>looooool about page clause so ez I fvcking vvon! Tyrone please I need it up the butt!!!
  • Welcome. Registering and having your account be approved may take a while since there's only one guy checking and approving accounts and guestposts

/Christ/ - Christianity General

General thread
supadrayk said:
"So if there is no infallible authority, that must mean everyone is just making up doctrines!" Obviously not. A shared standard can still be tested and discussed by fallible people without needing one final judge (other than God of course). Disagreements don’t prove the standard is wrong, only that people can misunderstand it, which, again, is what happens in every system. Also, the early Church recognizing the Bible doesn’t mean it has infallible authority over how everything in it must be interpreted, recognizing the text and having final interpretive authority are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
You claim that a "shared standard" does not require a final judge, but if you and I use the same Bible to reach opposite conclusions on a core doctrine (like the nature of salvation or the Eucharist), then that "standard" has failed to function as an arbiter. If neither of us is infallible, and there is no authority to say who is wrong, then the "standard" effectively becomes whatever each of us wants it to mean. You say that this "happens in every system", but that is factually incorrect. The historic Church established specific councils to resolve these exact disputes, maintaining a unified confession of faith for centuries.
Regarding your point on the canon, you claim that "recognizing the text" and "having interpretive authority" are different things. Logically, this type of distinction is dangerous for your position. If the early Church was fallible and anyone could "misunderstand" the text as you suggest, then why should we trust their "fallible" judgement when they decided which Books belong to the Bible? If the Church’s discernment was unreliable enough that we shouldn't trust its interpretation of doctrine, then by your own logic, its discernment of the canon is equally suspect.
Finally, you mention that God is the only judge. We agree. But God chose to reveal Himself through a visible body (the Church) which He called the 'pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Timothy 3:15). If He intended for us to navigate truth through private interpretation of a text alone, He would have provided a much clearer "standard" that prevents the thousands of contradictory denominations we see today. Since He didn't, the most logical conclusion is that He intended for us to live within the community of faith that produced, preserved, and accurately interpreted that text from the beginning.
 
korg said:
You argue that the Church merely "recognized" the authority of Scripture, but this creates a logical trap. If you rely on the early Church's insight to tell you which books are the Word of God, you are basically admitting that the Church possessed a genuine, reliable guided authority to distinguish truth from error in the 4th century. If that same Church was guided by the Holy Spirit to identify the correct canon, on what basis do you claim they suddenly lost that guidance when it came to interpreting the content of those books? You cannot logically accept the Church's work as "infallible" when it gathered the Bible, but "fallible" when it defined the doctrines found within it.
Furthermore, you claim that the Church did not "give" the Bible its authority. Although we agree that God is the source of all authority, the means by which He revealed that authority to the world was through the living, breathing body of the Church. By treating the Bible as an object that exists independently of that body, you essentially turn the text into a document that can be interpreted by anyone, which is precisely why your model struggles to resolve doctrinal disagreements.
You ask for proof for an "identifiable preserved tradition". The fact that the same core doctrines, the Trinity, the Two Natures of Christ, the real presence in the Eucharist, have been taught by the historic Church for 2,000 years is that proof. If our tradition were really just "man-made" like you claim it to be, then we would've splintered into thousands of different versions over the centuries. Instead, the Orthodox Church has maintained a consistent witness since the time of the Apostles. My question to you is: If Sola Scriptura is superior, then why has it produced the opposite results? There are thousands of denominations, all claiming to be "testing" their beliefs against the same text, yet arriving at mutually exclusive conclusions.
Click to expand...
Just because the church correctly identified the biblical canon correctly doesn't mean that the church is infallible. Just because the church correctly gathered the canon, it is a leap to assume that means it is a permanent infallible structure. essentially what you are arguing is that the church is reliable because it is right, and it is right because it is reliable, which is circular. Just because there is stability in the tradition doesn't make it a truth of any kind. Hinduism has been practiced for 5000 years, that doesn't make it or any of its traditions true. Just because a tradition would be man made does not mean it would splinter into thousands of different pieces. As for the final question, correlation does not equal causation. The disagreements can arise from anywhere.
 
