Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So what happens when two people both claiming the "anointing" come up with diametrically opposed interpretations of the Scripture? What then--does a third party also claiming the "anointing" referee, either siding with one or the other or declaring both wrong? And how does one know this third person actually has the "anointing" and is getting it right? The "anointing" doesn't contradict itself, does it?
Wheres this "crashing"? I've never seen any of that.
Your right. The source of the scriptures is Almighty God.
These were the regular folk. Using the scriptures alone to check out the apostle Paul to make sure what he was teaching was true.
Thats the Holy Spirits job.
Hmmmm, yes, but always understanding that God is also speaking directly to us right now.
Yes, but always being more concerned with what God is saying to us right now.
Thats all well and good, but we never never never never NEVER consider what those reputable teachers and commentaries say as authoritative.
Personally I have absolutly no concern with creeds. They are 100% irrelavent in my experience.
In this sense we...?
If its a clear contradiction, than the tradition is to be thrown on the dung heep because what God says in His scriptures is absolutely true.
....which is why we needed the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople to clarify the position ie: the whole Episcopate, not just individual Bishops.
No, it comes down to a need to trust what Jesus said when he said to His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all Truth.
you have provided no "guide" telling us WHICh "voice of tradition" you prefer to listen to instead of "sola scriptura".
Thats the Holy Spirits job.
Individuals and sometimes groups who all hold to sola scriptura.
Different does not always mean contradictory.
Of course it can. Its a very very healthy thing.
Many times God does indeed work that way.
Well, everybody is claiming to back it up. They just use different methods than yours, that's all.
No?Well,
That's what I was talking about, if you are referring to what you would see in an EOC mass today. All of that was omitted from the writings, and I have to trust you, or certeain "fathers" that they got it all wholesale fromt he apostles.
Then Galatian added:
But all that extravagant liturgy (which is what I am getting at) is not the SOURCE of the scripture. That proves what I have been saying. The true "oral traditions" are the same teachings and practices you do see written int he text. It just might be certain situation applications of them to specific congregations or individuals that might be missing. But it is nothing like all of the later Church's additions. That is quite a stretch to say that all of that was there, and the apostles Church was identical to the modern EOC, but it was all just omitted from the writings. Just face it. You're only trying to porject unbiblical teachings back, just like all the other groups you point out. And going to the fathers does not help, because all they show is the later practices gradually coming in. What you;re trying to suggest is that the whoile body of EOC practice was there all along, and it was only gradually slipped out in text by the fathers, proving it was already there. But that is a shoddy reading of history, and not any real substantiation.
That was actually based on what I am learning about what some things meant to the original readers, like things happening "shortly", in their generation.
Oh, I think you misunderstand. The rapture I was talking about was not the same as the "pre-trib" theory most believe today. I have never believed in that.
Still, you like them, are putting the cart before the horse, and making your group the standard by which this is judged. When asked to substantiate it, you just come up with a method of projecting the teachings back, and then it cycles arond to your church being the standard. That's what everyone else does, too.
You mean the later church, which had already developed a certain way, and was still not free from corruption, though they may have gotten most of the cardinal truths somewhat right.
That's the difference. They saw Christ risen, and wrote down what they saw. that does not carry over to an institution tha arose a century or more later, building a whole system of ritualistic trappings off of the simple ordinances written down.
Nut still, everyonody is claiming that. evryone clains the historicl evidence points to their group. They just use different facets of history.
Except the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church can back its claims up historically, unlike these other groups you have alluded to.
Still, that's what they all say
Once again, you blame us for their aberration. Your Church magesterium and its traditions has not prevented any of thos. You just keep isolate youselves from them, like every other group does; hence all the schism.
Unfortunately, the rhetoric in that issue often devolves to something like that. That is the fault of the people involved. Basically, your solution would be to just pick whichever one you can find the most evidence fo in the church fathers, call it the "apostolic tradition", and that would supposedly settle it. (And that, as you acknowledged ,can be ambiguous!) Men on the other side would still be unconvinced, and separate. Then, there would be schism. In contrast to where most of us, while disagreeing on it, will still accept each other as brethren.
Well, in that case, they haven't. You're only trying to narrow "the true Church" down to a particular government body.
Yeah, and all they neede to do wa claim some unwritten tradition of their own, and then it would be a matter of majority rules (populism). Bur actually, the so-called Catholic-Orthodox" Church was itself still working the exact nature of that out, and framed its traditions largely from the reactions to those groups (rather than the entire Nicene Creed being handed down orally from the apostles).
Still, everybody is claiming that for their group. It is just a matter oof which method one uses to project their group's peculiarities back, and on's interpretation of the historical evidence (which shows that you still can't escape human interpretation, even with the claim of an oral tradition.
....which is why we needed the Ecumenical Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople to clarify the position ie: the whole Episcopate, not just individual Bishops.
No, it comes down to a need to trust what Jesus said when he said to His Apostles that the Holy Spirit would guide them into all Truth. </font>[/QUOTE]So basically, whatever the later Church teaches, that is it, whether it is scriptural or not. Just close your mind and let the "Fathers" do all the thinking for you.
