Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
That is built upon the PRESUMPTION that the Bible catalogs the entire Christian belief in written words. It doesn't. The Bible is a collection of what the Apostles (and those close to them) wrote. They ONLY ADDRESSED things that they felt needed further explanation. Things that everyone believed were not given much attention. When the Corinthians wrote to Paul, he didn't respond by giving them an entire exposition of the faith - only answers to the questions they asked. The Bible doesn't address everything that Christians believe, nor does it do it in a systematic or complete way. To say it does it merely speculation - since there is no evidence from Scriptures or later writings that this was the case.
Oral and written error came forth both before and after this time, but God made sure none of it made its way into the Bible.
What makes you think there was error in the oral teachings of the Apostles? What evidence do you have that oral was wrong and written was infallibly correct?
I still haven't seen an argument against my contention that extra-scriptural Tradition dominates the scripture because it defines the scripture. The scripture does NOT define the extra-scriptural Tradition.
This "Tradition" is our paradigm of looking at the Bible. The Bible is meant to be read a certain way. It makes no sense that the Bible was written and open to ANY interpretation. The Apostles and such wrote it and meant certain things by it - it is not meant to be interpreted by the whims of particular people who have no clue on what the Apostles are writing about.
My focus was on that you diminish the written word because there was oral tradition before it. You lessen the authority of the NT because oral teaching preceded it.
I am merely relating the obvious chronological development of God's revelation to mankind. That was God's will. Just because I recognize that oral tradition came first, I now do not consider the Scriptures as important? That is ridiculous. I am merely recognizing what should be obvious to any unbiased man...that oral tradition came first and oral tradition shaped the Bible. The two are inseparable.
No, I said "If something is written from God ..."
So if I say "this is God's Word", followed by some sort of baloney, you'd believe it because I preceded it with "this is God's word"?
We have both read the Bible, cover to cover. Is it really only a matter of faith to you that the Bible is from God?
The Bible was not written all at once - but by many men over the ages. We have been told it is from God - but this is why we call it "faith".
I have never said that anything written equals something true. I have said that anything written from God beats out anything else "claimed" to be from God.
Really, what is the difference? Are you trying to say that because something is WRITTEN that it is from God, it is beyond reproof???
My understanding is that Sunday was chosen because Christ rose on a Sunday. What does that have to do with anything?
BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN! Was it not WRITTEN that the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath? But then Christians, based on ORAL teachings, change the day of the Sabbath - a LAW of God!!! What does that have to do with anything????
Sola Scriptura does not throw out oral teaching. It establishes what is authoritative. Any oral teaching that is consistent with scripture is good. Jesus taught orally. How could we be against oral teaching as a principle?
I am not talking about oral teaching. I am talking about men interpreting Scripture. The Bible doesn't interpret itself - many people can get different things from the same passages - as we have clearly found out.
Regards
From God's point of view, of course, there is no luck. But this is based on faith, is it not? We take the Church's word that it has presented to us God's Word. There is no scientific proof. From man's point of view, Luke did not get together with Matthew so that they could get the red letters right on Jesus' words.
I don't know anything about burning bosoms :), but I know that the Spirit is leading me when I think or do something that matches what the scripture teaches.
Do you realize you can be arguing in a circle? The Bible can "teach" a lot of things, according to heretics....
On occasion, I also find it helpful to consider common practices of the time.
Well, that makes more sense than relying on yourself.
But I thought that at least one Pope was declared a heretic, presumably for teaching falsely.
No Pope taught falsely. A Pope that does not firmly declare heresy when he sees it is not the same as one who teaches it actively.
The Bible can. Adam sinned sometime in the first 130 years of his life. :
Then I stand corrected - presuming that the Bible is talking about his entire life and not counting the years after the fall alone.
Much of what is considered good science at the time has gone on to be proven wrong.
I don't see how Genesis 1 and 2 can be reconciled by a strictly scientific, historical point of view. They clearly contradict. That is a big reason why I consider the first three chapters as allegorical or spiritual.
Regards
If you believe that, you can believe anything.
"Since for unbelieving men religion seems to stand by opinion alone, they, in order not to believe anything foolishly or lightly, both wish and demand rational proof that Moses and the prophets spoke divinely. But I reply: the testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than all reason. For as God alone is a fit witness of himself in his Word, so also the Word will not find acceptance in men's hearts before it is sealed by the inward testimony of the Spirit. The same Spirit, therefore, who has spoken through the mouths of the prophets must penetrate into our hearts to persuade us that they faithfully proclaimed what had been divinely commanded..." -- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.7.5.
"The Scripture is to be its own interpreter, or rather the Spirit speaking in it; nothing can cut the diamond but the diamond; nothing can interpret Scripture but Scripture." -- Thomas Watson
Regards
Well, for starters, how about the whole idea of justification by faith that was taught by Calvin and Luther - the concept of extrinsic justification.
Doesn't Christ say that WE MUST BECOME RIGHTEOUS - EXCEEDING THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE PHARISEES? This, of course, goes totally against the invention of Luther and Calvin that man can do nothing. Christ says WE must become righteous, Protestants say we can't. At all.
Regards
Thank you for John Knox's thoughts on ceremonies.
I'm still asking if you believe intercessory prayer is scriptural and whether you believe the saints in heaven are part of the Body of Christ.
thanks for your reply.
Catholics might say that sanctifying grace is achieved at Baptism.
Yes, we receive sanctifying grace at Baptism, but we continue to grow in this grace during our sanctification. This is one reason why Catholics see "Grace" as a created thing (as well as uncreated), since uncreated grace doesn't "grow" - it is impossible for God to "grow". Sanctifying grace is the most important thing to have in our souls - as it guarantees heaven if we have it when we die. It indicates we are in friendship with God, even if this level of grace is not that of a "saint".
Regards
Prayer to God is Scriptural, and all whom God ordained as the elect are part of the body of Christ.
I'm glad you enjoyed the excerpt from John Knox. I have a lot more by him if you'd like the links.
Why do you pray to dead people when our only mediator is Jesus Christ who redeemed all those who believe in Him as Lord and Savior?
You are welcome. I hope this helped clarify an otherwise not such a clear-cut issue. One can only speculate as to what Pope Honorius I believed, but it is an altogether different issue as to what he did in his office, acting as +Peter. Obviously, the Council had very little sympathy for a pope who failed to oppose a heresy, but this is easier said in retrospect (the Council was held 40 years after Honorius I died) than it was for the contemporaries.
Let us not forget that St. Maximos the Confessor sought refuge with Pope Honorius I for yet another heresy embraced by the Bishop of Constantinople, and held the same Pope in high regard as a protector of Orthodoxy.
One must also understand the desire by many in the Church to find a way to re-unite monophysites with Chalcedonian (orthodox) beliefs, and monothelism seemed to them as a theologically defensible theology. Unfortunately for them, they were wrong.
One must also understand that while Constantinople or New Rome, only second in dignity to Old Rome, was the site of many heresies by its bishops. The same cannot be said for the bishops of Rome.
One must not confuse papal personal opinions and even (un)civil or outright sinful conduct with the execution of their official duties, and have steadfast defense of the Orthodox Faith. We Orhtodox must never forget that many of the greatest Eastern Fathers (+John Chrysostomos and St. Maximos the Confessor among the top ones) sought and received such defense and support from the bishops of Rome, when large portions of Christendom seemingly fell into heresy.
It is incorrect to interpret current Eastern Orthodox non-communion with the Bishop of Rome as non-recognition of the office. We do not share communion because the Apostolic Faith has two different interpretations and beliefs on several key issues that have not yet been resolved and will require an Ecumenical Council to do so, papal jurisdictional issues notwithstanding.
That is an excellent point, jo! Unfortunately, the Protestant answer to this is already known: we can exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees only if God grants it to us.
Back to square one!
You do understand what intercessory prayer is, yes? If so, this question is a non-sequitor.
So I was thinking you were saying intercessory prayer is scriptural in the first part of your reply; however, this disconnect was in the last.
I am also interpreting your reply to mean that you do believe the saints in heaven are part of the Body of Christ. Am I correct?
thanks very much for your reply...
Kosta is absolutely right that most Orthodox believe that Mary's body was taken up into heaven (*after* her death and burial.) There is an entire story about St. Thomas not being at her death and burial, and then going to her tomb, only to find it empty, and seeing in a vision that she was assumed into heaven, etc... I personally accept this general story as reflecting the consensus tradition of the Orthodox Church.
What is interesting is that the liturgical services of the Orthodox Church are *very* ambiguous on this point. If you read the texts for the services of the Dormition, I'm not sure that one would come away knowing that we believe in her being taken up into heaven in the body.
I seem to remember writing a lengthy post on this sometime in the distant past, quoting the relevant portions of the services. The emphasis in the services is that she died and that her soul was taken to heaven. There are a couple of oblique references to her body -- if I have time, I'll look them up.
It is perfectly acceptable for an Orthodox Christian not to believe that she was assumed bodily into heaven after her death (as with so many things, we don't dogmatize a whole lot -- and if something isn't clear in what we pray it is probably not a dogma.) I personally believe that she was, but there are people I respect who doubt the veracity of that particular part of the tradition, and their arguments are legitimate.
I don't see how the Orthodox version of this -- namely that Christ did not want his mother's body to suffer corruption and decay, and also wanted to give to the world a foretaste of the resurrection awaiting us ordinary mortal Christians (just as Mary was an ordinary mortal Christian) -- is blasphemous in any way.
Enoch and Elijah were taken up into heaven bodily without death (although we in the Orthodox Church believe that they will return as the two witnesses, and *then* be killed at the end of time.
As to a body being taken up into heaven after death, we have the witness from the Epistle of St. Jude, where the Archangel Michael and Satan are disputing over the body of Moses. Why dispute over his body if not for the reason of taking it up to heaven? Just as no man ever found Moses' body or grave according to the Scriptures, so also no-one has ever identified a grave or any relices of the Theotokos. For someone of her importance to the Church, one would expect that this would not be the case.
The two who appeared to the disciples on Mt. Tabor were Moses and Elijah -- besides the obvious summary of law and prophets, I find it interesting that in both cases, something unusual happened to their bodies. The one was assumed into heaven without dying, and with Moses, I don't know exactly what happened, but between what Deuteronomy says and Jude says, it wasn't the ordinary, run-of-the-mill thing...
"There is no reason to expect or believe that Mary would of been approached by an angel so that the angel could announce her impending motherhood had this been just a normal run of the mill pregnancy."
An angel appeared to Samson's parents and to Zechariah to announce the birth of a child. So, in the Bible, angels appear to announce the births of children conceived in an ordinary way.
"And also, that totally destroys your argument that Mary was sworn to be and remain a virgin."
Exactly what destroys my argument? (And note that I'm not arguing that you can, from Scripture alone, come up with the Orthodox understanding. I'm simply saying that the Scripture does not contradict the Orthodox understanding.)
"Mary knew the sign of the messiah.......
Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."
Actually, unless I am misunderstanding you, you are arguing against yourself. If she knew that the sign of the Messiah was that he would be the result of a virgin birth, and she knew that the angel was telling her that she would bear the Messiah, then her response wouldn't be "how can this be, seeing that I know not a man?" Her response would have either have been "Oh, joy, I'm going to bear the Messiah, and of course it has to be when I am not "knowing" a man," or "How can this thing be, since I'm about to get married and sexually active, and the Messiah is supposed to be born of a virgin?"
None of these are how she actually responded, if you look to the Bible to see what it says.
You'll have to try again, and come up with a logical reason why she responded with the words, "How can this be, seeing that I know not a man?"
I debated on how to phrase it and I thought it would be NICER to say it the way I did. :) I surmised that if you added up all the relevant posts, they would break 10 to 1 in highlighting the unity between Orthodox and Catholics, rather than the differences. But I know there are several differences, and I have enjoyed learning about them.
I, for one, am very surprised that there have not been more "free-will" Protestants chiming in. That would make it more of a "Cage Match!" :)
Fair enough. I completely agree that Protestants do follow many traditions and traditional understandings -- and that Protestantism has developed traditions of its own that it follows.
Most fundamental doctrinal formularies of classical Protestantism are clearly the result of continuing to think in traditional ways about how to interpret the Scriptures.
All one has to do is look at groups that truly cut themselves off completely from the continuity of Christian tradition to see what genuinely "Sola Scriptura" thinking can do. They are called cults.
I would also point out that once Scripture was established, everything had to be consonant with that Scripture. There was and is no room for doctrines that are contradicted by Scripture.
qua: Bullseye!
There is no bullseye in the sky, and this was another shot in that direction (so, I suppose anywhere is a bullseye).
If ours is one seamless religion, then I shall see all of you next Saturday in a synagogue, or a whole bunch of Jews in our churches. As to which church, not that may be a bigger problem...because what you believe and what the Church has always believed is not one and the same thing (there is really nothing seamless about various Christian sects and cults and the Apostolic Church).
If silverlings meant to say that we find our roots in the OT, the roots of our theology, and its revelation incomplete but promising, then I would say he is probably right.
Priest are not apostles are they?
Of course, if one prays to Jesus Christ.
Why do you avoid prayers to the only One who can answer them?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.