Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
So which meaning do you go for and why? (And that's just a few verses)

---

All of them. And a lot more. An eternal an omniscient God can easily arrange for one sentence to mean different but appropriate things to millions of readers

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
(a) why is it 'obvious'?
(b) how do we apply it today?
(c) why should I trust your so-called 'obvious' interpretation over any other?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
OK Mudfrog, you have yet another interpretation of the passage - QED. But why and how do you hold to your particular interpretation?

---

Duh! Because it's the obvious one and isn't obscured by theology and left wing socio-babble.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

---

I'm wondering what constancy you're referring to, especially since over the years the RCC has adopted many of Luther's suggested reforms.

--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Mudfrog, what does your interpretation of Jesus' rebuke to the Revelation churches say about His earlier statement of "I will build my Church and the gates of Hades shall not prevail" (Matt 16:18)?

---

In fact the more I think about it, the more spurious this prooftexting seems.

There is nothing in these words by way of everlasting covenant.
Perhaps they promise that in the 250 years of Roman persecution ahead the movement would not be destroyed. Possibly even that if the movement ever went off the rails it would be restored or rise up again.

But that, throughout the millennia, there will forever be organisation in institutional continuity with the first church, and that it will be the same church of Jesus despite all corruption, crimes against humanity and the utter moral degradation of its leaders - that's a bit of a stretch, isn't it?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

Neither you nor Mudfoot replied to my central issue with Protestantism, that even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? (italics mine, js)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

---

Well, I'm glad that God has shown us the same things.

--------------------
[Nino points a gun at Chiki]
Nino: Now... tell me. Who started the war?
Chiki: [long pause] We did.
~No Man's Land

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history - however, an interpretation CAN add to the adequate surface meaning and shed extra light.

Some passages are interpreted by their own context and are explained right there and then. The interpretation is there for all to see - Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Let me just clarify. Some passages of Scripture NEED interpretation [...] Some passages BENEFIT from interpretation [...] Some passages - mainly historical narrative - CAN be interpreted to give a spiritual meaning [...] Some passages - historical narrative - don't NEED interpretation because they are history

---

quote:

---

Blessed are the peacemakers for example - it's so obvious.

---

If only it was We've had people on these very boards claiming scriptural justification for the unprovoked invasion of other countries. And others who are complete pacifists and say it is wrong even to defend your own country.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by A.F. Steve:
Given two conflicting views of the meaning of scripture, you would turn to the teachings of the heirachical organisation you (from a Protestant view) mistakenly call the Church. You view the teachings of that heirachy to be trustworthy.

At the core of Protestantism is a view that human organisations are not always trustworthy in this imperfect/fallen world, and that it is thus responsibility of the individual believer, as part of the Church (ie all Christians) and in the light of God's indwelling spirit to discern right beliefs and from them right actions.

---

Yes, that seems right.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

My point was:
1) The second commandment forbids the use of images.
2) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Therefore
3) Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) do not follow the second commandment.

In exactly the same way, almost no Christians obey the commandment about the Sabbath. For this they have explicit sanction in the NT. Image worship has the sanction of tradition.

I make no comment about the rightness or wrongness of either. I'm just saying just that when Andreas says there is no difference between Orthodox and Protestant attitudes to the Bible because Orthodox practice does not contravene the Bible, one would be using quite peculiar definitions of all of those words for his statement to be true.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

If one of the Eastern churches claimed that something they did was a tradition handed down from the time of the apostles, I would have to acknowledge the claim as possible. However, since I *know* that the Bible (and the Didache etc) has survived since the time of the early church, I would want to check the tradition against scripture -

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

St. Seraphim said,

quote:

---

An essential part of Protestantism is the belief that people have the right to read the Bible and decide what to believe based on the Gift of the Holy Spirit given to them at Baptism.

---

Yes, and this belief must be held by Protestants, else they can have no claim whatever to legitimacy. Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved. This idea is full of error and mischief, and has led many astray. Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth? In protestantism there is no standard of Truth, and using the Bible as 'arbiter of truth' is unworkable because doing to leads only to a multitude of 'small t' truths.

---

---

What I said was scripture was essential for a Protestant, not that it was the only thing. In fact many Protestant churches do use tradtion (ok, maybe only 100 years of it ) to back up what they read and interpret in the Bible.

quote:

---

I didn't mean to infer that you rely upon the Bible only. All churches have traditions, and St. Paul told us to hold fast to them.

---

quote:

---

Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

As far as there being only one road to Christ, I've always had problems with that view. There may be only one road for me, but that road may be different for someone else.

---

quote:

---

And there are routes that I know I could take and become good and lost. What is important is for me to keep my eyes on where I am going and if I become lost to seek directions and sometimes I only know I'm lost when someone asks me why I'm not going the right way (ask my husband on that one!)

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by m.t_tomb:
Couldn't it be that the interpretation of Scripture is somehow linked to the covenant of grace? What I mean is that God will attend his word with eternal truth when and where there are people in receipt of his covenant faithfulness. After all, the interpratation of Scripture is impossible without the tri-une indwelling of God at a corporate level. Now of course just what that corpus looks like and where that corpus is located is another discussion. But I'd be inclined to say that the corpus unto which God's covenant faithfulness causes him to attend his word with truth are the elect of God. In other words, the communion of saints throughout time, or those known fully to Christ alone. I can see no reason whatsoever why those 'elect' have been both within and without the institutional visible church since the very beginning.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Can we really be responsible for our own salvation, though? This protestant would say that we are saved soley by grace, so whatever choices we make, the ultimate responsibility for us being in Heaven rests with Jesus on the cross, for the free gift of salvation that God offers. Yes, we may have the responsibility to take that gift, but whether or not we choose to take it still depends on whether or not God offers it in the first place.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: Rome was one of five co-equal patriarchates

---

That's a very Orthodox view. Try telling a Roman that.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
If sola scriptura has given us everything from RC <slight snip> to Mormons

---

But Rome has its Tradition and infallibility, and Mormons have their book of Mormon and golden specs. Neither of those groups is sola scriptura.

---

quote:

---

To attempt an answer to your response to Quantpole, I'd ask what liturgy the Church used before the 4th century, before Sts Basil & John's day? Does God actually care about what precise liturgy we use, anyway? I for one really don't see why He should care whether we sing Kyrie e Leison, Depths of Mercy or Shine Jesus Shine, whether we use Eucharistic prayer A, B or C (I'm sure they all say the same thing) or whether we pronounce "Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again" or "Dying you destroyed our death, Rising you restored our life, Lord Jesus come in glory". They all say much the same thing. Should He not be pleased? Graham Kendrick is a part of the ongoing tradition of British hymnwriters, his talents grew organically within the church as much as anyone else's.

---

quote:

---

I must admit that your response to my post confused me rather, so if you could post it again more succinctly I'd be gratified. I'll try to answer it as well as I can, though.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

SQ had said,

quote:

---

even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation. Better someone who does not fully understand, or even misunderstands, but still walks the road, than one who is correct and yet lost, or never seeks the road.

---

Now you say (still not sure of the system, but I opened a can of worms, and haven't made it to styx for training, sorry)

---

The basic message I get here is that though we may know we have to follow Christ, protestants are not doing so, for some reason. Why do you see us as not doing so? What is the fault?

---

quote:

---

If salvation is by faith, surely putting our trust in Jesus is enough, as he will then work on our hearts and show us how to follow him?

---

quote:

---

Plus, we have the scriptures that we are sure haven't changed since, ooh, about 100AD to guide us on our way, and Christian friends to help us. Is not being in the Orthodox church enough to count us as "not on the road"? Looking back at what Jesus told His disciples then, from documents that are of verifiable age, He never mentioned a church of any name, but he did give instructions on how to follow Him. If I can use these to do so separately from Orthodoxy, surely that shows that Orthodoxy is not a requirement for "following the road", and so you shouldn't disqualify the protestants who are acting like you but merely not part of your church as "standing by the side of the road"?

---

quote:

---

if the path is obvious (follow Christ), why is it, and the gate, narrow

---

quote:

---

Because as you said, truly loving our neighbour, giving up some of our pleasures for him, (and not smacking my little brother round the face when he's annoying, and forgivign the guy who recently ran into me in his car) is hard to do. The gate is narrow because Satan still exists in the world, and he won't let temptation go away. We have all the information we need to follow God,

---

quote:

---

it's just the willpower and strength that's lacking. If we really ask Him for help, He'll provide us with all that we need, it's just that for most people, we don't even really want to be made pure, it's too painful.

---

quote:

---

In your second paragraph, you talk about Truth alot. Why is it capitalised, may I ask?

---

quote:

---

Is it because you believe the remaining patriachates to hold the one, unerring truth? How can you be so sure? When did God promise that? You said it was impossible for the whole church to err, but looking at the bible, it has already happened. Take Jesus, for example. I can remember possibly two pharissees who were not against him, and the establishment of Judaism had him murdered. So much for the preservation of Truth. Less than a century later, Paul wrote, when he wrote to "the church in Corinth" and John wrote, when he wrote to the seven churches, not to "yeah, the methodist church, just up the road from St Mark's" but to the church in it's entirety in one place. That was an age without fast transport, and most people would never stray far from their home town. THe churches he wrote to were the entire Christian life to most of the people involved. That was the entire church faltering. In Germany in Luther's day, how many people would ever get as far as Greece? Catholicism WAS The Church.

---

quote:

---

I could be a protestant living by myself on a desert island. All that is required is me and God. You seem to be saying that an organised church structure, well, one particular church structure, is required. Is God really mean enough to deny Himself to people who for insurmountable reasons can't be part of any structure?

---

quote:

---

Oh, and JWs are as far from my beleifs as they are from yours. Muslims aren't Orthodox either, but that doesn't make them protestant.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

When Jesus spoke about the church on earth, he was not guaranteeing an indestructable, infallible or impervious to error group. If he did, what would you have said to the churches in Asia Minor that no longer exist?

---

quote:

---

The fact is that, through all its years of error, weakness, schism, faithlessness, triumph, success, reformation and renewal, the Church, the Body of Christ has done remarkably well to preserve the Gospel message and maintain the cause of Christ.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

---

quote:

---

eriksdahl later said,
quote:


In much of Protestantism that is true. I will emphasize that as Lutherans we emphasize the idea that God does the work. It is God that makes us holy and acceptable rather than our works with God's help. We believe that man is so enslaved to sin that he cannot make any choice towards God. Any choice is a choice to sin. That is most likely distinctly a Lutheran view.
quote:


Yes, and prior to Luther, this was a view unknown to mankind. How is it that this central truth of our existence remained buried for so long? It concerns directly our communion with the Creator.
The answer is that it is not a truth at all, but rather one person's interpretation of scripture that others have decided, of their own accord, to accept. The Orthodox understanding of the nature of sin and how it affects our salvation has remained unchanged for more than 1500 years.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

In relation to this same argument, Mudfoot said that JWs, 7DAs, Mormons and Unitarians are not Christian. Well, they think they are. Scripture warns that many would fall away from the Truth, but the insidious thing about heresy is that the heretic never thinks of himself as such. And he may believe more fervently and loyally than the rest of us, and may still walk the path. But every divorce from the Truth produces the possibility of something like the Mormons.

---

quote:

---

Nothing's gained by mincing words. The teachings of the JWs (& at least some Unitarians - its hard to be sure what they believe because one meets so few of them) are clearly Christian, but Christian heretics. Disbeleiving the Trinity and the divinity of Christ. As such they have less in common with most mainstream Protestant teaching than that does with Roman Catholics or the Orthodox. Their origins lie in Protestant christianity but htey have diverged very far from it. Seventh Day Adventists are a Protestant church, yes. They have some teachings the rest of use find weird or heretical but I don't think they belong in the same company as the others you mention. The Mormons, whatever they say about themselves, are not recognisably a Christian church. Their teachings are no more Christian than those of the Muslims. In fact less, Christianity and Islam agree with each other on more things than they agree with Islam.

---

quote:

---

All four of those groups are Protestant, in that they deny the RC church and the Orthodox Church.

---

quote:

---

OK, the origins of JWs are within Protestantism and their practices are in many wasy like those of Protestant churches, so yes, they are culturally Protestant. But the origial Arians were culturally Orthodox. Would it be fair to blame today's Orthodox for their errors?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Having decided to ignore the reality of the historic Church, they could only claim to recreate it through faith and a diligent reading of Scripture. But this belief is not a part of any Christian dogma until Protestantism surfaced. This belief is so elastic that it allows for the likes of Joseph Smith and what's-his-name-the-JW-guy to both believe that they were moved by the spirit. Without the guidance of the Church, it is difficult to know if one is moved by the Spirit or by something nefarious. We don't know Smith's heart (he appears to have been of dubious character) so can't know if he thought he was actually moved by God or not. Likewise, whoever started up unitarianism and the other universal salvation beliefs probably also felt so moved.

---

Quite the opposite. Centering our faith and practice around the reading and teaching of Scripture can actually us from wandering far from God's guidance by chasing after the heretical innovations of preachers and teachers - whether Protestant or Orthodox or Roman.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

This is not something that you will find in any Bible. Scripture tells us that when individuals err in the Church they are to be corrected, but there is never the notion that the Church will err. It cannot err if it is guided by the Holy Spirit. The constancy in the Church is a testament to this guidance.

---

But as you said it is the small-c individual churches that have gone wrong from time to time, not the Church of God, the Bride of Christ. And those small-c churches that err include Orthodox as well as as Protestant churches. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Ken's post reminded me of something I was going to say, which he's basically said. When SC mentioned the unerring, Spirit-guided church, how can you be sure that was referring to any church that is in any way visible. Could it be that the 'Church with a big C' is actually the body of all believers on Earth, the invisible church, as such? And then, yes, churches within that can err, including the EO, but that great invisible body of believers, containing Prot, Cath, EO and who knows what will prevail. Could it be that protestantism was and is the guidance of the Spirit helping the Church to survive as the manmade structures of human churches crumbled and went off the rails?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Ken's post reminded me of something I was going to say, which he's basically said. When SC mentioned the unerring, Spirit-guided church, how can you be sure that was referring to any church that is in any way visible. Could it be that the 'Church with a big C' is actually the body of all believers on Earth, the invisible church, as such? And then, yes, churches within that can err, including the EO, but that great invisible body of believers, containing Prot, Cath, EO and who knows what will prevail. Could it be that protestantism was and is the guidance of the Spirit helping the Church to survive as the manmade structures of human churches crumbled and went off the rails?

---

If so, fullness of Truth is unavailable to us, because we cannot agree upon it. And the Bible refers to the Church as glorious plant grown from a mustard seed, there is no mention of death, or derailment, or rebirth. Christ's Truth, once imparted, is with us forever and is accessible to us forever.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
(Let me preface my comment with: My argument is not that Protestantism is worthless, rather that it is not Truth, and when something as important as your eternal life in the balance, our first concern should be Truth.)

Neither you nor Mudfoot replied to my central issue with Protestantism, that even if the central theology is correct and agreed upon by all (Christ saves, follow Him), that could not be more irrelevant to our salvation.

---

Well, then I'm afraid we can have no mutual understanding. The most important thing to Christ as he stated was to love God and to love your neighbor. All the Prophets and the law could be summed up in this. Have you ever considered that perhaps you are deviating from Christ's commands, according to his word?

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Either The Creator was able to impart truth or he was not. One may find edification in the pages of Scripture, but unless ones reading is in accord with the Fathers of the Church and with it's dogma, what claim can it have to truth? If any, is it a higher claim than a fellow protestant with an opposite interpretation? We can spend countless lifetimes reading Scripture, but in the end, how do we know if what we have gleaned is Truth?(italics mine, js)

---

I believe in a God who raised man from the dead, I believe in a God who spoke and bang the universe started to unravel, I believe in God whose main premise is that he loves people, I believe in a God that is intelligible, I believe in a God that wants to speak to us, I believe in a God who likes love stories, and surely if this God touched lepers and spoke to outcasts and shared Truth, likewise I put my trust in Him and I don't have to be afraid of error not because I'm perfect or have perfect revelation. But I'm not afraid to make mistakes because the God who made the Universe is capable enough to help me. If you have any questions, you can ask him about that.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Finally (if you read this far), regarding the Orthodox view of salvation, we believe that following Christ is difficult, and requires discpline, and is a life-long process, during which we can decide to turn away from our Creator. We have free will. We don't save ourselves through works - that would impose an obligation upon God. Rather, works are the fruit of each Christian vine, and in doing them we cultivate the foundational virtues of Christianity, without which one cannot follow Christ with any success: humility, obedience, repentance, and love.

---

Well, I'm glad that God has shown us the same things.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Your characterization of the use of icons, artwork, etc. as "image worship" is the same argument used by the defeated iconoclasts, and it is grossly inaccurate. If the Church thought that the use of icons encouraged believers to be put anything ahead of God, the Church would not use icons. If you want to know about them please ask, I would be glad to tell you what I know.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Sophia's Questions

Welcome to SofF and I hope you find these boards helpful and illuminating. In that spirit, may I offer you a bit of advice?

In common with lots of others, I suspect, I would be grateful if you would take the trouble to learn how to enter quotations properly in the messages you post. Duo Seraphim has already asked you nicely and, in an attempt to make your messages intelligible, has spent what I imagine is a significant amount of time editing them. That is hardly fair on him. Unintelligibly posted messages - or ones which are difficult to read - are not fair on the rest of us - and defeat your desire to communicate effectively, which is hardly in your best interests either.

I am sure your opinions on Protestantism are worth reading - but it is very difficult to be sure!

You will find the Practice Thread in The Styx. It is the first thread on that board. There are examples there of all the main facilities.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I want to use this thread so that we can all learn more about Protestantism, especially what modern Protestants believe in and what they believed in throughout their (brief) history.

---

Would you mind if I asked you...what is your goal?
Why do you want to learn more about what Protestants believe? Do you have a inner spiritual battle? Or do you simply think we are so far-gone wrong that you want to study us?

I ask as somebody who is struggling with my own belief system right now - I may be a Calvinist Reform-leaning Christian - but I am open minded to respect others traditions and learn from them. I do not feel fit to contribute to these threads right now that you started but I am enjoying the replies. (SteveTom, I usually hate this emoticon...but I will use it for your replies on this...well done. Patience of saint. )

I would like an answer to this if you are able to. You have started a series of threads digging into Luther's Children and so I am curious.

It was my birthday on Halloween and I will say "Birthday Power!" if that will persuade you.

--------------------
♬♭ We're setting sail to the place on the map from which nobody has ever returned ♫♪♮
Ship of Fools-World Party

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions: Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. Surely we will all have a different journey if we decide to follow Christ. But the road is the same. The contours, the signposts, the difficulties, the destination. The Creator would not leave it up to each of us to figure it out for ourselves. The road and the walking of it must be known to us if we are the creations of a loving God...This kind of thinking is not fruitful. How can a narrow road be compared to a variety of circuitous routes? It also reduces the object of our existence - salvation - to just another destination. It is the only destination worth reaching, and as I noted in an earlier post, if we were truly convinced that we are immortal and that our life in Christ can be prone to error (look around), then we would be earnestly searching for truth, and would not rest with a "road" to salvation until we were certain that we were right.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
I don't know if these later ones are intelligible or not, I won't post anything else until I figure it out. Thanks for the - again kindly delivered - advice, and my thanks to Seraphim for cleaning up after me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

[fixed quote code] [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

But Jesus also spoke about fruitless branches being cut off. [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

You quote my entire post - where the hell in there do I say that "the use of icons is image worship"?

Where do I say it is wrong?

You are responding entirely to things I never said, and ignoring what I did say.

What I said could not possibly be said more clearly, so I'll just say it again:
The second commandment forbids the use of images.
Catholics, Orthodox, (and many Protestants) use images.
Christians have an authority higher than the Ten Commandments.

If you are able to read that and respond to what it says, please do so.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Whitelaughter...Sophia's Q is an Orthodox, not an Roman Catholic. So, he probably wouldn't follow Rome's way.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by dinghy sailor:
Okay, I'll deal with more issues later, but right now I have to go out, so I've only got two things to say:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions
we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians

---

Have you ever heard of a guy called Leo X? Tell me that.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by professorkirke:

From what I gather, you are saying that simply reading scripture on your own and trying to determine it's truth is the cause of all individual church's errors, but that trusting in the Church and its tradition is the only way to avoid the heresies inherent to individual scriptural interpretations, etc.

Is that correct? If not could you point out how I've misrepresented you in 50 words or less?

-Digory

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
[qb] Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

---

My belief is that Truth is Jesus. Everything else is subject to error of one kind or another. We can do our best to avoid error and seek Truth, but error happens. If error did not happen then there would have been no purpose for Truth to come and walk among us. The Church does try and attempt to keep the Truth as free from error as possible, but we are all human and we all fail. Only one human has not erred or failed and that is the one who I put my trust in not the people or organizations (no matter how well meaning they are)of this world.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

---

I believe that the purpose of my life is being able to be with Jesus and my Heavenly Father in Heaven. There is only one way to set myself on the path to Heaven (by accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior and trusting in his mercy), but the route which I travel is the one that He and I have found, are on, and will find in the future. If I am lost, then my seeking Him and His Truth will bring me back onto the path. If it appears that my path is not the straightest, it may be so that I might meet people and help people along their way to Heaven and Him. To me all that matters is that I find my way Home, not how long it takes or how many pit stops and scenic tours I take along the way. What does matter to me is that I make it. I know that I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

[fixed quote code]

---

That's actually a very good question!
Most importantly - I don't believe that I can reliably interpret scripture. Given that I can see other people making obviously stupid mistakes, and the doctrine of original sin excludes my own perfection, it is prudent to assume that I am misinterpreting scripture. Not could be - am.
However - how is blindly following another human going to solve that problem? It merely means that *they* make mistakes, and then I have to interpret what they say - adding another layer of error. It's like copying a cassette tape repeatedly - each copy will be worse. By going to the original, I delete 2000 years worth of stuff ups.

---

quote:

---

Of course, correction is necessary. If 'every Protestant is their own Pope', how have we managed to hang together in denominations for 4 centuries? The glory goes to God, who arranged for Scripture to be very clear (given the subject matter).

The consensus of the first millenium? No such animal.
There is a consensus in the early church. I've read many of the writings of the church fathers. Clement's plea to the Corinthians inspires awe: his humility, love and holiness shine through every word. I am grateful to my RC friend who passed on the claim that Clement claimed to rule the church, without him I might never have known about Clement. But having read the letter, I know that Clement didn't claim to rule the church, didn't even claim to oversee all of Rome. Similarly, Ignatius of Antioch (although a nutter)wrote letters which are very edifying - and once again the claims (and quotes!) supporting Rome domination simply aren't there. Any time someone claims that so-and-so supported Rome's authority, demand to see the text. I've *never* known the claim to be true.
There is another 'consensus' later on, based on the Donation of Constantine. This blatant forgery was accepted as genuine by Rome for a millennia, and books that disproved it were banned. Finally, Rome now acknowledges it as a forgery. That's good, but if the denomination has been lying and/or gullible for most of it's history, why should anyone believe anything just because Rome says so? [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by whitelaughter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
Whitelaughter...Sophia's Q is an Orthodox, not an Roman Catholic. So, he probably wouldn't follow Rome's way.

---

Interesting! What level of authority does the Orthodox church claim in doctrinal disputes? I was under the impression that they felt that a church council was required to make such decisions.
Given the national divisions of the Orthodox churches, I'm somewhat surprised that England didn't go Orthodox. I'd love to see more dialogue between Protestants and Orthodox! It'd be bound to turn up interesting stuff.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
What makes you think that your feeble mind - or my feeble mind - can understand scripture better than the concensus of the first millenium of Christianity? Why would any single individual look at the universal understanding of the faith from the first millenium of Christianity and think that any thought they might have would compare to the wisdom of that consensus? That question demands an answer.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

But Jesus also spoke about fruitless branches being cut off.

---

Yes, and from what? If we say, 'from the Bible', then when two groups disagree on what the Bible means, which one has fallen away from the Truth, and how can we know? [/QB]

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:

quote:

---

Originally posted by St. Seraphim of Sarov:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sophia's Questions:
[qb] Not sure what you meant by the last bit. Yes, you are correct, sola scriptura has led to all manner of error. Now, can truth beget error? Things breed true over time, error begets error, truth begets truth.
If there is such a thing as an arbiter of truth, a church who really understands the Bible because their earliest members heard about it from the lips of the Master, and passed it on intact, then we can say without hesitation that sola scriptura is responsible for all error which afflicts Christians. A bold statement, but consider it: What was the genesis of the excommunication of the church at Rome in 1054? SS. A group of people picking up the Bible and deciding that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the The Father _and_ the Son, in direct conflict with the universal Christian Creed, and insisting on telling believers about their new belief. Does it affect our salvation? Likely not. So why the fuss? Why did the Church lop off one of its limbs? Because allowing error to persist in the Church means that everything is open to error. The Truth, in the view of the Church, is sacred and inviolable.
The Church at Rome was also becoming attached to the idea that the pope was able to discern and explain biblical truth with God's help (the Bishop of Rome was called 'pope' for centuries before the RC excommunication, but it was a name only). This obviously opened up a giant pandora's box, and militated against the understanding of the Church, which is that the concensus of the councils of the Church and the consensus of the saints should guide us always.
The whole episode is a crying shame (literally), and led directly to Protestantism. But consider this: Even with the RC changes right from the get-go, RC theology and tradition and worship was satisfying and authentic enough that it took nearly half a millenium before changes came. To my mind, this speaks to the authenticity of Orthodoxy - its vestige carried believers along for nearly 500 years.

---

My belief is that Truth is Jesus. Everything else is subject to error of one kind or another. We can do our best to avoid error and seek Truth, but error happens. If error did not happen then there would have been no purpose for Truth to come and walk among us. The Church does try and attempt to keep the Truth as free from error as possible, but we are all human and we all fail. Only one human has not erred or failed and that is the one who I put my trust in not the people or organizations (no matter how well meaning they are)of this world.

---

What you are relying upon is your understanding of Jesus. As are the universal salvationists, and the annhilists, and the JWs.
The only 'church' that can claim to consistently defend a single Truth is the only one which has ever done so. We believe that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and I would argue that this is manifestly so. Consider the supposedly inviolable American Constitution. People poured out rivers of blood, sweat, and tears in an effor to secure self-governance, and established a governing document which today has been twisted beyond recognition in many cases. That's less than 200 years later, with some of the most brilliant minds and strong hearts defending it. The fact that the Church's theology is unchanged should suggest to an objective observer that something is protecting it from error.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveTom:
Mudfrog, have you any idea what a pain in the tits it is to have to scroll through 700 words of quote to get to your 5-sentence reply?

If you want people to read the quote you're replying to, edit it drastcially. If not, don't post it. Please.

---