• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

I just ordered this book

RGacky3 said:
Yeah, apostolic tradition ended up in Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcianism, Monophysitism and so on and so froth .... It ended up With all sorts of stuff.

It Depends what you mean by the apostolic faith ... what are you refering to?
Click to expand...

all heresy's and rejected by the church and the councils. in fact the leaders of those where banished out by constitine.
 
No, the apostolic faith threw out all of those heresies.
 
it's just me said:
The Shape of Sola Scriptura, by Keith A. Mathison.

I read a sample of it and the part that grabbed me was this:

"What this means is that, like the Reformers, our battle must be on two fronts. Just as they had to combat the Roman Catholic position which effectively made the Church autonomous and the
Radical Anabaptist position which effectively made the individual autonomous, so we too must combat both of these defective views. Roman Catholic apologists have regrouped, and Eastern
Orthodox apologists are making numerous inroads. We must continue to stand firm against their view which ultimately results in a Church which is a law unto itself. But we must also take a
strong stand against those Protestants whose view ultimately results in each man being a law unto himself. Both positions are a deadly poison in the body of Christ, and both are condemned not
only by Scripture itself, but also by the witness of the communion of saints throughout the history of the Church."

I have struggled to understand this state of affairs for some time, and have concluded that the problem with the Evangelical position is that they have modified the "Sola Scriptura" doctrine into "Solo Scriptura", where they consider scripture the one and only authority for doctrine, leaving history, tradition, reason, and the Church councils behind.

Likewise, some of the Catholic church positions are so bizarre that the leave me wondering why they are even Church positions. A while back I posed the question asking why Protestant lay people hate clergy, and the conclusion I have come to is that clergy represent the Church, which, in their view, is an autocratic and arbitrary system of rules and regulations. I would still argue that few of them really understand the Catholic position, but at the same time, each one represents opposite sides of the same coin: one takes tradition too far, the other discounts it entirely.
Click to expand...

From the Protestant view, the Bible defines the church. Not vice-versa.
 
The Baron said:


From the Protestant view, the Bible defines the church. Not vice-versa.
Click to expand...

From the historical (and factual) view, the Church assembled the Bible, not vice versa.
 
RGacky3 said:
Yeah, apostolic tradition ended up in Arianism, Nestorianism, Marcianism, Monophysitism and so on and so froth .... It ended up With all sorts of stuff.

It Depends what you mean by the apostolic faith ... what are you refering to?
Click to expand...

I gave it to you twice. Scripture tells us that Apostles, prophets, teachers and preachers exist to teach the scriptures to you, these haven't ceased to exist in the present age. The Church has the authority to teach the Bible. The Bible belongs to the Church for the edification of it's people, not to the individual who thinks he can impeach the Church with it's own scripture. There are gifted and called individuals who read Hebrew and Greek and are capable of explaining what the scriptures say to you and to the Church at large. This is the Apostolic tradition - the descendants of the Apostles and the Prophets still exist to preach the Gospel and teach the scriptures.

Arianism, Nestorianism, and the other heresies are products of individuals who thought they knew better than the Church and they found out otherwise. Modern day evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses are no different from the heretics of old.
 
it's just me said:
Or it changes everything, depending on how you look at it. Call it a Copernican revolution.
Click to expand...

They also believed in a flat-earth at the time. Neither was true and doesn't change the fact that the Bible is the standard-bearer and not the church.
 
The Baron said:
They also believed in a flat-earth at the time. Neither was true and doesn't change the fact that the Bible is the standard-bearer and not the church.
Click to expand...

The church existed for decades before the Bible did. I don't know why it's so important for some of you to divorce the Church from the Bible. Is it because you need the Bible to mean what you think it means apart from the council of the Church?
 
it's just me said:
The church existed for decades before the Bible did. I don't know why it's so important for some of you to divorce the Church from the Bible. Is it because you need the Bible to mean what you think it means apart from the council of the Church?
Click to expand...

no the bible existed well before the church. it wasn't even the church it was the councils that debated and debated the legitamancy of the scriptures.
the scriptures and writings had already existed. the problem was all of the gnostic and heretical writings that existed as well.

the councils job was to clear the way for the cannon. this was not a task done willy nilly. there was much research and debate on the matter before a book
was considered cannon.
 
ludin said:
no the bible existed well before the church. it wasn't even the church it was the councils that debated and debated the legitamancy of the scriptures.
the scriptures and writings had already existed. the problem was all of the gnostic and heretical writings that existed as well.

the councils job was to clear the way for the cannon. this was not a task done willy nilly. there was much research and debate on the matter before a book
was considered cannon.
Click to expand...

Well, the OT existed, or the Septuagint. The Church I speak of is the NT Church that Christ founded, who watched Christ ascend to heaven and was annointed by the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Her story was still being written and it wasn't until years later that the Church had the Gospel in written form and the writings of Paul and the Apostles. That is a true historical fact. For some reason people have seen fit to think that "The Church" is an organization. Well, it later became that but at first it was just 12 guys and their followers. The "organization" that the Church became later compiled the "Canon" we call the New Testament.

Why do I bring this up? Because later in history Popes and politicians divorced the Church from the scriptures and became autonomous from them. In the 1600's to the 1800's other men divorced the Church from the scriptures and made themselves autonomous from the the scriptures. In the Past, the NT Church settled matters of faith through Church councils and agreement. I went to seminary for one reason and one reason only - to learn the truth, and the truth is that the no man or organization can put themselves in the place of God and tell you what scripture says. The Church, the Body of Christ, must decide, and as long as the Church holds to the faith and practice of the Apostles and the fathers of the faith, they will know the truth.

No man can interpret the scriptures for himself aside from the consent of the Church - THE Church, and anyone who has to ask me what Church I speak of has a lot to learn. Today Christianity has almost ceased to have meaning with everyone proclaiming a different Gospel and a different meaning for the Word itself. It shouldn't surprise anyone that we have men here who will try to tell you that the Trinity does not exist, that the Holy Spirit is not a person, and that Jesus Christ was a mere man and not God Himself. They are not grounded in the True Church and are ignorant of what the Church has always taught and practiced. The belief in the Trinity goes back to the ancient Church, all they did at the Nicene Council was make it official. You can read about it in the NT as well as the non-canonical books.

We have gotten so used to thinking that the Bible is the ONLY authority, and it is not. The Church is also an authority on Christian belief (by way of scripture), and the two cannot be separated because the Church is codified in the scriptures. To do so is to invite all sorts of heresies.
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
I gave it to you twice. Scripture tells us that Apostles, prophets, teachers and preachers exist to teach the scriptures to you, these haven't ceased to exist in the present age. The Church has the authority to teach the Bible. The Bible belongs to the Church for the edification of it's people, not to the individual who thinks he can impeach the Church with it's own scripture. There are gifted and called individuals who read Hebrew and Greek and are capable of explaining what the scriptures say to you and to the Church at large. This is the Apostolic tradition - the descendants of the Apostles and the Prophets still exist to preach the Gospel and teach the scriptures.

Arianism, Nestorianism, and the other heresies are products of individuals who thought they knew better than the Church and they found out otherwise. Modern day evangelicals and Jehovah's Witnesses are no different from the heretics of old.
Click to expand...

Which scripture tells us that prophets, Teachers and Preachers exist to teach the scriptures to you? (just for referenace so I knwo what you're talking about).

The Chruch is supposed to teach the scripture, but they are not the standard, ONLY the scripture is the standard, and if they don't teach scripture, then it's scripture that holds, not the Church.

There are gifted individuals who read greek and hebrew for all sorts of traditions.
 
RGacky3 said:
Which scripture tells us that prophets, Teachers and Preachers exist to teach the scriptures to you? (just for referenace so I knwo what you're talking about).
Click to expand...

Try Ephesians 4. It's one of many.

The Chruch is supposed to teach the scripture, but they are not the standard, ONLY the scripture is the standard, and if they don't teach scripture, then it's scripture that holds, not the Church.
Click to expand...

I believe I said that already. BUT - the Church and only the Church is called to settle the disputes like the one against the Arian heresy (for example), which they did, just as they did when they called the Jerusalem Council to settle the dispute over the Judaizers who were telling gentiles they needed to be circumcised in Acts 15. So when you see Jehovah's Witnesses here with their false teachings, they are going against the Church because that has already been decided. They have no business claiming to represent the church because their "theology" has already been considered and cast out. To ignore the Church's decision here is to create the state of affairs we (sadly) see today, with everyone going his own way and "doing what is right in his own eyes" (Proverbs 21:2). Non-believers criticize us for this all the time. It doesn't help our testimony to argue amongst ourselves.

So let me emphasize that: the Nicene Council, along with all of the Church councils, are no less Biblical than the Jerusalem Council. They showed us the way, we followed it. It is our tradition but it is a tradition laid out in scripture. Holding Church councils does not violate scripture, it affirms it.

There are gifted individuals who read greek and hebrew for all sorts of traditions.
Click to expand...

And?
 
Last edited:
it's just me said:
1. Try Ephesians 4. It's one of many.

2. I believe I said that already. BUT - the Church and only the Church is called to settle the disputes like the one against the Arian heresy (for example), which they did, just as they did when they called the Jerusalem Council to settle the dispute over the Judaizers who were telling gentiles they needed to be circumcised in Acts 15. So when you see Jehovah's Witnesses here with their false teachings, they are going against the Church because that has already been decided. They have no business claiming to represent the church because their "theology" has already been considered and cast out. To ignore the Church's decision here is to create the state of affairs we (sadly) see today, with everyone going his own way and "doing what is right in his own eyes" (Proverbs 21:2). Non-believers criticize us for this all the time. It doesn't help our testimony to argue amongst ourselves.

3. So let me emphasize that: the Nicene Council, along with all of the Church councils, are no less Biblical than the Jerusalem Council. They showed us the way, we followed it. It is our tradition but it is a tradition laid out in scripture. Holding Church councils does not violate scripture, it affirms it.

4. And?
Click to expand...

I assume you mean here

11 The gifts he gave were that some would be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until all of us come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to maturity, to the measure of the full stature of Christ.

How does this scripture show that only a certain class of People, are allowed to, or can correctly interperate the scripture?

2. The point is on what authority is one arguing? On the authority as being "the Church" or on the authority of the scripture .... What is the authority on which an argument is based? Just saying "we are the Church so listen to us" is not a stronger argument than "this is what the scripture clearly teaches."

3. The Jerusalem Council is in scripture, the other Church Councils are NOT part of scripture.

4. I don't know it's a response to Your point, that the Church gives us gifted scholars and theologians that read greek and hebrew, so what ... there are gifted scholars who can read the origional Languages from many traditions.
 
RGacky3 said:
How does this scripture show that only a certain class of People, are allowed to, or can correctly interperate the scripture?
Click to expand...

What do you mean, "class"? You sound like a Jehovah's Witness. Some people are called to be teachers, others are not. Is that a problem?

Just saying "we are the Church so listen to us" is not a stronger argument than "this is what the scripture clearly teaches."
Click to expand...

It is if you are interpreting scripture wrong it is. And let's face it, that's what most of the people on this forum do, interpret scripture incorrectly.

The Jerusalem Council is in scripture, the other Church Councils are NOT part of scripture.
Click to expand...

So what? Church councils are still scriptural.
 
it's just me said:
1. What do you mean, "class"? You sound like a Jehovah's Witness. Some people are called to be teachers, others are not. Is that a problem?

2. It is if you are interpreting scripture wrong it is. And let's face it, that's what most of the people on this forum do, interpret scripture incorrectly.

3. So what? Church councils are still scriptural.
Click to expand...

1. So what? What's the point?

2. No it isn't, if an argument is bad, its' bad, no matter what the Church says or doesn't, if an argument is good, it's good, no matter what the Church teaches, if the churrch teaches something right, great, but what makes it right is teh scripture, not the authority of the Church.

3. IF you can defend them from scripture, so they are still judged on the authority of scripture NOT the authority of the Church .... that is still sola scriptura .... (or solo scriptura, again, a term totally made up).
 
You are definitely a solo scriptura adherent, and just as wrong as ever. It's not scripture that is wrong, it's your interpretation of it that's wrong, and the Church can decide that you are wrong. That's not a debatable point. And when you disagree with the Church, you lose. We DO judge on the authority of scripture, and you still lose. Jesus is still Lord, the Holy Spirit is still a person, and they are both part of the Trinity in unity and the unity of the Trinity, and you can't change that.
 
it's just me said:
You are definitely a solo scriptura adherent, and just as wrong as ever. It's not scripture that is wrong, it's your interpretation of it that's wrong, and the Church can decide that you are wrong. That's not a debatable point. And when you disagree with the Church, you lose. We DO judge on the authority of scripture, and you still lose. Jesus is still Lord, the Holy Spirit is still a person, and they are both part of the Trinity in unity and the unity of the Trinity, and you can't change that.
Click to expand...

Im' a SOLA Scriptura adherent, (solo scriptura isn't a think).

Of coarse it's a debatable point, the Church is right only if their teaching coincides With scripture ... do you disagree?
 
Do you mean that the Church needs to conform to what scripture says or that the Church needs to conform to what a minority think it says?
 
RGacky3 said:
The Jerusalem Council is in scripture, the other Church Councils are NOT part of scripture.
Click to expand...

Using that logic no one was saved after the canon of scripture was completed.
 
it's just me said:
It doesn't follow that Church councils are not Biblical, either.
Click to expand...

That isn't my point, my point is the Church Councils are NOT INFALLIBLE ... i.e. they are not the Source of doctrine, only the bible is.

You can't defend Your doctrine by saying "on such and such Council said it" you have to defend it With scripture.

Whether or not a Council is valid Depends on it's adherance to the teaching in scripture.
 
RGacky3 said:
That isn't my point, my point is the Church Councils are NOT INFALLIBLE ... i.e. they are not the Source of doctrine, only the bible is.

You can't defend Your doctrine by saying "on such and such Council said it" you have to defend it With scripture.

Whether or not a Council is valid Depends on it's adherance to the teaching in scripture.
Click to expand...

The Councils ALWAYS adhere to scripture! What is your point?
 
RGacky3 said:
That isn't my point, my point is the Church Councils are NOT INFALLIBLE ... i.e. they are not the Source of doctrine, only the bible is.

You can't defend Your doctrine by saying "on such and such Council said it" you have to defend it With scripture.

Whether or not a Council is valid Depends on it's adherance to the teaching in scripture.
Click to expand...
What about the councils that decided what would be scripture? :2razz:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom