you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[Montalban]

But without leaders, there wouldn't be anyone to lead us into heresy. The more trust you place in some priest to understand things for you, the less you trust in the Spirit to teach us all things, as Paul suggests.

BTW, do you think the teachings of your church are infallible?

You saying individuals can't err into heresy?

 

[Montalban]

Excuse me?

Well you reject them.

When I learn a more reasonable answer or is somehow convinced/convicted of something else.

So you don't know if you're wrong now, which is what I stated. There's no test, until after the fact.

I regard logic highly, yes, but I don't let logic solely decide what I believe about spiritual things.

Whatever else you use would still be you.

Me neither

Cool. Which church fathers do you follow then?

That's why it's so good that we have the Spirit, the bible, each other, and so forth.

Except the bits of the Bible you reject.

I think that ultimately, we are to rely on Him.

I agree. But it's like God saying "I'll pick you up if you wait here" and you ignoring him by going somewhere else doing something else and saying "Well, he's God, he'll come and get me"

Unless God Himself reveals anything to us, we don't have true knowledge about it.

So I can't know Islam unless God leads me to it?

We could read the bible back and forth and be members of the most traditional church in the world and be the smartest people who ever lived - we wouldn't know God unless He chose to reveal Himself.

And he said how we should meet him

Just like you, then.

No. I believe Paul

You personally think that the hair length stuff should be taken literally and personally.

Based on history.

Because the church tells you so, I presume, and because you personally believe the church must be right. Correct?

That's like you arguing that because I read history I'm just believing history to be correct.

I interpret the bible. You interpret the bible. The only difference is how we interpret it.

I don't interpret the Bible. It's not up to private interpretation. Peter says so

Where does that idea come from?

The nature of truth and Jesus saying the gates of hell would not prevail against his church.

Well, it does speak about the earth being flat, as in having corners and such.

Cite me this, about being flat. I've already talked of the 'corners'. Being poetical is not being erroneous

And that it stands on poles. Well, the bible may not "preach" that the earth is flat, but at least some of the writers of the bible assumed that it is. Honest mistake, could happen to anybody. Does happen to anybody.

Well you keep saying these things but I've not seen any evidence from you.

Which individualism does Paul warn about?

Doing your own thing. He calls people to unity of faith and following of leaders. As noted, Jesus appointed leaders, shepherds. Acts shows Phillip teaching. The whole point of having teachers in the Bible points to this. But you reply continuously with your opinion.

Until you come up with facts …


And Adams sin was to attempt to know God through his own knowledge. By disobeying God he then 'knew' sin.

 

[Montalban]

Uhh... the Catholic church has been free from error?

Why's it more preferable than you as an individual to discard which bits of the Bible you don't like and to say that the Bible's got errors in it anyway?

How'd you know what you know to be true? In fact it seems you wish to argue both that you're right, and that your method is full of holes; relying as it is on flawed individuals reading flawed books

 

[GenemZ]

Why's it more preferable than you as an individual to discard which bits of the Bible you don't like and to say that the Bible's got errors in it anyway?

How'd you know what you know to be true? In fact it seems you wish to argue both that you're right, and that your method is full of holes; relying as it is on flawed individuals reading flawed books

So? You only know something is true because an early father said so? They were never wrong? Never disagreed?

 

[E.C.]

So? You only know something is true because an early father said so? They were never wrong? Never disagreed?

Tell me, why the condescending attitude?

 

[GenemZ]

Tell me, why the condescending attitude?

Why don't you answer the question I asked, rather than create a diversion away from it?




.

 

[Theophorus]

Is it that simple? What denom do you belong to? Let's see how simple you guys are.

It is that simple. We pray, fast, confess and take communion.

Just because Jesus said something doesn't mean we should take it literally or personally - like a lot of other things said in the old covenant.

I think christians often think that "new covenant" and what we refer to as the "new testament" are interchangeable terms, but they're really not.

We take Christ literally, since He is the hope of the "new covenant".

Since St. Paul said to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs,..."; which words of Christ apply, if the Lord's prayer doesn't, and which old covenant psalms are St. Paul speaking about?

 

[E.C.]

Why don't you answer the question I asked, rather than create a diversion away from it?

You were asking Montalban, not I.

And again I ask: why the condescending attitude?

 

[GenemZ]

You were asking Montalban, not I.

And again I ask: why the condescending attitude?

I was not being that way. That's why this is turning into a diversion away from the question.

Which was...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montalban
Why's it more preferable than you as an individual to discard which bits of the Bible you don't like and to say that the Bible's got errors in it anyway?

How'd you know what you know to be true? In fact it seems you wish to argue both that you're right, and that your method is full of holes; relying as it is on flawed individuals reading flawed books.



response:

So? You only know something is true because an early father said so? They were never wrong? Never disagreed?



.........................................................................
Emperor Constantine? Can you answer it?

You are an Emperor? How humble of you to answer your lowly servant.



.


.

 

[sunlover1]

This is what i am saying...
Someone HAS TO BE RIGHT!

That's why I study Scripture.
God's the only one who's 100% 'right'.
29 Jesus answered and said unto them,
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures,
nor the power of God.

Because of the words of Christ 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' means that Church would be here for every generation, and that Church would not teach error, and they would be the same Church instituted that very day by Christ.

That's not what it says though, in the Scriptures:
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter,
and upon this rock I will build my church;
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

NOW...if you say you love truth and you want truth because it will nourish you like no other...then you must recognise that that Church must exist, does exist, and the doctrines are still with us the same as the day the Holy Spirit descended on the men who preached it.

If you agree that St John & St Paul belong in scriptures, and you agree they had the Holy Spirit to write scriptures, then you must agree with htem when they tell us;

2 Corinthians 11
3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him.

...and...
13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works.
Galatians 1
6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.
Galatians 1
7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Acts Of Apostles 2
42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Romans 6
17 But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart, unto that form of doctrine, into which you have been delivered.
Romans 16
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.
1 Corinthians 2
13 Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1 John 4
6 We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.
1 John 2
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us

 

[E.C.]

I was not being that way. That's why this is turning into a diversion away from the question.

Which was...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Montalban
Why's it more preferable than you as an individual to discard which bits of the Bible you don't like and to say that the Bible's got errors in it anyway?

How'd you know what you know to be true? In fact it seems you wish to argue both that you're right, and that your method is full of holes; relying as it is on flawed individuals reading flawed books.



response:

So? You only know something is true because an early father said so? They were never wrong? Never disagreed?

.........................................................................
Emperor Constantine? Can you answer it?

You are an Emperor? How humble of you to answer your lowly servant.

Not an emperor, never have and never will be (except for when I get my own place - a man's house is his castle ).


Because there may not have been complete 100% agreement between the Fathers over every finite detail (coffee and donuts after worship, or a meal? - that sort of thing) they did all agree on things that were important. Christological, sacramental and spiritual matters, for instance, the Fathers did agree on. Whenever there was a heresy, ranging from Arianism to Iconoclasm, they did agree on the orthodox (note small o) position even though it may not have been the catholic (note small c) position. When the heresy of Arianism was rampant, less than 10% of the populous stayed on the straight and narrow path, so to say.

What the Fathers do have to say is important since they were on this earth in those early centuries of Christianity and since they were here in times of heresy.

Between the East (Eastern Orthodoxy) and the West (Roman Catholicism and Protestantism) different Fathers are looked to. The West prefers to refer to theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The East prefers to refer to theologians such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of Damascus and St. Cyril of Alexandria. As well as others such as the Desert Fathers; I believe St. Isaac the Syrian was one.
Since Augustine was from the West and John Chrysostom from the East; there will be a difference of opinion in different matters. I believe that Roman Catholics claim that Augustine supported papal supremacy, whilst St. John Chrysostom did not support papal supremacy.

Does this mean that we are to use the works and writings of one Father over the other? No. Does this mean that the writings of one are better than the other? Depends on who you ask. Does this mean that the two completely disagreed on every single topic, heresy or issue that came up? No.

We know that things are true because they were believed by many before us. And we have the history and records to support it . St. Athanasius was a key refuter of Arianism. He said that Christ was both man and God. Christians as a whole believe this, yet few of us remember the history (EO, RC and OO mainly). Do Orthodox Christians today believe that Christ is man and God in one body and that Mary is the Theotokos (God-bearer)? Yes; this too was decided at an Ecumenical Council and we care because the Ecum. Councils consisted of the whole Church; not just bits and pieces. What was decided there was decided throughout the Church.

