correct

10andBOUNCE said:

---

correct

---

So obviously I have been misled by all my reading. Everything I have read on Calvinism says that the person is not responsible for anything for His salvation. It is all due to God's election. The person is totally depraved and can not be regenerated unless God decides to regenerate him. And the person can not refuse election or grace.

So what is the person responsible for?

The video I posted earlier would be my exact answer, and I won't be able to explain it any better than JMac.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Rome attributes scripture higher that tradition? That is not my understanding if so.

---

Everything Catholics and Orthodox believe is based on Scripture nelieve it or not. Their tradition interprets Scripture differently than the tradition of the Reformers. And Ues, Reformers believe in tradition also. Just interpret it differently.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

The video I posted earlier would be my exact answer, and I won't be able to explain it any better than JMac.

---

And I agree with what MacArthur said. I do not think what he said is classic Calvinism. And I wish I would have been in that audience. I would ask him, or any other Calvinist preacher, what exactly the person is responsible for to be saved.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

You willing to abandon the "three-legged stool"? Sola scriptura is not man-made; it comes right from multiple verses in the Bible. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 4:6, Acts 17:11, Psalm 119:105, Mattew 7:24, Proverbs 30:5-6. Sola scriptura is no more "man made" than is the divinity of Christ or the inspiration of scripture.

---

Nobody for the first 1500 years of Christianity believed in "sola scriptura." Misinterpreting scripture to come up with "sola scriptura" is a huge error in understanding the Bible...

---

That's because for most of church history, or at least the first few centuries, the church did not claim supreme authority on a level with that of Scripture itself. No one would have written "sola scriptura" back then because there would have been no point. Sola scriptura was a phrase to express the rebuttal of the RCC's claims to supreme authority, which it used in an attempt to justify its clearly unbiblical practices.

Also, you're wrong. You fail to address the specific scriptures I cited where the Biblical authors advocated for "sola scriptura", although not using that exact phrase.

Let me finish by adding that I am warmly open to the idea of one organized Church, and to the idea of the power and value of tradition. However, you RCC and EO guys are far less than convincing. You RCC guys just can't satisfactorily explain how the inerrancy of the Church allowed the gross corruptions at its highest levels for hundreds and hundreds of years. You also dance a fine line on this board in denying that the RCC teaches that salvation is by works, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of Catholics believe it is and that belief is taught by the vast majority of priests. You also haven't explained why all people who follow and obey Christ are fellow believers, no matter what organized church they attend, and are co-equals with the RCC and entitled to communion and the full rights of members of the body of Christ.

Maybe because scripture wasn't even defined/listed until three centuries into the history of the Church in 382.

Things that weren't debated didn't need to formally defined until the need arose from dissenters

I don't know why that matters. The apostles and churches knew what scripture was and it was being widely copied and circulated very early. This is how it was canonized...a lot of copies and was widely and consistently used in churches, among other things.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

I don't know why that matters. The apostles and churches knew what scripture was and it was being widely copied and circulated very early. This is how it was canonized...a lot of copies and was widely and consistently used in churches, among other things.

---

Only about 10% of people were literate. So they were completely dependent on their church and teachers. Which is tradition.

Because when people/some churches were left alone without a list of official books, you'd see some use things that led to heresy and the like. So, then the council of Rome in 382 defined which books (it's the same 73 we use today) were divinely inspired and authorized for liturgical practice.

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Because when people/some churches were left alone without a list of official books, you'd see some use things that led to heresy and the like. So, then the council of Rome in 382 defined which books (it's the same 73 we use today) were divinely inspired and authorized for liturgical practice.

---

Some early heretics like Marcion basically threw out everything except for things he agreed with as well as manipulated versions of his own. How would he know what to "throw out" and how was he properly excommunicated if there was no canon yet?

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

So that is the pastor's interpretation of Scripture, correct? If that pastor is of a particular theology/denomination then he has church tradition also,, correct? And those interpretations vary widely. So is there a definition of what Sola Scriptura interpretation is correct? And who decided what was heresy like Marcion?

Hmmmmm, sounds a little bit like Luther… just kidding.

Your argument would work if Marcion only threw away stuff like the four gospels, but he didn't. He also threw away things like the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Judas. He was virtually throwing away anything that Christians were using, apocryphal or not

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

If tradition means being reliant on your local pastor to teach the Bible because he is the only one who can actually read it, then I am pro-tradition also. I guess we can all go home now.

---

May I ask what Catholic/Orthodox traditions you think are not based on Scripture? You and I may not agree on the interpretation of that Scripture but they seem to be based on Scripture.

---

We can take clerical celibacy for one.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Individual responsibility is what the Bible teaches. When the final judgment day comes, none of us will be allowed to hide behind what our church teaches. We will each be accountable to God for our own individual beliefs and actions. Nowhere in the New Testament can you find communal responsibility or accountability.

---

Amen.

---

I am confused. With TULIP, God decides everything, correct? We are either unelect and therefore damned, or elect and therefore saved. With that belief, how can our own individual beliefs or actions affect anything except rewards beyond salvation?

And fwiw, I agree we are all individually responsible and that the Bible teaches that. One of the reasons I am not Calvinist/Reformed.

---

Have posted this before and will always stand by it. The Bible speaks to both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. How those two are perfectly reconciled are only known to God and his secret will.

---

And what is strange if you don't put MacArthur's name on what he said or what theology he represented, every Christian I know of whatever strain would agree with him.

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Hmmmmm, sounds a little bit like Luther… just kidding.

Your argument would work if Marcion only threw away stuff like the four gospels, but he didn't. He also threw away things like the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Judas. He was virtually throwing away anything that Christians were using, apocryphal or not

---

But those books weren't even canonized scripture yet. So who cares, right?

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Individual responsibility is what the Bible teaches. When the final judgment day comes, none of us will be allowed to hide behind what our church teaches. We will each be accountable to God for our own individual beliefs and actions. Nowhere in the New Testament can you find communal responsibility or accountability.

---

Amen.

---

I am confused. With TULIP, God decides everything, correct? We are either unelect and therefore damned, or elect and therefore saved. With that belief, how can our own individual beliefs or actions affect anything except rewards beyond salvation?

And fwiw, I agree we are all individually responsible and that the Bible teaches that. One of the reasons I am not Calvinist/Reformed.

---

Have posted this before and will always stand by it. The Bible speaks to both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. How those two are perfectly reconciled are only known to God and his secret will.

---

And what is strange if you don't put MacArthur's name on what he said or what theology he represented, every Christian I know of whatever strain would agree with him.

---

I guarantee you not many on here would support the message in that video.

The Church that is upholding tradition and protecting from heresy and error.

how do you know heresy without an official canon

Think about it from my perspective as a Catholic. We aren't limited to scripture alone

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Because when people/some churches were left alone without a list of official books, you'd see some use things that led to heresy and the like. So, then the council of Rome in 382 defined which books (it's the same 73 we use today) were divinely inspired and authorized for liturgical practice.

---

Can you back that up?

What evidence do you have the council of Rome was an ecumenical council?

What evidence do you have on exactly what the Council of Rome decided?

What evidence do you have that the claim you make was made before 1970?

What do you do with the earlier Council of Laodicea that put out a different list of canonical books?

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Think about it from my perspective as a Catholic. We aren't limited to scripture alone

---

But the early church councils were.

If an early church council is limited to scripture alone, how does it define a canon? There is no canon listed in scripture

The council of Rome is not and has not been defined as infallible.

Here's from Catholic Answers, since they could describe better than I:

It was not until the Synod of Rome under Pope Damasus in A.D. 382, followed by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, that the Catholic Church defined, albeit non-infallibly, which books made it into the New Testament and which didn't. Probably the council fathers studied the (complete) Muratorian Fragment and other documents, including, of course, the books in question themselves, but it was not until these Councils that the Church officially settled the issue.

Here's the link for where I took that from:
https://www.catholic.com/qa/was-the-canon-of-scripture-determined-before-the-church-councils-that-decided-it

KingofHazor said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Think about it from my perspective as a Catholic. We aren't limited to scripture alone

---

But the early church councils were.

---

Liar.

light_bulb said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Think about it from my perspective as a Catholic. We aren't limited to scripture alone

---

But the early church councils were.

---

Liar.

---

Wow. Not only articulate but persuasive. I am going to rush down to my closest Catholic Church and sign up for catechism so I can join. You have been an instrument of God.

KingofHazor said:

---

light_bulb said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

TeddyAg0422 said:

---

Think about it from my perspective as a Catholic. We aren't limited to scripture alone

---

But the early church councils were.

---

Liar.

---

Wow. Not only articulate but persuasive. I am going to rush down to my closest Catholic Church and sign up for catechism so I can join. You have been an instrument of God.

---

You probably should sign up. Would be better for your soul

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

10andBOUNCE said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Individual responsibility is what the Bible teaches. When the final judgment day comes, none of us will be allowed to hide behind what our church teaches. We will each be accountable to God for our own individual beliefs and actions. Nowhere in the New Testament can you find communal responsibility or accountability.

---

Amen.

---

I am confused. With TULIP, God decides everything, correct? We are either unelect and therefore damned, or elect and therefore saved. With that belief, how can our own individual beliefs or actions affect anything except rewards beyond salvation?

And fwiw, I agree we are all individually responsible and that the Bible teaches that. One of the reasons I am not Calvinist/Reformed.

---

Have posted this before and will always stand by it. The Bible speaks to both God's sovereignty and man's responsibility. How those two are perfectly reconciled are only known to God and his secret will.

---

And what is strange if you don't put MacArthur's name on what he said or what theology he represented, every Christian I know of whatever strain would agree with him.

---

I guarantee you not many on here would support the message in that video.

---

I disagree unless we are talking about non believers. I personally think we draw too many lines in the sand with other believers.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

I agree. Christ established a Church and The Scriptures spring from that.

However, from the Orthodox side, the question of Authority remains the sticking point. While we agree that a fallible pastor cannot be his own final authority, we also hesitate to place that finality in a single Infallible Office. We see the Church as a conciliar body where the Holy Spirit preserves the Truth through consensus rather than a singular decree.

Stark example in the difference in perspective and belief:

In Confession your Priests say "I absolve you"

In Confession Orthodox Priests say "May God, through me a sinner, forgive you" or "I am but a witness"

The Catholic Priests acts in the Person of Christ "Persona Christi".

The Orthodox as a physician or witness.

---

A 10 second AI search reveals the prayer of absolution prayed by a priest over the penitent:

"God, the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of His Son has reconciled the world to Himself and poured out the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God grant you pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (The penitent responds: Amen.)

Quote:

---

However, from the Orthodox side, the question of Authority remains the sticking point. While we agree that a fallible pastor cannot be his own final authority,

---

CrackerJack:

What does a parishioner do in the EO if that parishioner's pastor is in error? What recourse does the parishioner have?

We don't actually use the term pastors.

We have Priests but I know what you mean.

In my opinion, the great thing about the Orthodox Church is the clarity of the hierarchy and Apostolic Succession.

No one is free to just do what they want. Everyone is held accountable by the level above them. Patriarchs and the autocephalous (self-governing) Churches are held to account by one another.

The Patriarch oversees the Metropolitans, Metropolitans oversee the Bishops, and the Bishops are responsible for the Priests and Deacons.

In Orthodoxy, we believe the local Church is centered around the Bishop.

The Priest functions as the Bishop's representative in the parish. Because of that structure, the Bishop is accessible to any member of the laity. If there is a serious issue with a local Priest that can't be resolved internally, the Bishop is the person who holds the ultimate authority to step in and handle it.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

We don't actually use the term pastors.

We have Priests but I know what you mean.

In my opinion, the great thing about the Orthodox Church is the clarity of the hierarchy and Apostolic Succession.

No one is free to just do what they want. Everyone is held accountable by the level above them. Patriarchs and the autocephalous (self-governing) Churches are held to account by one another.

The Patriarch oversees the Metropolitans, Metropolitans oversee the Bishops, and the Bishops are responsible for the Priests and Deacons.

In Orthodoxy, we believe the local Church is centered around the Bishop.

The Priest functions as the Bishop's representative in the parish. Because of that structure, the Bishop is accessible to any member of the laity. If there is a serious issue with a local Priest that can't be resolved internally, the Bishop is the person who holds the ultimate authority to step in and handle it.

---

Wouldn't it be easier to just call an elder's meeting and fire the guy?

I think this thread proves "sola scriptura" is misunderstood.