Acts 8:17. Act 19:2.
Believe it or not the Church has had the same bible for a while and having read it we still hold the views passed down from the Apostles. If you take scripture or tradition by themselves they are inauthentic and misunderstood.
Scripture, anything, always has an interpretive framework over it. You read with your lense. I read with the lens taught by Orthodoxy, the lens of holy tradition. The variance is not in the scripture, it's in your lens.
Don't you think it's odd that you accept that Pelagius is a heresy but you flirt with joining him on one of the reasons he was condemned?
Don't you think it's weird to base a huge amount of theology on St Augustine while ignoring a great deal of his instructions? This is what I mean when I say, if he spoke in error combating a heresy, what is it to you? You don't generally listen to him in his Orthodoxy, so why follow what may be an error of personal belief?
Here's a thought exercise for you re: interpretive lens.
Say a person who has never been exposed to any theology finds the bible. They do not believe in God, they have not had any kind of direct revelation. They're just reading the bible. If you asked them for an exact exposition of the faith described in the bible, do you think they'd get it right? Let's go one step further - do you think it is even possible for them to get it exactly right?
And if you gave it to two people, separately, do you think they would come up with the same exact exposition?
Believe it or not the Church has had the same bible for a while and having read it we still hold the views passed down from the Apostles. If you take scripture or tradition by themselves they are inauthentic and misunderstood.
Scripture, anything, always has an interpretive framework over it. You read with your lense. I read with the lens taught by Orthodoxy, the lens of holy tradition. The variance is not in the scripture, it's in your lens.
Don't you think it's odd that you accept that Pelagius is a heresy but you flirt with joining him on one of the reasons he was condemned?
Don't you think it's weird to base a huge amount of theology on St Augustine while ignoring a great deal of his instructions? This is what I mean when I say, if he spoke in error combating a heresy, what is it to you? You don't generally listen to him in his Orthodoxy, so why follow what may be an error of personal belief?
Here's a thought exercise for you re: interpretive lens.
Say a person who has never been exposed to any theology finds the bible. They do not believe in God, they have not had any kind of direct revelation. They're just reading the bible. If you asked them for an exact exposition of the faith described in the bible, do you think they'd get it right? Let's go one step further - do you think it is even possible for them to get it exactly right?
And if you gave it to two people, separately, do you think they would come up with the same exact exposition?