Today's entry in the list of extra-biblical references in the New Testament."I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people." - 1 Corinthians 5:9
"They are men without God, a generation of vipers; from these turn away in the power of the Lord." - 3 Corinthians
This one is a really interesting example of the New Testament authors quoting extra-biblical sources; St. Paul is here referencing an extra-biblical writing by St. Paul! He's talking about one of his own letters that isn't contained in the New Testament. And that letter is probably lost to time, unfortunately.
In 1 Corinthians 7:1, St. Paul talks about a letter which the Corinthians had written to him and in 1 Corinthians 5:9 he mentions something he had written in a previous letter to them. A document called 3 Corinthians, which I quote above, purports to contain both of these otherwise lost letters.
This writing has a long and often mysterious history. The Syriac Orthodox Church included it in their New Testament canon until the 5th century, and it was accepted as Scripture by the two great Syriac Fathers of the Church St. Ephrem and St. Aphrahat. In fact, the former wrote an entire commentary on it. It was removed from their canon largely due to Greek influence, as the Greek Orthodox Church considered it spurious.
Even as late as 1666, prints of an Armenian Orthodox Bible contain it as part of the canon and it is included as an appendix in an 1805 edition of the Armenian Orthodox Bible. The Armenian Orthodox Church no longer officially endorses it as part of the New Testament, but it still enjoys wide popularity in some areas.
The oldest manuscripts which contain 3 Corinthians embed it within a writing called the Acts of St. Paul. According to Tertullian, the Acts of St. Paul was a forgery written by an Orthodox Priest in about 160-170. Many historians have assumed, based on Tertullian's testimony, that 3 Corinthians was forged by this Priest in order to combat Gnostic interpretations of certain passages in the other two Corinthian letters. There's a couple of problems with all of this, though.
The first problem is that the only testimony of any ancient authority we have that the Acts of St. Paul was indeed forged comes from Tertullian alone. And Tertullian, being a bit of a chauvinist, didn't like the Acts of St. Paul because he thought he gave too much power to women (he specifically says so!) in its portrayal of St. Thecla as preaching and baptizing. We're basically forced to trust the testimony of the one man who would certainly have wanted to undermine the validity of the Acts of St. Paul.
Also, most historians agree that whoever wrote the Acts of St. Paul was incorporating earlier oral traditions about St. Paul and St. Thecla into his composition; how much he added his own flavor (or even invented new stories) we don't know. And that leads to the next problem:
Most historians and textual critics now agree that, just as at least some of the stories contained in the Acts of St. Paul come from earlier sources, 3 Corinthians was an older composition that was later included in the Acts of St. Paul by its author. Whoever wrote the Acts of St. Paul didn't write it; he got it from somewhere else and inserted it into his own writing. So where did he get it from? We don't really know.
There's a lot of questions here we'll probably never know the answer to: Does 3 Corinthians contain the original letters of the Corinthians to St. Paul and St. Paul to the Corinthians? If not, who wrote it, when, where, and why? And if 3 Corinthians isn't them, what did happen to the original letters? Was the Acts of St. Paul forged, as Tertullian states? To what extent? We could go on and on.
But none of this is really important for our purposes here. What is important is that St. Paul is quoting from extra-biblical tradition, even if it is his own writing. This leads to a very interesting question that Sola Scripturists have to answer: why isn't this earlier letter of St. Paul included in the New Testament?
B/c God didn't inspire that one. It's really not that hard.
ReplyDeleteI don't get why you think this is such a show-stopper for Sola Scriptura.
Right; but now the question is: how do we know that? How do we know that we're not missing something that is divinely-inspired? And, if not all of St. Paul's letters were divinely-inspired, how do we know that we're including only those that are? Maybe Romans or another of the Corinthian letters isn't divinely inspired?
ReplyDeleteAnd, then, of course there's the question of Apostolic authority.
ReplyDeleteDo Apostolic authority and divine inspiration go hand in hand or can they be separated? If this letter carries Apostolic authority, why not divine inspiration? Or does it carry Apostolic authority at all? Why not? And, if it does carry Apostolic authority, why are we not bound to observe what it says even if its not in Scripture?
As you can see, the existence of 3 Corinthians raises a lot of questions about authority, inspiration, and canonicity.
And, if not all of St. Paul's letters were divinely-inspired, how do we know that we're including only those that are? Maybe Romans or another of the Corinthian letters isn't divinely inspired?
ReplyDeleteThat's not a question that EOC can answer any better than the Sola Scripturist.
After all, maybe you've missed some tradition that should be in Sacred Apostolic Tradition. We're theists, not atheists.
Or does it carry Apostolic authority at all? Why not? And, if it does carry Apostolic authority, why are we not bound to observe what it says even if its not in Scripture?
Just b/c it has ap auth and is divinely inspired doesn't mean God intended to preserve it unto perpetuity.
Again, this doesn't give the EO position any advantage over Sola Scrip.
Peace,
Rhology
We're theists, not atheists.
ReplyDeletePoint taken, although I'd say that we can't really be sure that this is the case unless we trust in the Church's integrity, authority, and ability to preserve Apostolic Traditions, where Scriptural or extra-scriptural.
Just b/c it has ap auth and is divinely inspired doesn't mean God intended to preserve it unto perpetuity.
I'm not so sure about this. According to Jude 1:3, the Faith of the Apostles was "handed down once for all" -- the exact same phrase "once for all" is used in Hebrews to refer to Christ's sacrifice. If it was "once" then it wasn't twice -- meaning nothing can be added -- and if it was "for all" then I don't see how it could be acceptable that we lose anything.
There is also the further question that arises: what if we have something in Scripture that wasn't meant to be preserved unto perpetuity? Or what if something isn't in Scripture that is meant to be preserved unto perpetuity?
But I guess that those questions (especially the last one) is really what our debate is all about.
I'd replace "Church's integrity, authority, and ability to preserve Apostolic Traditions" with God's integrity, authority, and ability. This is, to me, another sign of the man-centeredness of your religion.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Jude 1:3, the Faith of the Apostles was "handed down once for all"
Um, and yet EOC believes in quite a lot of traditions that have been discovered and enumerated throughout history AFTER Jude was written. Really, the 7th Ecum Council is all found in Scr? Really? No, not at all.
By contrast, Jude 3 is a brilliant prooftext for Sola Scriptura. The problem you propose is not a problem at all - it declaws your hypothetical "What if?" God deliverED the faith, one time, as you said. Jesus Christ has been sufficiently and very fully revealed in these last times, thru the NT, as Hebrews makes clear. There's nothing to wait for, except His Parousia.
what if we have something in Scripture that wasn't meant to be preserved unto perpetuity?
This question touches on the omniapplicability of all of Scr, and obviously there are certain things that are not applicable willy-nilly to everyone, such as the personal greetings, etc. But I think you're asking whether sthg just shouldn't be in there. Given 2 Tim 3:16-17, which defines the nature of Scr, I don't see why we would expect that.
Or what if something isn't in Scripture that is meant to be preserved unto perpetuity?
I don't think it's a question of preservation so much as a question of authority.
Peace,
Rhology
>>and yet EOC believes in quite a lot of traditions that have been discovered and enumerated throughout history AFTER Jude was written<<
ReplyDeleteI'd be interested in some examples.
>>Really, the 7th Ecum Council is all found in Scr? Really?<<
You're making a false assumption here, namely, that it has to be found explicitly in Scripture in order to be Apostolic. As to the 7th EC itself; yes and no -- the use of images has been a part of the Christian Faith since its earliest days. The catacombs are filled with images; the oldest church yet found, at Dura Europos, was originally filled with images. Eusebius of Caesarea records that he himself had seen several images which date from Apostolic times. St. Gregory of Nyssa states that Christian images were targets for desecration during the persecutions. Etc. It's a simple fact that the early Christians used images and, if Dura Europos is any indication, quite vociferously.
Now, whether they would have defended their use of images in the same way the 7th EC does -- as verifying the real humanity of Christ (which is a strong argument, even if an invented one) -- is doubtful. They were following the tradition they had received from Judaism -- which was very image-heavy at the time (see the synagogue at Dura Europos -- or the even older one found not long ago in Alexandria, Egypt).
I would say, also, that they would have, as the Orthodox do, equated these images with the presence of God and his heavenly host -- God himself equates his presence with images in Exodus 25:22.
>>There's nothing to wait for, except His Parousia.<<
I agree.
>>obviously there are certain things that are not applicable willy-nilly to everyone, such as the personal greetings, etc.<<
Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 still applicable?
I'd be interested in some examples.
ReplyDeleteAssumption of Mary.
The OK-ness of bowing down before images and talking to dead people.
Salvation by faith plus works.
that it has to be found explicitly in Scripture in order to be Apostolic.
I'm just going to ask you to prove that it is indeed apostolic if it's not found in Scr.
Eusebius of Caesarea records that he himself had seen several images which date from Apostolic times
And Eusebius lived in what year? Why is anyone obligated to accept such testimony as definite when it's a few hundred yrs after the fact?
God himself equates his presence with images in Exodus 25:22.
Um, fine, but He wasn't OK with ppl bowing down to them and praying to them, you know. Don't equivocate.
Is 1 Corinthians 11:2-6 still applicable?
Good question. It's one I struggle with to this day. But punting to EOC doesn't help, I note in passing.
Peace,
Rhology
>>Assumption of Mary<<
ReplyDeleteThat's the Roman Catholic name for it; in an Orthodox context, it's better referred to as the "Dormition" than the "Assumption" in order to avoid confusion, as our beliefs are a little different from their's. The most important difference is that we unequivocally affirm that she died before her soul and body were taken up.
That said, I'll concede that the widespread celebration of the Assumption is relatively late (5th century or so) -- although its roots certainly go back much earlier. I'd also add that reverence for the Virgin herself is Apostolic, whereas Protestant near-demonization of her is clearly not.
>>The OK-ness of bowing down before images and talking to dead people.<<
The first part of this statement is purely conjectural -- neither you nor I have any idea exactly how the images were used. We can make some decent guesses, though, based on the culture and traditions of the time -- and the best guess is that they were reverenced in some way (bowing and kissing as the Orthodox do today are what make the most sense in historical context).
As to your comments about "dead people:" See, first of all, Matthew 22:32. Also, have you read any of the early Christian inscriptions on tombs and sepulchers? They're filled with both prayers on behalf of the deceased and petitions for the deceased's prayers.
>>Salvation by faith plus works.<<
I think it's too easy to confuse the Roman Catholic view with the Orthodox view here, and you need to be careful that you don't do so. The RC view is "faith plus works;" the Orthodox view is better stated as "faith IS works and works ARE faith." The two are inseparable. James 2 is clear enough on this. "Faith working [lit. 'energizing'] through love" (Galatians 5:6) is the Orthodox position. Essentially, "faith" is not simply some kind of purely mental or emotional assent to a given doctrine or creed; it's not a one-time thing -- it's the constant walking in love -- constantly choosing ("works") to accept God's free gift of grace and salvation.
The Protestant doctrine of "faith alone," on the other hand, is a very late innovation (and one which eerily resembles certain Gnostic doctrines). Not a single Church Father taught "faith alone" and it appears only once in Scripture, where it is condemned (James 2:24)!
>>And Eusebius lived in what year? Why is anyone obligated to accept such testimony as definite when it's a few hundred yrs after the fact?<<
And yet you ignore the archaeological evidence I presented that supports Eusebius, as well as the statements of others (Gregory of Nyssa, whom I mentioned). Doubt Eusebius all you want, but it's dangerous ground there -- you're going the way of Bart Ehrmann & co. now.
I'd also add that reverence for the Virgin herself is Apostolic, whereas Protestant near-demonization of her is clearly not.
ReplyDeleteCome on, you should know better. We don't demonise her at all. Prove it.
And prove the reverence is apostolic.
neither you nor I have any idea exactly how the images were use
So...that leaves us with no answer. But I thought EO tradition was supposed to give us the answers that Scr doesn't provide.
See, first of all, Matthew 22:32
32‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’a? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”
Yes, and your point? You think Moses didn't know that when he was teaching the Law against talking to dead people?
Also, have you read any of the early Christian inscriptions on tombs and sepulchers? They're filled with both prayers on behalf of the deceased and petitions for the deceased's prayers.
This doesn't respond in any way to my answer to your question. You asked for "traditions that have been discovered and enumerated throughout history AFTER Jude was written". I have provided them. It sounds like you need to concede that point.
The RC view is "faith plus works;" the Orthodox view is better stated as "faith IS works and works ARE faith.
That is completely absurdly anti-biblical and a damnable heresy. May God have mercy on you, seriously.
That, and Romans 11:6.
Essentially, "faith" is not simply some kind of purely mental or emotional assent to a given doctrine or creed; it's not a one-time thing
Don't strawman my position, please.
The Protestant doctrine of "faith alone," on the other hand, is a very late innovation (and one which eerily resembles certain Gnostic doctrines)
Romans 3:28, 9:32, 11:6, Eph 2:8-10... those are pretty early, actually.
And yet you ignore the archaeological evidence I presented that supports Eusebiu
Not answering the question. That wasn't really even a good try.
And "going the way of Ehrman"? Please. What do I have in common with him?
Peace,
Rhology
>>We don't demonise her at all. Prove it.<<
ReplyDeleteThis blog post seems to be fairly typical of what I see when Protestants talk about the Virgin Mary: http://soulrefuge.wordpress.com/2009/08/27/was-the-jewish-virgin-mary-a-sinner-or-the-mother-of-god/
Whatever happened to "all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48)? Or the fact that she is called "full of grace" (Luke 1:28)?
