: Arius and the Nicene Creed
There's the source of Arius' teaching.
IOW, like many groups today who use tradition and scripture, Arius did too.
Sola scriptura (and tradition-tied-to-apostles), however, won out in the end.
Paul of Samosata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHe aroused controversy with his Monarchianist teachings. In 269, seventy bishops, priests and deacons assembled at Antioch as a synod. They deposed Paul as bishop and elected Dominus as his successor. They also wrote an encyclical letter to Dionysius and Maximus, bishops of Rome and Alexandria respectively. This letter is the only indisputably contemporary document concerning him and was preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea's Ecclesiastical History.[2]
bible.ca eh? I wouldn't believe 1+1=2 if they had it on their site.
Look back into the disputation with Paul of Samosata:
Paul of Samosata - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I could take Montalban's tack and simply stop at the fact that tradition taught wrong, but where would that leave us?
Though Paul of S and Arius didn't agree, what corrected them? A different tradition or scripture?
CaliforniaJosiah,
what you perhaps don't appreciate is that the heretical teachings of both Arius and Origen (his later teachings, and in fact other heretical teachings throughout the ages) were all supported Scripturally.
If we give Scripture the sole norming authority, then we give authority to the heretical teachings of Arius (and others) that "come from" Scripture.
[/quote](And in addition, we give greater authority to Scripture than to Christ, we divorce Scripture and doctrine from the Christian life.)
Let's say it this way.
If we give Scripture.. GOD's inspired words, sole norming authority,
then we check everything against what does God say. HMM...
The devil IS a liar, nothing new under the sun.
It sounds kind of like...
That mean old devil twists scripture, shoot, now what will we use?
(as if he's limited to ONLY twisting Scripture and nothing else?)
Yes, we check, but Jesus Christ is the sole norming authority; Arius's interpretation of the Holy Scriptures was in error when normed against the truth of the person of Jesus Christ - what had been received.GOD's inspired words, sole norming authority,
then we check everything against what does God say
Have NO idea how you reach such, but
it's quite absurd from this side of the screen.
Oh no. I have seen the posts.I guess you could call Satan mean (at least in the older usage, of small-hearted), but I don't think the summary is actually representative.
And it could be considered that Scripture has always been used to support or "prove" heresy, and has always been used aright as well.
Consider it maybe this way - many Christians have received (it's been handed over to) the tradition of Scripture and Sola Scriptura. IE this is what is received, this is what is used. This is not the entirety of what has been received by the EO, however. In this sense, I understand your perspective.
The summary also seems to assume that the Holy Scriptures are not important, not authoritative in the EO and this is clearly a misunderstanding - as it is not factual. We may not embrace the praxis of Sola Scriptura, but this is not the same as diminishing the authority of Scripture.
Yes, we check, but Jesus Christ is the sole norming authority; Arius's interpretation of the Holy Scriptures was in error when normed against the truth of the person of Jesus Christ - what had been received.
If we "confine" God to what is stated in the Scriptures, then we indeed make Scripture the authority instead of He who inspired the Scriptures and Whom the Scriptures testify.
No text can exhaustively represent any human person, much less the Godman Jesus Christ. We cannot even begin to truly conceptualize God. The act of reading itself is a conceptual act, not a relational act. One can begin of course to mistake the conceptual for the relational; not that this always happens.
If Scripture alone were sufficient, there was no need for Christ to come as the Godman - among us. Christ is a person, and a person is more than the teachings on record.
If you have any particular questions from the posts where I describe this in further detail (which I mentioned to you earlier), feel free to let me know; I'll do the best I can to explain. I think a general re-statement would not be helpful, as the original was not. I'll leave this up to you, yea or nay
Oh no. I have seen the posts.
You say it over and again and evidently you believe that makes it a fact.
I completely understand how you feel about SS and I also
understand why.
I continue to post responses to your interesting ideas not so much
for you, (been there done that) but for those who are interested in
both sides of the story, for lurkers and for the sake of the babes.
Carry on.
Here you go, folks, if this is accurate.
Arianism: Up to this point the Trinitarian debate had taken place entirely in the West. We now move to the East, where the debate became a great controversy. It lasted sixty years, involved the entire eastern church, the western church in part, and occupied the attention of eleven emperors. The long discussion began with Arius, a presbyter in the church in Alexandria. [FONT=CG Times (W1)]He was a disciple of Lucian, who in turn was a student of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch from 260 to 272[/FONT][FONT=CG Times (W1)]. Paul was an Adoptionist (Dynamic Monarchian). He taught that the Logos or Reason of God dwelt in the man Jesus. This Logos had also been in Moses and in the prophets; in Jesus, however, it was present in much larger measure. As a result, he was united with God in a relationship of love as no other man had been. Therefore, God "adopted" Jesus after his crucifixion and resurrection and gave him a sort of deity. [/FONT]
Trinity: Arius and the Nicene Creed
There's the source of Arius' teaching.
IOW, like many groups today who use tradition and scripture, Arius did too.
Sola scriptura (and tradition-tied-to-apostles), however, won out in the end.
Umm, we've yet to see that tradition. In fact, you too have been asked for the support. So, provide the cites.
PS. So far, in this argument, if you read the thread, its sola scripture 1 and tradition 0.
I am curious about one other thing, though. Do protestants think that the council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts was decided by scripture also?
The council in Jerusalem looked into scripture and decided from scripture what should be done.After they had stopped speaking, James answered, saying, Brethren, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first concerned Himself about taking from among the Gentiles a people for His name. With this the words of the Prophets agree, just as it is written,
AFTER THESE THINGS I will return,
AND I WILL REBUILD THE TABERNACLE OF DAVID WHICH HAS FALLEN,
AND I WILL REBUILD ITS RUINS,
AND I WILL RESTORE IT,
SO THAT THE REST OF MANKIND MAY SEEK THE LORD,
AND ALL THE GENTILES WHO ARE CALLED BY MY NAME, SAYS THE LORD, WHO MAKES THESE THINGS KNOWN FROM LONG AGO.
Therefore it is my judgment. . .
Oh no. I have seen the posts.
You say it over and again and evidently you believe that makes it a fact.
I completely understand how you feel about SS and I also
understand why.
I continue to post responses to your interesting ideas not so much
for you, (been there done that) but for those who are interested in
both sides of the story, for lurkers and for the sake of the babes.
Carry on.
Nobody is saying scripture is unimportant, or that it should not be turned to. The council in Jerusalem was clearly Spirit-led in their interpretation. Today, however, there are so many interpretations which conflict -- that is not the work of the Spirit.The council in Jerusalem looked into scripture and decided from scripture what should be done.
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?