KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Apr 19, 2020 17:40:04 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 20, 2020 13:42:07 GMT
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Apr 20, 2020 20:02:19 GMT
Clovis Merovingian And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25] Everything that Jesus did and taught cannot be completely contained in the 27 books of the New Testament. Some of it had to be transmitted orally and was not written down. The Apostles passed on unwritten knowledge concerning the doctrines of the church to their successors which are the bishops. Remember that Jesus wasn't chiding the Pharisees for adding to the word of God, but for nullifying it with their traditions. The traditions of the Apostles passed on to the Bishops do not nullify the scriptures. The office of the bishops is nothing to scoff at. Even Jesus respected the office of the Pharisees when he said: Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “ The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.… [Matt 23:1-3] The Pharisees sat in Moses seat just as the Bishops sit in the seat of the Apostles. Another problem with your argument is that you presuppose the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is in fact a man made tradition not supported by scriptures. You may be tempted to quote 2 Tim 3:14-17 which states: "But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Often this quote has been used to support the idea that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. But this quote doesn't actually say that. It just says that scripture is inspired by God, is good for supporting doctrine and that it makes the man of God complete. It does not say that scripture is all that is sufficient for doctrine nor does it deny the existence of another rule of faith, nor does it say that scriptures are even ultimate in authority. It doesn't even tell us that the scriptures are the foundation of the truth, but according to Paul that goes to the church: ...but if I'm delayed, I write so that you may known how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [1 Tim 3:15] The scriptures are not the pillar and ground of the truth, the church is. The scriptures are a church document. They are indeed inspired by God, but inspired men come prior to the inspired scriptures and its men (not scriptures) that make up the church. What exactly is it that decides whether or not a document is to be considered scripture? Is it because its written by the Apostles? Then why is the Gospel of Luke considered scripture? He was neither an Apostle nor is it likely that he even known Jesus while he was on earth. The Bible doesn't stand on its own authority, its completely contingent on the authority of the church. Think about it. You have the bible and its an infallible book. That's great. The problem with that is you get multiple people who read the bible and get a dozen different interpretations out of it. Scriptures don't just interpret themselves. How would you know which interpretation is correct without another infallible source to confirm it? That second infallible source is the mind of the Church which is the depository of apostolic tradition. Elizabeth , Elizabeth, I agree that there is only one true doctrine, but I believe that one true doctrine is the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, which is not a denomination but pre-denominational. You hold to the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura which I believe is false I don't agree with that interpretation. Sorry. "Or" doesn't always indicate an option, but sometimes just indicates inclusion. The Apostle isn't giving you an option of either keeping the oral tradition or the epistles like you have a choice between the two. He's indicating to keep both. DKTrav88 , This is such a straw man argument. Who is it on this thread that blames Protestants for splitting from the RCC? No one. I don't know of anybody within my Orthodox circle who does. You're also misrepresenting historical facts. The Orthodox church didn't split from the RCC, the RCC split from the Orthodox Church. Be careful who you call a Pharisee. You may have a plank in your eye.
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 20, 2020 20:54:00 GMT
KGrim You write correctly but you forget important postulates.. for example, the attitude to the Filioque, because the problems between the Orthodox and Catholic started on this reason. All the problems between Orthodox and Protestants are because Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, and so on) are very liberal. 17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Apr 20, 2020 20:59:32 GMT
KGrim You write correctly but you forget important postulates.. for example, the attitude to the Filioque, because the problems between the Orthodox and Catholic started on this reason. All the problems between Orthodox and Protestants are because Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, and so on) are very liberal. 17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17) Ah yes, the Filioque. Protestants forget that they inherited that from the RCC. I didn't even think of it, though I don't think it would have been necessary to include in making my main point. Is that quote from Romans 16:17 your way of telling me that I should avoid arguing with the Protestants?
|
|
|
Post by Διαμονδ on Apr 20, 2020 21:09:36 GMT
KGrim You write correctly but you forget important postulates.. for example, the attitude to the Filioque, because the problems between the Orthodox and Catholic started on this reason. All the problems between Orthodox and Protestants are because Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, and so on) are very liberal. 17. Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17) Ah yes, the Filioque. Protestants forget that they inherited that from the RCC. I didn't even think of it, though I don't think it would have been necessary to include in making my main point. Is that quote from Romans 16:17 your way of telling me that I should avoid arguing with the Protestants? Protestants here say they are tied to quotes from the Bible well I just showed warnings from the Scriptures about various disagreements. In General, if people consider Protestantism normal, then let them go to the charismatics or to the Presbyterians or Lutherans. Flag in hand. Or are they not sure?? Even southern Baptists have obvious problems.I've read about their connection to Freemasonry.
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Apr 20, 2020 22:31:13 GMT
Clovis Merovingian And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. [John 21:25] Everything that Jesus did and taught cannot be completely contained in the 27 books of the New Testament. Some of it had to be transmitted orally and was not written down. The Apostles passed on unwritten knowledge concerning the doctrines of the church to their successors which are the bishops. Remember that Jesus wasn't chiding the Pharisees for adding to the word of God, but for nullifying it with their traditions. The traditions of the Apostles passed on to the Bishops do not nullify the scriptures. The office of the bishops is nothing to scoff at. Even Jesus respected the office of the Pharisees when he said: Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: “ The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.… [Matt 23:1-3] The Pharisees sat in Moses seat just as the Bishops sit in the seat of the Apostles. Another problem with your argument is that you presuppose the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is in fact a man made tradition not supported by scriptures. You may be tempted to quote 2 Tim 3:14-17 which states: "But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." Often this quote has been used to support the idea that the scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith. But this quote doesn't actually say that. It just says that scripture is inspired by God, is good for supporting doctrine and that it makes the man of God complete. It does not say that scripture is all that is sufficient for doctrine nor does it deny the existence of another rule of faith, nor does it say that scriptures are even ultimate in authority. It doesn't even tell us that the scriptures are the foundation of the truth, but according to Paul that goes to the church: ...but if I'm delayed, I write so that you may known how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. [1 Tim 3:15] The scriptures are not the pillar and ground of the truth, the church is. The scriptures are a church document. They are indeed inspired by God, but inspired men come prior to the inspired scriptures and its men (not scriptures) that make up the church. What exactly is it that decides whether or not a document is to be considered scripture? Is it because its written by the Apostles? Then why is the Gospel of Luke considered scripture? He was neither an Apostle nor is it likely that he even known Jesus while he was on earth. The Bible doesn't stand on its own authority, its completely contingent on the authority of the church. Think about it. You have the bible and its an infallible book. That's great. The problem with that is you get multiple people who read the bible and get a dozen different interpretations out of it. Scriptures don't just interpret themselves. How would you know which interpretation is correct without another infallible source to confirm it? That second infallible source is the mind of the Church which is the depository of apostolic tradition. Elizabeth , Elizabeth, I agree that there is only one true doctrine, but I believe that one true doctrine is the doctrine of the Orthodox Church, which is not a denomination but pre-denominational. You hold to the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura which I believe is false I don't agree with that interpretation. Sorry. "Or" doesn't always indicate an option, but sometimes just indicates inclusion. The Apostle isn't giving you an option of either keeping the oral tradition or the epistles like you have a choice between the two. He's indicating to keep both. DKTrav88 , This is such a straw man argument. Who is it on this thread that blames Protestants for splitting from the RCC? No one. I don't know of anybody within my Orthodox circle who does. You're also misrepresenting historical facts. The Orthodox church didn't split from the RCC, the RCC split from the Orthodox Church. Be careful who you call a Pharisee. You may have a plank in your eye. I believe Διαμονδ blamed ecumenism on protestants by saying "It is Protestantism that is the cause of ecumenism. I mean, if they didn't break up into small groups, then this phenomenon would not exist." which is funny because Orthodoxy and Catholicism both want to unite everyone(all Christian denominations) into one, theirs. Even Eastern Orthodoxy itself isn't united; I've spoken with Eastern Orthodox Christians and they've said the Oriental Orthodox Church is full of heathens. There are a good number of other Orthodox churches besides the Oriental church that aren't in communion with Eastern Orthodoxy because of doctrinal disagreements. Using Protestantism as a scapegoat is very shortsighted and ignorant, especially when you've got the same ecumenism happening within Eastern Christianity. Not even all Roman Catholic churches are in communion with the Vatican, there are many that are autonomous. What having a hierarchy like the Roman Catholic Church has and Eastern Orthodoxy has develops a "herd think" which makes people incorrectly assume that others are smarter than them, makes them too lazy to think for themselves, and teaches people to hate people they've never met and to take pride in accomplishments they had no part in. It's quite delusional. I thought you rolled in the best of circles. My apologies. As far as misrepresenting historical facts, that would depend on what history you believe and what side you're on. I'm sure Catholics claim Orthodox split from them and quite obviously you as an Orthodox Christian believe they split from your church. I didn't call anyone a Pharisee. I said those who don't practice what they preach are like Pharisees and made a comparison. The only real Pharisees today are Jews who don't believe Jesus is the Christ and don't practice what they preach.
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Apr 20, 2020 22:40:04 GMT
KGrimThe doctine of the Orthodox church is not what was given and not the one that saves. Bible is clear on 3 things. 1. The ONLY true doctine is the one that Christ gave. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 2 John:1:9 2. This doctrine is ONLY in Scripture. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy:3:16 3. Only thing that must be used to correct someone or prove things to someone is using Scripture said in the same verse. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2 Timothy:3:16 So no traditions are used to correct people but the actual Scripture doctrine. So what must you use to correct someone? Scripture doctrine of Christ or some other doctrine?
|
|
KGrim
Full Member
Coming back to Arktos...for a little while anyways...just to see how things are doing.
Posts: 442
Likes: 238
Country: USA
Region: South East
Location: East Texas
Ancestry: Scotch-Irish
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Eastern Orthodox
Hero: Jesus
Age: 33 soon to be 34
Philosophy: Hesychasm
|
Post by KGrim on Apr 20, 2020 23:13:50 GMT
ElizabethDKTrav88Clovis MerovingianI could continue to argue and refute your arguments, but to be perfectly honest I'm very tired of this conversation. I think I'm done, I don't want to argue anymore. Please, leave me be.
|
|
Clovis Merovingian
Prestige/VIP
Elder
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 1,758
Meta-Ethnicity: Anglo-American
Ethnicity: Deep Southerner
Country: My State and my Region are my country
Region: The Deep South
Location: South Carolina
Ancestry: Gaelic (patrilineal), English, Ulster Scots/Scots Irish, Scottish, German, Swiss German, Swedish, Manx, Finnish, Norman French/Quebecois (distantly), Dutch (distantly)
Taxonomy: Borreby/Alpine/ Nordid mix
Y-DNA: R-S660/R-DF109
mtDNA: T1a1
Politics: Conservative
Religion: Christian
Hero: Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson, James K. Polk
Age: 30
Philosophy: I try to find out what is true as best I can.
|
Post by Clovis Merovingian on Apr 21, 2020 2:21:31 GMT
Elizabeth DKTrav88 Clovis Merovingian I could continue to argue and refute your arguments, but to be perfectly honest I'm very tired of this conversation. I think I'm done, I don't want to argue anymore. Please, leave me be. I agree. I find these religious arguments quite boring myself. Thanks for ending it.
|
|