Not only does the Protestant approach above not jive with Scripture, it doesn't jive with what the early Christians had to say about her either. See, for instance, the Proto-Gospel of James, written about AD 150.
Surely you're also familiar with the early Christian understanding of Mary as the new Eve (a counterpart to Christ being the new Adam), as expressed even in the New Testament, when Christ calls his mother "woman" in the Gospel of John.
I'd like to hear whether you can nod your head in assent to these statements or not:
"As Eve was seduced by the speech of an angel, so as to flee God in transgressing his word, so also Mary received the good tidings by means of the angel's speech, so as to be God within her, being obedient to this word. And though the one had disobeyed God, yet the other was drawn to obey him; that of the virgin Eve, the virgin Mary might become the advocate and as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved- a virgin's disobedience by a virgin' obedience." St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies, 3, 19
There's also the vociferous attacks on her ever-virginity; I've even heard some rather disrespectful jokes offered up on this account about Joseph and Mary's abilities to control themselves and abstain from sex even as a "married" couple. Her ever-virginity is a fact supported by Scripture and contested by no one in the early Church (that I know of). The only arguments you find against it come from Jews and pagans in opposition to Christianity -- some footsteps to follow in!
The Protestant refusal to refer to her as "Mother of God" mind-boggling -- remember Nestorius? All in all, these attacks on her sanctity, virginity, and motherhood amount to the near demonization I referred to.
When it comes down to, the support of history aside, plain logic fails the Protestants here -- we're talking about a woman -- the ONLY WOMAN -- in all of humankind -- who has bore God inside of her own belly -- who provided Christ's human flesh and blood. But she's a "sinner just like the rest of us"? And how would you feel to have your mother's sanctity attacked on the premise of defending your honor? I wonder how God feels about it...
continued...
>>You think Moses didn't know that when he was teaching the law against talking to dead people<<
ReplyDeleteHas the state of the dead not changed since Christ's death and Resurrection? If not, what was the point?
>>That, and Romans 11:6.<<
St. Paul had the aptitude to make very fine points -- and divide and dissect "works of the Law" from "faith working through love." Protestants apparently lack this ability.
>>Don't strawman my position, please.<<
I'd ask the same of you.
It's very telling that Luther found it necessary to add the word "alone" after "faith" in Romans 3:28 -- it's because it wasn't there (and still isn't) to begin with. He also wanted to get rid of the letter of James; I understand why.
The fact still stands: the only place in all of Scripture that the phrase "faith alone" appears (outside of Martin Luther's edited version) is in James 2:24, where it is roundly and soundly rejected. You have to admit that this is a little more than troubling for your position.
Going back to your original question because you feel that I avoided answering it...
>>And Eusebius lived in what year? Why is anyone obligated to accept such testimony as definite when it's a few hundred yrs after the fact?<<
Eusebius lived in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries -- a good central year is 325.
We accept Eusebius' testimony because he was a great historian who consistently documented and verified his sources and because his testimony jives with the writings of others before, during and after his time and with archeological evidence. You can't just reject the history when it disagrees with you. And that brings us to the next point...
>>And "going the way of Ehrman"? Please. What do I have in common with him?<<
Protestantism created people like Ehrmann, both on the historical and personal levels. Protestantism made it possible to look at Scripture as a "thing in itself" rather than part of a cohesive whole found only in the Church. And "Scripture alone" has produced an undeserved reliance on textual criticism.
But that's all beside the point. The personal affinity between you and he is your ability to cast aside any historical evidence that disagrees with your presupposed position; and, in so doing, you and he both paint the vast majority, if not the entirety, of early Christians as liars, frauds, and charlatans.
Calling Mary a sinner is "demonising" her? EVERYONE is a sinner, you know.
ReplyDeleteFrom there:
Mary is listed in the passage above alongside the other followers of Jesus Christ.
There are far worse things to be called than a follower of Jesus Christ.
The rest of that post is a reaction to the demonic and blasphemous reverence EOdox and RCs give to her. You're probably better off picking some writing where Mary is actually demonised, to support your contention that Sola Scripturists demonise her.
You said:
Whatever happened to "all generations shall call me blessed" (Luke 1:48)? Or the fact that she is called "full of grace" (Luke 1:28)?
We do - who else got to spend as much time with the incarnate Christ as she?
Who else got the grace-ful blessing of bearing the incarnate God as she? How does either of these titles lead to praying to her while dead and bowing down to her while dead and asking her to intercede for us b/c Jesus is too mean?
Surely you're also familiar with the early Christian understanding of Mary as the new Eve (a counterpart to Christ being the new Adam), as expressed even in the New Testament, when Christ calls his mother "woman" in the Gospel of John.
You've got to be kidding.
The first instance of "woman" is a rebuke.
The second is a transference of filial responsibility to a believing disciple, reinforcing the point made in Matt 12, that spiritual family supersedes physical. The new Eve? Eisegesis, pure and simple.
OK, assent:
the virgin Mary might become the advocate
Wrong. Jesus is the advocate.
and as by a virgin the human race had been bound to death, by a virgin it is saved, the balance being preserved- a virgin's disobedience by a virgin' obedience.
1) Mary had nothing to do with it. The angel TOLD her she was going to have a son - Jesus. Jesus is the point of the Gospels. Jesus. Not Mary. Jesus. For all EOdox' talk about being "Christocentric", you do a poor job of proving it.
2) It's a raw assumption that Eve was a virgin at the time of the Fall. It's just as easy to think she was, you know, the WIFE of her husband by that time.
There's also the vociferous attacks on her ever-virginity; I've even heard some rather disrespectful jokes offered up on this account about Joseph and Mary's abilities to control themselves and abstain from sex even as a "married" couple
This is amazing stuff. 1 Cor 7. 'Nuff said.
It's not an "attack" to say that she was faithful to her God-ordained responsibility to fulfill her marital duty to her husband. It would have been sinful NOT to fulfill it. YOU'RE the one who attacks her faithfulness to God.
. Her ever-virginity is a fact supported by Scripture
Why don't you write a blogpost about this? Prove it.
But she's a "sinner just like the rest of us"? And how would you feel to have your mother's sanctity attacked on the premise of defending your honor?
Seriously, that is really, really ridiculous. My mother is a sinner. Her mother was a sinner. So what? I care much more about the truth of Scr and the honor of JESUS than about some ludicrous notion of "don't call my ma a sinner!"
Has the state of the dead not changed since Christ's death and Resurrection? If not, what was the point?
No, they're still DEAD. Why didn't the NT say anythg about it, then?
and divide and dissect "works of the Law" from "faith working through love."
ReplyDeleteFrom Rom 11:6? So, if you work for something in a NT sense, it's not really work? It's really faith?
What about the OT Law was inferior to NT Law?
It's very telling that Luther found it necessary to add the word "alone" after "faith" in Romans 3:28 -- it's because it wasn't there (and still isn't) to begin with
B/c the context allows for that. It's what Rom 3:28 means.
He also wanted to get rid of the letter of James; I understand why.
Name the authoritative church Canon of Scr that everyone held to in the West at Luther's time. I'll be glad to see it.
the only place in all of Scripture that the phrase "faith alone" appears (outside of Martin Luther's edited version) is in James 2:24, where it is roundly and soundly rejected. You have to admit that this is a little more than troubling for your position.
It would if the context were anything close to dealing with questions of justification before God, rather than before men. So shallow, this stuff.
Eusebius lived in the late 3rd and early 4th centuries -- a good central year is 325.
Getting out my calculator...yep, that's a while.
You can't just reject the history when it disagrees with you.
I just prefer to go with what God said rather than what a guy said 200+ yrs after the fact. Call me crazy.
Ehrman
Um, OK. No mention of his materialistic presuppositions. Figures.
This is getting pretty far afield from the original topic, and I don't have time right now. You need to prove your references are apostolic, and you need to do it pronto, else your contention about Jude 3 is dead and buried. And that's a serious problem for you.
Peace,
Rhology
The rest of that post is a reaction to the demonic and blasphemous reverence EOdox and RCs give to her.
ReplyDeleteIs it "demonic and blasphemous reverence" when I salute an officer in the military? Or the flag? Surely you're not willing to go to the extremes of Jehovah's Witnesses? And how much greater reverence is due to the mother of our Lord and Savior than to a military officer or even nation? Protestants justly complain about a lack of respect and reverence in our society, all the while not realizing that their ideas are the main course and cause behind it.
How does either of these titles lead to praying to her while dead and bowing down to her while dead
Matthew 22:32 again. You are directly contradicting and undermining Christ when you claim that those who are alive in him are dead.
asking her to intercede for us b/c Jesus is too mean?
Do you ask other Christians to pray on your behalf "b/c Jesus is too mean?" No; you ask them -- and expect them to do so -- because we are part of a community of saints -- one which is not disconnected by "death" -- the Church in heaven and the Church on earth are not separated in any real sense. Or perhaps you reject the practice of praying for others?
The new Eve? Eisegesis, pure and simple.
And yet an interpretation that all of the Fathers agree on. But that's part of your magical ability to cast away any history that disagrees with you.
The first instance of "woman" is a rebuke.
Only if it's as badly translated as most English versions are (yet another of the numerous examples of Protestants, starting with Luther himself, who are all too happy to edit Scripture when it conflicts with their presuppositions). The more correct translation is "Woman, what does this have to do with you and I?" Not "What does your concern have to do with me" or whatever variant is used now. And, even with this so-called "rebuke," we find in the very next verse that Mary expects her wishes to be immediately fulfilled. Some rebuke.
OK, assent
You proved my point about you and Ehrmann: you both make all of the early Christians into a bunch of liars, frauds, and charlatans. This is how Protestantism undermines Christianity. In order to be a Protestant, one must be willing to assert that all of those individuals who learned from Apostles or stood only a few years removed from them in time (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Barnabas, etc, etc.) all conspired to distort the "true" message of the Apostles or all misunderstood (and were in large part in agreement about their misunderstandings) what the Apostles taught. But, then, 1500 years later, a bunch of Northern Europeans, with a completely different language, culture, and thought pattern, were able to better understand the Apostles. Nonsense; pure and simple.
In this case, you dismiss the words of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, who had been taught by St. Polycarp of Smyrna, who, in turn, was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, a disciple of Christ. But I'm sure that you, 1900 years later, know much better than a man only once removed from an Apostle what the Christian Faith consists of.
The angel TOLD her she was going to have a son
And her response was...? And it was unnecessary...?
It's not an "attack" to say that she was faithful to her God-ordained responsibility to fulfill her marital duty to her husband.
And you conveniently ignore Scripture's equally forceful injunctions to celibacy; and the common early Christian vocation of virgins. Once again, you simply turn a blind eye to history when it challenges your presuppositions.
Why don't you write a blogpost about this? Prove it.
Sounds like a good idea. Will do.
No, they're still DEAD. Why didn't the NT say anythg about it, then?
It does. Again, Matthew 22:32 is clear enough.
So, if you work for something in a NT sense, it's not really work? It's really faith?
ReplyDeleteAll I can do is direct you to James 2 again. It's clear enough.
B/c the context allows for that. It's what Rom 3:28 means.
And YOU complain to ME about eisegesis? Wow... More than a touch of Marcion in the "Reformers" and their followers...
Name the authoritative church Canon of Scr that everyone held to in the West at Luther's time.
Jerome's Vulgate. And are you claiming that the canon of the New Testament hadn't been decided by the time of Luther? The does much more to undermine your position than mine...
It would if the context were anything close to dealing with questions of justification before God, rather than before men.
Really? Are we "saved" (James 2:14) before men as well? Your assertion here makes absolutely no sense. Have you read James 2 recently? In fact, it states exactly what I tried to say, though failed to convey properly, as to the relationship between faith and works: "Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" (James 2:22) Is this a "damnable heresy" too?
I just prefer to go with what God said rather than what a guy said 200+ yrs after the fact.
And where did God say that early Christians didn't use images? I don't know how much more clear I can make it: it's an undeniable, established fact of history.
No mention of his materialistic presuppositions.
Presuppositions are presuppositions, whether Calvinist or materialist. You both find it far too easy to cast aside whatever facts of history or logical contradict your presuppositions. You both chip away at the foundation upon which the Christian Church is built. And you both presume to call all early Christians, and the vast majority of Christians of all times, liars, frauds, and charlatans. I prefer to trust in the honest, integrity (and memory) of those who were closest in time, place, culture, language, and, most importantly, relationship to the Apostles.
Come now, you don't just "salute" Mary. If you're going to bow down to her, be proud about it! I'm proud when I bow to Jesus!
ReplyDeleteMatt 22 - they're alive TO GOD, but dead TO HUMANS. Dead ppl were still alive TO GOD in the OT, but you weren't supposed to bow down to images of them and talk to them then!
I got the "mean Jesus" thing from a Roman prayer:
O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou art more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.
What matters is not whether "the Fathers" agree on something; after all, the majority of them believed in Sola Scrip but you don't accept that. What matters is the argument. Like with Irenaeus - if he was wrong, he was wrong. If he made a bad argument, he made a bad argument. Unlike you, I don't check out my brain at the door of the church.
Yes, Mary's response was unnecessary. Did God ask her permission or something, in your mind?
Of course, it's not as if He thought she might say no, but that doesn't change anything - He TOLD HER what would happen.
See, this is another case in which I, the Sola Scripturist, hold much more reverence for God and His sovereignty than your man-centered religion will allow.
And you conveniently ignore Scripture's equally forceful injunctions to celibacy
Not if you're married. In fact, the exact opposite is the case if you're married. 1 Cor 7, I repeat.
Again, Matthew 22:32 is clear enough.
"I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob". You know, those guys were already dead when the Mosaic Law was given. Alive to God, yes, but dead to you. Don't talk to them. There are plenty of live people around, and the possibility of demonic deception thru necromancy is a very, very live possibility.
All I can do is direct you to James 2 again. It's clear enough.
Which refers to distinguish living, active, real faith vs dead, fake faith. Yes, it's clear enough.
"Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?" (James 2:22) Is this a "damnable heresy" too?
Yes, his faith was made complete, showing that it was real b/c he acted in accord with the faith he already had, and thus demonstrated it was real. My position accts for this just fine, but yours can't deal with Rom 3:28 or 4:4-8 or Eph 2. It's so very, very evident from the way you run screaming to James 2 whenever those psgs are brought up.
Jerome's Vulgate
It was not proclaimed to be a church-wide Canon at the time of Luther. Looks like you concede the point, and unfortunately you're not the only Sola Ecclesia-ist to make that mistake recently.
And are you claiming that the canon of the New Testament hadn't been decided by the time of Luther?
ReplyDeleteWhat does "decided" mean?
And where did God say that early Christians didn't use images?
Ah, you want me to prove a negative or something? No can do.
All I can do is repeat that talking to dead ppl is strictly forbidden in the OT over and over again and the NT says nothing about changing that.
But you don't care b/c Scr is not your authority. I'm just pointing it out.
You both find it far too easy to cast aside whatever facts of history or logical contradict your presuppositions.
That's a pretty clumsy thing to say. A materialist like Ehrman will look at the textual history of documents YOU hold dear and perform the same (probably unjustified) shredding action he does for the Bible. Be consistent, David.
I prefer to trust in the honest, integrity (and memory) of those who were closest in time, place, culture, language, and, most importantly, relationship to the Apostles.
Yes, I know you do. And I trust God. It's the most fundamental of differences between us.
Peace,
Rhology
you don't just "salute" Mary.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, but it's still very similar. It's a rendering of due respect -- and there's certainly much more respect due to the Mother of my Lord than to a military officer. Even so, we'll try another comparison that's a little closer -- how about bowing or kneeling to a king or queen? Forbidden or not?
If you're going to bow down to her, be proud about it! I'm proud when I bow to Jesus!
And you know as well as I do that way in which we bow down to the Virgin is much different than the way we bow to Christ.
they're alive TO GOD, but dead TO HUMANS.
Where is this in the New Testament?
Dead ppl were still alive TO GOD in the OT, but you weren't supposed to bow down to images of them and talk to them then!
It's been a Jewish practice since well before the time of Christ to ask for the intercessions of righteous people, whether departed or not. In 2 Macc. Onias and Jeremiah (both departed for some time at that point) bless the Israelite army. It's not uncommon even today for Jews to pray for Abraham's blessing especially, but also of any righteous teacher departed this life. I'm sure you'll be more than happy to dismiss these historical facts as you do all others though.
I got the "mean Jesus" thing from a Roman prayer
A single Roman Catholic prayer of the very late 17th century can hardly be used to define and describe the entirety of prayers to Mary.
after all, the majority of them believed in Sola Scrip but you don't accept that.
I'm calling you on this one. Who? Quotes and references, please.
Like with Irenaeus - if he was wrong, he was wrong. If he made a bad argument, he made a bad argument.
You're proving my point about how Protestants and New Atheists like find it necessary to conspire together to defame the early Christians.
Did God ask her permission or something, in your mind?
No, but her willing submission to the will of God was necessary. That God knew she would assent beforehand (and she did) doesn't mitigate this.
hold much more reverence for God and His sovereignty than your man-centered religion will allow.
By making God a tyrannical dictator instead of a merciful Father?
Not if you're married.
So a married couple cannot agree to mutually adopt a celibate lifestyle together?
In fact, the exact opposite is the case if you're married.
Do you understand Jewish marriage laws and the process it involves? Or Semitic adoption-by-marriage practices? They were not "married" in the modern Western sense of the word. This has been the trouble with Protestantism since the beginning -- attempting to interpret the writings of men who lived in a very foreign time, place, and culture and spoke a very foreign language with a very foreign set of ideas, assumptions and idioms.
You know, those guys were already dead when the Mosaic Law was given. Alive to God, yes, but dead to you.
You didn't answer my question: if the state of the departed hasn't changed since the Resurrection, what was the point in it?
the possibility of demonic deception thru necromancy is a very, very live possibility.
Are you seriously comparing asking the prayers of our departed brothers and sisters in the Faith with necromancy? Really?
My position accts for this just fine
And yet you avoided answering my question: are we "saved" (James 2:14) before men as well? The way you distort Scripture to fit your own presuppositions shows a great lack of respect for it.
Rom 3:28
Refers to "the law" (as in Old Testament law) and has nothing to do with "faith working through love" (Galatans 5:6).
Rom 4:4-8
Again, you're talking about works of the law...
Eph 2
Again, works of the law...
NOT the same as "faith working through love."
It was not proclaimed to be a church-wide Canon at the time of Luther.
ReplyDeleteIt was the concensus of the Church. Show me another, different canon in use in the West at the time. Show me ANY canon anywhere in the world in use at that time which didn't include the Epistle of James.
Once again, though, you're undermining your own SS position -- it's hard to be SS when you don't know what Scripture is -- which means the Church couldn't have entered its "normative state" (as you call it) until Luther.
What does "decided" mean?
Closed by concensus of the Church with no need (until Protestants started tampering with the canon by switching to the Jewish [and anti-Christian] Masoretic) of an official proclamation by an Ecumenical Council (although many other, local Councils had officially proclaimed the canon).
Ah, you want me to prove a negative or something?
No, you said that Eusebius' mention of images dating from the 1st century somehow conflicts with God's words. I was asking you where God wrote a history that contradicted Eusebius' account.
And you continue to avoid addressing the great amount of archaeology that confirms Eusebius' statements...
talking to dead ppl is strictly forbidden in the OT over and over again and the NT says nothing about changing that.
The New Testament doesn't directly mention that the law that my wife is to sleep in a different bed during her menstruation has been overriden either. Should I kick her out?
The New Testament does, though, make very clear that the state of the departed has changed. They're no longer waiting in Sheol for the messiah.
But you don't care b/c Scr is not your authority.
Who claimed Scripture's not my authority? Please don't put words in my mouth.
A materialist like Ehrman will look at the textual history of documents YOU hold dear and perform the same (probably unjustified) shredding action he does for the Bible.
And how is this different from what you do?
Sure, more respect is due to Mary than most any human. And how would she, as one of the holiest people ever to walk the Earth, respond to praise thrown her way? She'd direct it to Christ. Why don't you just save her the trouble? (I mean that, it's not rhetorical.)
ReplyDeleteAnd bowing to a king is not the same. The king is ALIVE. You're bowing down to a picture of Mary. She's not there. She's dead. You know who else prays to dead people? Occultists, séances, Ouija boards, astral projection. There's a really good reason why the God of the living, not of the dead, told you not to talk to the dead. It's b/c they're dead. Want to ask for prayer? That's what your local church is for.
Where is this in the New Testament?
Lazarus.
Any other instance of any person who was dead in the NT.
Jesus, for that matter. Did ppl interact with Jesus when He was dead the same as when He was alive, pre- or post-Resurrection? Of course.
In 2 Macc. Onias and Jeremiah (both departed for some time at that point) bless the Israelite army.
1) Do you know where, specifically? I've never heard that one.
2) I don't accept 2 Macc as Scr, and neither did the author; he specifically sloughs off responsibility for any errors to the guys he heard the whole acct from.
A single Roman Catholic prayer of the very late 17th century can hardly be used to define and describe the entirety of prayers to Mary.
So that prayer doesn't describe your thoughts about Mary vis-a-vis Jesus at all?
(And Rome made him a doctor of the church, so it certainly describes Roman practice quite well!)
after all, the majority of them believed in Sola Scrip but you don't accept that.
I'm calling you on this one. Who? Quotes and references, please.
Here you go.
You're proving my point about how Protestants and New Atheists like find it necessary to conspire together to defame the early Christians.
Saying someone was wrong on a specific issue is to "defame" them? Really?
And your comparison is really specious.
No, but her willing submission to the will of God was necessary.
Since the text doesn't say that, are you just shoving that into the text? Whence do you get this idea?
By making God a tyrannical dictator instead of a merciful Father?
Who converts enemies and rebellious haters of God into loving children, full inheritors of His grace? Try again.
So a married couple cannot agree to mutually adopt a celibate lifestyle together?
Not if they want to obey God.
What are you asking ME for? For the 3rd time, read 1 Cor 7!
They were not "married" in the modern Western sense of the word.
Another new one on me. Man, you'll just make most anything up to fit it in.
Were they married in the 1 Cor 7 sense?
Are you seriously comparing asking the prayers of our departed brothers and sisters in the Faith with necromancy? Really?
Well, hmm, you both talk to dead people. With candles and various other religious accoutrements. And incense and such.
Yeah, there's an awful lot of comparison.
Besides, how do you know these ppl to whom you're supposedly talking are in Heaven? Whence do you get this word from God that you're definitely addressing a denizen of Heaven?
are we "saved" (James 2:14) before men as well?
What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?
Fail. You're mixing up what the verse is addressing. V 14 is telling you that a faith that SAYS it's faith but doesn't DEMONSTRATE that faith thru good works is not actually faith at all. It's the whole point of Js 2.
Refers to "the law" (as in Old Testament law) and has nothing to do with "faith working through love" (Galatans 5:6).
What's the difference?
Let me ask it this way - why couldn't the OT Law save?
Show me another, different canon in use in the West at the time
Cardinal Cajetan's.
Show me ANY canon anywhere in the world in use at that time which didn't include the Epistle of James.
ReplyDeleteLuther included James in his Bible, in the back, much like Jerome and other Scr compilers in earlier times did with the DC books. You're listening to too many pop "apologists".
it's hard to be SS when you don't know what Scripture is -- which means the Church couldn't have entered its "normative state" (as you call it) until Luther.
Then show me YOUR definitive canon of infallible teachings and we'll see how they compare.
Oh, you don't have one? Man, it must be hard to be a Sola Ecclesia-ist!
Decided = Closed by concensus of the Church with no need
Luther was dead before Trent dealt with the question of the Canon. So, thank you, your point fails.
The New Testament doesn't directly mention that the law that my wife is to sleep in a different bed during her menstruation has been overriden either. Should I kick her out?
You really don't know the difference between diff kinds of OT Law? Ceremonial, moral, civic?
Who claimed Scripture's not my authority?
Um, you did, in your debate opening statement. Come on, at least be proud of your position.
A materialist like Ehrman will look at the textual history of documents YOU hold dear and perform the same (probably unjustified) shredding action he does for the Bible.
And how is this different from what you do?
A better question is how this is similar to what I do. Make an argument or just talk to yourself, this is ridiculous, comparing my position to Ehrman.
more respect is due to Mary than most any human...she, as one of the holiest people ever to walk the Earth
ReplyDeleteCorrection: More respect is due to Mary than any human and she is the holiest person ever to walk the Earth. What other person in the history of humanity has held the Eternal God inside herself? Your equivocation is telling.
respond to praise thrown her way? She'd direct it to Christ.
And she does. Notice the direction her hand is pointing.
Why don't you just save her the trouble?
By that token, why ever praise or compliment anybody at all?
Question: Are you willing to call the Virgin Mary "Mother of God"?
The king is ALIVE.
Exactly; now you've got it.
You're bowing down to a picture of Mary. She's not there. She's dead.
How about this?
Occultists, séances, Ouija boards, astral projection.
Do you really think that this is even a decent comparison? As if there were not a vast qualitative difference between these practices and Orthodox belief in intercession of the saints?
Deuteronomy 18:10-15 spells out why God has banned calling upon the dead; and it's not "because they're dead" as you assert. God tells the Hebrews in these verses not to call upon the dead to provide them with knowledge -- he wants them to listen to prophets sent by him. Praying "Saint so-and-so, pray for me to our Lord Jesus Christ" is not even remotely similar to conjuring up the dead to procure occult secrets.
That's what your local church is for.
So we should forget about that "great cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1) and the saints in heaven who offer our prayers to God (Revelation 5:8)?
Did ppl interact with Jesus when He was dead the same as when He was alive,... post-Resurrection?
Uh, yes... And that's exactly my point.
Do you know where, specifically? I've never heard that one.
Chapter 15
I don't accept 2 Macc as Scr, and neither did the author;
I doubt that many, if any, of the inspired authors knew they were writing Scripture as they actually wrote it. Their accounts almost never (although occasionally they do) reflect such an understanding. St. Paul often indicates that he doesn't know that he's writing Scripture. See 1 Corinthians 7:12, for instance.
So that prayer doesn't describe your thoughts about Mary vis-a-vis Jesus at all?
No, it doesn't; not very accurately anyway.
Here you go.
Okay; I'll take a look when I can. In the mean time, are there any that you personally can name and show?
Saying someone was wrong on a specific issue is to "defame" them? Really?
Once again (I hate quoting myself, but I think it's necessary here): you make them liars, frauds, and charlatans.
Since the text doesn't say that, are you just shoving that into the text? Whence do you get this idea?
Luke 1:38
Who converts enemies and rebellious haters of God into loving children, full inheritors of His grace? Try again.
Not what I was referring to. Please don't take my words out of context. I was referring to your assertion that God was going to make the Virgin Mary conceive Christ against her will.
What are you asking ME for? For the 3rd time, read 1 Cor 7!
ReplyDeleteGood verse. Try 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. According to this study, Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination. Inconsistent application of scriptural injunctions located only a few verses away from each other; sounds like blatant hypocrisy to me.
Another new one on me. Man, you'll just make most anything up to fit it in.
See "kiddushin" here. Hence, St. Joseph "the Betrothed." Please don't accuse me of fabricating things; in spite of the name of my blog, it's pretty disrespectful.
With candles and various other religious accoutrements.
Did the worship commanded by God in the Old Testament include "candles and various other religious accoutrements"?
Did the worship of the early Christians use "candles and various other religious accoutrements"?
And incense and such.
Did the worship commanded by God in the Old Testament include the use of "incense and such"?
Did the worship of the early Christians include the use of "incense and such"?
[to save you some time in research: the answer to all of the above questions is YES].
A more apt comparison might be between Protestants and a certain other Sola Scripturist group I know of. They shun images just as Protestants do [in fact, Christian iconoclasm was of their inspriation]. They refuse to call the Virgin Mary "Mother of God" [they, however, take this refusal to its logical conclusion]. Yes, and Islam and Protestantism are very similar.
Whence do you get this word from God that you're definitely addressing a denizen of Heaven?
We believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit by the Church -- we're theists, not atheists, remember? And, in some cases, we don't know, to be blunt. But that doesn't stop us from asking for their intercession and for interceding for them. It's part of being a member of the Church -- the communion of saints.
telling you that a faith that SAYS it's faith but doesn't DEMONSTRATE that faith thru good works is not actually faith at all.
And whom are we "demonstrating" our faith to?
why couldn't the OT Law save?
Because it was incomplete; it didn't heal the rift between God and man -- only the Incarnation of Christ could do that.
Cardinal Cajetan's.
I meant New Testament canon; I should have been more specific. Cajetan, so far as I know, differed in his canon only on the Deuterocanonicals. His New Testament was exactly the same as everyone else's.
Luther included James in his Bible, in the back
ReplyDeleteRight; and why did he do that? Let's just be honest about it already. Luther in his own words:
St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546)
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546)
Clearly, Luther didn't understand James as saying what you twist it to mean. He understood it in the plain sense of the words; and he hated it for that.
Then show me YOUR definitive canon of infallible teachings and we'll see how they compare.
The Holy Scriptures; the definitions and decrees of the Nine Ecumenical Councils; and "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."
Man, it must be hard to be a Sola Ecclesia-ist!
Good tu quoque response. Now, please, answer the question.
Luther was dead before Trent dealt with the question of the Canon.
The Council of Trent didn't close the canon for the Orthodox -- no council has, in fact (unless you count the 17th century Jerusalem Synod, but it's not an Ecumenical Council so you can't say it has infallible, binding authority in the matter) -- and yet we have the same New Testament as the Roman Catholics and Protestants (and more or less the same Old Testament as the Roman Catholics).
I don't think you understood what I said. I said a Council wasn't necessary because it had already been decided by the consensus of the Church -- meaning the Church as a whole, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, accepted this canon of Scripture. There's no need for some bishops to step up and proclaim it from on high -- it's the life of the Church.
Perhaps I should explain -- the Church is not an institution as such -- it's the Body of Christ -- it consists of each and every one of its members. The people of the Church are the Church. When I say "the Church says" -- I'm not talking about some Bishop -- I'm talking about the consensus of believers -- the Faith we all share, keep, and live.
And, more on point, the canon of Scripture had been decided by the Church long before Luther ever existed to think to do so. That's one of the major problems with Protestantism, and with Western Christianity in general -- individualism; as if some man or even group of men could just decide any time they wanted to to change the canon of Scripture for whatever purpose! And you say my Church is a religion of men!
You really don't know the difference between diff kinds of OT Law? Ceremonial, moral, civic?
Where's this in the New Testament?
Um, you did, in your debate opening statement.
Quote me, please.
A better question is how this is similar to what I do.
I apologize for quoting myself again, but I already explained this:
"In order to be a Protestant, one must be willing to assert that all of those individuals who learned from Apostles or stood only a few years removed from them in time (Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, Polycarp of Smyrna, Justin Martyr, Barnabas, etc, etc.) all conspired to distort the "true" message of the Apostles or all misunderstood (and were in large part in agreement about their misunderstandings) what the Apostles taught."
I apologize, I forgot to add this to the original response:
ReplyDeleteMy point in quoting 2 Macc was not that I expected you to respect it as a scriptural authority. It was to demonstrate an example of what I was saying about Jewish belief in intercession of the righteous departed. Jews have believed in and sought the intercession of the righteous departed since well before the time of Christ -- which means during the time of Christ -- and even till today. This is important because this is the religious context that Christ lived in and the Apostles and early Christians came from.
More respect is due to Mary than any human and she is the holiest person ever to walk the Earth. What other person in the history of humanity has held the Eternal God inside herself?
ReplyDeleteNo, I agree with both of those. How does it then follow that it's permissible to bow down to an image of her and talk to her?
And she does. Notice the direction her hand is pointing.
THAT is equivocation, speaking of! Just save her the trouble. Do I have to remind you of the massive and out of control cult of Mariolatry that is in place in large swaths of the RC world?
How big of a cult of Mariolatry is in place in the Protestant world? Bingo! Zero. Why? B/c we don't treat Mary like she's some sort of demigod, don't pray to her, don't bow down to her, don't act like she has supernatural power. Instead, we worship JESUS. It's quite a concept - try it some time, try worshiping DIVINITY, not HUMANITY.
By that token, why ever praise or compliment anybody at all?
B/c God has always encouraged compliments, and has forbidden worshipful activity. Did you really need to ask that impertinent question?
Are you willing to call the Virgin Mary "Mother of God"?
Yes, though "Mother of Christ" is far more appropriate.
The king is ALIVE.
Exactly; now you've got it.
Yep, and the saints are DEAD. The question is whether YOU'VE got it.
How about this?
More equivocation from you. Is this prayer? Worshipful activity? Talking to them? Religious context?
Do you really think that this is even a decent comparison?
Yes, that's why I said it.
As if there were not a vast qualitative difference between these practices and Orthodox belief in intercession of the saints?
And also vast similarities. Why not deal with those?
God tells the Hebrews in these verses not to call upon the dead to provide them with knowledge -- he wants them to listen to prophets sent by him.
1) And you follow that, how again?
2) Isaiah 8:19-20.
3) Saul and the witch of Endor.
So we should forget about that "great cloud of witnesses" (Hebrews 12:1) and the saints in heaven who offer our prayers to God (Revelation 5:8)?
No. How is this relevant?
Did ppl interact with Jesus when He was dead the same as when He was alive,... post-Resurrection?
Uh, yes... And that's exactly my point.
How precisely did Jesus interact with ppl when He was dead? And ppl with Him?
St. Paul often indicates that he doesn't know that he's writing Scripture. See 1 Corinthians 7:12, for instance.
That is a reference to no command he had FROM THE LORD JESUS, not a reference to "this isn't from God".
And how many authors of actual biblical books specifically repudiate their inspiration like 2 Macc does?
In the mean time, are there any that you personally can name and show?
Here are some.
Here's another.
See here for more.
No, but her willing submission to the will of God was necessary.
Since the text doesn't say that, are you just shoving that into the text? Whence do you get this idea?
Luke 1:38
Where specifically in Lk 1:38? Exegesis, please.
I was referring to your assertion that God was going to make the Virgin Mary conceive Christ against her will.
How do you know that?
Good verse. Try 1 Corinthians 7:10-11. According to this study, Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination.
Red herring.
Fine, Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination.
Now, please answer the question.
See "kiddushin" here. Hence, St. Joseph "the Betrothed."
ReplyDeleteMatthew 1:20 - But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.
And Joseph awoke from his sleep and did as the angel of the Lord commanded him, and took Mary as his wife, 25 but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus.
Why specifically talk about marital intimacy if it was just some "betrothal"?
Did the worship commanded by God in the Old Testament include "candles and various other religious accoutrements"? Did the worship commanded by God in the Old Testament include the use of "incense and such"?
While bowing down to not-God? Nope.
Yes, and Islam and Protestantism are very similar.
In their iconoclasm, sure.
Islam and EOC believe Abraham was a prophet! They're also monotheistic! Yes, EOC and Islam are very similar.
See, anyone can make specious and irrelevant comparisons.
Whence do you get this word from God that you're definitely addressing a denizen of Heaven?
We believe in the guidance of the Holy Spirit by the Church -- we're theists, not atheists, remember? And, in some cases, we don't know, to be blunt. But that doesn't stop us from asking for their intercession and for interceding for them. It's part of being a member of the Church -- the communion of saints.
A complete and total non-answer. You don't know. So, it doesn't bother you that you could be praying to a forever-lost enemy of God?
Again, why take the risk? Just pray to Someone you KNOW is in Heaven and you KNOW is listening - Jesus.
And don't pull the "we're not atheists" line on me here - I use that when you act inconsistently with what you're SUPPOSED to believe as an EO, with beliefs we're supposed to share. I have in no way acted inconsistently with my Reformed faith in doubting whether dead people are a good prayer target. It's disappointing that you haven't understood that line of argumentation from me...
And whom are we "demonstrating" our faith to?
In the context of James 2, to God, to everyone watching. Abraham was confirming it to God, to Isaac, to the guys with them, to Sarah, and then to everyone who reads Genesis; thus, to literally billions of ppl.
why couldn't the OT Law save?
Because it was incomplete; it didn't heal the rift between God and man -- only the Incarnation of Christ could do that.
Why was it incomplete? What is the nature of the rift?
Cardinal Cajetan's.
I meant New Testament canon; I should have been more specific. Cajetan, so far as I know, differed in his canon only on the Deuterocanonicals. His New Testament was exactly the same as everyone else's.
Oh, then we have no dispute. Luther's NT Canon didn't differ from anyone's.
I hope you'll learn from this in the future and stop using that argument, since it has a false premise.
Luther didn't drop James from his Bible, you know - it was in the back. Kind of like Jerome and other early Christians, when the DCs were in the back. You don't have a problem with that, do you?
Luther didn't understand James as saying what you twist it to mean.
And? Luther got a lot of things wrong. So what?
The Holy Scriptures; the definitions and decrees of the Nine Ecumenical Councils; and "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all."
Be a tad more specific, please.
The Council of Trent didn't close the canon for the Orthodox -- no council has, in fact (unless you count the 17th century Jerusalem Synod, but it's not an Ecumenical Council so you can't say it has infallible, binding authority in the matter) -- and yet we have the same New Testament as the Roman Catholics and Protestants
ReplyDeleteSo you DON'T have a closed Canon, and yet you have the gall to question mine? Please.
I said a Council wasn't necessary because it had already been decided by the consensus of the Church -- meaning the Church as a whole, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, accepted this canon of Scripture.
So why did men like Athanasius and Jerome not accept the DCs? They're part of the "whole church".
When I say "the Church says" -- I'm not talking about some Bishop -- I'm talking about the consensus of believers -- the Faith we all share, keep, and live.
Yes, it's very convenient to keep it general when the specifics disprove your position.
You really don't know the difference between diff kinds of OT Law? Ceremonial, moral, civic?
Where's this in the New Testament?
1) Hebrews.
2) Oh, so the OT doesn't count suddenly?
Um, you did, in your debate opening statement.
Quote me, please.
Rolling my eyes now. Let the reader judge.
all conspired to distort the "true" message of the Apostles or all misunderstood (and were in large part in agreement about their misunderstandings) what the Apostles taught."
Not all, and not all in the same way. The beauty of being Reformed is that we can take the ECFs for who they were, rather than shoehorning them into a preconceived mold. But only the Scr is infallible.
You don't do them any honor, you know, whenever we cite their teachings that disagree with modern EO dogma and you write them off, saying "oh, we look at the whole church". How is that better than what we do?
Jews have believed in and sought the intercession of the righteous departed since well before the time of Christ
And quite a few Jews at the time of Christ thought the Corban rule was legitimate too. Scripture, my friend - Scripture.
Peace,
Rhology
Do I have to remind you of the massive and out of control cult of Mariolatry that is in place in large swaths of the RC world?
ReplyDeleteAnd it's heretical and unacceptable -- but we don't such issues in the Orthodox Church, so is this no argument against the Orthodox position on the matter.
How big of a cult of Mariolatry is in place in the Protestant world? Bingo!
Instead there's a cult of Scripture - where the Bible reaches nearly the point of being an idol. Both are focusing too much on one thing to the exclusion of others.
Instead, we worship JESUS. It's quite a concept - try it some time, try worshiping DIVINITY, not HUMANITY.
Do you really think we don't worship Christ?
B/c God has always encouraged compliments, and has forbidden worshipful activity.
Does God encourage or discourage reverence and respect for those deserving of it?
Also, I'm sure that even you know we don't reverence the Virgin Mary in the same way we worship God.
Yes, though "Mother of Christ" is far more appropriate.
Wow, very Nestorian...
Yep, and the saints are DEAD..
God says they're not.
Jesus said to her, “I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. - John 11:25
Is this prayer?
It can be, though, obviously, not in the way we pray to God -- just as in Orthodox "prayers" to the saints.
Worshipful activity?
Depends on how you define "worshipful activity" I guess -- it's clearly not (just as Orthodox prayer to the saints) the same as worship of God, but it's rendering due reverence and respect. Perhaps "worship" in the Old English sense of the term.
Talking to them?
Many do...
Religious context?
THIS is equivocation. First, yes it is, in a sense -- it's a military memorial service -- which generally includes a prayer, some scripture readings, a short sermon, a eulogy, a 21 gun salute, and the final rendering of honors as shown in this picture. Second, why does it matter if it's "religious context"?
1) And you follow that, how again?
Uh... do you think the Orthodox conjure up the saints to ask for occult secrets? We don't...
2) Isaiah 8:19-20.
Yes, again talking about conjuring the dead to learn occult secrets... NOT the same by any means...
3) Saul and the witch of Endor.
See above... again...
How is this relevant?
Because these verses (and others) tell us what the saints in heaven are doing -- and it's not being "dead to us" as you claim.
How precisely did Jesus interact with ppl when He was dead? And ppl with Him?
You said "post-Resurrection." Was Christ dead "post-Resurrection"?
That is a reference to no command he had FROM THE LORD JESUS, not a reference to "this isn't from God".
So... St. Paul knew he was writing Scripture when he wrote?
And how many authors of actual biblical books specifically repudiate their inspiration like 2 Macc does?
You said that the author blames any errors on those he heard the account from originally -- this is not the same as it being a repudiation of its being Scripture.
Here are some.
ReplyDeleteHere's another.
See here for more.
None of those quotes indicates that the individual being quoted believed in Sola Scriptura. Instead of addressing each quote, which would take quite some time, here's a couple other quotes from the same authors:
"They teach what they themselves have learnt from their predecessors. They have received those rites which they explain from the Church's tradition. They preach only 'the dogmas of the Church'" - St. John Chrysostom, Baptismal Instruction
"[S]eeing, I say, that the Church teaches this in plain language, that the Only-begotten is essentially God, very God of the essence of the very God, how ought one who opposes her decisions to overthrow the preconceived opinion... And let no one interrupt me, by saying that what we confess should also be confirmed by constructive reasoning: for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them." St. Gregory of Nyssa, Against Eunomius, 4:6
And St. Irenaeus of Lyons (need I remind you again of his close relation to St. John the Apostle?) seems to be prophesying about Protestants here:
"But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the successions of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying they themselves are wiser..." St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3,2:2
Where specifically in Lk 1:38? Exegesis, please.
The whole thing -- her consent, that the Angel waited for it, etc...
How do you know that?
Right back atchya - it was your assertion.
Fine, Baptists have the highest divorce rate of any Christian denomination.
You ignored my statement here. You're being inconsistent in your position -- one verse is taken as absolutely literally and strictly as possible, while the other, only a sentence or two later, leaves lots of wiggle room, apparently.
Why specifically talk about marital intimacy if it was just some "betrothal"?
ReplyDeleteTo emphasize that she was a virgin.
While bowing down to not-God? Nope.
And do we bow down to the saints in the same way we bow down to God? Nope.
See, anyone can make specious and irrelevant comparisons.
That was exactly my point.
You don't know.
I should clarify -- my "don't know" didn't refer to recognized saints of the Church. Understand, we don't just ask "canonized" saints for their prayers -- we ask also our own departed friends and relatives in Christ. The saints, on the other hand, we know are in heaven -- because Christ promised this discernment to the Church.
In the context of James 2, to God, to everyone watching.
"To God"? So... if we have to "demonstrate" our faith "to God" in order for that faith not to be dead (as James 2 says) and to be salvific (as James 2 says) -- then works are required for salvation? Correct? Honestly, saying that we have to demonstrate our faith God through works, as you claim James 2 does, is much farther than I or any Orthodox Christian would go -- sounds a lot like works religion, honestly.
Why was it incomplete?
Because it didn't make us sons -- it made us servants.
What is the nature of the rift?
Man's sinfulness causes his separation from God.
Luther's NT Canon didn't differ from anyone's..
Come now, he called it a "gospel of straw." Do you really think he considered scriptural in any meaningful sense of the word?
Kind of like Jerome and other early Christians, when the DCs were in the back. You don't have a problem with that, do you?
No, that's why they're "deuterocanonical" -- "deutero" meaning "second" as in "secondary," not on the same footing as the primary canon.
And? Luther got a lot of things wrong. So what?
My point was that yours is an invented meaning -- it's eisegesis based on your own preconceived notions. At least the earliest Protestants had enough integrity to just say they disagreed, rather than slanderously try to twist the meaning.
Be a tad more specific, please.
I don't know how I possibly can -- my statement was pretty specific.
So you DON'T have a closed Canon,
ReplyDeleteI never said that -- in fact, I specifically said the opposite. Our canon is very closed and has been for a very long time. What I said was that there was no need (and still is no need) for a Council or Bishop to issue some specific decree on the matter -- it's been decided by the consensus of the Church.
So why did men like Athanasius and Jerome not accept the DCs? They're part of the "whole church".
"... we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike." - St. Vincent of Lerins
A couple of individual dissenting voices doesn't undermine the consensus of the Church.
1) Hebrews.
Specifically, what verse(s)?
2) Oh, so the OT doesn't count suddenly?
Well, considering that whole system has been superseded... (hence: OLD covenant)...
Not all, and not all in the same way.
They agreed on an awful lot of things that Protestants wholeheartedly reject. How about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for example?
And quite a few Jews at the time of Christ thought the Corban rule was legitimate too.
And Christ addressed and dismissed that tradition men, but not intercession of the saints/righteous -- in fact, he argued often against the sect (Sadducees) which rejected such practices -- and often on the basis by which they rejected them: the Resurrection.
And it's heretical and unacceptable
ReplyDeleteThey seem to accept it just fine over at the Vatican.
And it's worse in EOC than you're giving it credit for.
a cult of Scripture - where the Bible reaches nearly the point of being an idol.
Oh, the Bible gets bowed down to, prayed to, kissed (hey, don't EOdox do that before the DL?), burned incense to, and talked to as if it were a person? Don't be ridiculous.
Do you really think we don't worship Christ?
Not nearly enough. No one worships Christ enough. So, with that in mind and given Christ's infinite deserving of worship, why waste your 'spiritual' time with anyone else?
Does God encourage or discourage reverence and respect for those deserving of it?
Encourages.
And category error, red herring.
I'm sure that even you know we don't reverence the Virgin Mary in the same way we worship God.
How is one supposed to know that? Am I just supposed to take your word for it? What substantial diff is there between the actions you render to Mary and those to Christ?
It's EASY to tell in my church. We worship Christ and spend all our time doing that. We pray to Him, too. Mary is mentioned as a saintly woman, like many other saintly people that have lived. It's not hard. You make it impossible.
Wow, very Nestorian...
Wow, very shallow...
God says they're not.
Perhaps you missed the first part of the phrase: though he may die, he shall live.
Sounds like he's dead to me, and given eternal life, which means he's not on Earth. And like I've said I don't know how many times now, OT saints were in Abraham's bosom too and it was forbidden to talk to them.
Depends on how you define "worshipful activity" I guess
I just let God do so, and look at the biblical descriptions.
First, yes it is, in a sense -- it's a military memorial service -- which generally includes a prayer...
You're not TALKING TO THEM.
And if you are, you're breaking God's Law. I don't know what's so hard about all this, but you're clearly not being objective, given your precommitment to EOC.
Second, why does it matter if it's "religious context"?
Gosh, I don't know, maybe it's b/c that's when one worships God and you're supposed to be telling me why it's acceptable to render actions that look just like worship to someone other than God, when you could be taking that time to render it to God.
do you think the Orthodox conjure up the saints to ask for occult secrets? We don't...
No, I don't think that.
Yes, again talking about conjuring the dead to learn occult secrets
It says "consult" them. Just consult God and you'll avoid even the appearance of evil.
Why is it so bad that I'm trying to get you to spend more time on your knees before GOD, rather than before ppl? Why is it better to spend time on ppl than on God Himself? Help me understand that.
You said "post-Resurrection." Was Christ dead "post-Resurrection"?
Yes, post-Rez referred to when He was alive again.
Please answer the question. it's very straightforward.
See, anyone can make specious and irrelevant comparisons.
That was exactly my point.
Um, OK. So even though your worship of saints looks exactly like your worship of God and pagan worship of dead people, it's totally different. Did I get that right?
Understand, we don't just ask "canonized" saints for their prayers -- we ask also our own departed friends and relatives in Christ. The saints, on the other hand, we know are in heaven -- because Christ promised this discernment to the Church.
You know your departed friends are in Heaven? Don't you blv ppl can fall away? How do you know they didn't before they died?
Where did Christ promise this discernment? Let me guess - "binding and loosing" in Matt 18? What else can you squeeze into those verses?
And Christ addressed and dismissed that tradition men, but not intercession of the saints/righteous -- in fact, he argued often against the sect (Sadducees) which rejected such practices
ReplyDelete1) They're not resurrected yet. How foolish!
2) Jesus' dispute with the Sadducees didn't touch on whether it's OK to talk to dead people at all. You just made that up.
3) You didn't respond to my argument about the Corban rule. Focus - why would I remind you that Jesus smacked down another tradition of men at this point in the convo?
Where specifically in Lk 1:38? Exegesis, please.
The whole thing -- her consent, that the Angel waited for it, etc...
She DID consent. Says nothing about God's inability to do it otherwise.
"But our God is in the heavens; He does whatever He pleases." -Psalm 115:3
You're being inconsistent in your position -- one verse is taken as absolutely literally and strictly as possible, while the other, only a sentence or two later, leaves lots of wiggle room, apparently.
What, that divorce is wrong? You think I don't think divorce is almost never permissible? What are you getting at? Be specific.
And you STILL won't answer my question. how many times do I have to ask it? Why is Mary holy for refusing to have sex within her marriage, when she was commanded to do so? Sounds like I hold Mary in higher regard than you!
St. Paul knew he was writing Scripture when he wrote?
I don't know. Peter thought Paul was, though - 2 Peter 3:16.
You said that the author blames any errors on those he heard the account from originally -- this is not the same as it being a repudiation of its being Scripture.
Believe that if you want.
2 macc 15: 38S o these things being done with relation to Nicanor, and from that time the city being possessed by the Hebrews, I also will here make an end of my narration.39 Which if I have done well, and as it becometh the history, it is what I desired: but if not so perfectly, it must be pardoned me.
Sorta hard to imagine sthg like that at the end of, say, Romans.
here's a couple other quotes from the same authors:
Which illustrates what I've now said to you at least twice, in diff places, about the inconsistency of your rule of faith. it's not everywhere by all at all times when ppl teach inconsistently or hold to Sola Scrip. I can't believe you can't get that straight.
See, you even say it down below! You say:
A couple of individual dissenting voices doesn't undermine the consensus of the Church.
There is every reason not to take this kind of special pleading seriously! Your position is "believed everywhere by all at all times, except when it wasn't". It is 100% incoherent.
They have received those rites which they explain from the Church's tradition. They preach only 'the dogmas of the Church
Could easily be said of the Scripture itself. Paradosis as interpretation of the Scripture. Dogma of the church as what the Scr teaches.
Etc.
for it is enough for proof of our statement, that the tradition has come down to us from our Fathers, handled on, like some inheritance, by succession from the apostles and the saints who came after them
This rules out Scr how?
need I remind you again of his close relation to St. John the Apostle?
Lots of ppl were close friends of the apostles. Like the Colossians, the Galatians, the Romans, the Laodicæans, the Thessalonians... and they all needed correction very soon after their apostolic foundings.
Specifically, what verse(s) of Hebrews?
ReplyDeleteHebrews is one big coherent argument. It would do you some good to study the whole thing, for real.
considering that whole system has been superseded... (hence: OLD covenant)...
Oh, the whole "I came not to abolish the Law" seems to have slipped your mind.
Besides, YOU asked ME why a specific OT law doesn't apply anymore while another does. The OT defines it itself.
then works are required for salvation? Correct?
No, they demonstrate the salvation. Again, it's not that hard.
Why was the OT Law incomplete?
Because it didn't make us sons -- it made us servants.
And why were we only servants, not sons?
What is the nature of the rift?
Man's sinfulness causes his separation from God.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. Finally.
So, the OT Law was insufficient to get us to God, b/c we couldn't keep it, right?
But somehow we CAN keep the commands of Christ? How do you figure?
Isn't it the case that we can't keep those commands either, and need Christ's sacrifice to be our substitute for the wrath of God poured out on lawbreakers like us who have broken God's law and incurred the penalty for it, a la Deuteronomy's two choices?
Come now, he called it a "gospel of straw." Do you really think he considered scriptural in any meaningful sense of the word?
1) He had it in the back of his Bible. Like the DCs. So what's the diff? And you're always arguing for the canonicity of the DCs.
2) Do you think that your incriminating Luther makes some sort of diff to me? What exactly would it mean for me if Luther were a scoundrel and a heretic? Are you making some sort of ad hominem connection? If so, why isn't that fallacious? If not, why bother? Do you just enjoy dwelling on ppl's sin?
i can't be more specific
You can't get more specific than "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"? Really?
So how exactly is a questioner supposed to "test all things, hold on to that which is good" in your church? Just trust you? 'Cause you're the infallible church?
Our canon is very closed and has been for a very long time.
Yeah, we've been here before. I'll take a bishop's word over yours, sorry.
They agreed on an awful lot of things that Protestants wholeheartedly reject. How about the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist for example?
take a look at that last link I sent you, last time, in Jason Engwer's Catholic but not Roman Catholic. Justin Martyr, for example, didn't buy it.
And I don't buy it b/c it's monophysite. Much better to take what Jesus really meant in Jn 6, that His words were spirit and that the flesh profits nothing, than to buy into defined heresy.
