Meta issue alert:
We need a good (meaning, literal from a Koine Greek scholar, with detailed explanation) translation

Get the Bentley Hart translation, friends

I got a feeling the Apostolic view is a strong case regarding Matthew....

Quote:

---

You assume that the tradition of this or that faith makes void the word of God, which remains to be seen.

---

I didn't make that assumption. Other than to provide the Scripture verse, I made no specific judgement on a specific tradition.

I made the argument that appealing to authority, in the manner that XUSCR wanted, as justification for a tradition, whether it be Scripture or other is flawed.

Quote:

---

The other is that Jesus told people that because of the authority of Moses' seat that the people should be careful to do everything they told them to do. I don't think you follow the Lord's view of authority.

---

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here? Can you clarify or expand?

Quote:

---

Actually there's a third problem. How do you know the tradition defined by God? you'll say whatever is in the scriptures but you're right back where you started using a text you inherited from people who's authority you reject.

---

I don't agree with this. It really looks like you're trying to create a false binary.

For your statement to be correct, I'd have to concede that a group, in this case Roman Catholicism, have the authority over the Scriptures. I won't concede that point.

What I accept is that Scripture is breathed out by God and given to the Christian Church. That God has protected it through the centuries from error in a way that man is not capable of.

You said how Jesus dealt with XUSCR's response. This means you think the words of the Lord can be directed at him. Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees is that they added tradition, and not only that, but what they added contradicted the Law. It was a tradition of their own making and not from God. If he is adding to the Law, and what he adds is in contradiction, and from men and not from God the the verse is relevant; if he isn't it's not. I assumed you thought it was relevant.

And XUSCR didn't make the claim you're saying. He didn't appeal to authority as justification for tradition, he said the Church had authority to decide for itself what scriptures were reliable, and that to do so they looked to tradition. Seeing as the Church and the teaching of the Apostles predates the canon, I can't see how this is anything other than a simple statement of fact.

Unless of course when you say "a tradition, whether it be scripture or other" you're saying that scripture is Tradition. In which case we're in perfect agreement, because of course it is. Scripture and Tradition are two expressions of the same thing: the deposit of the teaching of the Apostles within the Church.

Quote:

---

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here? Can you clarify or expand?

---

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

The criticism the Lord levels at the Pharisees isn't that they're wrong. Its that they're hypocrites. It isn't that they shouldn't tithe mint and dill, its that they should have done it and not neglected justice. It isn't that they didn't have authority - they did! And they people should listen to them. Moses' seat was the place of judgment - see Ex 18:13 and especially Deut 17:9-12:

Quote:

---

If a case is too difficult for you to judge....you are to go to the Levitical priests and to the judge who presides at that time. Inquire of them, and they will give you a verdict in the case. You must abide by the verdict they give you...Be careful to do everything they instruct you, according to the terms of law they give and the verdict they proclaim. Do not turn aside to the right or to the left from the decision they declare to you.

---

So, quite the opposite to your point, the Lord affirmed that the Pharisees had authority - authority given to them by God through the Torah. And on the basis of that authority, the people were commanded to "practice and observe everything they tell you."

Quote:

---

I don't agree with this. It really looks like you're trying to create a false binary.

For your statement to be correct, I'd have to concede that a group, in this case Roman Catholicism, have the authority over the Scriptures. I won't concede that point.

What I accept is that Scripture is breathed out by God and given to the Christian Church. That God has protected it through the centuries from error in a way that man is not capable of.

---

I didn't create a binary, false or otherwise. What two choices did I present?

You appeal to scripture. How do you know what is scripture? Would that not be exercising authority? If you reject the authority of the Church over the scripture, all you're doing is setting yourself as the authority over both the Church (to reject their authority) AND the scripture (to judge what is scripture).