korg said:
You claim that a "shared standard" does not require a final judge, but if you and I use the same Bible to reach opposite conclusions on a core doctrine (like the nature of salvation or the Eucharist), then that "standard" has failed to function as an arbiter. If neither of us is infallible, and there is no authority to say who is wrong, then the "standard" effectively becomes whatever each of us wants it to mean. You say that this "happens in every system", but that is factually incorrect. The historic Church established specific councils to resolve these exact disputes, maintaining a unified confession of faith for centuries.
Regarding your point on the canon, you claim that "recognizing the text" and "having interpretive authority" are different things. Logically, this type of distinction is dangerous for your position. If the early Church was fallible and anyone could "misunderstand" the text as you suggest, then why should we trust their "fallible" judgement when they decided which Books belong to the Bible? If the Church’s discernment was unreliable enough that we shouldn't trust its interpretation of doctrine, then by your own logic, its discernment of the canon is equally suspect.
Finally, you mention that God is the only judge. We agree. But God chose to reveal Himself through a visible body (the Church) which He called the 'pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Timothy 3:15). If He intended for us to navigate truth through private interpretation of a text alone, He would have provided a much clearer "standard" that prevents the thousands of contradictory denominations we see today. Since He didn't, the most logical conclusion is that He intended for us to live within the community of faith that produced, preserved, and accurately interpreted that text from the beginning.
Click to expand...
Except that the standard is still objective. Just because two people disagree doesn't mean that scripture as the standard still isn't the standard, it just means that the interpretation is skewed. As for the timothy verse, the word for church there is of course "Ekklesia" not talking about the establishment but about the believers gathered. Although you and I are nowhere near each other, we are the church together. As for the trust in the church to have gave us the true canon, The Old Testament verifies it. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, they both compliment each other and interweave. The New Testament fulfills the old testament in the only way the Old Testament could've been fulfilled, and the church did not compile the Torah.
 
worldatwawa said:
^muslim
Click to expand...
hablublu above mi btw + how can a muslim post on the Christian thread ? 1776025771127.png
 
supadrayk said:
Just because the church correctly identified the biblical canon correctly doesn't mean that the church is infallible. Just because the church correctly gathered the canon, it is a leap to assume that means it is a permanent infallible structure. essentially what you are arguing is that the church is reliable because it is right, and it is right because it is reliable, which is circular. Just because there is stability in the tradition doesn't make it a truth of any kind. Hinduism has been practiced for 5000 years, that doesn't make it or any of its traditions true. Just because a tradition would be man made does not mean it would splinter into thousands of different pieces. As for the final question, correlation does not equal causation. The disagreements can arise from anywhere.
Click to expand...
You say that my argument is circular (that the Church is right because it is reliable, and reliable because it is right). However, your own position is more absurd. You rely on the Church's output (in our case, the Bible) while rejecting the Church's authority (the interpretation and the life of the community that produced it). If the early Church was fallible (prone to error and "misunderstanding"), then you have no objective basis to trust that they didn't "misunderstand" which books belonged in the canon too. By questioning their authority, you are self-sabotaging and invalidating the very structure your theology is sitting on.
About your point on Hinduism, comparing the Orthodox Church to other world religions ignores the specific claim of Christianity. The Church does not claim to be true simply because it is old, it claims to be the Body of Christ, promised by Him to be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit (John 16:13). If that promise failed and the Church immediately fell into error like you claimed, then Christ's promise was broken, and the reliability of the entire Christian faith (including the Bible) is in uncertain.
Finally, you say that disagreement doesn't prove a standard as insufficient. But in a legal, scientific or historical context, a standard that yields thousands of contradictory results is considered a failed standard. If the Bible is "sufficient" but cannot produce a unified understanding of what it means to be saved or what the Eucharist is, then the "standard" is not functioning as an arbiter of truth. You blame human error for these divisions, but in the Orthodox manner, the Church councils (acting as a consensus under the Holy Spirit) provided the very unity that the "Sola Scriptura" model has failed to maintain for 500 years. If the Bible is the only judge, why has it permitted the faith to fracture into thousands of different denominations, instead of the unity Christ prayed for in John 17?
 
supadrayk said:
Except that the standard is still objective. Just because two people disagree doesn't mean that scripture as the standard still isn't the standard, it just means that the interpretation is skewed. As for the timothy verse, the word for church there is of course "Ekklesia" not talking about the establishment but about the believers gathered. Although you and I are nowhere near each other, we are the church together. As for the trust in the church to have gave us the true canon, The Old Testament verifies it. From the Old Testament to the New Testament, they both compliment each other and interweave. The New Testament fulfills the old testament in the only way the Old Testament could've been fulfilled, and the church did not compile the Torah.
Click to expand...
You define the Εκκλησία as an invisible collection of believers, but the New Testament portrays the Church as a visible historical reality. In Acts 15, when a major doctrinal dispute arose regarding the Law of Moses, the Apostles didn't tell believers to "pray about it individually" or to "test it against the Scripture alone". They held a Council in Jerusalem, a visible meeting of elders and apostles, to issue a binding authoritative decision that the entire Church followed. If the Church were merely an invisible "gathering of believers" like you're claiming, you cannot have a council of an invisible, abstract entity.
Council of Jerusalem - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Jerusalem)

The visibility of the Church is essential because truth is not a private opinion, but a lived experience in the Body of Christ. The New Testament calls the Church the "pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15) and describes it as a "Body" with "members" (1 Corinthians 12). A body has a structure, a head, and visible hands and feet, it is not a phantom. When Saint Paul tells the Church to excommunicate or receive members (Matthew 18:17, 1 Corinthians 5), he is assuming the Church is a visible, recognizable community with the authority to govern its own life.
Furthermore, you argue that the Old Testament verifies the New, but this misses the point of how the canon was formed. The Old Testament was the Scripture of the Jewish people, and the New Testament was written by the Apostles to the Church. It was this specific, visible community that identified these writings as inspired. If the Church were just a vague, invisible group, who exactly did the "identifying" of the canon? We know from history that it was the bishops and the gatherings of the local churches, visible historical institutions, that gathered the books, fought the heresies, and preserved the faith. By reducing the Church to a merely "invisible" fellowship, you are ignoring the very body that God used to manifest His truth in history, and you are stripping the faith of the only mechanism Christ gave us to maintain unity.
 
Despite my grievances, I do find beauty in your collective struggle in fulfilling what the Christian God wanted of you all. Like a parent setting out his expectations for a kids future, and the child succeeding and making them proud. It's very commendable and "wholesome" mefinks.
 
Last edited:
wobbles said:
Despite my grievances, I do find beauty in your collective struggle in fulfilling what the Christian God wanted of you all. Like a parent setting out his expectations for a kids future, and the child succeeding and making them proud. It's very commendable and "wholesome" mefinks.
Click to expand...
mom made me swim im drowning she is not proud now im gay with aids
6555455(1).gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

StudioExcréments
  • Poll Poll
Is Donald Trump the whore of Babylon or is he the anti-Christ?
Replies
8
Views
94
Yurijak
Yurijak
sage
was Claus Jesus Christ
    • Neutral
Replies
5
Views
60
⸻⸻⸻
⸻⸻⸻
Quint
Christ is King
    • KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
    • Pepe
Replies
2
Views
75
𓅰𓅪𓃯
𓅰𓅪𓃯
PRINCE VEGETA
Jesus MOTHERFUCKING ChristMAS Christ ON A CROSS EVERYONE GET IN HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    • DOCTOOOOOS!!
Replies
9
Views
145
PRINCE VEGETA
PRINCE VEGETA
H3K
>NOOO!!! DO NOT ACCEPT Christ AS YOUR LORD AND SAVIOUR!!!
    • KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK
Replies
1
Views
125
Swarthy
Swarthy

Members online

... and 4 more.
Total: 2,197 (members: 54, guests: 2,143)

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom