|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Bad religions
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Big T Tradition - whether we agree with it or not - includes scripture and is informed by it.
Well said. Scripture is the greatest and most important part of Tradition. It's just not the only. And it's not the only part of anyone else's tradition either. It's just that we'll admit it.
I'm quite happy to not just admit to but embrace the concept of (small-t) tradition as we work out/live out our faith in new circumstances. Just that whatever other 'traditions' we may develop, they ultimately need to be subject to the apostolic Tradition in Scripture. As opposed to a claimed but essentially un-provable extra-Scriptural 'Tradition'.
No, SL, we do not justify our Tradition in terms of 'Tradition.' You may not like our arguments, but please don't build straw men to represent them.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
But ultimately it seems that it doesn't really make things more sure and certain, just that when things go wrong (as in the 'Constantinian shift') it's harder and takes longer to sort it out because 'Tradition' is pleaded as well as Scripture. 'Tradition' turns out in reality to be rather illusory.
No. Tradition is not pleaded as well as Scripture, because Scripture is part of Tradition.
quote:
Mention of the RCC also points up that there can be variant 'Traditions' - how, except by Scripture , do we sort out which tradition is correct??
How can Scripture decide between Arianism and Trinitarianism? BOTH are well attested to. Similarly for predestination and personal choice. Scripture is not univocal. It's not enough.
quote:
Given some of your comments, mt, it appears that Orthodox rejection of the state link is of that kind, rather than a return from dodgy 'Tradition' to a fuller acceptance of Scripture. Perhaps you could clarify...?
I'm certain we would not refer to our own tradition as 'dodgy' no more than you would refer to your own as dodgy. So, this is certainly not a description that we would use of ourselves, no.
quote:
No, I don't think that "the "foundation" of Orthodoxy is Constantinianism". Rather that in accepting Constantinianism, Orthodoxy moved from the rock foundation of Scripture to a 'building on sand' situation, not following the Scriptures; and in now rejecting the state link, but still claiming 'big-T Tradition', they haven't returned to the Scriptural rock foundation, just shifted to a different bit of sand....
Constantinianism looms much larger in your goggles than in ours. In (regretfully) allying itself with the state, the church did not shift its foundations. Its foundation is Christ. Not Scripture. Christ. Always has been, whatever mistakes have been made. Always will be.
quote:
Anabaptists don't believe in the 'invisible church' - that is a 'Constantinian' concept which tries in a mistaken way to recognise the nominal nature of much belief in a state church situation.
Your evidence for this?
quote:
You don't address my actual point which is that 'apostolic succession' in the 'Tradition' sense doesn't seem to be taught in the NT
As opposed to what other sense? Paul appointed leaders and told his planted churches to follow them. He told the leaders to appoint other leaders, and gave them instructions on how to pick good ones. That's apostolic succession.
quote:
Of course the church was 'apostolic' before the NT was written; but equally, the apostles are now long dead; what keeps the church apostolic is faithfulness to the apostolic teaching recorded in Scripture.
To hell with that Holy Spirit dude, then. It's our reading and application of Scripture that keeps us apostolic. Not God. Bibliolatry again.
quote:
Other claims to 'apostolicity' cannot hold if they contradict Scripture....
If they contradict YOUR READING of Scripture. This point keeps getting lost here.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think insistence that the jailer's 'household' included children constitutes an 'it must have' assumption which is far short of proof.
[/QB]
Which is emphatically not the question I raised, as I said, on the basis of whose faith was the rest of the household baptised.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I'm quite happy to not just admit to but embrace the concept of (small-t) tradition as we work out/live out our faith in new circumstances. Just that whatever other 'traditions' we may develop, they ultimately need to be subject to the apostolic Tradition in Scripture. As opposed to a claimed but essentially un-provable extra-Scriptural 'Tradition'.
And here, Steve, is where I fear it appears that you don't really understand what the "Big-T Tradition" churches mean when they talk about Tradition. Scripture is part of Traditionindeed, as mousethief says, Scripture is the central part of Tradition. It's not a matter of traditions that develop; it's a matter of a single Tradition that includes a written portion (Scripture) and an oral portion, both of which are part of one whole cloth. You say that T/tradition "ultimately need[s] to be subject to the apostolic Tradition in Scripture." If that sentence is tweaked just a little so that it says T/tradition needs to be consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture, I there would be any disagreement from any Catholics, Orthodoxen, or other Big-T Tradition types.
You certainly may, of course, disagree with the assertion that what is held as Tradition really is the oral teaching of the apostles handed down. But if Big-T Tradition is to be criticized or engaged, it must be done on its own terms, not by attacking something different from what the Big-T Tradition churches mean by Tradition.
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by chris stiles;
quote:
And equally - if you want to confine yourself to people who directly dealt with Aland's arguments you can look at Joachim Jeremias "Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries."
Yes, I'm aware of that one. Didn't in the end find it convincing.
Aye, and there's the rub. You found Aland's rather than Jeremias's arguments convincing. But I trust you'd agree that others, including others who take Scripture no less seriously than do you, might (and do) find Jeremias's arguments more convincing than Aland's?
And by that same token, I'd hope that you'd agree that others, including others who take Scripture just as seriously as you do, are not convinced by arguments about the Constantinian captivity of the church and its consequences, including arguments that it is fundamentally contrary to Scripture?
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
If that sentence is tweaked just a little so that it says T/tradition needs to be consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture, I there would be any disagreement from any Catholics, Orthodoxen, or other Big-T Tradition types.
{sigh}
That should have been "I doubt there would be any disagreement from any Catholics, Orthodoxen, or other Big-T Tradition types."
(I hate it when I find a typo like that immediately after the edit window closes.)
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Of course the church was 'apostolic' before the NT was written; but equally, the apostles are now long dead; what keeps the church apostolic is faithfulness to the apostolic teaching recorded in Scripture.
To hell with that Holy Spirit dude, then. It's our reading and application of Scripture that keeps us apostolic. Not God. Bibliolatry again.
Thatīs just a stupid game of words that is also often used by liberals when they want to reject a specific teaching in the scriptures. Of course there are many possible ways of reading the scriptures, but the most essential teachings in it are very clear. If relyng on the scriptures as the ultimate source of doctrine is some kind of idolatry (bibliolatry), then relying in a specific hierarchical body of clergymen (the Roman Catholic Church, one of the many Orthodox churches, etc) is even more. In the end, every church claims to draw its doctrine from a specific source, and that this source was, of course, inspired by God. Be it the literal meaning of biblical texts, an hierarchy of clergymen using golden crowns or the commendments of politically correct western left-wing elites.
quote:
quote:
Other claims to 'apostolicity' cannot hold if they contradict Scripture....
If they contradict YOUR READING of Scripture. This point keeps getting lost here. [/QB]
[/quote]
This would be a valid argument only if the Scripture wasnīt clear for itself in any subject. Of course, there are a lot of things in it that are subject to different interpretations (for example, infantīs baptism) and we might recur to tradition, but there are a lot of things that are clear in it and not subject for debate. From my experience, catholics and orthodox often recur to tradition for 2 reasons: because, surprisingly, this tradition always favours themselves and their own eclesiatical body; because they are defending something that canīt find any vague support in the scriptures and even contradicts it. For example, however you read the scriptures itīs clear that a christian cannot kill another person, except maybe in defense. Tradition of the big churches say that its okay for the church to align with the state to kill infidels. The teachings of Jesus give a clear picture of how a christian life should be. Tradition, in the other hand, says that its okay to worship relics, that going to churches that claim to have a piece of the Jesus cross or the milk of the Virgin Mary is a great act of piety, etc. Scripture might not be univocal, but it gives clear teachings about the essence of what every christian should do and believe. Traditions are not univocal either, and they often are used to justify acts and teachings that would in no way be accepted under a plain reading of scriptures and stuff that can hardly relate to Jesus or the apostles.
There are a lot of church bodies that claim apostolic sucession for their bishops (RCC, orthodox, oriental, and even some lutheran and anglican churches) and they often contradict themselves in matters that they consider essential (for example, the sacraments). Itīs interesting to note that the people who give emphasis on this apostolic sucession are, most of the time, the clergy itself or people who benefit from the hierarchy. The average people in the pews couldnīt care less. Itīs often the clergy that lose themselves in endless debates trying to prove that they belong to a valid sucession, that their church body is "cannonical", etc. People in the pews donīt care. They can be apostolic armenian, russian orthodox, roman catholic or swedish lutherans only because their parents were, bot because they are convinced their church bodies are in "valid apostolic sucession...".
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, Gorpo, Big T Tradition - at least these days - doesn't say that it's ok for the Church to align itself with the state to kill infidels.
The Archbishop of Canterbury - rightly or wrongly - has voiced support for the bombing of ISIS.
He's not done that on the basis that ISIS are 'infidels' and deserve to be bombed, but on the basis - rightly or wrongly - that to do so will help protect people from ISIS violence - not only indigenous Christians in the Middle East but members of other minority faiths in that region and people of no faith whatsoever.
As Mousethief said, it is certainly regrettable that the Big C Church allied itself so closely with the State. I'd say it's certainly regrettable today when Patriarch Kyrill does the same and when right-wing Republican religious types in the US blart on and on and on about 'one nation under God' and so on.
Granted.
These things work and cut both ways, though.
Yes, one could argue that the RCC heirarchy and Orthodox heirarchies have a vested interest in maintaining Big T Tradition and the idea of apostolic succession - because ... lo and behold ... they see themselves as part of that.
Sure. But one could equally say the same about the Protestant pastor down the road. It's in his interests NOT to entertain any notions of apostolic succession because otherwise he might find himself out of a job ...
As for the people in the pews not caring about these things. Sure, many of them don't. But for someone in the UK, say, who belongs to a different tradition to change direction and join one of the Big T Traditions - the RCs say, or the Orthodox - it involves a conscious choice, a fair bit of heart-searching and some instances, a degree of sacrifice ... they run the risk of being criticised or misunderstood.
Sure, they don't face any major hardship. But I've come across Orthodox converts, for instance, who travel by bus, train, foot and all manner of means to get to their church of choice. It'd be a lot easier for them to say, 'Ah well, it doesn't matter, I'm not bothered, I'll just go to the Anglican parish church instead ...'
I'm not saying such people deserve either a pat on the back or a clip round the ear ... but what I am saying that there are people for whom these things are important ... just as Steve Langton's Anabaptist principles are important to him too.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
Some of the other stuff raised while I've been out will now have to wait till tomorrow. but one point....
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think insistence that the jailer's 'household' included children constitutes an 'it must have' assumption which is far short of proof.
Which is emphatically not the question I raised, as I said, on the basis of whose faith was the rest of the household baptised. [/QB]
No, this wasn't exactly the point you raised. More an argument I've often met - that the jailer's household 'must have' included children. And I don't think that can really be claimed as 'proved'.
I think the baptism of that household would be on the basis of personal faith - but of course the faith of people who had had a very definite experience that night of the power of God.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
If that sentence is tweaked just a little so that it says T/tradition needs to be consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture, I doubt there would be any disagreement from any Catholics, Orthodoxen, or other Big-T Tradition types.
Which is what I've been saying for a long time - but the followers of 'Tradition' don't ever seem to find that acceptable....
And that would still leave us with the issue that Constantinianism is NOT "in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture".
Back tomorrow now....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
If that sentence is tweaked just a little so that it says T/tradition needs to be consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture, I doubt there would be any disagreement from any Catholics, Orthodoxen, or other Big-T Tradition types.
Which is what I've been saying for a long time - but the followers of 'Tradition' don't ever seem to find that acceptable....
I can't speak for others, but that is not what I have understood you to be saying.
quote:
And that would still leave us with the issue that Constantinianism is NOT "in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture".
As you understand Scripture. But as I said in the remainder of my post, and as others have repeatedly said, there are other Christians who also take Scripture very seriously and who do not agree with your understanding of Scripture.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And that would still leave us with the issue that Constantinianism is NOT "in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture".
Constantinianism is not part of big-T Tradition. Thanks for playing.
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Thatīs just a stupid game of words that is also often used by liberals when they want to reject a specific teaching in the scriptures.
Um, yeah. The Orthodox are liberal. Hahahaha! Pull the other one. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
quote:
Of course there are many possible ways of reading the scriptures, but the most essential teachings in it are very clear.
No. No, they are not. The Trinity is not "very clear." Nor is the Incarnation. If they were "very clear" there would have been no Arian controversy. The Arians weren't evil people. They were people who had a different interpretation of Scripture. They thought THEIR interpretation was "very clear." They were wrong. As is anybody who thinks the Scriptures are "very clear" on the contents of the creeds, which encapsulate the core of Christian theology.
quote:
If relyng on the scriptures as the ultimate source of doctrine is some kind of idolatry (bibliolatry),
Not what I said. Done with this post, then. Would love to discuss it, but I will not discuss a straw man.
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
If that sentence is tweaked just a little so that it says T/tradition needs to be consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture, I doubt there would be any disagreement from any Catholics, Orthodoxen, or other Big-T Tradition types.
Which is what I've been saying for a long time - but the followers of 'Tradition' don't ever seem to find that acceptable....
I can't speak for others, but that is not what I have understood you to be saying.
Agree with Nick Tamen here.
[ 04. February 2016, 01:32: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
On the Wesley thing. As with much else in Wesley, you'll find an ambivalence.
If he was so anti-apostolic succession it seems odd that he approached an Orthodox bishop - whether a bogus one or otherwise - in an attempt to get his local preachers ordained because the Anglican heirarchy wouldn't do so.
Evangelicals often conveniently ignore Wesley's High Church tendencies and vice-versa.
Proof-texting Wesley, like proof-texting scripture, gets us nowhere ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Interesting but irrelevant.
The point of his statement is that it is historically true.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To hell with that Holy Spirit dude, then. It's our reading and application of Scripture that keeps us apostolic. Not God. Bibliolatry again.
False dichotomy again - and as bizarre an example as I have read for some time.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To hell with that Holy Spirit dude, then. It's our reading and application of Scripture that keeps us apostolic. Not God. Bibliolatry again.
False dichotomy again - and as bizarre an example as I have read for some time.
When you say "what keeps the church apostolic is faithfulness to the apostolic teaching recorded in Scripture," why shouldn't I take you at your word? How bizarre of me to believe you when you say something? Huh?
Look, if you say "what makes X to have property Y is Z," then you're saying that Z is what does it. Z is what makes X Y. And your Z is "faithfulness to the apostolic teaching recorded in Scripture." Your Z isn't God, or Jesus, or the Holy Spirit. if it is, why didn't you say so?
What keeps my church apostolic is the Holy Spirit. Sorry about yours.
[ 04. February 2016, 04:46: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Macrina
Shipmate
# 8807
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Thatīs just a stupid game of words that is also often used by liberals when they want to reject a specific teaching in the scriptures. Of course there are many possible ways of reading the scriptures, but the most essential teachings in it are very clear. If relyng on the scriptures as the ultimate source of doctrine is some kind of idolatry (bibliolatry), then relying in a specific hierarchical body of clergymen (the Roman Catholic Church, one of the many Orthodox churches, etc) is even more. In the end, every church claims to draw its doctrine from a specific source, and that this source was, of course, inspired by God. Be it the literal meaning of biblical texts, an hierarchy of clergymen using golden crowns or the commendments of politically correct western left-wing elites.
This would be a valid argument only if the Scripture wasnīt clear for itself in any subject. Of course, there are a lot of things in it that are subject to different interpretations (for example, infantīs baptism) and we might recur to tradition, but there are a lot of things that are clear in it and not subject for debate. From my experience, catholics and orthodox often recur to tradition for 2 reasons: because, surprisingly, this tradition always favours themselves and their own eclesiatical body; because they are defending something that canīt find any vague support in the scriptures and even contradicts it. For example, however you read the scriptures itīs clear that a christian cannot kill another person, except maybe in defense. Tradition of the big churches say that its okay for the church to align with the state to kill infidels. The teachings of Jesus give a clear picture of how a christian life should be. Tradition, in the other hand, says that its okay to worship relics, that going to churches that claim to have a piece of the Jesus cross or the milk of the Virgin Mary is a great act of piety, etc. Scripture might not be univocal, but it gives clear teachings about the essence of what every christian should do and believe. Traditions are not univocal either, and they often are used to justify acts and teachings that would in no way be accepted under a plain reading of scriptures and stuff that can hardly relate to Jesus or the apostles.
There are a lot of church bodies that claim apostolic sucession for their bishops (RCC, orthodox, oriental, and even some lutheran and anglican churches) and they often contradict themselves in matters that they consider essential (for example, the sacraments). Itīs interesting to note that the people who give emphasis on this apostolic sucession are, most of the time, the clergy itself or people who benefit from the hierarchy. The average people in the pews couldnīt care less. Itīs often the clergy that lose themselves in endless debates trying to prove that they belong to a valid sucession, that their church body is "cannonical", etc. People in the pews donīt care. They can be apostolic armenian, russian orthodox, roman catholic or swedish lutherans only because their parents were, bot because they are convinced their church bodies are in "valid apostolic sucession...".
Look I'm not a believer by any stretch of the imagination but you've got this horribly, horribly wrong.
Orthodox, Roman Catholic and various Protestant denominations which claim Apostolic succession are NOT choosing to believe in some random 'pick a weird ritual' extra-Christian hoodo that they tack onto Scripture.
They are continuing and preserving rituals and prayers and understanding that was part of the early Church BEFORE the New Testament was written or codified.
It's not Scripture OR Tradition - it's Scripture AND Tradition (or rather Scripture within Tradition)
As for the second part of your very muddled post...
1. Scripture quite evidently is NOT clear or we wouldn't have such a multitude of interpretations and views. Just because someone doesn't adhere to your view does not mean that their view is wrong and your view is right.
2. It's not surprising that Orthodox and Catholic churches would use their own understanding of scripture and Tradition to justify their praxis - you're basically saying 'Orthodox and Catholic Theology justifies Orthodox and Catholic praxis - this isn't some grand knock down point, this isn't even an arguement.
3. I'd be really interested to see which bits of Christianity you consider 'essential' and 'clear in Scripture' as over 30,000 churches indicate people might disagree with you.
Posts: 535 | From: Christchurch, New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Kaplan Corday. No, the Wesley example isn't irrelevant, it highlights a particular difficulty and dilemma.
On one level, it could be argued that all of us who are believers are in some form of apostolic succession ... insofar that we heard the Gospel from someone or other ... parents, relatives, friends, preachers, evangelists ... who in turn got it from someone else who got it from someone else who got in from soneone else who ... right way back to the time of the apostles.
The Gospel has been passed on from generation to generation like a relay-race baton. We all got it from somebody.
The issue then,,is whether its the same baton or whether it's worn down over the years or whther chinese-whispers have come in etc.
We may not give entire historic credence to the lists of bishops we see on the Orthodox websites for Cyprus or Crete, say - with lists of names neatly going back in a straight line to one of the Apostles - and I don't know whether the lists of Popes in Rome is historically accurate either - but the point is that there must be some line going back to those early days otherwise none of us would be here having this conversation.
An Orthodox friend explained it to me that it's a way of validating ministry, but not the only way. It doesn't mean that the incumbent isn't a bozo or is perfect in every respect.
Be all that as it may, and I certainly have reservations about some of this stuff, I don't see what is so 'bizarre' in Mousethief's claim that it's the Holy Spirit who keeps things on track within the Church.
Protestants would make the same kind of claim albeit in a different kind of way.
There's a kind of panentheism in Orthodoxy, it seems to me, which recognises God at work in and through all things - even things that aren't ideal or which go pear-shaped at times. It's the synergia thing. So Tradition in a sense represents the work of the Spirit in the life of the Church. They believe their Liturgy to be pneumatic, for instance, conveying and transmitting grace. The same with iconography, sacraments and so on.
Whether we agree with that or not, it is a logically consistent position. It also means that, slowly but surely, they believe that God the Holy Spirit working in and through the Church, can correct imbalances.
That's why there is no intrinsic contradiction in Mousethief, as an Orthodox Christian living in the USA supporting or advocating the separation of Church and State and deploring the Constantinian Erastianism of Patriarch Kyrill.
SL seems to be arguing that Constantinianism is as much a part of Big T Tradition as the Nicene Creed. It isn't.
Yes, it's evident that the historic Big C Churches do tend to hang onto state-links where these have developed ... and we're living in the long tail-back that this has created.
I suppose what MT is saying is that the answers lie within the Tradition itself - which includes scripture of course - not outwith Tradition by throwing it over - isolating the scriptures from Tradition and replacing Big T Traditions with small t ones of our own.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Dear Lord, the total lack of understanding and stupidity shown on this thread is astonishing. One would think that an Orthodox person decrying the Orthodox church in Russia for its closeness to Putin would be enough to show that Orthdoxy is not necessarily Constantinian. But hey, I suppose our Orthodox brother above is not a "proper Orthodox" according to SL's idiosyncratic definitions, just like the anabaptists discussed previously are not "doing it right".
And now we're onto debates about infant baptism. Which can't be biblical because SL says it isn't. Sigh.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
mr cheesy: But hey, I suppose our Orthodox brother above is not a "proper Orthodox" according to SL's idiosyncratic definitions
I think he's a Scotsman.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, Pope Steve Langton is infallible and knows everything. He knows more about Orthodox Tradition than the Orthodox themselves, just as he knows how to interpret the Bible more accurately than paedobaptist Protestants or even Baptists ...
I don't know why we haven't realised or acknowledged this before. I for one am going to swear fealty to him and bend down and kiss his ring ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the baptism of that household would be on the basis of personal faith - but of course the faith of people who had had a very definite experience that night of the power of God.
That's quite an interpretative move from the text, Steve.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Nick Tamen;
quote:
If that sentence is tweaked just a little so that it says T/tradition needs to be consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture, I doubt there would be any disagreement from any Catholics, Orthodoxen, or other Big-T Tradition types.
SL:
Which is what I've been saying for a long time - but the followers of 'Tradition' don't ever seem to find that acceptable....
NT:
I can't speak for others, but that is not what I have understood you to be saying.
I have pretty much ever since this issue was raised taken the position - somewhat inherent in the 'big-T/small-t' distinction - that I have no problem in the idea of churches developing ideas and practices beyond what is specifically stated in Scripture. These ideas and practices effectively constitute a 'small-t' tradition.
At the same time, such developments may eventually be realised to have been wrong in various ways from the beginning; or they may develop in questionable directions; or they may simply go 'stale' as it were, but be continued harmfully because of the 'inertia' of tradition - and so on. So from where I'm standing, all the 'traditions' need to be kept under review by Scripture, to check that they are 'consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture'.
quote:
quote:
SL:
And that would still leave us with the issue that Constantinianism is NOT "in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture".
NT:
As you understand Scripture. But as I said in the remainder of my post, and as others have repeatedly said, there are other Christians who also take Scripture very seriously and who do not agree with your understanding of Scripture.
And everybody keeps on repeatedly saying that - but they don't seem to come up with the actual demonstration of the rightness of their interpretations. Just telling me there are 'other interpretations' or that people don't agree with me proves NOTHING. Details please....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
And everybody keeps on repeatedly saying that - but they don't seem to come up with the actual demonstration of the rightness of their interpretations. Just telling me there are 'other interpretations' or that people don't agree with me proves NOTHING. Details please....
When you have a hammer, everything looks like nails, Steve. Given the scorn and lack of engagement you've displayed about others, it is hardly surprising that nobody can be bothered to attempt to explain a completely different mindset to you.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
I think the baptism of that household would be on the basis of personal faith - but of course the faith of people who had had a very definite experience that night of the power of God.
That's quite an interpretative move from the text, Steve.
Really - the jailor and his household experience an earthquake which potentially frees the prisoners, and instead of running for it the prisoners stay and explain about the gospel. On the basis of this experience the jailor and his household believe and are baptised. Not such a big move from the text, surely...?
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Really - the jailor and his household experience an earthquake which potentially frees the prisoners, and instead of running for it the prisoners stay and explain about the gospel. On the basis of this experience the jailor and his household believe and are baptised. Not such a big move from the text, surely...?
Because another explanation that fits the narrative is that the jailer saw and believed and as head of the household, decided that everyone else should be baptised.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
Given the scorn and lack of engagement you've displayed about others
That from the guy who, back upthread, apparently didn't understand the relevance of 'state Islam' to an organisation that actually calls itself 'Islamic State' and is clearly dedicated to creating a form of 'state Islam'... but who was quite happy to (scornfully?) tell me I was 'full of shite' and 'talking bollocks' because I did see the (far from obscure) relevance... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
I'd really love it if you took your personal insult-trading to Hell and kept it there.
/hosting
[ 04. February 2016, 11:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
That's because you keep insisting that Islam = Islamic state, that the only authentic Islam is the one you flipping say it is..
..just like the only authentic Orthodox Christian is the one you say it is, the only correct Anabaptist is the one you assert and the only correct biblical interpretation is the one you thought of.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Things are getting a mite too hot around here. You don't have to be a Host to smell the movement from vigorous discussion of issues to personalities in conflict. (Commandment 4).
Hell's available if you want to use it. Otherwise, get back to Purgatorial criticism of posts without personal derogation thrown in for good measure.
Short version. Cool it.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
(xposted with Eutychus but I'm leaving mine in for emphasis).
[ 04. February 2016, 11:58: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
Really - the jailor and his household experience an earthquake which potentially frees the prisoners, and instead of running for it the prisoners stay and explain about the gospel. On the basis of this experience the jailor and his household believe and are baptised. Not such a big move from the text, surely...?
Because another explanation that fits the narrative is that the jailer saw and believed and as head of the household, decided that everyone else should be baptised.
Possible - just.... but what the text actually records is that Paul and Silas "told (the jailor)
together with his whole family the message of God" - and presumably the family believed; having also experienced the striking events in question. I doubt if we are talking about coercive baptism of the unwilling! The only issue is that paedobaptists have used the indefinite word 'family/household' to justify their position by making a plea that there 'must have' been infants to be baptised without conscious faith. Again - possible; but there is no 'must have been so' about it that would necessarily upset the wider implication of believer's baptism as the norm....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Now B62 has hosted too, I'll permit myself to jump back in on the substance:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
presumably
Thus proving that you too interpret the text.
[ 04. February 2016, 12:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
by mr cheesy;
quote:
That's because you keep insisting that Islam = Islamic state, that the only authentic Islam is the one you flipping say it is..
Ahem!!! Not the one I flipping say it is - the one Muhammad said it is, and the Quran says it is. That is, the Islam that in the prophet's lifetime was set up as an 'Islamic state' with the prophet as effective king, and with armies and police to enforce it. Who am I to argue with the Prophet of Islam about the nature of the religion he founded? - though I'll certainly argue that he was wrong in founding such a religion. Especially wrong given that he claimed his religion to be in the Abrahamic/Judeo-Christian tradition, and claimed Jesus under the name 'Isa' as a prophet of Islam, yet rejected the much better form of religion/state relations taught by Jesus....
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
presumably
Thus proving that you too interpret the text.
Which is not something I was denying. Just I do it openly (including using words like 'presumably' to indicate something I think highly probable but not absolutely certain); I do NOT claim the backing of some supposedly infallible tradition for my interpretation and people are welcome to do better and, as the saying goes 'show me!' They're not welcome to just keep making snide references to '...your interpretation' and the like, or just say vaguely 'there are other interpretations...' without actually producing the goods on their own side.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Nonsense. You have asserted that your interpretation arises from the "plain reading" of the text, which implies no interpretation, or that any other interpretation wilfully ignores the "straightforward" one.
[ 04. February 2016, 12:33: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Nonsense. You have asserted that your interpretation arises from the "plain reading" of the text, which implies no interpretation, or that any other interpretation wilfully ignores the "straightforward" one.
And in the immediate context, you may recall, I used the word 'presumably' - which qualified the point significantly. In other cases, yes, I'm going by the 'plain reading' if only on the assumption that the writer is generally not being wilfully obscure. But as a quote I've used in the past from Tyndale about 'the literal sense' shows, I'm aware of issues of normal use of language including figures of speech and the like, and I'm aware of the difference 'genre' and other literary conventions can make and I try to allow for them.
It occurs to me that some of the problem here is that as an Aspie I use what might loosely be called "the 'I' of humility". That is, if I think something, I say frankly/naively 'I think'. Or I do just assert something on the basis of the text. Aspies in the heat of argument do not go jumping through all the hoops of circumlocution that others use to appear humble about what they're saying. But the implication is very precisely "I am saying this because this is how I see it...." - plain ordinary no better than anyone else me. And the further implication is, as I said, if you know better, 'Show me!'.
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Scripture doesn't say one way or another whether there were infants in the jailer's household who were baptised or whether they were 10, 11, 12 or 14 ... it says nothing at all on that subject.
Which means that - tradition or not - neither Believers' nor Paedo-Baptists can cite it in support of their view.
I would, however, suggest that we see it in the context of a "What the head of the house does, goes" culture - in contrast to our more individualistic approach today. Although we can say nothing about any children, I do think we are safe to assume that the "household" included slaves or servants. Did they come to faith willingly or simply "do the right thing"? We can guess, but we can't know or assert.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Do you approach all texts in such a fundamentalist way, Steve?
You seem to assume that there is only one way to understand a text, and that is in what you consider to be a straightforwardly literal way. Sure, I appreciate you do understand metaphor and parable and so on ... that's not the issue here.
The issue is that because you seem to take the Qu'ran, say, at what you consider to be face-value, it therefore follows that everyone else must do the same otherwise they aren't being true to the Qu'ran or the intentions of the Prophet Mohammed.
So, if any Muslim happens not to take a completely literal approach to the Qu'ran then they are somehow not a true Muslim - according to what your definition of a Muslim is.
You ask, rhetorically, 'Who am I to argue with the Prophet of Islam about the nature of the religion he founded?' but seem to abrogate to yourself the right and the ability to determine what followers of that religion should believe.
That's not as humble a position as you think it is.
Equally, you appear to reserve yourself the right to determine who is or isn't properly Orthodox - when all the time here we've had a contributor who has been a member of the Orthodox Church for many years and probably knows more about Orthodoxy than the rest of us here combined. Not because he's smarter than we are, but simply by virtue of being part of that particular Tradition from the inside.
Yet, when this contributor comes out with something that doesn't 'fit' your neat categorisation of what constitutes Big T Tradition ie. that Constantinianism isn't necessarily a non-negotiable part of it - you cry foul and imply that they aren't being true to their own Tradition.
As if you know better than they do what their Tradition actually teaches.
I'm sorry Steve, but I find it very hard to continue discussing things with you with the best will in the world ... you seem unable to distinguish between texts and the interpretation of texts ... but treat interpretations as though they were self-evident and plainly there for everyone to see if only they'd approach them in the same way as you do ...
Sure, I know you are not claiming the backing of some 'supposedly infallible tradition' - at least not consciously - but you are claiming the backing of a particular interpretative tradition that both informs and determines the way you interpret things - to a certain extent.
That applies to all of us.
With respect, it does sound at times that you are claiming a single, authoritative and infallible tradition - your own ...
Whoever we are and whatever Christian tradition or Tradition we come from we are all engaging in interpretation - and we do that according to sets of criteria we imbibe and pick up from within those traditions.
You approach the scriptures from within the context of a Protestant evangelical tradition.
An RC would approach the scriptures through the context and lens of their particular tradition.
The Orthodox the same ...
We've been through this many, many times.
The reason why nobody is coming forward and presenting you chapter and verse to adjust or amend or challenge your way of thinking isn't because they are incapable of doing so - but there often seems little point either because your mind is already made up or because you don't seem to realise that not all of us here are operating within the same interpretative paradigm as you are.
I don't see how I can say it any clearer than that.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cross-posted with Baptist Trainfan:
Sure - I 'get' that and am comfortable with it as far as it goes. I was christened as an infant and later on underwent credo-baptism at the age of 19 according to my own personal choice. So I'm 'covered' either way ... whether the paedo-baptists or the credo-baptists are right or wrong on this issue ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
My point, of course, wasn't to argue about who was right or wrong, simply that people of good will can come to different conclusions and still claim that scripture is on their side.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"the 'I' of humility".
You are dodging the point.
The point is that to hold up your believers' baptism argument from this text, you have to interpose an interpretation which is not supported by a "plain reading" of the text.
(This point stands irrespective of any personality or posting style considerations).
As Baptist Trainfan points out, it's an argument from silence.
If you don't know the difference between a "plain reading" and an argument from silence, I have considerable doubts about your definition of the former.
[ 04. February 2016, 13:18: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Which means that - tradition or not - neither Believers' nor Paedo-Baptists can cite it in support of their view.
I would, however, suggest that we see it in the context of a "What the head of the house does, goes" culture - in contrast to our more individualistic approach today. Although we can say nothing about any children, I do think we are safe to assume that the "household" included slaves or servants. Did they come to faith willingly or simply "do the right thing"? We can guess, but we can't know or assert.
Well, I think we can all come up with sensible reasons why we believe what we do and why we don't believe what we don't. To me that's entirely fair enough. Sensible and clever people have come up with different explanations: this isn't mathematics, there is no one "proof" which blows away all other possible points of view.
What gets to me is when someone's position is so weak that they have to project onto someone else something that they don't actually believe in order to attack that thing that they don't believe in. It is rude, and furthermore it gives me a headache.
[ 04. February 2016, 13:18: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
That sounds like the old story of the preacher whose notes were discovered in the pulpit the following week.
Alongside one section of the notes was a bold red line and the comment: "Shout very loud here, argument weak"!
It is akin to academic writers who make a huge logical jump in their discourse and write, "Hence, clearly, we may conclude ..." - I've learned to look out for that one.
To conclude, let me come back to that bit of literary philosophy which says that NONE of us EVER comes to ANY text in a COMPLETELY objective way. It's just not possible.
[ 04. February 2016, 13:58: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Baptist Trainfan: It is akin to academic writers who make a huge logical jump in their discourse and write, "Hence, clearly, we may conclude ..." - I've learned to look out for that one.
When I was an academic, I planned my publications such that the difficult step in my logic would be across a page break.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I had an excellent boss who advised me this way regarding arguments and negotiations,
"When all else fails, assert, assert, ASSERT!"
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
It occurs to me that some of the problem here is that as an Aspie I use what might loosely be called "the 'I' of humility". That is, if I think something, I say frankly/naively 'I think'. Or I do just assert something on the basis of the text. Aspies in the heat of argument do not go jumping through all the hoops of circumlocution that others use to appear humble about what they're saying.
I do get that, having an 18-year-old Aspie in my house. I've seen that way of arguing in him, and his mom and I have spent lots of time trying to help him understand how the tone of "I'm right and anyone who thinks differently is stupid" not only comes across as rude, but makes other people disinclined to engage in discussion with him at all. He is getting better at it.
quote:
quote:
quote:
I can't speak for others, but that is not what I have understood you to be saying.
I have pretty much ever since this issue was raised taken the position - somewhat inherent in the 'big-T/small-t' distinction - that I have no problem in the idea of churches developing ideas and practices beyond what is specifically stated in Scripture. These ideas and practices effectively constitute a 'small-t' tradition.
At the same time, such developments may eventually be realised to have been wrong in various ways from the beginning; or they may develop in questionable directions; or they may simply go 'stale' as it were, but be continued harmfully because of the 'inertia' of tradition - and so on. So from where I'm standing, all the 'traditions' need to be kept under review by Scripture, to check that they are 'consistent or in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture'.
The problem is that you talk of Big-T Tradition as "developments" or "developing ideas and ways of doing things." That is not at all what Big-T Tradition churches are talking about when they talk about Tradition. As a result, your argument comes across as a straw man argument rather than an actual engagement with what groups like the Orthodox in fact believe.
quote:
quote:
quote:
And that would still leave us with the issue that Constantinianism is NOT "in harmony with the apostolic Tradition in Scripture".
NT:
As you understand Scripture. But as I said in the remainder of my post, and as others have repeatedly said, there are other Christians who also take Scripture very seriously and who do not agree with your understanding of Scripture.
And everybody keeps on repeatedly saying that - but they don't seem to come up with the actual demonstration of the rightness of their interpretations. Just telling me there are 'other interpretations' or that people don't agree with me proves NOTHING. Details please....
And I might provide details if I were trying to prove a different interpretation or convince you that you're wrong. But that's not what I'm trying to do. I'm simply trying to suggest that you might get more engagement (and less heat) if you didn't come across as saying that anyone who doesn't agree with you is missing the plain meaning of Scripture.
[ 04. February 2016, 14:46: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
I do get that, having an 18-year-old Aspie in my house. I've seen that way of arguing in him, and his mom and I have spent lots of time trying to help him understand how the tone of "I'm right and anyone who thinks differently is stupid" not only comes across as rude, but makes other people disinclined to engage in discussion with him at all.
I get that, but invoking character traits to justify a line of argument, as opposed to a posting style, does not wash.
It's too facile to invoke special privilege as a last resort when all other arguments have failed.
Steve's making an argument from silence (about the Philippian jailer's household) equivalent to a "plain reading" is not a problem of posting style or, as far as I can see, anything to do with character. To my mind, it's much more a case of concealment/avoidance along the lines of the anecdotes immediately above, with LeRoc's winning the prize.
[ 04. February 2016, 15:02: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by gorpo:
Thatīs just a stupid game of words that is also often used by liberals when they want to reject a specific teaching in the scriptures.
Um, yeah. The Orthodox are liberal. Hahahaha! Pull the other one.
I didnīt say the orthodox are liberal, otherwise I wouldnīt have used the word "also". But Iīm pretty sure you understood this, and is just pretending to make the argument look idiot.
quote:
quote:
If relyng on the scriptures as the ultimate source of doctrine is some kind of idolatry (bibliolatry),
Not what I said. Done with this post, then. Would love to discuss it, but I will not discuss a straw man.
Of course you did it, but you played a game of words to deliberately make the arguments stupid. No protestant believes the Bible is a God or worships it. Of course we believe itīs God who guides the Church, but God speaks his will trough the Bible. Just like the orthodox believe Gods speaks his will trough their tradition.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I get that, but invoking character traits to justify a line of argument, as opposed to a posting style, does not wash.
It's too facile to invoke special privilege as a last resort when all other arguments have failed.
Steve's making an argument from silence (about the Philippian jailer's household) equivalent to a "plain reading" is not a problem of posting style or, as far as I can see, anything to do with character. To my mind, it's much more a case of concealment/avoidance along the lines of the anecdotes immediately above, with LeRoc's winning the prize.
And I agree with you and others. I guess I'm just trying (out of habit maybe?) to get something across to SL from a different angle.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
gorpo
Shipmate
# 17025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
[QB] No, Gorpo, Big T Tradition - at least these days - doesn't say that it's ok for the Church to align itself with the state to kill infidels.
Well, if it only says it "these days", then itīs not "HOLY" tradition, itīs not even tradition. If the Church changed its teaching trough the years, then it cannot claim that these teachings were transmitted in an unbroken line since the apostles...
quote:
As Mousethief said, it is certainly regrettable that the Big C Church allied itself so closely with the State. I'd say it's certainly regrettable today when Patriarch Kyrill does the same and when right-wing Republican religious types in the US blart on and on and on about 'one nation under God' and so on.
But itīs not only a matter of regret... If "Big T" churches really believe that it was a mistake to align with the state in the past, then they should reject alignments in the present, and they should recognise that an influence from the state for centuries might have shapped in some form their teachings.
quote:
Yes, one could argue that the RCC heirarchy and Orthodox heirarchies have a vested interest in maintaining Big T Tradition and the idea of apostolic succession - because ... lo and behold ... they see themselves as part of that.
Sure. But one could equally say the same about the Protestant pastor down the road. It's in his interests NOT to entertain any notions of apostolic succession because otherwise he might find himself out of a job ...
Itīs not the same thing, because these types of protestants donīt claim some catholic and orthodox teachings are wrong BECAUSE of their apostolic sucession, but because itīs not according to the Bible. The catholic and orthodox would say that a protestant group will never be a REAL church, even if they change all their beliefs to match exactly what they supposedly should, simply on the basis of not having "pedigree". A protestant would attack a catholic/orthodox sayng "your teachings are wrong", while a catholic/orthodox would attack a protestant sayng "youīre not inside a valid hierarchical church body".
And of course, thereīs nothing that stops a protestant pastor to claim apostolic sucession for his group, like Landmark Baptists and other anabaptist groups do. Weīre not discussing the apostolicity of the orders in traditional churches, but merely the fact that they claim so. Any other group on earth could claim that, even if they donīt have proofs.
Posts: 247 | From: Brazil | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Langton
Shipmate
# 17601
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
"the 'I' of humility".
You are dodging the point.
The point is that to hold up your believers' baptism argument from this text, you have to interpose an interpretation which is not supported by a "plain reading" of the text.
(This point stands irrespective of any personality or posting style considerations).
As Baptist Trainfan points out, it's an argument from silence.
If you don't know the difference between a "plain reading" and an argument from silence, I have considerable doubts about your definition of the former.
No, not dodging the point, just taking the opportunity to point out, in general not just about this specific discussion, that you may be misreading a lot of what I say because you're expecting me to use the same kind of woolly circumlocutions others do. That is not my style and it's not likely to change. Oh, and don't laugh about the idea of an "'I' of humility" - I've known more than a few people who very non-naively don't use that 'I', but essentially are meaning 'I', just dressing it up in blether about how they're "led of God" or some such. With me, you get 'I' because that's what I mean - just simply I, and I don't think I'm infallible or any such. And BTW I suspect I'm more annoyed by the circumlocutions than you are by my plainer speaking...
Yes, I understand the concept of 'argument from silence' - in this case, which I agree is not a simple 'plain reading', I tried to weigh up the most likely reality behind the silence. Which would be that with a family/household who witnessed the same as the jailor/head-of-household, and heard the same gospel from Paul, one is probably talking about willing converts baptised willingly. I'm not saying it's certain; while the fact that no infants are mentioned is a silence both ways - one can't use the silence to prove that one way or other. But one can quite reasonably point to the wider context, of other references to baptism, to ask what is most likely.
Meanwhile, back to the main argument; I note above that Nick Tamen put forth an explanation relative to 'Tradition' that sounds pretty much like mine - namely that 'Tradition' does need to be compatible with Scripture. So who agrees with that proposition, and if you disagree, can you explain why??
Posts: 2245 | From: Stockport UK | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Every Christian sect I've known of, and truly every religious sect, ignores and invents. It is a human thing. Obviously, if one subscribes to a particular variation, one feels that it is the most correct.
But to pretend otherwise is just plain ignorant, at best.
BTW, an "Argument from silence" is worth the paper it was printed on.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Steve Langton: I tried to weigh up the most likely reality behind the silence.
That almost looks like you're *gasp* interpreting the text.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
