Christian disscussion thread

[Orcoa]

I have found that I have gone less and less to church though out my life since quite frankly, most churches I have gone to have something wrong about them. It's mostly their leadership or priesthood that I have a bone to pick, they sometimes ignore what it really says in our own holy book and push their own right wing politics onto me when I don't want that to be!!

So I' am what you say a stay at home Christian and a self taught one...which I'm very proud of.

[Distruzio]

I have found that I have gone less and less to church though out my life since quite frankly, most churches I have gone to have something wrong about them. It's mostly their leadership or priesthood that I have a bone to pick, they sometimes ignore what it really says in our own holy book and push their own right wing politics onto me when I don't want that to be!!

So I' am what you say a stay at home Christian and a self taught one...which I'm very proud of.

I could never feign enough arrogance to presume that I know how to worship God any more properly than those belonging to the Church that both organized and delivered that holy book to me, sifted through the myriad heresies so that I might discern the true nature of the Truth, secured the survival of that book and that Truth and of itself, and died doing all of that for the past 2000 years. Corporate worship at an Orthodox, a Catholic, an Anglican/CoE, or a Lutheran Church is the way to go.

For me, specifically? It's Orthodoxy all the way.

[Nansurium]

Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Mormon, Lutheran...all of them.

No offense to those of you who worship in any of these organizations, but they all distort the bible in their own special way.

I am nondenominational. We use the Bible as the sole authority for all of our church functions with the goal being to try and get as close as possible to the worship practiced by the early church.

[Orcoa]

I have found that I have gone less and less to church though out my life since quite frankly, most churches I have gone to have something wrong about them. It's mostly their leadership or priesthood that I have a bone to pick, they sometimes ignore what it really says in our own holy book and push their own right wing politics onto me when I don't want that to be!!

So I' am what you say a stay at home Christian and a self taught one...which I'm very proud of.

I could never feign enough arrogance to presume that I know how to worship God any more properly than those belonging to the Church that both organized and delivered that holy book to me, sifted through the myriad heresies so that I might discern the true nature of the Truth, secured the survival of that book and that Truth and of itself, and died doing all of that for the past 2000 years. Corporate worship at an Orthodox, a Catholic, an Anglican/CoE, or a Lutheran Church is the way to go.

For me, specifically? It's Orthodoxy all the way.

Which I have no problem with, if you wish to go to church to learn the way of Christ then do so. I rather take my studies by myself, it lets me understand it better in my own way.

[Distruzio]

Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Mormon, Lutheran...all of them.

No offense to those of you who worship in any of these organizations, but they all distort the bible in their own special way.

I am nondenominational. We use the Bible as the sole authority for all of our church functions with the goal being to try and get as close as possible to the worship practiced by the early church.

How could they distort their creation?

Specifically the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican/CoE?

[Nansurium]

Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Mormon, Lutheran...all of them.

No offense to those of you who worship in any of these organizations, but they all distort the bible in their own special way.

I am nondenominational. We use the Bible as the sole authority for all of our church functions with the goal being to try and get as close as possible to the worship practiced by the early church.

How could they distort their creation?

Specifically the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican/CoE?

I'm referring to the various interpretations of the Bible. You believe the Bible is a creation of your church?

[Isointania]

Church of England believer here! 2 years ago christ saved me!

[Risottia]

How could they distort their creation?

Specifically the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican/CoE?

I'm referring to the various interpretations of the Bible. You believe the Bible is a creation of your church?

Most definitely, the Bible Christian use was written in its current form at Nicaea.

[Distruzio]

How could they distort their creation?

Specifically the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican/CoE?

I'm referring to the various interpretations of the Bible. You believe the Bible is a creation of your church?

Is the Bible alone all that is needed in order to follow Christ?

I should begin with an explanation, I am Eastern Orthodox. The original Church. We, along with the Latin (Catholic), Oriental, Lutheran and Anglican Churches (although this is hotly contested, I admit that this particularity is my own perspective and should not be considered the universal position of all the Eastern, Oriental, Latin Church, or even the Anglican Communion), can show, through Apostolic Succession, our inheritance of the spiritual, ecclesiastical and sacramental authority, power, and responsibility that were conferred upon the Disciples by the Apostles, who in turn received their spiritual authority from Jesus Christ. In other words, it was the Orthodox, and those previously mentioned, who wrote the New Testament and cannonized the Bible into the book we all know today. It was us who handed down the Creed and established what a Christian is to believe in order to avoid heresy against the Word.

In keeping with this perspective, I and I alone consider many, if not most, Protestants, to be bibliolaters (worshippers of the Bible) based upon their rejection of Apostolic Succession, the Patriarchal Consensus, and the Holy Tradition.

Is the Bible alone all that is needed in order to follow Christ?

Of course, I don't think it is. I arrive at this conclusion by asking very simple, yet subtle, questions:

Does the Scripture teach that it is "all that is needed in order to follow Christ?"

...from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Timothy 3:15-17).

This is the verse most often used in order to substantiate the claim to Sola Scriptura. After all, if scripture alone makes the man pure, then it should be obvious that scripture alone should be sufficient to walk with Christ! Unfortunately, this interpretation requires very muddy thinking as well as a very cursory reading of scripture.

Was the New Testament completed when Paul wrote this of Timothy? Of course it wasn't. Which in and of itself exempts the Holy Traditions, founded in the New Testament, from the assertion that "scripture alone will suffice." Indeed, the "scripture" Paul is writing about is the Old Testament, the Jewish texts. Further, were Paul writing against tradition, why would he cite non-OT oral tradition in the very same chapter?

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith (II Timothy 3:8)

There are also several more occasions in which Paul, and other writers, cite non-OT oral tradition in the NT - Enoch and Jude spring to mind.

By establishing a canon, an authoritative list of official texts to be received and considered as Sacred Scripture, the early Church was defending itself against the spurious claims to legitimacy of the Gnostic Christians with their competing texts. These texts, the early Church agreed, distracted from, and even misrepresented the Truth of the Christian doctrine. In handing down this Canon, the Church was by no means declaring that such texts were the absolute end-all container for everything necessary and proper for Christian life.

What was the New Testament used for?

The New Testament can basically be categorized into four literary genres: gospel, historical narrative, epistle, and prophecy.

The Gospels, of course, describe the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The historical narratives recount the history and organization of the early Church. The epistles were responses to specific problems that arose in the various Churches. Things that were understood by all, and not considered problems, were not touched upon in any great detail. The disputed doctrinal issues were generally disputed or misunderstood doctrines. The prophecy was intended to foretell of God's inevitable triumph.

Note what is missing from these genres... worship. The OT repeatedly and extensively describes the manner in which those of the Old Covenant, the Jews, are to worship. Yet the NT is strangely, or perhaps not so strangely, all but silent on the matter. In fact, on the rare occasion worship is mentioned, it is described not as a "feeling" or a personal revelation due to intense study of the scriptures but, rather, liturgical and corporate worship.

Now Peter and John went up together into the temple at the hour of prayer, being the ninth hour (Acts 3:1).

And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart (Acts 2:46)

Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them (Acts 21:26)

Further, if all we need is the scripture alone, then why does the NT not lay out a systematic theology for the faith? There is no catechism, nothing resembling a doctrinal statement.

If the Scriptures were the basis of the early Church, was Tradition a corruption of their purity?

So often, Protestants and Atheists alike criticize the more liturgical sects of Christianity of engaging in "corrupted practices." Of putting the "traditions of men" before the Word. Of course they base this assumption on misrepresentations and misunderstandings of actual text. Such mistakes lead them to believe that the first Christians were exactly like evangelicals of today! Carrying a bible to Church every Sunday, thumping it at every sinner on the corner, text proofing with one another and worshipping by the "Word alone."

Needless to say, this is nonsense. People of this perspective forget how few individuals could read before the 20th century. Moreover, the printing press wouldn't exist until the 15th century. This means that of the early Christians, almost none of them could read their Bibles and, most embarrassingly for the modern bibliolater, those Bibles that none of them could read didn't exist and wouldn't for another few hundred years. Remember, the canon didn't exist until the 4th century.

Most importantly, if the Christian is the creature of the New Covenant, revealed in the New Testament, then how did First Century Christians learn their faith when the NT had not yet been written? If they couldn't read about the life and crucifixion of Christ themselves, were they not real Christians? Were they, as I was recently accused of being, Pagans who replaced Holy Scripture with Holy Tradition?

Of course I'm not saying that study of the scripture didn't happen. I'm merely saying that the vast majority of Christians learned through oral tradition, rather than reading their Bible before bed every night.

Of course, I find myself committing the great sin of failing to text proof like the good little thumper I'm supposed to be. Allow me to rectify that oversight now, what do the Scriptures say about Tradition?

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle (II Thessalonians 2:15)

Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you (1 Corinthians 11:2).

So if Christ declared that the Pharisees were wrong for focusing on the "traditions of men" and yet later Christians emphasize the importance of "tradition," what is the difference?

Christ is the difference.

For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread (1 Corinthians 11:23)

Recall that the Gospel John said:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

So does it make sense that Scripture alone should be sufficient?

Can anyone really interpret Scripture alone, without Tradition?

This is what is best known about Protestants. They'll say, "all I need is my Bible." The line of reasoning is that the meaning of Scripture is clear enough that anyone can understand it by simply reading it for oneself, without the guiding hand of the Church. The same people that claim this, tend to lament the 33,000 variations of Christianity and the very real and very poignant perspectives that Atheists take.

---

What is my conclusion? That Sola Scriptura is not appropriate. The death knell for the Sola Scriptura perspective can be lain out more simply than I've thus far managed:

Can the advocate of Sola Scriptura point to a verse within the Scripture itself that substantiates their claim that the "Bible alone is sufficient." No, they cannot.

[Nansurium]

I'm of the believe that the Bible is inspired word of God.

[Trotskylvania]

How could they distort their creation?

Specifically the Orthodox, Catholic, and Anglican/CoE?

I'm referring to the various interpretations of the Bible. You believe the Bible is a creation of your church?

You see, there's this meeting among the prelates of the "universal" church in the 300s CE, and they chose the books that would compose the Christian bible, omitting hundreds of others. So yes, the common ancestor of modern Orthodoxy and Catholicism literally created the Bible as you know it.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

Can the advocate of Sola Scriptura point to a verse within the Scripture itself that substantiates their claim that the "Bible alone is sufficient." No, they cannot.

In fact, everything in the NT would suggest a church-centered doctrine - that the Apostles were involved with churches, that Paul writes to a number of churches, that there are Pastoral Epistles that call for a certain organization of the church, that Paul states that Christ died for the church (Ephesians 5), that Christians are called to gather with other Christians, that Jesus speaks to seven churches in Revelations.

[Nansurium]

Oh, dear. I wasn't expecting that! I'll shall try and respond to all of your points individually. I can't promise I can deliver the same brilliant quality that you did, but I shall try, despite the late hour. I do love a good theological debate.

I am going to first go about defeating the idea of Apostolic Succession before addressing your other responses.

So as I understand it and as you yourself basically said, Apostolic Succession is the idea that these early denominations you listed claim can trace their bishops all the way back to the time of Christ and his original 12 apostles thus vindicating these churches as Christ's true church. There are a few problems with this claim.

First of all, one of the fundamental passages that the Catholic Church in particular uses to defend Apostolic Succession as scriptural is Matthew 16:18-19. You can look this up for yourselve, but this is basically where Jesus has his famous interaction with Peter in which he makes the famous remark, "On this rock I will build My Church". This passage is used by the Catholic church as evidence that Peter was the first Pope. However, Catholics (and I assume Orthodox Christians) are fundamentally misinterpreting this statement. Jesus is not saying that he will build his Church on Peter. He is saying that he will build his church upon the faith that Peter showed in that instance and the faith that others would show in the future. This also points to the idea that the Universal Church is only made up of Christ (its head) and us (his followers). Another Bible passage that challenges the idea of Apostolic Succession is Acts 20:17&28, which only give elders authority over their local congregation. No authority is ever placed in one man over a group of churches or over the church universal with the exception of Jesus Christ himself.

Now if Apostolic Succession is valid, if your church knows the name of every successive bishop since the apostles, who succeeded James? In Acts 12:1-2 James is beheaded by Herod yet no successor is chosen, at least not in our recorded texts. Also those first denominational bishops already had fundamental divergences from their supposed successors such as a distinction or distortion between Elders and Bishops.

Now another concern I have about Apostolic Succession is this: In the Gospels, we read about how Christ personally selected his apostles. Yet Christ could not have possibly selected the successors to the Apostles as he was no longer on this earth. So instead Bishops worked their way up through a highly political hierarchic structure that was nonexistent in Jesus' time. I also find it slightly ironic that the Apostles chosen by Jesus were common men, a tax collector or fisherman. Many of them had no education to speak of. Yet their "successors" would be some of the most educated men of their generations for thousands of years. The truth of the matter is that the only men who were (and are qualified) to be apostles were the 12 men whom Jesus selected (along with Judas' replacement). Acts 1:21-22 basically states that only men who were companions of Christ and bore witness to Christ's death and resurrection could be an Apostolic candidate. When the Apostles replaced Judas they could only find two such qualified men. None of the men who have served the Catholic or Orthodox Churches in the next two thousand years would have met these qualifications.

In Response to your claims regarding the supremacy of the Bible, I have this to say:

I don't recall the actual timeline in which Paul wrote Timothy. That will be something I'll have to check on. Yet I do know that the Bible was inspired by God, and because God has omniscient presence and knowledge the Chronology of things doesn't matter so much. God was telling his followers the profitability of his scriptures. You do not deny the validity of that verse simply due to chronology do you?

Now moving on, I will respond to your claims regarding worship or the lack thereof in the New Testament.

First of all, when interpreting the New Testament and our commands it provides us, it should be understood that it won't give us explicit "rules" like what you would see in the Old Testament or in a modern day Christian Creed. Instead, the New Testament will often offer an example that we are to model our own worship after. Many of these can be found in Acts and the Epistles although the teaching of Christ himself can be equally useful.

The Lord's Supper:
Luke 14-20

When the hour came, Jesus and his apostles reclined at the table. 15 And he said to them, “I have eagerly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God. After taking the cup, he gave thanks and said, Take this and divide it among you. For I tell you I will not drink again from the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.”And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.” In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

Assembly on the First Day of the Week (numerous examples):
Acts 20:7

On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.

Baptism (numerous examples)
Mark 16:16

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Evangelism/All Authority:
Matt. 28:18-20

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [f]always, even to the end of the age.”

Singing:
Colossians 3:16

Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God.

These are just a few of the worship practices that can be found in the New Testament that should serve as a guideline.

In response to Tradition:

Say I am attending a church in...Los Vegas, Nevada. And that church has a 200 year old tradition of offering up human sacrifices to God on Christmas eve. Everyone in the church believes that it is a good and righteous thing to do. Yet I crack open my bible and see that this tradition is contrary to everything God has presented in The Bible. That does not mean that I blindly follow that tradition. Tradition was important during the Early Church because, as you are quick to point out, the Bible was not fully written and fully complied. The members of the early Church instead relied on the oral tradition of the Apostles, who then conveniently wrote down the Christian faith for our use (which also makes the Apostle unneeded in the present day). Any "tradition" that is not permitted in the bible is a creation of man and is false.

[Nansurium]

I'm referring to the various interpretations of the Bible. You believe the Bible is a creation of your church?

You see, there's this meeting among the prelates of the "universal" church in the 300s CE, and they chose the books that would compose the Christian bible, omitting hundreds of others. So yes, the common ancestor of modern Orthodoxy and Catholicism literally created the Bible as you know it.

Dear Trotsky, they created nothing. They compiled letters and books together that each contained a message that was perfectly consistent with its counterparts. Those works were created by the Apostles in the first century, under the inspiration of God of course.

[Nansurium]

Can the advocate of Sola Scriptura point to a verse within the Scripture itself that substantiates their claim that the "Bible alone is sufficient." No, they cannot.

In fact, everything in the NT would suggest a church-centered doctrine - that the Apostles were involved with churches, that Paul writes to a number of churches, that there are Pastoral Epistles that call for a certain organization of the church, that Paul states that Christ died for the church (Ephesians 5), that Christians are called to gather with other Christians, that Jesus speaks to seven churches in Revelations.

Paul was simply the world's first full time evangelist. The only structure ever permitted was for each individual church to have a group of elders who would Shepherd the flock and a group of deacons. No hierarchical structure was ever permitted. You are simply confusing the Universal Church which is made up of all Christians everywhere and is a spiritual body headed by no one except Christ with individual congregations.

[Trotskylvania]

You see, there's this meeting among the prelates of the "universal" church in the 300s CE, and they chose the books that would compose the Christian bible, omitting hundreds of others. So yes, the common ancestor of modern Orthodoxy and Catholicism literally created the Bible as you know it.

Dear Trotsky, they created nothing. They compiled letters and books together that each contained a message that was perfectly consistent with its counterparts. Those works were created by the Apostles in the first century, under the inspiration of God of course.

No, they aren't consistent, at all.

The four synoptic gospels contain numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. Each paints a different, incompatible theology. The Acts of the Apostles is totally incompatible with the writings of Paul. The Pauline letters themselves are quite different than the Gospels.

Compiling those works, out literally hundreds, is very much an act of creation. In doing so, they rendered the majority of Christians, particularly those in Asia and Egypt, heretics.

They created the central doctrines around which nearly all later Christian groups still acknowledge, knowingly or not.

[Nansurium]

Dear Trotsky, they created nothing. They compiled letters and books together that each contained a message that was perfectly consistent with its counterparts. Those works were created by the Apostles in the first century, under the inspiration of God of course.

No, they aren't consistent, at all.

The four synoptic gospels contain numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. Each paints a different, incompatible theology. The Acts of the Apostles is totally incompatible with the writings of Paul. The Pauline letters themselves are quite different than the Gospels.

Compiling those works, out literally hundreds, is very much an act of creation. In doing so, they rendered the majority of Christians, particularly those in Asia and Egypt, heretics.

They created the central doctrines around which nearly all later Christian groups still acknowledge, knowingly or not.

The Gospels were written from the perspective and unique experiences of four different individuals. They all had differing levels of education and all had different writing styles (and formats. For instance, Luke's account was actually written as a letter) I challenge you to find one instance where the gospels directly contradict one another. Are there events that are left out of some and not the others? Of course. They were written by different people drawing on a different set of experiences. But they all hit the same high points and they never directly contradict. Taken together they paint a truly compelling picture of Christ.

The Acts of the Apostles is incompatible because it was written from Luke's perspective. Luke provides a specific account of Paul's missionary journeys. The works of Paul are actually letters he wrote while on those Journeys.

[Austadama]

<cough> bullshite

[Nansurium]

<cough> bullshite

huh. I always find it disturbing when someone thinks they can say anything on the General forum without proving it.

You think so, do you? Prove it.

[Adventus Secundus]

<begins cheering for Nansurium>

[Prussia-Steinbach]

<cough> bullshite

<cough> mightfindyourselfinmoderation

[Trotskylvania]

No, they aren't consistent, at all.

The four synoptic gospels contain numerous inconsistencies and contradictions. Each paints a different, incompatible theology. The Acts of the Apostles is totally incompatible with the writings of Paul. The Pauline letters themselves are quite different than the Gospels.

Compiling those works, out literally hundreds, is very much an act of creation. In doing so, they rendered the majority of Christians, particularly those in Asia and Egypt, heretics.

They created the central doctrines around which nearly all later Christian groups still acknowledge, knowingly or not.

The Gospels were written from the perspective and unique experiences of four different individuals. They all had differing levels of education and all had different writing styles (and formats. For instance, Luke's account was actually written as a letter) I challenge you to find one instance where the gospels directly contradict one another. Are there events that are left out of some and not the others? Of course. They were written by different people drawing on a different set of experiences. But they all hit the same high points and they never directly contradict. Taken together they paint a truly compelling picture of Christ.

The Acts of the Apostles is incompatible because it was written from Luke's perspective. Luke provides a specific account of Paul's missionary journeys. The works of Paul are actually letters he wrote while on those Journeys.

No, they provide some pretty incompatible different accounts, differences that aren't mere interpretations. They do this because they were all written at least fifty years, if not more, after the events actually happened.

One? Here's a whole list.

[Seperates]

The Gospels were written from the perspective and unique experiences of four different individuals. They all had differing levels of education and all had different writing styles (and formats. For instance, Luke's account was actually written as a letter) I challenge you to find one instance where the gospels directly contradict one another. Are there events that are left out of some and not the others? Of course. They were written by different people drawing on a different set of experiences. But they all hit the same high points and they never directly contradict. Taken together they paint a truly compelling picture of Christ.

The Acts of the Apostles is incompatible because it was written from Luke's perspective. Luke provides a specific account of Paul's missionary journeys. The works of Paul are actually letters he wrote while on those Journeys.

No, they provide some pretty incompatible different accounts, differences that aren't mere interpretations. They do this because they were all written at least fifty years, if not more, after the events actually happened.

One? Here's a whole list.

And with that... Nansurium's arguement has been successfully blown into oblivion. Congrats Trot.

[Caribiana]

I just want to say; Me and my dad are atheists but my dad was homeless for a few months and the nuns were so good to him, they fed him and clothed him even though he's an atheist. Just thought I'd say that.

and I'm very grateful to the Catholic church for that
(He's great now BTW)

[Neo Byzantine]

Orthodox, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Mormon, Lutheran...all of them.

No offense to those of you who worship in any of these organizations, but they all distort the bible in their own special way.

I am nondenominational. We use the Bible as the sole authority for all of our church functions with the goal being to try and get as close as possible to the worship practiced by the early church.

I am Non-Denominational as well. Christian sects do in fact warp and pervert the Bible to the people in those sects' needs. The Bible should be the only authority for Christian beliefs and nothing else.