Peace,
Rhology
They seem to accept it just fine over at the Vatican.
ReplyDeleteThat has no more to do with me than with you. I'm not Roman Catholic, remember?
And it's worse in EOC than you're giving it credit for.
Or perhaps you just don't understand it? You keep interpreting our beliefs in the context of your own understandings of Roman Catholicism rather than looking at our beliefs as our beliefs and theirs as theirs. We often differ as much from them as from Protestants. Here's what the Orthodox believe about the Virgin Mary: http://www.orthodoxwiki.org/Theotokos
Not nearly enough. No one worships Christ enough.
Absolutely agreed.
... why waste your 'spiritual' time with anyone else?
Every moment of our lives is spiritual time. You can't put moments in a box like that -- the same applies to your comments below about whether something is in a "religious context" or not. For a Christian, our whole life is spiritual time (and there's no such thing as a "religious context" insofar as that implies any separation of our spiritual lives from our daily lives). Everything we say, do, or think should be in the presence of God and for the glory of God. And not a moment is wasted if used in this way -- how could it be?
How is one supposed to know that? Am I just supposed to take your word for it?
These questions are meaningless. We're talking about MY beliefs here -- essentially you're trying to tell me that you know better than I do what I believe. That doesn't make sense. You're using a straw-man argument here and essentially accusing me of lying to you about what I believe. If you don't believe me, then feel free to ask any other Orthodox Christian you can find -- we all believe the same thing unlike Protestants.
What substantial diff is there between the actions you render to Mary and those to Christ?
Are you kidding? Have you ever attended a Liturgy -- if you're not willing to do that, I suggest you at least read the words of the Liturgy so you know what you're talking about. Here's the most commonly used Liturgy in the Orthodox Church: http://web.archive.org/web/20061231195847/sspeterpaul.org/sjcli.html
It's EASY to tell in my church. We worship Christ and spend all our time doing that. We pray to Him, too.
And I'd say the exact same of my Church.
Mary is mentioned as a saintly woman, like many other saintly people that have lived.
And I'd say the exact same of my Church, although I'd add that we don't equivocate -- she's one of many saintly people but also the most saintly person.
Sounds like he's dead to me, and given eternal life, which means he's not on Earth.
Exactly right -- he's not on earth -- he's in heaven -- and alive -- just as Christ says he is.
OT saints were in Abraham's bosom too and it was forbidden to talk to them.
No, until Christ's harrowing of hell and Resurrection they were in Sheol.
Gosh, I don't know, maybe it's b/c that's when one worships God
See my comments above -- there's no such animal as "religious context." We, as Christians, should worship God at all times and in all places -- the life we live, our thoughts, our words, our deeds should all reflect God to others, be in the presence of God, and give Glory to God. We walk in Christ.
acceptable to render actions that look just like worship to someone other than God
That's a very shallow statement full of false assumptions. Once again, you seem to think you know more about Orthodox worship than an Orthodox Christian does -- that's presumptuous to say the least.
It says "consult" them. Just consult God and you'll avoid even the appearance of evil.
consult - to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from
We don't do that.
Why is it so bad that I'm trying to get you to spend more time on your knees before GOD, rather than before ppl? Why is it better to spend time on ppl than on God Himself? Help me understand that.
ReplyDeleteTake these statements to their logical conclusion and you'd be a hermit. You need to apply logical consistency -- extend your statements here to all people in general. If we're not to spend time on people and only on God then why interact with anyone at all? Why not just forsake all people all together if we're just wasting our precious time on them?
Yes, post-Rez referred to when He was alive again.
Please answer the question. it's very straightforward.
Yes, people interact with Christ quite a bit now.
So even though your worship of saints looks exactly like your worship of God
Does it? Once again, have you ever attended a Divine Liturgy or any other Orthodox service or an Orthodox Christian's prayers in his home?
and pagan worship of dead people
Have you ever attended pagan worship of dead people? How do you know what it looks like?
1) They're not resurrected yet. How foolish!
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not yet Resurrected either -- and yet Christ clearly refers to them as being alive. Moses and Elijah are not yet Resurrected -- and yet they appeared along with Christ on Mount Tabor very alive and well.
2) Jesus' dispute with the Sadducees didn't touch on whether it's OK to talk to dead people at all. You just made that up.
No, I didn't make that up, just as I didn't make up the Jewish marriage laws which you accused me of making up previously. I wish that I were half as creative as you think I am.
The Sadducees rejected the Resurrection for the same reason they rejected the intercession of the righteous departed -- they didn't believe in the afterlife. They said the righteous were just "dead" -- as you do.
3) You didn't respond to my argument about the Corban rule. Focus - why would I remind you that Jesus smacked down another tradition of men at this point in the convo?
Because you believe the intercession of the righteous departed to be a tradition of men. You have yet to demonstrate that though.
She DID consent. Says nothing about God's inability to do it otherwise.
Nor does it say he would have done it anyway -- so I guess we're both in the water without a paddle on this one. But then I've got all of the Fathers on my side -- and you have them all against you. The fact that all of those closest to Christ -- and within only a generation or less of the Apostles -- agreed on this point speaks volumes.
Why is Mary holy for refusing to have sex within her marriage, when she was commanded to do so?
She didn't "refuse" -- it was an agreed arrangement between she and St. Joseph -- and one which was not unheard of in Jewish culture of this time period -- especially as it relates to the virgins who served the Temple.
Also, St. Paul wrote 1 Corinthians after the time that the Virgin Mary and St. Joseph were married (he having passed away many years previously), so this "command" came after the period in which you're trying to apply it.
Finally, there are enough mentions of the holiness of a celibate life in the New Testament to tell me that it still not a sinful arrangement if done so as to better serve God.
when ppl teach inconsistently
Are they teaching inconsistently or are you just not understanding them? I think the latter is the more likely scenario. Otherwise every one of the Fathers is inconsistent as you would have it -- and often in passages only a few sentences from each other in the same work. Does that sound logical? No.
or hold to Sola Scrip.
You won't find a single Father who held to SS -- that I can assure you of.
There is every reason not to take this kind of special pleading seriously! Your position is "believed everywhere by all at all times, except when it wasn't". It is 100% incoherent.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's actually the way even modern historians work. If we've got 12 accounts of an event and 11 of them agree with each other but one disagrees on a certain small detail -- we go with the 11 and shrug off the minor detail the 1 got wrong. It's not incoherent; it's consistent.
Could easily be said of the Scripture itself. Paradosis as interpretation of the Scripture. Dogma of the church as what the Scr teaches.
Etc.
Only if you're reading your own modern assumptions into an ancient writing -- very dangerous territory which is why historians have tried to quit doing it. Take it in its historical and cultural documents -- and quit twisting his words.
This rules out Scr how?
It doesn't rule out Scripture at all. It includes Scripture -- Scripture is a part of Tradition -- the very heart and center of Tradition.
No, they demonstrate the salvation. Again, it's not that hard.
You're making this up. That's not what James 2 says. James 2 says works complete faith and that faith without them is dead and cannot save. It doesn't say anything about works demonstrating salvation.
And why were we only servants, not sons?
Because the law is lacking in the grace given through Jesus Christ.
So, the OT Law was insufficient to get us to God, b/c we couldn't keep it, right?
I didn't say that -- even if it were possible to perfectly keep the Law it was still insufficient.
But somehow we CAN keep the commands of Christ? How do you figure?
I didn't say this either.
Isn't it the case that we can't keep those commands either, and need Christ's sacrifice to be our substitute for the wrath of God poured out on lawbreakers like us who have broken God's law and incurred the penalty for it, a la Deuteronomy's two choices?
No, it's not. This penal substitution theory of atonement is an invention of Anselm of Canterbury in the 10th century -- it is unscriptural and unpatristic. And it completely barbarizes and misunderstands the purpose of the Incarnation, Death, and Resurrection of Christ.
Penal substitution is based on an Anglo-Saxon pagan understanding. In fact, it was invented by Anselm for the purpose of evangelizing the pagan Anglo-Saxons -- he was trying to make the Atonement understandable to them in their terms. Unfortunately, he corrupted it with his words.
Pagan sacrifices were done for the purpose of swaying the whim or allaying the wrath of an angry deity -- and this is what penal substitution does with the Atonement.
But our God is not a pagan God. Take a look at the sacrifices of the Old Testament -- the purpose was not to make a change in God ... it was to make a change in man. Sacrifices worked in completely opposite directions in paganism versus Judaism (then Christianity).
The same principle applies to Christ's death. He did not die to make a change in God's will (as if that were possible) but to make a change in man -- to make our salvation and theosis possible by freeing us from the bonds of Satan, which are sin.
This article explains the Orthodox view of the Atonement very well: http://www.orthodoxconvert.info/Q-A.php?c=Salvation-The%20Atonement
So what's the diff?
The difference is I'd never refer to any of the deuterocanonicals as "books of straw."
You can't get more specific than "that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all"? Really?
I already did: Scripture and the Nine Ecumenical Councils.
Justin Martyr, for example, didn't buy it.
ReplyDeleteHave you ever read any of St. Justin's works? Here's a quote:
"We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Savior became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of his own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving." - St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (if you want to read the whole thing in context: http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/532/Sunday_Eucharist_in_the_Early_Church_St._Justin_Martyr.html)
Honestly, you need to start reading the Fathers for yourself instead of taking the word of guys like James White (who apparently hasn't actually read the Fathers for himself either). www.ccel.org has the entire Ante-Nicene, Nicene, Post-Nicene Fathers series readily available online for free. Read them for yourself -- you're getting bad info from the apologists.
It would appear Blogger ate one of my comments from the last round. Hopefully it won't do that again.
ReplyDeleteI'm not Roman Catholic, remember?
Yes, I remember. You guys like to claim Prot-ism and RCC are two sides of the same coin. I'm just saying that in this case y'all 2 are.
Every moment of our lives is spiritual time. You can't put moments in a box like that
Doesn't get you out of the quandary. Makes it worse, actually, and it's both true and misleading. God is the one who put worship/sacred time in a separate category from the regular/mundane/"profane". How much less acceptable, then, to waste that sacred time on someone other than God!
there's no such thing as a "religious context" insofar as that implies any separation of our spiritual lives from our daily lives
False. The OT and NT make separate worship time a very specifically prescribed category. One goes thru special purification in the OT for worship time. One examines himself before taking the Eucharist in the NT. The church and the world motif is very strong in the NT. Etc.
So, given the fallacious and failed recategorisation, what is your answer to the original question - why it's OK to spend time NOT worshiping God during worship time?
Even if what you say is true, how does that mitigate the force of my argument?
We're talking about MY beliefs here
Well, that's true, but we're also talking about EOdox in general. I admire your restraint in making sure you clarify that you don't worship Mary as God, but Romanists tell me that all the time and it's EASY to see how they are either lying or ignorant, given the way Romanist practices are all over the world.
If you don't believe me, then feel free to ask any other Orthodox Christian you can find -- we all believe the same thing unlike Protestants.
Another disingenuous statement. I've met quite a few and no, you don't all blv the same thing. Maybe that line works on first-timers, but I've been around the block a few times.
Have you ever attended a Liturgy
Yes, quite a few.
It's EASY to tell in my church. We worship Christ and spend all our time doing that. We pray to Him, too.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd say the exact same of my Church.
I can't tell the difference. But I can in my church.
Since you apparently didn't read the link I posted earlier, let me post the text of the prayer here:
O All-holy Lady Theotokos, light of my darkened soul, my hope, my shelter, my refuge, my consolation and my joy: I thank thee that thou hast accounted me worthy, although unworthy, to be a partaker of the immaculate Body and precious Blood of thy Son. But do thou, who gavest birth to the true Light, enlighten the mental eyes of my heart; O thou who didst bear the fountain of immortality, quicken thou me who lie dead in sin. O compassion-loving Mother of the merciful God, have mercy upon me, and grant me humility and contrition of heart, and meekness in my thoughts, and deliverance from the bondage of my vain imaginings. And account me worthy, even unto my last breath, to receive without condemnation the sanctification of the immaculate Mysteries, unto the healing of both soul and body. And grant unto me tears of repentance and confession, that I may hymn thee and glorify thee all the days of my life: for blessed and glorified art thou unto all ages.
Amen.
(Source: A Pocket Prayer Book for Orthodox Christians, according to the use of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, Copyright 1956, 12th printing: 1999)
Sorry man, that's not easy to tell.
See, all this time I thought Jesus was the light of my darkened soul. I thought Jesus was my hope. I thought Jesus was my shelter. I thought Jesus was my refuge. I thought Jesus was consolation and my joy. Nope, apparently Mary is.
I thought Jesus was the one who SAVED me, not accounted me "worthy". I thought Jesus was the one who quickens me who lie dead in sin. I thought Jesus was compassion-loving. I thought Jesus was the one whom I need to concern myself with gaining mercy from. I thought Jesus was the one who grants humility and contrition of heart. I thought Jesus was the deliverer from vain imaginings.
I can't blv I'd need to go on. This is nothing less than idolatry - replacing the rightful recipient of these supplications with a mere mortal.
And I'd say the exact same of my Church, although I'd add that...the most saintly
There's just not enough biblical evidence that she was. More probably John the Baptist was.
Sounds like he's dead to me, and given eternal life, which means he's not on Earth.
Exactly right -- he's not on earth -- he's in heaven -- and alive -- just as Christ says he is.
And yet your interactions with him have changed, haven't they?
(This isn't a difficult question, but if one is inclined to be obfuscatory, it can be.)
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not yet Resurrected either -- and yet Christ clearly refers to them as being alive.
Yes, alive to God. But dead to ppl on this Earth right now.
OT saints were in Abraham's bosom too and it was forbidden to talk to them.
ReplyDeleteNo, until Christ's harrowing of hell and Resurrection they were in Sheol.
1) Jesus refers to Lazarus the beggar being in Abraham's bosom BEFORE His death.
2) What difference does Sheol vs Paradise make? It changes nothing - they're alive in Christ, but dead TO THIS WORLD, which is the context of the OT prohibitions.
consult - to seek advice or information from; ask guidance from, we don't do that
You just ask them for stuff. Like light of my darkened soul, hope, shelter, refuge, consolation and joy, right? That's totally different, then?
If we're not to spend time on people and only on God then why interact with anyone at all?
The answer is, surprise! in the Bible. We're commanded a zillion times to interact with ppl and serve them, love them, etc.
And yet, are we ever commanded to talk to dead ppl? How about to render pious actions toward someone other than God? No, in fact the exact opposite is the case!
So, again, the question remains. Why is it OK to waste time in worship on someone other than the infinitely worthy God in favor of a (perhaps, b/c you can't know) redeemed-from-sinful-rebellion mortal?
Yes, people interact with Christ quite a bit now.
David. Not the question I asked.
Did people interact the same with Jesus during the time He was dead as the time before He died and the time after He was resurrected?
Please answer the question. It's very, very simple. Why avoid it?
Have you ever attended pagan worship of dead people? How do you know what it looks like?
Oh, good one. You're right, I have no idea. I'm sure it doesn't ever consist of talking to the dead as if they can hear, incense, candles, chanting, bowing down to images of them.
They said the righteous were just "dead" -- as you do.
Strawman.
But the rebuttal to your point stands if the Bible says it's not OK to talk to dead ppl. I'm not going to commit the genetic fallacy by saying "they're Sadducees, ergo they were wrong about everything."
Nor does it say he would have done it anyway
Correct, b/c He ordained from the beginning that she would say yes. It's a bit of a moot question, really.
But I don't know how many times the Bible has to say "God does what He pleases" for you to get it.
She didn't "refuse" -- it was an agreed arrangement between she and St. Joseph
ReplyDeleteNow you're imputing sin both to her AND to Joseph. Who's next in the carousel of "David defines this person sinned against direct biblical commandment"?
especially as it relates to the virgins who served the Temple.
Who were unmarried. Please don't introduce red herrings like this.
1 Cor 7. It says if you're married, have sex. I say Mary obeyed, you say she disobeyed, and then you accuse me of holding her in lower stead than you do. Oh, sweet irony.
so this (1 cor 7) "command" came after the period in which you're trying to apply it.
1) Very convenient for you.
2) Why do you put "command" in quotations? You think it's not a command?
3) I guess before Paul said that it was perfectly OK for anyone to be married and yet not consummate it, eh?
there are enough mentions of the holiness of a celibate life in the New Testament to tell me that it still not a sinful arrangement if done so as to better serve God.
Yes, for ppl who don't get married. Read the latter part of 1 Cor 7. Geez, it's like you refuse to read it!
You won't find a single Father who held to SS -- that I can assure you of.
Read the books I recommended to you if you're so sure. Find a substantive rebuttal to them. One has to wonder how many times a Father has to say that Scr is sufficient above all things, it's the ground and pillar of our faith, if Scr doesn't say it then don't consider it authoritative, for you to get it thru your head.
If we've got 12 accounts of an event and 11 of them agree with each other but one disagrees on a certain small detail -- we go with the 11 and shrug off the minor detail the 1 got wrong. It's not incoherent; it's consistent.
Is 11 out of 12 "everywhere, by all"?
Given that it clearly isn't, wouldn't it be better to say "the ones we choose to listen to"? Or "the majority"? Sthg less irrationally and blindly overgeneral?
I already did: Scripture and the Nine Ecumenical Councils.
1) I thought there were 7.
2) What do you do with doctrines that are controversial in EOC but weren't discussed by Councils?
3) Given that you just admitted 11/12 and you ignore the other 1, how does that work?
You're making this up. That's not what James 2 says
Um, yes it is.
Tell you what, if anyone is still reading this thread, let them read here and here for a full interaction on that topic.
Bottom line - my position can acct for BOTH Ephesians 2 and Romans 4 AND James 2. Your position only accts for James 2. Gotta go with what position can harmonise ALL the biblical revelation, not just some of it.
Because the law is lacking in the grace given through Jesus Christ.
And why is grace necessary? (With a little patience, we'll get there!)
even if it were possible to perfectly keep the Law it was still insufficient.
Really? Why?
But somehow we CAN keep the commands of Christ? How do you figure?
I didn't say this either.
So we can't keep the commands of Christ?
So...we can somehow add to the perfect work of Christ on the Cross and the power of His resurrection by our flawed, sin-riddled, imperfect, incomplete works? How does that work?
This penal substitution theory of atonement is an invention of Anselm of Canterbury in the 10th century -- it is unscriptural and unpatristic.
Right, like Eph 2 and Colossians 2:11-13. And Hebrews. And the entire system of Temple worship in the Torah. Right, totally unscriptural and novel.
allaying the wrath of an angry deity -- and this is what penal substitution does with the Atonement.
ReplyDeleteHow many times does God have to express that sinners are under His wrath in the Bible for you to see it? Wrath for breaking the Law?
Take a look at the sacrifices of the Old Testament -- the purpose was not to make a change in God ... it was to make a change in man.
Strawman.
It was to make a change in man, yes, but more to the point, it was to prefigure Christ. Like I said, you need to read Hebrews again.
That's your reading list - 1 Cor 7 and Hebrews. For real, please read them.
So what's the diff?
The difference is I'd never refer to any of the deuterocanonicals as "books of straw."
OK, fine. Luther was wrong. Doesn't bother me to say that. He was wrong about a lot of things.
Honestly, you need to start reading the Fathers for yourself instead of taking the word of guys like James White
Ooops, I made a mistake when I said Justin Martyr - I was thinking of sthg else.
Yes, I know about the ccel and all that, thanks. 1 Clement is quite a good book, and a great example of early belief in sola fide, which I find very funny (for you).
But lookie here - anyone can quote ECFs.
"In what manner do you think the Lord drank when He became man for our sakes? As shamelessly as we? Was it not with decorum and propriety? Was it not deliberately? For rest assured, He Himself also partook of wine; for He, too, was man. And He blessed the wine, saying, 'Take, drink: this is my blood'--the blood of the vine. He figuratively calls the Word 'shed for many, for the remission of sins'--the holy stream of gladness. And that he who drinks ought to observe moderation, He clearly showed by what He taught at feasts. For He did not teach affected by wine. And that it was wine which was the thing blessed, He showed again, when He said to His disciples, 'I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, till I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.' But that it was wine which was drunk by the Lord, He tells us again, when He spake concerning Himself, reproaching the Jews for their hardness of heart: 'For the Son of man,' He says, 'came, and they say, Behold a glutton and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans.'" (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 2:2)
CFs are inconsistent with each other. The Scr isn't.
Funny how you, as one who blvs the God-inspired Scr is ERRANT, hold CFs to a lower standard. It shows alot about your concern and your man-centeredness.
Peace,
Rhology
I'm just saying that in this case y'all 2 are.
ReplyDeleteEssentially, you're making a straw-man. The logical conclusion is that you can't find anything to argue against in Orthodoxy so you have to argue against Roman Catholicism -- all the while not realizing that the practices and beliefs of Roman Catholics matter to the Orthodox about as much as the price of tea in China. I'm not arguing against Methodist beliefs when I respond to you; I'd appreciate it if you would argue against Orthodox beliefs and not Roman Catholic ones when responding to me.
The OT and NT make separate worship time a very specifically prescribed category.
1 Thessalonians 5:17 is clear enough.
One examines himself before taking the Eucharist in the NT.
Do you? What's the point if it's just symbolic?
The church and the world motif is very strong in the NT. Etc.
So, are we sometimes members of the Church and sometimes members of the world?
I've met quite a few and no, you don't all blv the same thing.
Examples, please. Where do you find Orthodox Christians disagreeing on essential matters of Faith and/or practice?
I can't tell the difference.
So now the question is: is that the fault of the Orthodox or the result of your own inability to understand?
let me post the text of the prayer here:
I'm familiar with the prayer. It's part of the pre-Communion prayers. I pray it every Saturday night.
This is nothing less than idolatry - replacing the rightful recipient of these supplications with a mere mortal.
Once again: or are you just not understanding (or perhaps refusing to understand; as you don't seem able to distinguish us from Roman Catholics, I have to wonder if your Romophobia is just carrying over to us)? I suggest that you read the entirety of the pre-Communion prayers in order to see the context of this particular prayer. What we are asking for us here is the Virgin's prayers and supplications to her Son. If you fell into a well and couldn't get out, yet you knew there was one man in town with a rope -- you'd yell "save me" if you saw his mother pass by above -- even though it's really the man with the rope who's saving you, her intercession brings the attention of the man with the rope.
There's just not enough biblical evidence that she was. More probably John the Baptist was.
Biblical evidence: Luke 1:42; Luke 1:28; Luke 1:48
And yet your interactions with him have changed, haven't they?
Yes and no -- we still speak to him, right?
But dead to ppl on this Earth right now.
Where's this anywhere in the New Testament? Christ doesn't seem to make the distinction and neither does St. Paul when he talks about the "great cloud of witnesses" and in other places.
1) Jesus refers to Lazarus the beggar being in Abraham's bosom BEFORE His death.
ReplyDeleteHe was telling a parable. Was there really literally a prodigal son who returned to his rich father after squandering his inheritance? Were there really little virgins with lamps? Was there really literally a king who through someone out of his party because he wasn't dressed nice? No, they're parables... fictional stories with very real moral and/or spiritual points.
You just ask them for stuff.
Their prayers.
b/c He ordained from the beginning that she would say yes.
Yes, just as he foreordained that the majority of mankind would go to everlast torment. This is what I'm talking about when I say that Calvinist doctrines like predestination, limited atonement, etc. make a barbaric semi-pagan deity of the Eternal God of the Universe.
Who were unmarried. Please don't introduce red herrings like this.
Did you even read the article I gave you (from a Jewish organization, by the way) about Jewish marriage laws?
2) Why do you put "command" in quotations? You think it's not a command?
Not quite the way you make it out. Everything is to be done for the greater glory of God.
3) I guess before Paul said that it was perfectly OK for anyone to be married and yet not consummate it, eh?
Did couples in the Kiddushin stage of a Jewish marriage consummate it?
Find a substantive rebuttal to them.
One of the many: http://www.chnetwork.org/journals/sola/sola11.htm
1) I thought there were 7.
7 that are common to both Western and Eastern Christianity. The 8th and 9th are the Fourth and Fifth Council of Constantinople; both addressed Western heresies.
2) What do you do with doctrines that are controversial in EOC but weren't discussed by Councils?
Such as? Specific examples, please. Also keep in mind St. Augustine's famous statement: "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, love."
3) Given that you just admitted 11/12 and you ignore the other 1, how does that work?
We don't ignore it -- we take it into account and look at how and why he departed from the Tradition held by all the others. Also, you have yet to present a single example of the Fathers disagreeing on any SUBSTANTIAL matter. Disagreements over the date of Pascha are hardly substantial or essential.
Bottom line - my position can acct for BOTH Ephesians 2 and Romans 4 AND James 2. Your position only accts for James 2. Gotta go with what position can harmonise ALL the biblical revelation, not just some of it.
I've shown already here that my position "harmonizes" them just fine (as if they disagreed in any way and needed to be "harmonized"!). I have to wonder how you harmonize your position with the words of Christ in Matthew 25:31-46. He's clear enough as to how he'll judge us and by what standard.
And why is grace necessary?
Because it saves us? Because of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Because of growing into the likeness of Christ? What answer do you want?
(With a little patience, we'll get there!)
Maybe you tell me the point of the questions we'll get there quicker.
Really? Why?
Because under the Law we were always bound to be servants, not sons. We obeyed external commandments -- we didn't have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit or the restoration of the image of God in ourselves. Surely you're familiar with more of St. Athanasius than just the proof-texts that you think support Sola Scriptura? "God became man that man might become god."
So we can't keep the commands of Christ?
I didn't say that either.
So...we can somehow add to the perfect work of Christ on the Cross and the power of His resurrection by our flawed, sin-riddled, imperfect, incomplete works? How does that work?
ReplyDeleteWe don't "add to" Christ's work -- we obey his commandments by taking up our cross, walking in Christ, letting our faith work through love, by abiding in the presence of God.
it was to prefigure Christ.
ReplyDeleteExactly -- and, as you admitted, their purpose was to make a change in man, not God -- and so it is with Christ's sacrifice.
OK, fine. Luther was wrong. Doesn't bother me to say that. He was wrong about a lot of things.
Let's draw the logical conclusions here, then. Luther called the letter of St. James a "gospel of straw" because -------- he knew it said a man is not saved by faith alone but (as St. Paul says) by faith working through love apart from works of the law. The least that can be said of him is that he had enough integrity to admit that James disagreed with his position and, accordingly, he said it wasn't divinely-inspired Scripture. That's what it comes down to here: did Protestants today have as much integrity as their forerunners?
1 Clement is quite a good book, and a great example of early belief in sola fide, which I find very funny (for you).
I think you're confusing Clement of Rome with Clement of Alexandria -- you mention 1 Clement, written by C. of Rome, but you quote from C. of Alexandria. Nonetheless -- what verses, specifically, of 1 Clement are you referring to?