The Orthodox faith had its last bit of major theological development in 787 at Nicea during the Seventh Ecumenical Council. This one determined that the veneration of icons are ok since they are spiritual tools as well as evidence that God did manifest Himself as man (Christ).

Our faith is that which is something handed down generation to generation; similar to an heirloom. We do not add to it, nor do we take from it. We do not compromise it, because we can not compromise it and doing so would be insulting to God, basically telling Him that what He has given us is not good enough to exist. As said, the last theological change or reaffirmation was at Nicea in 787. It is 2008, and has been about 1221 years since then. We know what is correct because we have not changed what is correct; not because "an early father" said so, but because we've been playing to the same tune for 2,000 years; both unending and unchanging.

 

[GenemZ]

This is what i am saying...
Someone HAS TO BE RIGHT!

Because of the words of Christ 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' means that Church would be here for every generation, and that Church would not teach error, and they would be the same Church instituted that very day by Christ.

NOW...if you say you love truth and you want truth because it will nourish you like no other...then you must recognise that that Church must exist, does exist, and the doctrines are still with us the same as the day the Holy Spirit descended on the men who preached it.

The Holy Spirit doesn't change, and He is capable [as God] to keep everything on track.

If you agree that St John & St Paul belong in scriptures, and you agree they had the Holy Spirit to write scriptures, then you must agree with htem when they tell us;

2 Corinthians 11
3 But I fear lest, as the serpent seduced Eve by his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted, and fall from the simplicity that is in Christ.
4 For if he that cometh preacheth another Christ, whom we have not preached; or if you receive another Spirit, whom you have not received; or another gospel which you have not received; you might well bear with him.

...and...
13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder: for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers be transformed as the ministers of justice, whose end shall be according to their works.


Galatians 1
6 I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.

Galatians 1
7 Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.


Acts Of Apostles 2
42 And they were persevering in the doctrine of the apostles, and in the communication of the breaking of bread, and in prayers.




Romans 6
17 But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin, but have obeyed from the heart, unto that form of doctrine, into which you have been delivered.


Romans 16
17 Now I beseech you, brethren, to mark them who make dissensions and offences contrary to the doctrine which you have learned, and avoid them.

1 Corinthians 2
13 Which things also we speak, not in the learned words of human wisdom; but in the doctrine of the Spirit, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

1 John 4
6 We are of God. He that knoweth God, heareth us. He that is not of God, heareth us not. By this we know the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

1 John 2
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have remained with us; but that they may be manifest, that they are not all of us.

Is that to say? That if I disagree with your church on various of it doctrines? That I have to be wrong? That I can not know something beyond what your church professes? Where I disagree? I must be wrong?

That if I show you reasons why something your church teaches is incorrect? That you, by virtue of reading what your church professes, must reject what I might have to say?



GeneZ




.

 

[GenemZ]

Not an emperor, never have and never will be (except for when I get my own place - a man's house is his castle )

Castles did not have door bells.

Because there may not have been complete 100% agreement between the Fathers over every finite detail (coffee and donuts after worship, or a meal? - that sort of thing) they did all agree on things that were important. Christological, sacramental and spiritual matters, for instance, the Fathers did agree on. Whenever there was a heresy, ranging from Arianism to Iconoclasm, they did agree on the orthodox (note small o) position even though it may not have been the catholic (note small c) position. When the heresy of Arianism was rampant, less than 10% of the populous stayed on the straight and narrow path, so to say.

That's encouraging to know. God wanted these hearts (90%) weeded out; and at the same time, it was a test to see if the church would compromise on his Word as to win the approval of men.

What the Fathers do have to say is important since they were on this earth in those early centuries of Christianity and since they were here in times of heresy.

I realize that. Learned Protestant teachers study the early fathers, as well. But, back then they still were not holders of all the truth that the Bible contains. My gripe is that certain churches are stuck back on the level of spiritual progress that ended centuries ago.

Between the East (Eastern Orthodoxy) and the West (Roman Catholicism and Protestantism) different Fathers are looked to. The West prefers to refer to theologians such as Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The East prefers to refer to theologians such as St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. John of Damascus and St. Cyril of Alexandria. As well as others such as the Desert Fathers; I believe St. Isaac the Syrian was one.

On the other hand, learned Protestant teachers can learn from all of them without regard to a bias.

Since Augustine was from the West and John Chrysostom from the East; there will be a difference of opinion in different matters. I believe that Roman Catholics claim that Augustine supported papal supremacy, whilst St. John Chrysostom did not support papal supremacy.

There you go. Eastern church consists of heretics. Right?

Does this mean that we are to use the works and writings of one Father over the other? No. Does this mean that the writings of one are better than the other? Depends on who you ask. Does this mean that the two completely disagreed on every single topic, heresy or issue that came up? No.

I have no problem with that. Its just that all insight to be had did not stop back then. God's Truth keeps marching on!

It keeps moving forward. True, we are not to disregard the proven truths that the early fathers were gifted with. But, they were not always able to see truths that would take time before God would reveal them.

The doctrine of the Trinity did not appear in 40AD. Did it? And, Mary veneration was unheard of in the early Jewish church. It only appeared in Gentile churches where they were leaving behind the worship of female deities which many sentimentally still longed for. Certain teachings were the results of compromise with a desire to keep people in the pews.

We know that things are true because they were believed by many before us. And we have the history and records to support it. St. Athanasius was a key refuter of Arianism. He said that Christ was both man and God. Christians as a whole believe this, yet few of us remember the history (EO, RC and OO mainly).

I do not have to know the history of when the first car was invented in order to drive one. Besides, the same truths that the early fathers learned from in the Scriptures, are still in the Scriptures!

People are still discovering these same truths for themselves, all over again.

I can tell you that for a fact. One day I had a Scriptural correlation, and a light went on. Quite some time afterwards (years), by what seemed by chance, I read that an early church father had the same insight. In my case... I did not need him to know this truth. I needed the Holy Spirit and a desire for more and more knowledge of God's Word.

Now? On the other hand? If I had read that early father's work at a time in my life when I was not yet having the capacity for what he said? I may have disagreed with him.

Do Orthodox Christians today believe that Christ is man and God in one body and that Mary is the Theotokos (God-bearer)? Yes; this too was decided at an Ecumenical Council and we care because the Ecum. Councils consisted of the whole Church; not just bits and pieces. What was decided there was decided throughout the Church.

Here we go again.

The one whom God was in union with in the hypostatic union? By virtue of that union? Made Christ to be God. The one in whom Deity was in union with, is the one whom Mary gave birth to. Not, Deity itself.

Eternally existing Deity can not be born. If it could? It would have not had to exist before being born.

Deity always was, and always will be. Deity was one with the experience of the one who was born of Mary. But, as Jesus was being born? Deity was not being born. This is where we disagree.

Jesus in the flesh was not walking around Heaven before the incarnation. Jesus was born. Not his Deity.

The Lord God of Israel had to lower himself of his rightful function as Deity (Philippians 2:6-8) and Deity become as a man with the humanity that was produced in the womb of Mary.

Scripture itself tells us its wrong to think Deity can be born. For Deity proclaims Himself to be eternally existing!

Its the human side of the hypostatic union that was born. For the one who was the Deity side of Jesus? Was always being God before Jesus was born.


Now? God made himself one with the humanity being born. But, Deity was not being born. Its impossible. To be born, means to come into existence at a point in time.


That is one example of how the teachings of your church makes me believe you have failed to advance in understanding.

The inability to reason this through with Bible truth makes me want to have nothing to do with your church. Sorry. But its true.

Your denomination has turned certain works of the early fathers into idols that you must bow down to without thinking Scripturally. The early fathers did make a few mistakes. You refuse to see this. Or, as they are now presented? Need to be better clarified. For the way they are presented on this issue now? Is contrary to what the Word of God tells us.

The Orthodox faith had its last bit of major theological development in 787 at Nicea during the Seventh Ecumenical Council. This one determined that the veneration of icons are ok since they are spiritual tools as well as evidence that God did manifest Himself as man (Christ).

Rationalization. What happened reveals the loss of the needed intimate spiritual relationship God desires of believers. It appears that your church at that time shifted towards a religious expression, rather than a truly spiritual one. Imagine Jesus praying to an icon? He told us how to pray and worship. He would have smashed icons.

Our faith is that which is something handed down generation to generation; similar to an heirloom. We do not add to it, nor do we take from it.

Sorry.. The Amish are of the same mind set. Just a different set of beliefs. Stuck back in time.

We do not compromise it, because we can not compromise it and doing so would be insulting to God, basically telling Him that what He has given us is not good enough to exist.

Rationalization! God gave us HIS WORD! Men are not always interpreting the Word of God correctly. To be saying... "This is it! We go no further!" Can very well be a trap of the devil.


In contrast. The Bible commands us...

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version)
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
​

That was written to ALL in the church! Paul was saying that even he was to be questioned and proven by means of Scripture! Not just the church fathers.

Do you prove all things? The rationales you have accepted from your church not to do so, make that an impossibility. You dare not question the writings of the early fathers. You assume that they had all the knowledge they needed to form the doctrines they had.


If what you claimed about the works of the early fathers were true? The Bible should have a different verse in 1 Thessalonians 5:21, place. More like...

"Accept all things you are told; hold fast everything that which is from all your early fathers."


​

Even, Paul made mistakes! So did, Peter! But, the early fathers did not?

If what Paul and Peter did wrong were only put in writing? And the corrections were never put in writing? We would all be doing the same things wrong things without question. If! We were not to prove all things.

The early fathers lives were not recorded as Scripture like Paul and Peter. But examples of what all spiritual leaders go through as they grow and mature, are! Mistakes will be made. Corrections must come later.

Making someone into an icon of infallibility is surrendering ones volition to another being besides God. Yet, what's worse. Its done in the name of God. That to me, is a form of death. Not having to think. Only absorb and repeat.

Sorry... But, I tell you what I see is the truth of the matter. And? I can make mistakes.



In Christ, GeneZ




.

 

[Montalban]

So? You only know something is true because an early father said so? They were never wrong? Never disagreed?

That's part of the checks and balances Jesus established when he established the church.

 

[Montalban]

So, in the NT Jesus picks 12 to teach, and for them to teach.

Deacons, priests and bishops are shown.

Jesus says his church will never fail

Paul tells us to obey our leaders.

Throw it all away and have the cult of the individual; each man his own Pope believing just like every other one that the Holy Spirit is guiding them all to diverse and different opinions.

Jesus established unity. Protestantism established disunity.

 

[Montalban]

I realize that. Learned Protestant teachers study the early fathers, as well. But, back then they still were not holders of all the truth that the Bible contains. My gripe is that certain churches are stuck back on the level of spiritual progress that ended centuries ago.

There's nothing to add to Jesus' teachings.

There's no NT 2.0

Jesus taught us the way; you suggest that his teachings weren't sufficient.

This is as noted the sin of Adam, that through our own brilliance we can know God.

 

[Uphill Battle]

So, in the NT Jesus picks 12 to teach, and for them to teach.

Deacons, priests and bishops are shown.

Jesus says his church will never fail

Paul tells us to obey our leaders.

Throw it all away and have the cult of the individual; each man his own Pope believing just like every other one that the Holy Spirit is guiding them all to diverse and different opinions.

Jesus established unity. Protestantism established disunity.

we learned it from the best.

 

[Rick Otto]

we learned it from the best.

good morning!
yeah, there's something to that.
somethin' to do with task orientation becoming obsessive/compulsive and preoccupation with hierarchy, pomp, & circumstance distracting us from personaly relating to Whom all that is supposed to be pointing us toward.

 

[Rick Otto]

So, in the NT Jesus picks 12 to teach, and for them to teach.

You might be oversimplifying, bro...
Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

 

[Theophorus]

good morning!
yeah, there's something to that.
somethin' to do with task orientation becoming obsessive/compulsive and preoccupation with hierarchy, pomp, & circumstance distracting us from personaly relating to Whom all that is supposed to be pointing us toward.

I would say that some here seem to be obsessive about and preoccupied with authority, yes.

If I go to where the real worship is, can I play tambourine?

Fondue anyone?