I do. Anything else is either you making it up or you messing with the occult.
And yes, the Bible is the sole source, and is to be what everything else is checked against. It is what it says and why we have it, why it was given to us in the first place. YOu thinking you can blaze your own trail is pride and dabbling in dangerous territory.
I do. Anything else is either you making it up or you messing with the occult.
And yes, the Bible is the sole source, and is to be what everything else is checked against. It is what it says and why we have it, why it was given to us in the first place. YOu thinking you can blaze your own trail is pride and dabbling in dangerous territory.
You are a Sola Scriptura Christian. Many of us are not-- and ours is the older tradition. I do not imply any bashing of you for that, but you should realize this (the finding of metaphysical knowledge via other sources) is not just some idiosyncrasy of mine, but a very old and broad Christian endeavor.
Who has the older tradition does not matter at all to me. My first check is God's Word, not anyone's "tradition." How does the 'tradition" measure against God's Word? If they do not jibe, it is the tradition that goes.
But at this point you are just arguing for the sake of being disputatious. I'm not going to cut off dialogue with you completely, but this nitpickery and hair-splittery has become entirely too much and I will engage in it no more.
No, it is not mere tradition. It is a movement of the Holy Spirit. Which is why it has the power it has. It is the Living Word of God. Which is why God gives it the authority it has and no one has the authority to override it. "Church tradition," is the work of humans. Can it be useful? Sure. But it absolutely has to be checked against God's Word.
BTW, I do not claim any knowledge or authority of Orthodox tradition, but this notion of demons, angels and the spirit world as just being "nature", I've seen NO CHRISTIANS, of any type making this claim. So this strikes me as being less about some "tradition" and more about your own ideas. Specifically, trying to square up the supernatural with your ideas of "science." Which is nonsense. I know this because at one time, a very long time ago, as a foolish youth, I tried to do the same thing, before realizng they are not and it was silly to try. They are what they are. God has presented us mysteries, and are not in many cases meant to be unraveled while we are here. We see through a glass darkly until such time as we go there and much more is revealed to us, when we are in a position where it will truly be useful.
I feel obliged to point out that from the Catholic and Orthodox standpoint, you would be the one pridefully blazing your own trail by insisting that your own reading of the BibleтАФjust you and your own two eyes, independent from TraditionтАФis the best or correct reading. The Catholic and Orthodox view is that the Holy Ghost guides and informs the Tradition; that the Bible itself is an artifact created by the Church as part of the broader Tradition; and that it is idolatrous to call the Bible the "Word of God", because only Jesus Christ HimselfтАФthe LogosтАФis the Word of God.
I know that your view is very different, and I'm not going to argue with you about it. I just wanted to list this point of fact about what it is that other types of Christians think.
And I would tell you that I'm not interested in Catholic or Orthodox standpoints, if it strays from God's word or cannot be reinforced. Church tradition or views of priests are interesting, but it must answer to God's Word. It is why we have it. As there is no Biblical verse backing up your view that the layman needs his reading filtered through a priesthood. The trend has been to make the Bible available to the layman, not restrict it from him. This was a move of the Holy Spirit. Because no mere book would reach and change men's hearts. It is living and the Holy Spirit resides there. Verses call ALL BELIEVERS to read it and commit it to their hearts. This would not be the case, none of it, if it was to be restricted to dissemination by elders.
The Bible also is referred to as the "Word of God" in its own pages.
Catholics and Orthodox need to get used to Protestants being out of there. It is ok for you to contest my views, that's fine. But I can tell you, I'm not at all interested in what your elders have to say. I'm interested in what God's Word says. For that is why the Lord gave it to us. ALL of us, elders, pastors, priests, layman, have to check utterances and views against that. And guess what? If the Bible says one thing and some clergyman says another, that clergyman is wrong.
I think the issue is that different believers have a lot of different ideas about what it means to do that. But you have already made it clear that you aren't interested in the other standpoints, and therefore the discussion is over.
No. I've no interest in being "corrected" by those who practice Orthodoxy. I'm not Orthodox and will not take that approach. Any more than you want to take on Protestantism. But as long as we don't get lost on the point of it all, that being Christ, that should be OK. Shouldn't it?
That's one thing that bothers me about some practitioners of Orthodoxy. You seem to be more about Orthodoxy than about Jesus.
You say, "there are different believers here who have different ideas of what it means to do that." So let it be. Can you deal with the fact I'm not going to be Orthodox? Because I'm not. And I honestly do not care if you are Orthodox.
I only care about people finding Christ. And I am at peace with the different churches and their styles, the ones that truly are about the Gospel and souls finding Christ. And I've seen it in Catholics, Orthodox and a whole range of Protestants.
In the big picture, yes. But the theological differences can also be quite substantial, and they are not without consequence. I personally favor a big-tent ethos, but I can also see why some believers may begin to wonder if they all do in fact belong in the same tent.
Well, I'm presently Eastern Catholic, but with strong Orthodox sympathies. And yesтАФI'm at peace with you being your way if you're fine with me being my way. Your rather pugilistic communication style just sometimes seems to suggest that you want everyone to be your way, so I'm glad you clarified that.
Christ is a big tent. Because the bottom line is Christ and his salvation.
As for those wondering, let them bring their questions, if they feel the need.
Me, personally, I learned long ago not to get wrapped up in theological differences. If you can make a Biblical case and your bottom line is Christ, even better if I can see the change being wrought, that is good enough for me.
I do. Anything else is either you making it up or you messing with the occult.
And yes, the Bible is the sole source, and is to be what everything else is checked against. It is what it says and why we have it, why it was given to us in the first place. YOu thinking you can blaze your own trail is pride and dabbling in dangerous territory.
You are a Sola Scriptura Christian. Many of us are not-- and ours is the older tradition. I do not imply any bashing of you for that, but you should realize this (the finding of metaphysical knowledge via other sources) is not just some idiosyncrasy of mine, but a very old and broad Christian endeavor.
Who has the older tradition does not matter at all to me. My first check is God's Word, not anyone's "tradition." How does the 'tradition" measure against God's Word? If they do not jibe, it is the tradition that goes.
God's word is itself Tradition.
But at this point you are just arguing for the sake of being disputatious. I'm not going to cut off dialogue with you completely, but this nitpickery and hair-splittery has become entirely too much and I will engage in it no more.
No, it is not mere tradition. It is a movement of the Holy Spirit. Which is why it has the power it has. It is the Living Word of God. Which is why God gives it the authority it has and no one has the authority to override it. "Church tradition," is the work of humans. Can it be useful? Sure. But it absolutely has to be checked against God's Word.
BTW, I do not claim any knowledge or authority of Orthodox tradition, but this notion of demons, angels and the spirit world as just being "nature", I've seen NO CHRISTIANS, of any type making this claim. So this strikes me as being less about some "tradition" and more about your own ideas. Specifically, trying to square up the supernatural with your ideas of "science." Which is nonsense. I know this because at one time, a very long time ago, as a foolish youth, I tried to do the same thing, before realizng they are not and it was silly to try. They are what they are. God has presented us mysteries, and are not in many cases meant to be unraveled while we are here. We see through a glass darkly until such time as we go there and much more is revealed to us, when we are in a position where it will truly be useful.
I feel obliged to point out that from the Catholic and Orthodox standpoint, you would be the one pridefully blazing your own trail by insisting that your own reading of the BibleтАФjust you and your own two eyes, independent from TraditionтАФis the best or correct reading. The Catholic and Orthodox view is that the Holy Ghost guides and informs the Tradition; that the Bible itself is an artifact created by the Church as part of the broader Tradition; and that it is idolatrous to call the Bible the "Word of God", because only Jesus Christ HimselfтАФthe LogosтАФis the Word of God.
I know that your view is very different, and I'm not going to argue with you about it. I just wanted to list this point of fact about what it is that other types of Christians think.
And I would tell you that I'm not interested in Catholic or Orthodox standpoints, if it strays from God's word or cannot be reinforced. Church tradition or views of priests are interesting, but it must answer to God's Word. It is why we have it. As there is no Biblical verse backing up your view that the layman needs his reading filtered through a priesthood. The trend has been to make the Bible available to the layman, not restrict it from him. This was a move of the Holy Spirit. Because no mere book would reach and change men's hearts. It is living and the Holy Spirit resides there. Verses call ALL BELIEVERS to read it and commit it to their hearts. This would not be the case, none of it, if it was to be restricted to dissemination by elders.
The Bible also is referred to as the "Word of God" in its own pages.
Catholics and Orthodox need to get used to Protestants being out of there. It is ok for you to contest my views, that's fine. But I can tell you, I'm not at all interested in what your elders have to say. I'm interested in what God's Word says. For that is why the Lord gave it to us. ALL of us, elders, pastors, priests, layman, have to check utterances and views against that. And guess what? If the Bible says one thing and some clergyman says another, that clergyman is wrong.
Feel as you will. As I said, there is no argument to be had on this matter.
I do not see why there should be. We are all Christians here and seek to above all point the way to Christ.
Right?
I think the issue is that different believers have a lot of different ideas about what it means to do that. But you have already made it clear that you aren't interested in the other standpoints, and therefore the discussion is over.
No. I've no interest in being "corrected" by those who practice Orthodoxy. I'm not Orthodox and will not take that approach. Any more than you want to take on Protestantism. But as long as we don't get lost on the point of it all, that being Christ, that should be OK. Shouldn't it?
That's one thing that bothers me about some practitioners of Orthodoxy. You seem to be more about Orthodoxy than about Jesus.
You say, "there are different believers here who have different ideas of what it means to do that." So let it be. Can you deal with the fact I'm not going to be Orthodox? Because I'm not. And I honestly do not care if you are Orthodox.
I only care about people finding Christ. And I am at peace with the different churches and their styles, the ones that truly are about the Gospel and souls finding Christ. And I've seen it in Catholics, Orthodox and a whole range of Protestants.
I'm at peace with that.
In the big picture, yes. But the theological differences can also be quite substantial, and they are not without consequence. I personally favor a big-tent ethos, but I can also see why some believers may begin to wonder if they all do in fact belong in the same tent.
Well, I'm presently Eastern Catholic, but with strong Orthodox sympathies. And yesтАФI'm at peace with you being your way if you're fine with me being my way. Your rather pugilistic communication style just sometimes seems to suggest that you want everyone to be your way, so I'm glad you clarified that.
Christ is a big tent. Because the bottom line is Christ and his salvation.
As for those wondering, let them bring their questions, if they feel the need.
Me, personally, I learned long ago not to get wrapped up in theological differences. If you can make a Biblical case and your bottom line is Christ, even better if I can see the change being wrought, that is good enough for me.
The Lord's peace upon you.