// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Ecclesiology 201 Guidelines

Discussion on matters of general mainstream Christian churches. What are the differences between Catholics and protestants? How has the charismatic movement affected the church? Are Southern baptists different from fundamentalist baptists? It is also for discussions about the nature of the church.

This forum is primarily for Christians to discuss matters of Christian doctrine, and is not the area for debate between atheists (or those opposing orthodox Christianity) and theists. Inquiring atheists (or sincere seekers/doubters/unorthodox) seeking only Christian participation and having demonstrated a manner that does not seek to undermine the orthodox Christian faith of others are also welcome, but must seek Moderator permission first. When defining “Christian” for purposes of this section, we mean persons holding to the core essentials of the historic Christian faith such as the Trinity, the Creatorship of God, the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement, the future bodily return of Christ, the future bodily resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment. Persons not holding to these core doctrines are welcome to participate in the Comparative Religions section without restriction, in Theology 201 as regards to the nature of God and salvation with limited restrictions, and in Christology for issues surrounding the person of Christ and the Trinity. Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions. Additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream orthodox doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Examining EO

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Catholicity View Post
    Well though quite frankly, its silly to think that food is not meant to be enjoyed though. it should be enjoyed. My understanding of gluttony is that its a type pf greed and selfishness. It also uses food in place of other needs.
    Yes, God created food to be received with thanksgiving/joy by those who believe and know the truth. Some human commands have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh; indeed, it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
      Yes, God created food to be received with thanksgiving/joy by those who believe and know the truth.
      Absolutely. Yet God created sex good, too. That doesn't mean it can't be abused.
      Some human commands have an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion, asceticism, and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh; indeed, it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace.
      Source: Rom 6:1-2

      What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?

      © Copyright Original Source



      You're dangerously confident in your ignorance.

      I'll try to get to your other post in a bit.
      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
      sigpic
      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Scrawly View Post
        You seem to be under the illusion that you are somehow above this interpretative process. The fact of the matter is that you engaged in exegeting biblical passages and weighing theological arguments and so forth when you converted to Orthodoxy -- which constitutes your personalized (or private) interpretative process. Make no mistake that it was you who made the decision through personal investigation and analysis.
        Not really. Perhaps you missed where I said it was not my intention to convert?

        Mr. Stamenkovic is being true to his ultimate authority -- the scriptures. If you can prove to him that his interpretation is erroneous through exegetical argumentation, then he should stand corrected, like a good Protestant.
        I've met precious few "good Protestants" by that criterion.

        Source: Stamenkovic

        On the other hand, the allegation that the Apostles would omit (accidentlally or deliberately) the most important spiritual truths on which the eternal destiny of billions of people would hang is utterly inconceivable.

        © Copyright Original Source

        Repeating this dreck doesn't make it any better an argument. It is blatant misrepresentation compounded by argument from outrage.
        But do you think that the Apostolic teaching contained within the scriptures is sufficient for life and godliness so that the man of God may be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work?
        You realize that Paul was referring to the Old Testament, yes?
        Originally posted by OBP
        Source: Stamenkovic

        Any careful reader of Holy Scripture will notice at least two "sacraments" never mentioned in the New Testament. These include chrismation (performed after baptism) and anointing of the sick (e.g. sanctification through oil on behalf of a sick person). The apostolic practices of the New Testament provide no evidence for either of these practices. The first century Christians neither performed chrismation (rubbed oil) on a believer after baptism nor did they rub patients with oil to sanctify them "in the name of the Lord". Although the New Testament mentions baptism many times and refers to praying for the healing of sick people, the Orthodox sacraments of chrismation and unction are completely absent.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Any careful reader of Scripture will notice that he is wrong in at least one of those cases - to wit, anointing the sick.
        Source: Mark 6:13 NKJV

        And they cast out many demons, and anointed with oil many who were sick, and healed them.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Source: Luke 10:34 NKJV

        So he went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; and he set him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

        © Copyright Original Source


        Most pertinently:
        Source: James 5:14 NKJV

        Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

        © Copyright Original Source

        I think he would acknowledge those passages. The question he is asking: Do the Orthodox sacraments literally line up with the practices performed and decreed in the bible?
        No, he's not asking that question. He made an emphatic assertion which turned out to be unequivocally wrong. You might at least acknowledge that, or there's no point in continuing this. Assuming he is asking that question, he's making an argument from silence.
        If you can prove to a Protestant from the scriptures that laying on of hands ought to be practiced in order to receive the Holy Spirit, then that Protestant would be bound to adopt said practice. Eph. 1:13-14 and Gal. 3:2-3 would need to factor in here however.
        You've shown abundantly that you're quite willing to handwave away any interpretation which doesn't already square with yours. In this case, you've decided, along with most Protestants, that since it's not always used, it should never be used.
        Source: Stamenkovic

        From studying the Bible verses earlier, we learned that the New Testament in fact does not support the Orthodox dogma of Mary's perpatual virginity.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Yes of course he is submitting his interpretation, in light of his personal commitment to rightly divide the word of truth.
        He's not simply submitting his interpretation, he's pretending that it is OBviously the ONLY interpretation, not even bothering to interact with any others.
        Source: Stamenkovic

        Obviously then, this dogma derives only from apocryphal books. Furthermore, names such as "Virgin" or "Mother of God" are not found in the Bible. Such names were introduced into the church centuries after Mary's death.

        © Copyright Original Source



        Stamenkovic is highlighting the biblical portrait of Mary and contrasting it to the exalted status she is given in Orthodox and Roman circles. He finds no good reason to believe that such tradition has it's roots in Apostolic witness.
        ...because he's a priori assumed his conclusion. He also misrepresents the exalted status she is given. If he were an honest man, he would not do that. I'm confident he knows better; he'd have to, if he'd bothered to read all the Orthodox material he cites.
        Source: Stamenkovic

        In accordance with biblical revelation we must show respect to the Apostles and other men and women of God throughout history. Such people are respected for the lessons in piety based on their various experiences in life with the Lord. Yet, we must not engage in what the Scriptures forbid: to pray for the intercession before God and prayerful mediation of saints already deceased.

        © Copyright Original Source

        He sort of completely failed to prove this bald assertion.
        Originally posted by OBP
        There's a whole host of things wrong with this. First, I have yet to see Protestants show respect to anyone between the apostles and Martin Luther, a span of 1400 years!
        Of course that is demonstrably false.
        My statement is only slightly hyperbolic. In my 35 years as a Protestant, I do not recall a pastor or bible study leader ever citing older than, say, Oswald Chambers or Dwight Moody. That wasn't old enough for me, so acquired Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Bible because it was old. On rare occasions, you might find someone citing Augustine, but that's chancy because Catholics love him so much.
        Where does he make this conflation?
        He doesn't so much state the conflation as ignore the Orthodox distinction completely. Again, he has to know better if he's read Orthodox sources.
        Now of course Protestants have seen these verses before, and of course we disagree with The Orthodox and Roman interpreters, and believe you are reading into the text a doctrine that simply isn't there.
        Then why didn't he actually deal with them? One would think that, for maximum effect, one would deal with the opponent's strongest arguments, not ignore them.
        OK, but does Stamenkovic agree with everything in the book? Perhaps there is some truth to pagan influence on Marian doctrine over the centuries, and the book gets that part right(?)
        Immaterial. He cites it as an authority - and the only authority - for that assertion.
        In the OP I stated that refutations from Orthodox believers are welcomed.
        You did. Your responses, unfortunately, do not bear that out.
        Perhaps the reality of nominalism and mere cultural-belief present in all churches and denominations can help us better discern the global body of Christ...
        Nice dodge.
        Just as Paul opposed Peter at Antioch, it seems Stamenkovic is willing to confront fellow believers when they are not acting "consistently with the truth of the gospel".
        I'd be fine with that if he did that in an honest manner. Stamenkovic is not, however, doing so, for reasons I've stated above. Get a better source. This one's not worth any more of my time.
        Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

        Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
        sigpic
        I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

        Comment

        widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
        Working...
        X