But lookie here - anyone can quote ECFs
I find nothing in St. Clement's words to disagree with. Here's a couple more quotes from him:
"The Blood of the Lord, indeed, is twofold. There is His corporeal Blood, by which we are redeemed from corruption; and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed. That is to say, to drink the Blood of Jesus is to share in His immortality. The strength of the Word is the Spirit just as the blood is the strength of the body. Similarly, as wine is blended with water, so is the Spirit with man. The one, the Watered Wine, nourishes in faith, while the other, the Spirit, leads us on to immortality. The union of both, however, - of the drink and of the Word, - is called the Eucharist, a praiseworthy and excellent gift. Those who partake of it in faith are sanctified in body and in soul. By the will of the Father, the divine mixture, man, is mystically united to the Spirit and to the Word.",
"The Word is everything to a child: both Father and Mother, both Instructor and Nurse. 'Eat My Flesh,' He says, 'and drink My Blood.' The Lord supplies us with these intimate nutrients. He delivers over His Flesh, and pours out His Blood; and nothing is lacking for the growth of His children. O incredible mystery!",
But I'm sure that you'll just do what you usually do and claim he was being inconsistent. But both of these quotes are from the same book as your quote!!! So, is he being inconsistent with statements that are just a few sentences from each other (not likely) or are you just not understanding him due to your own presuppositions?
Also, let's look specifically at the Apostolic Fathers -- those earliest Christians, many of whom knew Apostles and were appointed to their positions there by. Please, find an Apostolic Father who believed in Sola Scriptura or didn't believe in the real presence.
CFs are inconsistent with each other.
You have yet to present a case where they disagree with each other at all, much less on any matter of real substance.
The Scr isn't.
You sure make it sound like it is as you attempt to defend "Faith alone."
as one who blvs the God-inspired Scr is ERRANT
Straw-man. I didn't say it was errant on any essential matters of Faith. I said there may be errancy when it comes to small, insignificant matters like the color of Christ's robe or what the inscription on the cross read at the Crucifixion.
Mostly restricting this comment to stuff we're not covering in other threads.
ReplyDeleteMe: The OT and NT make separate worship time a very specifically prescribed category.
You: 1 Thess 5:17 is clear enough
"pray without ceasing"
Um, OK. Ignoring the entire teaching of covenant community vs not-covenant community, church vs not-church throughout the Scr. Fine, have your acontextual reading.
Do you? What's the point if it's just symbolic?
B/c God told me to, and it's a symbol of sthg pretty important. Treatment of the symbol is tantamount to the heart attitude towards the thing symbolised.
So, are we sometimes members of the Church and sometimes members of the world?
We're both, but our surrounding context depends on whether we're dealing with the world or the church.
Do you go around kneeling down to lightpoles and burning incense at the sewer grate outside?
Where do you find Orthodox Christians disagreeing on essential matters of Faith and/or practice?
Later threads have dealt with this.
is that the fault of the Orthodox or the result of your own inability to understand?
Fortunately, it's not up to me or you, but up to God, Who has already defined how He will be worshiped.
What we are asking for us here is the Virgin's prayers and supplications to her Son.
That's not all it says. I don't appreciate your treating me like I'm an idiot. I can read it just as well as anyone can.
Biblical evidence: Luke 1:42; Luke 1:28; Luke 1:48
What about those psgs leads you to the conclusion that she was the holiest of all ppl? Exegesis, pls.
Yes and no -- we still speak to him, right?
And you can see him? He's right there in front of you? You could smell his bad breath if he forgot a mint after his chili supper?
The answer is transparently no. Could you please just answer the question with a modicum of intellectual honesty?
He was telling a parable.
Oh, so somehow Lazarus WASN'T in fact in Abraham's bosom.
What evidence do you present that this is a parable? Christ always or almost always identifies parables with "this is a parable", or the narrator does. And no parable has specific names, but this one does.
Don't dance; answer the question.
Their prayers.
Yes, that would be asking them for stuff.
Yes, just as he foreordained that the majority of mankind would go to everlast torment. This is what I'm talking about when I say that Calvinist doctrines like predestination, limited atonement, etc. make a barbaric semi-pagan deity of the Eternal God of the Universe.
1) You're running away from the question.
2) I missed where God cared what you, mere mortal, think of His eternal plan, where He asked you for your approval, and what moral standing you have to accuse the Creator.
Find a substantive rebuttal to them.
One of the many:
And you know it's substantive...how? You haven't even looked at the books.
We don't ignore it -- we take it into account and look at how and why he departed from the Tradition held by all the others.
I have to keep repeating this - it's not all if it's not all. "All" does not mean "the majority".
you have yet to present a single example of the Fathers disagreeing on any SUBSTANTIAL matte
ReplyDeleteHere.
Luther called the letter of St. James a "gospel of straw" becaus
Actually, I doubt you have any idea why he did so.
Here and here you go.
and His spiritual Blood, that with which we are anointed.
That's sthg I would say, easily.
But I'm sure that you'll just do what you usually do and claim he was being inconsistent.
Which Clement was this? If of Alexandria, yes, why else espouse a symbolic idea on the one hand and then otoh espouse what you claim is a Real Presence position?
How do you know which one he really meant?
Please, find an Apostolic Father who believed in Sola Scriptura
Lots of 'em. Read the book.
I said there may be errancy when it comes to small, insignificant matters like the color of Christ's robe or what the inscription on the cross read at the Crucifixion.
Why are those insignificant? Why think God could get those wrong but not get salvific matters wrong?
Later threads have dealt with this.
ReplyDeleteNo, they haven't. You showed me a calendar -- and then you ignored my response that not only is this not important, but your mischaracterizing the debate.
Who has already defined how He will be worshiped.
Yes, he did. Keep reading the Fathers (and read the Old Testament and a little about the history of Christian worship) and you'll see you've deviated from God-ordained worship significantly.
That's not all it says. I don't appreciate your treating me like I'm an idiot. I can read it just as well as anyone can.
No, you can't -- that's the problem. You don't understand Orthodoxy -- how can you possibly understand this prayer filled, as it is, with Orthodox theology and arising from an Orthodox mindset? Try understanding Lincoln's Gettysburg Address while knowing nothing about the Civil War.
Here.
1. That's not Fathers.
2. I already addressed this.
3. You said the Fathers didn't agree on anything but monotheism -- PROVE IT!!!! It shouldn't be hard, if they disagreed so much right. Show me Apostolic Fathers disagreeing on ANYTHING! In fact, just show me one that agreed with you on anything!
Which Clement was this?
It was Clement of Alexandria.
If of Alexandria, yes, why else espouse a symbolic idea on the one hand and then otoh espouse what you claim is a Real Presence position?
Because they're the same thing. Did you even read the article I gave you the link to on the view of the Eucharist held by Orthodox?
Lots of 'em. Read the book.
Why "read the book" when I've done the research? Just read the Fathers for yourself -- or, if that's too hard, just read my posts thus far in the series on the Fathers and Sola Scriptura.
Why think God could get those wrong but not get salvific matters wrong?
God didn't come down and personally write the Scriptures. Men wrote them under the influence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit didn't possess them like a demon does or dictate word for word what they would write.
No, they haven't.
ReplyDeleteHmm, yeah they have, actually.
Let the reader judge. This thread is old anyway. Don't have time for everythg.
Keep reading the Fathers (and read the Old Testament and a little about the history of Christian worship) and you'll see you've deviated from God-ordained worship significantly.
1) the Fathers are not God speaking.
2) The OT specifically proscribes talking to dead ppl.
3) The NT has nothing about it.
You don't understand Orthodoxy -- how can you possibly understand this prayer filled, as it is, with Orthodox theology and arising from an Orthodox mindset?
I guess in "words mean what I want them to mean"-Land, this might be true.
1. That's not Fathers.
Athanasius and Chrysostom aren't Fathers?
2. I already addressed this.
Badly. And I don't remember you addressing Ath's canon.
3. You said the Fathers didn't agree on anything but monotheism -- PROVE IT!!!!
That's a bit of an overstatement.
But really, how interested could you expect someone to be when disagreements are brought up and you dance around them?
Show me Apostolic Fathers disagreeing on ANYTHING!
Now we move on to APOSTOLIC Fathers. That's not what I referred to. If we're talking like the first, what, 2 centuries? then the question is different.
Did you even read the article I gave you the link to on the view of the Eucharist held by Orthodox?
Yes, and it was none too helpful.
If they're the same, then why do you constantly harp on "Real Presence! Real Presence!"?
Why "read the book" when I've done the research? J
B/c you haven't done it if you haven't read the book. How could you know?
Just read the Fathers for yourself -- or, if that's too hard, just read my posts thus far in the series on the Fathers and Sola Scriptura.
Oh yes, that's MUCH better than reading the enormous quotes Webster and King list in their books.
But again, you wouldn't know, now would you?
And just to remind you AGAIN, reading the CFs is of alot less interest to me b/c they don't figure very large into my faith. Not an authority. They're teachers, sure, but there are better.
Ironically, you pick and choose too, so it's not like they're your authority either. It's just the ones you dig.
God didn't come down and personally write the Scriptures. Men wrote them under the influence of the Holy Spirit.
how does this answer my question?
1) the Fathers are not God speaking.
ReplyDelete2) The OT specifically proscribes talking to dead ppl.
3) The NT has nothing about it.
The point was historical research. Even Webster (I couldn't find the quote -- I'm sure you're familiar with it) has written that the earliest Fathers record that the "customs" of Christian worship were taught by the Apostles and considered by them as essentials of the Faith unto perpetuity. Do you really believe that Baptist worship is even remotely Apostolic? Something that would even be recognized by the Apostles as Christian worship?
I guess in "words mean what I want them to mean"-Land, this might be true.
Words mean what the author wants them to mean -- intent.
Athanasius and Chrysostom aren't Fathers?
I didn't see anything about them in the calendar article you directed me to.
Now we move on to APOSTOLIC Fathers. That's not what I referred to.
I've been saying "Apostolic Fathers" over and over this whole time and you just now notice?
If we're talking like the first, what, 2 centuries? then the question is different.
Clearly -- and they just so happen to disagree with you on everything they agree with each other (and the Orthodox) on. Interesting, isn't it?
If they're the same, then why do you constantly harp on "Real Presence! Real Presence!"?
Because you misunderstand what "symbolic" really means in this context. The article addresses that.
they don't figure very large into my faith.
Clearly. Marcion, Valentinus, Basilides, and Cerenthus are much more like your "Church Fathers."
Not an authority. They're teachers, sure, but there are better.
Really? There's better teachers about the meaning of the words of the Apostles than people who were personally taught by Apostles? Do you understand how absurd this statement is?
Ironically, you pick and choose too, so it's not like they're your authority either. It's just the ones you dig.
Okay... who don't I "dig"? Show me an Father I disagree with -- especially an Apostolic Father.
how does this answer my question?
Men err.
***2) The OT specifically proscribes talking to dead ppl.****
ReplyDeleteRhology,
When Christ spoke to Moses and Elijah on Mt Tabor, was he speaking to dead people?
Jacob,
ReplyDeleteThat's a good question, made me scratch my noggin a bit.
A few things:
1) This is Jesus we're talking about. He can do things others can't. And the EO are right in saying that everyone's alive, TO HIM. But there's a reason He prohibited talking to dead ppl in the OT - they're not alive TO US.
2) Next time you see Elijah and Moses standing before you, feel free to talk away, but when you're bowing down to a picture of them in a religious context, the story changes.
***This is Jesus we're talking about. He can do things others can't.***
ReplyDeleteSo he's allowed to break God's law but others cannot?
***O HIM. But there's a reason He prohibited talking to dead ppl in the OT - they're not alive TO US. ***
That's an arbitrary distinction and I do not accept it.
***Next time you see Elijah and Moses standing before you, feel free to talk away, but when you're bowing down to a picture of them in a religious context, the story changes.***
This goes back to your baptistic idea of "symbol" and essence, which would have been foreign to anyone in the church prior to Zwingli.
He didn't break the Law. Remember, they're alive TO HIM.
ReplyDeleteIf it's not arbitrary, then why did Jesus bring it up in Matt 22?
And there's a reason why bowing down to images was forbidden in the OT, and it's not b/c they were Baptists.
"***O HIM. But there's a reason He prohibited talking to dead ppl in the OT - they're not alive TO US. ***
ReplyDeleteThat's an arbitrary distinction and I do not accept it. "
Right on! And, ironically, it's not even a Scriptural distinction. :)
We as Christians are declared to be IN CHRIST, to whom those whose souls have been (temporarily) separated from their bodies ARE alive, as noted.
So they are not, in fact, "not alive TO US", if we are also in Christ (whether in the body or not).
(double negative = they ARE alive TO US, in/through Christ, by His Spirit.")
Or are we required to have Christ Himself in bodily form corporeally, physically present to our physical sight to pray to Him? (Hint: we aren't.)
Why then should we be under the same requirements to speak to and request the prayers of those who are IN Him by the Spirit?
(Hint: we're not.)
Or doesn't Hebrews 12:22-24 (particularly the word "and" connecting vs. 23 to vs. 24) mean anything?
Thank you, Mr Allen.
ReplyDeleteIronically I was recently in a Protestant service and the pastor (quite rightly) praised the author of such and such hymn and that when we sing that hymn, the author of it, in heaven now, is singing it with us.
Fair enough, but I started wondering, "So, we can sing the hymn with Fanny Crosby but we can't talk to her? Wow, what a fine distinction."