Quote:

---

When I say the letters and writings of the early Church were "tested against the faith" that is exactly what I mean. The Christian faith during the early times was passed down through the teaching from the Apostles and disciples. There were many writings from many people during these years that made claims to being from Apostolic origins and authenticity. The process of discerning these works and their reliability included comparing their orthodoxy and agreement with the faith that had been protected, taught, and passed down to them. You are correct to ask "protected and passed down by who". That is a critical question and one that requires an actual answer. How is it that today, a hundred generations and thousands of years later, we can know what we hold as Scripture today is the inspired word of God?

---

This is an idealistic view of church history. There was very little consensus in the early Church, and consensus really only came to be through things like Ecumenical Councils. To no surprise, that's the majority of what Christianity agrees on today. I don't expect you'll see anybody honestly claim there was some clear concise tradition passed down and frankly, the best thing to come out of The Council of Trent was the rebuttal from Martin Chemnitz that pointed out just that.

Quote:

---

That is my question for you to answer. Do you believe that the leaders of the Church over the first few hundred years (while the Bible was being written and received and discerned) were both 1) called by God; and 2) ratified, ordained and sent by God's visible Church? Where did the teacher's of the faith derive their knowledge and authority to teach the faith? How did the Christian believers know who to follow? When teachings were challenged and heresy needed to be put down, how was it that the people came to know which teaching to believe?

---

My answer is that you're focusing on the wrong thing.

Were they called by God? Yes.
Ratified, ordained and sent, etc..." Not particularly relevant, but ok.

From there, we are going to diverge, because I'm going to next point out a couple things.

First, these people are also fallen and sinful people. Remember that Jesus called Peter satan.

Second, to the balance of your questions, Scripture gives us that answer in 2 Tim. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

So my question would be, what is missing from the Scripture that is necessitates a second source for training and correction?

Quote:

---

What I am saying is that the men (Church) who collected the Scriptures, who compiled the writings, who included and excluded particular works, were guided and protected from making errors in the process by the Holy Spirit. That in order for our Bible to be infallible today, the men who put ink to paper were inspired to write with infallibility in that purpose, and likewise them men on the other end of the process were inspired to do their part with the same type of inspiration and therefore infallibility.

---

ok.

Quote:

---

I would say it was not a necessity for God because God can do anything without man. However, a mortal perspective and what MAN needs in this process is quite a different question. God understands what we need, and God provides.

---

And this is part of the problem that I highlighted in other recent posts. For Roman Catholics, it's all about authority. Instead of focusing on the fact that the Scriptures can only exist because of God, you want to focus on the medium that God used.

AgLiving06 said:

---

You're correct about one thing. For Roman Catholics, it's all about authority. It's what drives Roman Catholics to read Matthew 16 and think it's about Peter. Roman Catholic's desire for "authority" has done more to split the Church than maybe anything else.

But lets see how Jesus dealt with your response in Matthew 15.

Quote:

---

15 Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, 2 "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." 3 He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? 4 For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' 5 But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," 6 he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.7 You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said:
8 "'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
9 in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'"

---

The Pharisees had authority. They could even have claimed the OT of that time was because of their traditions. They could or should have accused Jesus of not respecting their authority.

Yet we see from Jesus that the only authority he respected is that of the Father. The only tradition that mattered was what came from the Father.

So yes..Authority..But not the authority as defined by man. Not traditions as defined by man. But only that of God.

---

So, authority as defined by YOU interpreting Jesus?

Still doesn't avoid the subjectivity that is inherent in your system.

Quote:

---

You appeal to scripture. How do you know what is scripture? Would that not be exercising authority? If you reject the authority of the Church over the scripture, all you're doing is setting yourself as the authority over both the Church (to reject their authority) AND the scripture (to judge what is scripture).

---

This.

Irrefutable and logically coherent.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

When I say the letters and writings of the early Church were "tested against the faith" that is exactly what I mean. The Christian faith during the early times was passed down through the teaching from the Apostles and disciples. There were many writings from many people during these years that made claims to being from Apostolic origins and authenticity. The process of discerning these works and their reliability included comparing their orthodoxy and agreement with the faith that had been protected, taught, and passed down to them. You are correct to ask "protected and passed down by who". That is a critical question and one that requires an actual answer. How is it that today, a hundred generations and thousands of years later, we can know what we hold as Scripture today is the inspired word of God?

---

This is an idealistic view of church history. There was very little consensus in the early Church, and consensus really only came to be through things like Ecumenical Councils. To no surprise, that's the majority of what Christianity agrees on today.

---

So consensus and decisions were made through Ecumenical Councils of THE CHURCH. How did someone get a seat at the table of one of these councils? Would you say these councils and their decisions were guided and protected by the Holy Spirit? Would you say that the decisions reached at these councils were to be trusted and accepted by Christians believers?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

That is my question for you to answer. Do you believe that the leaders of the Church over the first few hundred years (while the Bible was being written and received and discerned) were both 1) called by God; and 2) ratified, ordained and sent by God's visible Church? Where did the teacher's of the faith derive their knowledge and authority to teach the faith? How did the Christian believers know who to follow? When teachings were challenged and heresy needed to be put down, how was it that the people came to know which teaching to believe?

---

My answer is that you're focusing on the wrong thing.

Were they called by God? Yes.
Ratified, ordained and sent, etc..." Not particularly relevant, but ok.

From there, we are going to diverge, because I'm going to next point out a couple things.

First, these people are also fallen and sinful people. Remember that Jesus called Peter satan.

---

I have never claimed that any of these men were without sin. But just as God worked through sinful, fallible men in writing inspired scripture, God also worked through sinful, fallible men to put it all together and pass it down to future generations. This is what I was referring to the "Charism of Infallibility". It was the Holy Spirit protecting these men from making errors in this specific purpose, and we know this is true because the Church has received and testified to this truth. This was not accomplished through any single man but rather through the Church Christ established.

Quote:

---

Second, to the balance of your questions, Scripture gives us that answer in 2 Tim. "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."

So my question would be, what is missing from the Scripture that is necessitates a second source for training and correction?

---

We can all agree that Scripture is God-Breathed and profitable, but 2 Tim does not say what you want it to say in that the Scriptures alone are supreme and complete and perspicuous. If it does then how do you deal with 2 Thess... "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold to the traditions which you have learned, whether by word of mouth, or by letter."?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I would say it was not a necessity for God because God can do anything without man. However, a mortal perspective and what MAN needs in this process is quite a different question. God understands what we need, and God provides.

---

And this is part of the problem that I highlighted in other recent posts. For Roman Catholics, it's all about authority. Instead of focusing on the fact that the Scriptures can only exist because of God, you want to focus on the medium that God used.

---

I think it is a much greater problem to ignore and disregard the medium that God chose to use as His vehicle and instrument. To me it is not so much about authority as it is about holding to what was protected and passed down through the Apostolic Church because it was this Church that Jesus promised us would have the eternal protection of the Holy Spirit. It's obvious to say that God is the source, but the question is HOW did we get the Bible and HOW can we know it is God's word?

And to clarify when I say that the Church has authority over scripture, it is not to say that the Church supersedes or can overrule scripture. The Church is the steward of scripture, and is responsible for it. It belongs to the Church. The canon itself is a product of the Church, not formally but over time recognizing what the churches used as scripture, based on what they were taught by the Apostles.

But who else in history can we look to? I mean it's not people outside the Church who determine the canon. And there's no scriptural canonical list. It's not even a matter of councils - they affirmed the canon as a witness to what the churches were already reading as scripture

There's no reason to put scripture against the church, or against apostolic tradition. They don't oppose. And truthfully there is no way to separate them, because they're different expressions of the same thing.

Zobel said:

---

And to clarify when I say that the Church has authority over scripture, it is not to say that the Church supersedes or can overrule scripture. The Church is the steward of scripture, and is responsible for it. It belongs to the Church. The canon itself is a product of the Church, not formally but over time recognizing what the churches used as scripture, based on what they were taught by the Apostles.

But who else in history can we look to? I mean it's not people outside the Church who determine the canon. And there's no scriptural canonical list. It's not even a matter of councils - they affirmed the canon as a witness to what the churches were already reading as scripture

There's no reason to put scripture against the church, or against apostolic tradition. They don't oppose. And truthfully there is no way to separate them, because they're different expressions of the same thing.

---

Again, very well said. I think it is also worth pointing out as a supplement to this that the RCC views Sacred Scripture as being materially sufficient for teaching and understanding salvation but not formally sufficient.

Material sufficiency of Sacred Scripture = all truths that we need for salvation can be found and derived from Sacred Scripture. So material sufficiency refers to scripture containing everything necessary for salvation in explicit or implicit form. So in this sense, scripture is sufficient for theology because all the materials for theology are found in the Bible. This would be like saying a lumberyard is materially sufficient for the goal of building a house. Now, if I go to a lumberyard, the lumberyard is not sufficient for me to build a house because I don't know what I'm doing. A home builder is still required, just as an infallible interpreter is still required for deciding critical issues. Again, back to the question of AUTHORITY. Sacred Scripture does NOT interpret itself and as evidenced by the actual history of disintegration after the Reformation, it is CLEARLY NOT SUFFICIENTLY PERSPICACIOUS.

Formal sufficiency of Sacred Scripture = the Bible as the sufficiently clear, self-interpreting, sole, ultimate, binding norm and authoritative rule of faith, to the exclusion of Church and Tradition; i.e., Sola Scriptura

Quote:

---

You said how Jesus dealt with XUSCR's response. This means you think the words of the Lord can be directed at him. Jesus' criticism of the Pharisees is that they added tradition, and not only that, but what they added contradicted the Law. It was a tradition of their own making and not from God. If he is adding to the Law, and what he adds is in contradiction, and from men and not from God the the verse is relevant; if he isn't it's not. I assumed you thought it was relevant.

---

It's certainly relevant and this response is not particularly compelling.

There would have not been anything particularly impressive or worthwhile to note if all Jesus was doing was simply pointing out traditions that contradicted Scripture. Contradictions are the easiest thing to spot. So it has to be more than simply just a contradiction. Jesus was talking about the heart. He was talking about people who created traditions to try and justify their righteousness while missing what God was commanding them to do.

We see many other examples of Jesus making this same point, such as when he heals someone on the sabbath or his disciples didn't fast. The issue wasn't contradictions. It was the vain hearts of the Pharisees.

So what when we look specifically at the Pharisees, we see a group that thought they had authority. Authority to compile books and authority to create traditions. They forgot that all authority comes from God.

Quote:

---

Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples: "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So practice and observe everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach."

The criticism the Lord levels at the Pharisees isn't that they're wrong. Its that they're hypocrites. It isn't that they shouldn'ttithe mint and dill, its that they should have done it and not neglected justice. It isn't that they didn't have authority - they did! And they people should listen to them. Moses' seat was the place of judgment - see Ex 18:13 and especially Deut 17:9-12:

---

Ok. I understand and man, this is an interesting take because it just misses so much. First, a simple request that in the future you provide the book/chapter/verse when you want to quote/paraphrase something. You certainly don't have to, but it does make it a lot easier to track with your thoughts. I was looking at Matt 15 trying to figure out what exactly you were trying to say.

Lets start at the beginning.

What are the perks of being on the seat of Moses.

First, lets look at a parallel example of something far beneath the Scriptures. The manna given to the Israelites in the wilderness.

John 6.
"30 So they said to him, "Then what sign do you do, that we may see and believe you? What work do you perform? 31 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, 'He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" 32 Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, but my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. 33 For the bread of God is he who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." 34 They said to him, "Sir, give us this bread always."

What authority did Jesus say Moses had to even do this? Jesus removes Moses from the equation all together and gives all of the credit to God. Yet you want to claim that the seat of Moses somehow had authority over the Scriptures? Not even the Pharisees claimed that

Second, lets remember why Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land by God.

Numbers 20:

"6 Then Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the entrance of the tent of meeting and fell on their faces. And the glory of the Lord appeared to them, 7 and the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, 8 "Take the staff, and assemble the congregation, you and Aaron your brother, and tell the rock before their eyes to yield its water. So you shall bring water out of the rock for them and give drink to the congregation and their cattle." 9 And Moses took the staff from before the Lord, as he commanded him. 10 Then Moses and Aaron gathered the assembly together before the rock, and he said to them, "Hear now, you rebels: shall we bring water for you out of this rock?" 11 And Moses lifted up his hand and struck the rock with his staff twice, and water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their livestock. 12 And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, "Because you did not believe in me, to uphold me as holy in the eyes of the people of Israel, therefore you shall not bring this assembly into the land that I have given them." 13 These are the waters of Meribah, where the people of Israel quarreled with the Lord, and through them he showed himself holy.

Moses had no authority to put a toe beyond the Word of God. He had the authority to preach and teach the Word of God. When he did get out of line, he was punished just as harshly as anyone else.

Was Moses the leader of the Israelites in the Wilderness? Absolutely
Did God set aside Moses to receive and deliver key portions of the OT to the world? Absolutely
Did Moses have some perceived authority to do anything other than what God commanded him to do? No and when he did, he suffered the same if not worse punishment than others.

Now lets look at some more verses in Matthew 23.

Verse 4:

" They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.

So the issue is clearly not that they were claiming "Moses seat" and I've never said that the Church is not important to Christianity. Paul calls the Church the "Pillar and Foundation of truth" in 1 Timothy 3. He second letter then provides that this is the case because it has the Scriptures to correctly teach, preach and correct, etc, etc (2 Timothy 3). So rightly understood, the seat of Moses is important, but does not have any authority over the Scriptures.

So the issue in Matthew 23 is that the Pharisees were creating their own burdens to put on people. Jesus is very clear here that it's not burdens that are from God, but from that of man. Remember, his yoke is easy and his burden is light (Matthew 11:30).

But further, as you pointed out, he immediately calls them hypocrites. So obeying them doesn't mean simply doing what they wanted. If that was the case, Jesus was a hugely sinful individual because he openly challenged their beliefs and teachings up to and including in this same passage. This is where we get the "7 woes" directed to the people you would exalt to some mighty position.

Quote:

---

I didn't create a binary, false or otherwise. What two choices did I present?

---

I left myself an out in my response because it wasn't clear what you were trying to claim.

The binary option it appeared you were trying to create was that if I want to refer to scripture, I must accept that I inherited the Scriptures from some group that claims authority over them. Otherwise I shouldn't refer to the Scriptures.

Like I said, I won't concede that Roman Catholics have authority over the Scriptures and so there's no cause to worry what they claim as tradition. 2 Timothy sets a higher bar than that.

--------------------------------------
I'll take your last sentence in parts.

Quote:

---

You appeal to scripture. How do you know what is scripture? Would that not be exercising authority?

---

Again, under this logic, Jesus should have accepted the teaching and traditions of the Pharisees since they were the primary compiler of the OT.

Or, we can recognize that the Scriptures are from God and no group of men has authority over them, but that their authority comes in correctly teaching and preaching the word that was given to us.

Quote:

---

If you reject the authority of the Church over the scripture, all you're doing is setting yourself as the authority over both the Church (to reject their authority) AND the scripture (to judge what is scripture).

---

This is another false binary. Rejecting Roman Catholicism in this case (or Eastern Orthodox) is not a rejection of the Church, no matter how many times you or Roman Catholics claim it.

I reject the belief that the Church has authority over the Scripture. I have never rejected the importance of the Church as I commented on above with reference to 1 Timothy 3. Those are two very different things. The Church was established by Jesus and is tasked with teaching and preaching the Word of God.

If what you said was true, I wouldn't need to go to Church on Sunday. I could simply just open the Scriptures, read what I wanted and believe what I wanted, but as you know, I'm a Lutheran and so that is not true.

You're off base in your understanding of first century Judaism because you're making this about what you want it to be - some commentary on Church authority - instead of just taking it for what it is. There was no group that "had authority" over the scriptures in the first century, there was a HUGE variance in canon between Jewish groups. The Pharisees, Essenes, Sadduccees all used different scriptures. St Paul alludes to Jubilees (not even Deuterocanonical) and both he and St Stephen make reference frequently to Midrash and other Rabbnical traditions as authoritative. People used what they used and appealed to it as they saw fit.

I don't know why you're talking about mana and the rock. It has nothing to do with the seat of Moses. You've carefully ignored the command of the Lord to obey the Pharisees even though they were hypocritical. So their hypocrisy didn't undermine the authority they had under the Law. It just meant, as the Lord commands - do what they say, but not what they do.

I'm not exalting the pharisees. They're condemned for their hypocrisy and abuse of their authority. It doesn't nullify that they had authority under the Law. This is why they stand condemned.

At every junction here you seek to set up the power of God as opposed or the authority of people, rather than the power of God being exercised through His ordained and established authorities. Denying that God gives people authority to exercise His work on earth is ridiculous, so you don't do it. But you argue around it, ignore it, talking about other things. The reason is obvious - you don't accept the authority of the RCC and you don't have a good alternative - but you haven't ever justified it.

Again I ask, because you didn't answer: How do you know what is scripture?

Quote:

---

You're off base in your understanding of first century Judaism because you're making this about what you want it to be - some commentary on Church authority - instead of just taking it for what it is. There was no group that "had authority" over the scriptures in the first century, there was a HUGE variance in canon between Jewish groups. The Pharisees, Essenes, Sadduccees all used different scriptures. St Paul alludes to Jubilees (not even Deuterocanonical) and both he and St Stephen make reference frequently to Midrash and other Rabbnical traditions as authoritative. People used what they used and appealed to it as they saw fit.

---

What's crazy to me is that you can write this and then turn around and claim the church has any sort of authority. Mind boggling really.

I'm not off base on the OT. There's a reason I have specifically mentioned the Pharisees as opposed to lumping them in with the sadducees. They did use different scriptures, yet Jesus and his Apostles clearly taught from more than just the pentateuch, which begins to exclude the other groups .

Quote:

---

I don't know why you're talking about mana and the rock. It has nothing to do with the seat of Moses. You've carefully ignored the command of the Lord to obey the Pharisees even though they were hypocritical. So their hypocrisy didn't undermine the authority they had under the Law. It just meant, as the Lord commands - do what they say, but not what they do.

---

It's like your go to move to claim people ignored something when you just don't like the answer. No where did I ignore that comment and in fact, here's my direct response to it:

Quote:

---

But further, as you pointed out, he immediately calls them hypocrites. So obeying them doesn't mean simply doing what they wanted. If that was the case, Jesus was a hugely sinful individual because he openly challenged their beliefs and teachings up to and including in this same passage. This is where we get the "7 woes" directed to the people you would exalt to some mighty position.

---

So did I ignore it? Not in the least. You just didn't like that I pointed out that Jesus clearly pointed out in verse 4, that the Pharisees were creating manmade traditions that were more a burden than him.

You also seemingly had no answer for why Jesus would call on us to "obey" someone and then turn around and just hammer that group for all the flaws. So just maybe, the call is not to blindly follow the Pharisees, but a call for the Pharisees to return to God's Tradition and to stop with their own traditions. I don't recall many other groups getting 7 woes spoken about them right...

Quote:

---

I'm not exalting the pharisees. They're condemned for their hypocrisy and abuse of their authority. It doesn't nullify that they had authority under the Law. This is why they stand condemned.

---

Just like Moses had authority to call the manna down from heaven and authority to add to God's word. Authority is only what was given by God and it's not absolute. Having the authority to teach and preach the Word of God does not mean they had the authority to determine what was the Word of God. As I showed above, Moses changed the Word of God and paid for it with his life.

Quote:

---

Again I ask, because you didn't answer: How do you know what is scripture?

---

Finally, I can trust what the Scriptures are because God made it clear in 2 Timothy 3 that we would know. Not because some group of Christians got together and decided, but because God guided and protected this process so that we would have His words.

But that does not necessitate that I must agree with the traditions of that church.

The only thing called out as being God breathed "for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness" is the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3).
-------------------------------

And with this, I'm going to bow out on responding further to you. This has been about as productive as any conversations go with you, and it seems we are past the point of discussion and back to just repeating things already discussed.

If you want the final word, it's all yours.

Different subject but same energy

Dp

A very interesting discussion between an evangelical Protestant and an Orthodox Priest and relevant to this discussion.

Faithful Ag said:

---

A very interesting discussion between an evangelical Protestant and an Orthodox Priest and relevant to this discussion.

---

Very good. Thanks for sharing. As a RC, I didn't find anything to disagree with until he began discussing ecclesiology, which is where the Orthodox and Catholics part, sadly.

It is interesting and I would think should be a bit of a flashing warning sign for Protestants that the two churches that are apostolic in their history have practically identical views on soteriology, the sacraments, and the like, even though the specific words used are often different. Theosis, divinization, etc. The role of Sacred Tradition and its relationship with Sacred Scripture are basically the same in the material respects. Yes, there is a real difference in the juridical role of the Bishop of Rome, but that only serves to lend credibility to the areas where there is alignment. It makes it painfully clear that whatever differences might exist between Rome and the Orthodox, they are at least differences within the context of the same paradigm and concept. Protestant Christianity is a foreign paradigm and concept when compared to the apostolic faiths of Rome and the eastern church. I don't see how anyone can be intellectually honest and fail to see that.

You could make a REALLY good case the Council of Florence means the differences are quite minimal.

Although we also have to say significant theological differences might exist, depending upon how big you consider things outside the Sacramental understanding to be (sort of, IMO).

Redstone said:

---

You could make a REALLY good case the Council of Florence means the differences are quite minimal.

Although we also have to say significant theological differences might exist, depending upon how big you consider things outside the Sacramental understanding to be (sort of, IMO).

---

Indeed. I don't mean to disingenuously minimize the differences, but I also don't think we should overstate them. I would highly value hearing more of your thinking on Florence. I'm not well-informed on that.

My primary observation from watching the video of the very articulate Orthodox Priest is that Catholics and Orthodox are perhaps estranged brothers who still can celebrate Christmas together and share family stories but Catholics and Protestants (or Orthodox and Protestants) are like distant relatives who have a common ancestor but have grown so far apart that they are more like 4th cousins twice removed.

Mark of Ephesus, COME ON MAN

I go so far as to think we are the same Church, possibly as well with the Oriental Orthodox, but they need to clean up their own family dispute first.

You look at the 26 churches who make up the eastern catholic church and they share almost 100% identical beliefs with the roman catholic church, but are in communion. They consider themselves Orthodox, I think there are 1 or 2 who are in communion with both, can anyone confirm?

It looks like like Italo-Albanian Catholic Church is the one I'm thinking of.

Cool article

https://cnewa.org/magazine/italys-byzantine-catholics-30683/

Quote:

---

The Italo-Albanians have never completed an official act of rottura, or breaking, with the Orthodox Church. During the course of integration with Italian culture and with the Catholic communion, the Italo-Albanians have always maintained a rapport of congeniality not just sentimentality with the Orthodox Church. The Italo-Albanians consider themselves in solidarity with the great Eastern traditions of which they feel themselves a part, not only with the Orthodox people of Albania, with whom they share their ethnic and cultural origin, but with the entire Byzantine commonwealth. One must also keep in mind that the Italo-Albanian Church, which now celebrates the liturgy in its own Albanian language, regularly used Greek as a liturgical language and continues to use regularly some books of Greek origin in its liturgy. For together with its own Albanian tradition, the Italo-Albanian Church refers to her Byzantine Greek and patristic past.

At that first intra-eparchical synod in Grottaferrata, a delegation from the autocephalous Albanian Orthodox Church, composed of eight members and presided over by a bishop, participated as observers. This was more than 25 years before the ecumenical spring brought forth by Vatican II.

In October 1973, a delegation from the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church made an official visit to the Eparchy of Piana of the Albanians. A highlight of the visit was an ecumenical liturgy, with the delegation from the Greek Orthodox synod participating with the Italo-Albanian bishop, clergy and faithful.

---

I appreciate your posts here and that reply. Will work on some details to follow up.

Very kind! Thanks. I look forward to learning more.

Whenever my Calvinist faith needs a boast of reality, I come to the catholic backslapping board for strength.

Predetermined is a true blessing, search and you will find.

Nm

An excellent overview of dating the Gospels.

https://sqpn.com/2021/02/when-were-the-gospels-written-the-dates-of-matthew-mark-luke-and-john/

I agree. It's was a super interesting episode.

It's my normal Friday podcast while running as Jimmy is a great storyteller.

I thought this was a good exchange. Pr Wolfmueller is fantastic. Crazy story about him. He got COVID pretty bad. Symptom wise, he was not necessarily in danger of death, but it really hit his mental abilities for a while. He talked about how he would be talking and his mind would just go blank and he'd have trouble recalling things that he knew. It's good to seem him back in form because as you can see, he's just a great speaker who loves the Lord.

Still making notes. Hope to continue that discussion.

Even if sharing your testimony and faith - from a position of love and not pride - doesn't "help" others come to Christ, do not remain silent (ACTIONS MORE THAN WORDS) as to how important God is to your life.

Don't be upset if satans (in Hebrew, accusers) are attacking, or suspect hose attacks come because we are being punished by God. Job shows that even the righteous will be severely tested.

If you have an obsession with money (self-oppressed by the sin of greed) satans (your accusers) will work to give you what you want - so that your soul is condemned. Material wealth is dangerous because it allows you to be in a state just comfortable enough to ignore the soul's calling toward God.

Accept your lot, let the sufferings expatiate sins by uniting your burdens to the Divine Sufferings of Christ, and approach your judgment with a clear conscience in the promises of Christ.

God has foreseen all possible methods to increase human faith and save souls. If God doesn't allow it, there's a reason.

Work for God and with God in a spirit of humility and prayer, to offer toil in union with the sacrifice of Jesus.

Jesus Christ, the living fulfillment of Torah through his Divine Person, is always and everywhere.

We can respond to Him in all situations across time and environment.

When the Iranian pagan astronomers followed Christ to Bethlehem....when the Pantheon of Agrippa became a church....if the point is Christ, "appropriate" away....as with the Virgin being depicted with dark skin. That's good and proper, an honor to St. Juan Diego and to God.

Humanity lives on the height of despair. All problems of the world are in the Cross of Christ; whenever we get lost or lazy on the way, go back to the Gospel and the Holy Spirit.

Struggling with belief? Practice of faith - ritual, prayer, attendance - will form and shape faith concretely, making it more grounded, more "real." Better are faith communities that make demands on their members. A church can't be "seeker-friendly" in the sense of making minimal demands on people, and then expect members to develop a strong sense of God's reality.

This is not about "earning" salvation - it is about practicing the presence of God, of deepening relationship and of dying to self so that Christ can live more completely in you. This doesn't just happen. It takes prayer, fasting, confession, repentance, communion.

We have to train our eyes and our ears to pay attention, and making God real in our subjective experience requires engagement with the body through its senses. The more abstract a sense of God is, the harder it is to know Him.