The "Original Sin" is unbiblical

[torchbearer]

marked for later... pm me a synopsis if you get bored.

 

[TER]

marked for later... pm me a synopsis if you get bored.

Sorry about the length! These discussions can get pretty winded as there is much to unpack.

 

[torchbearer]

Sorry about the length! These discussions can get pretty winded as there is much to unpack.

I understand. You are talking about the biggest sinner of them all.

 

[jmdrake]

The Bible does not interpret itself, it is a book of words which people read and interpret themselves. That is why there are so many churches, because people read the same words and interpret different things.

With the aid of the Holy Spirit it does. At least that's the claim that the Bible makes about itself in Jeremiah and Hebrews. Do you not believe what the Bible says about itself? Do you not believe the promise of the new covenant? Oh ye of little faith. There are so many churches because there are so many leaders who are not filled with the Holy Spirit but have been "ordained" by men. Ordination is a wonderful thing. But it doesn't itself do anything. If it did, Augustine and Pelagius would have agreed with each other as both were ordained. Martin Luther wouldn't have split with the Catholic church since he, an ordained priest, was disagreeing with other ordained priests.

I made a mistake to say that St. Ireneus sat and ate with Jesus and I admit it here now.

Good. Apology accepted. That should have been the end of the discussion. Instead you tried to make it into something else.

Nevertheless, his spiritual grandfather was St. John who indeed sat with Christ. He, like his predecessors, believed in the sacramental life of the Church including Holy Ordination and the Holy Eucharist. This is the teachings and practices passed down to him from the saints who were taught by the Apostolic Fathers. Why do you feel your interpretation of the faith is more accurate then his?

That's just not true I never said my interpretation was more accurate than his. Go back and read the thread and see how confused you are. Someone else attacked the works of Irenaeus and Augustine. You rebuked him by saying that Irenaeus had sat and ate with Jesus. I, as gently as I could, pointed out that wasn't correct. If you said Irenaeus was an early church father and thus his ideas should at least be considered, I wouldn't have argued with that. But instead you went off on your "Accept the Eucharist you damned heretic" rant. We've already been over this before and agreed to disagree. So, why did you bring it up again? That's what you call "meaningful discussion"? You trying to force your beliefs on me?

You say that you use your own interpretation, but that is only partially correct.

Again that's not true. I say that I let the Bible interpret itself with the aid of the Holy Spirit. Quit trying to say what I say. You'll get it wrong every time. I say that St. Peter, St. Paul, Jeremiah, Dr. Luke and every other Bible writer endorses my approach to scripture. I quoted for you from Acts where the apostles praised the Bereans for taking the approach that I'm taking. That's the approach of "Don't just take our word for it. Read the scriptures that you already accept as true, put them against what we're telling you, and see if they match up." You accept Ireaneus. Good for you! Hopefully that means you've actually compared his writing to scripture to see if it matched up. Hopefully it doesn't mean you just said "Well he's an early church father so he must be right". Because that's not a Biblical approach.

You approach the Holy Scriptures not like the first Christians but instead use the formulas and doctrines of men 1500 years removed from the time of Christ, for example, the doctrine and tradition of Sola Scriptura.

You're using illogical circular reasoning. The Bible says the first Christians used my approach. I can show you that from the Bible. I have shown you that from the Bible. But you've been taught by false tradition that you can't understand the Bible. So nothing I tell you from the Bible will help you understand that you can understand the Bible.

St. John didn't teach this.

Dr. Luke did. Peter did. Paul did. And St. John did as well.

St. Polycarb didn't teach this. And neither did St. Ireneus.

They aren't my standard.

Why do YOU believe this? Do you believe you know more about the teachings of the faith then these men?

Do you not believe the Bible? Do you think you know better than Peter, Paul, Jesus, John and Luke? Are the Bible writers not "church fathers" in your view? You falsely claim John accepted your view. Well....post a verse from his writings that supports your position. Oh, that's write. You can't. Because that would be "sola scriptura".

If you answer one question I have proposed to you in this post, please make it this one.

I will answer that if you answer this. Do you believe that you know more about the scriptures than Peter, Paul, Jeremiah and Luke? They all say to study the scriptures for yourself. Luke specifically said the Bereans were more noble than the Thesselonians because they studied the scriptures for themselves to see if what the apostles were saying was true! You refuse to even acknowledge that, and yet you want me to answer your question? Tell me why you reject the Bible's clear teaching that Christians shouldn't take some other man's word for something without first comparing what they said to the scriptures they already know and accept. You are elevating men above the Bible.

I admit I rely on the witness of the Fathers of the Church for the correct interpretation and not on my own fallible mind because these men were much holier then me and much more knowledgeable about the faith than I. I use them for understanding just as the Ethiopian eunuch relied on St. Phillip to explain the Holy Scriptures to him. (Have you ever wondered why St. Luke included this event in the Holy Scriptures? Read it again and think about it outside the lens of the traditions you hold and instead with the tradition of the early Church which contended for the faith and passed on the faith with steadfastness and fidelity to the apostolic teachings.)

Do you realize that your own example proves you wrong? What did Phillip do? He talked to the Eunuch FROM THE SCRIPTURES! The Eunuch came into a knowledge of the truth because Phillip reasoned to him from the scriptures the Eunuch already accepted. Using your "logic" Phillip would have said "Hey, don't read those scriptures. Instead read this letter from Paul. I know you haven't accepted Paul as true, but just trust me. I know why I'm talking about. Paul is a great and wonderful inspired writer."

Really, Phillip used my approach. When I discuss a matter here I never rely on some writer that I happen to believe is spiritual to prove my point. Why? Because I know others might not accept that writer. The only time I've ever quoted Ellen G. White, for example, it to show Sola_Fide that he was quoting her out of context. But you try to shove the "holy fathers" down my throat even though you don't I don't view them the same way as you do. Sola_Fide tried shoving Calvin and Spurgeon down my throat, until I started showing him where Calvin and Spurgeon disagreed with his positions. Why do you refuse to just discuss Christianity from our common ground which is the canon of scripture we all accept? That doesn't mean you shouldn't ever quote some early church father that you've found inspiring. Who knows? I might agree with that persons perspective. But that agreement will only be as far as that writer agrees with previously established scripture.

You use the doctrines of men far removed from the time of Christ and far removed from the faith He taught and rather rely on your own mind's interpretation.

That is simply not true. I use the doctrines of men who lived when Jesus lived. One of those doctrines is that Christians should study scriptures they already agree with, compare that to something new, and see if they match before accepting the new stuff. It is not the doctrine of the early church to assume that just because someone is ordained, participates in the "Eucharist" and has been around a long time that that person's words should be accepted as gospel. I doubt Ireaneus taught that either.

This is the great difference between the way you and I approach the Holy Scriptures. (forgive me for using 'you' so much, as this is conversation is not directly solely at you, but to anyone reading this who may have interest in such debates about the Christian faith. Jmdrake, I know you are a faithful servant of Christ and I do not question your love for Him and your earnest desire for the truth. What I am trying to do is have you expand your knowledge about things you were probably never introduced to likely because of when, where and how you were raised, things which were beyond your control, but things which are real nonetheless.)

Why don't you expand your own knowledge? You've called me arrogant. Well arrogance is your belief that you have some great "truth" to teach me. Newsflash, you don't. You want to pretend to be "humble" but then you want to act like you have some great fountain of knowledge. I don't think Ireaneus would be pleased.

There is nothing you have written in this thread which I have taken personal offense.

You say that, but I don't believe you. You took offense because you mistakenly thought I was insulting Ireaneus.

No, I don't believe that.

Good. Then hopefully you can see the fallacy of apostolic succession. The problem is that it is dependent on weak and sinful men. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. What happens if a non Holy Spirit filled priest on pontiff is in the "line of succession"? I don't believe God is so dependent on men. I believe the Holy Spirit comes and goes as He wills. Church tradition is find and dandy. The problem is when people try to chain up and control God as if they were God.

Here is a short list of saints who have been called 'Equal to the Apostles':

Mary Magdalene (1st century)
Photine, the Samaritan Woman at the Well (1st century)
Thekla (1st century)
Abercius of Hieropolis (2nd century)
Nino of Georgia (ca. 296 – ca. 338 or 340)
Patrick of Ireland (5th century)
Cyril (827 – 869)
Methodius (826 – 885)
Boris I of Bulgaria (died 907)
Olga of Kiev (ca. 890 – 969)
Vladimir (ca. 958 – 1015)
Stephen I of Hungary (969 – 1038)
Sava I of Serbia (1175 – 1235)
Cosmas of Aetolia (1714 – 1779)
Innocent of Alaska (1797 – 1879)
Nicholas of Japan (1836 – 1912)

That's nice. I'm sure some man put a lot of thought into compiling that list. To me an easier solution is to just look at people where were contemporaries of, and followers of Jesus. Mary Magdelene obviously falls in that category.

No, I do not mean that. But like those contemporaries of Jesus, they did partake of the Holy Eucharist and to the sacramental life of the Church. This is not me making things up. This is the history of the Church which some have ignored.

Then you are an apostle. You take part in the Eucharist. And the fact that you aren't an ordained minister is irrelevant because Mary Magdeline wasn't ordained. But you don't believe yourself to be an apostle. (I asked you that earlier). So that means the "Eucharist = apostle" view doesn't make sense. And "church history" doesn't change that fact.

Your reason which you state is actually you taking bits of Scriptures, applying your own 2012 interpretation to it, and then ignoring the 2000 year history of Christian saints. This is a very modern Christian thing to do. It does not make it right however.

YOU DON'T GIVE ANY SCRIPTURE AT ALL!

And sorry, but that's NOT a "modern Christian" thing to do. Phillip reasoned from the scriptures. Jesus reasoned from the scriptures. Paul reasoned from the scriptures. Peter reasoned from the scriptures. And LUKE PRAISED THE BEREANS FOR REASONING FROM THE SCRIPTURES AND USING THAT AS THE MEASURING STICK TO SEE IF THE APOSTLES WERE TELLING THEM THE TRUTH!

Sorry for shouting, but this is getting ridiculous. You ignore the Bible, set it aside like so much old rubbish, and then falsely accuse me of not following what the early church did.

Of course. Now, show me how my Church's interpretation is wrong, and please do not use the writings of men 1500 years later who were apart from the Church or use your own interpretive skills, as good as they may be.

I can only do that from the Bible. And I have NEVER EVER EVER used the writings of men 1500 years later to prove anything AND YOU KNOW THAT! Really TER, why do you keep saying telling that lie?

I want you to show me where in the first 1500 years of the Christian Church the sacrament of Ordination and the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist confers with your interpretation and not the interpretation of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am still waiting for this response and I know my wait is in vain because you will have no answer or instead answer that 1500 years of saints (including the very Apostles and first Christians) were wrong!

You aren't seeking truth but self justification. I leave you to your own beliefs that you love more than the Bible. Tell you from your own tradition that you are wrong? Why would I even attempt that? I guess next I should explain to a Mormon from the book of Mormon why the book of Mormon is wrong. Further I have no desire to convert you to anything. Continue believing that God's promises in the Bible that He can teach you about Himself is not true. Of course to do that you're basically saying that the Bible is not true and that God isn't true. I doubt Ireaneus taught that, but I don't have time to wade through his writings just to prove it to you. Believe what you want.

 

[jmdrake]

Sorry about the length! These discussions can get pretty winded as there is much to unpack.

There's no need for them to be long at all. The discussion should have been done once I pointed out that Ireaneus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. The reason for the length is because you are trying to force your beliefs on others because you think you have the fount of knowledge. You and Sola_Fide are two peas in a pod. He relies on writings from 1500 years later, you rely on writings from 150 later, and I rely on the Bible. We could have meaningful discussions if everyone decided to simply reason from what we all claim to agree on (the Bible). But the Bible isn't good enough for you. It's good enough for me.

Edit: And for the record, this is who you're really angry at:

Well first of all you mean Saul of Tarsus. And second of all, no he did not. It was teh later "Apostolic" Fathers, such as Augustine and Ireneaus that formulated the false idea of original sin.

Paul of Tarsus is the one who came up with the idea of "Original Sin".

I never said anything derogatory about Ireneaus' teaching on original sin or anything else. But I totally reject your teaching about how to interpret the Bible, because your teaching rejects what the Bible says about itself. That said, I sincerely hope Ireneus didn't teach such a falsehood. He seems like a nice enough fellow. I'd hate to think he was the origin of the "Christians should let the church think for them" fallacy.

 

[TER]

jmdrake, first I wish you to know that I am not offended by anything you have written or by your 'screaming' as you put it, (though I detect a change in your tone and am saddened by it). Secondly, I am not angry with PierzStyx or Matt Collins and I am saddened by this as well that you would even make such a comment. I am also not trying to force you to do anything. If it appears that way to you, then I am sorry for that as well. I have never met you, don't know what your face looks like, don't know which state you live in and yet I am somehow forcing you to do something. My friend, only the Holy Spirit has such force. Definitely not I.

Going back to our discussion, let us keep things more focused and discuss for now only the mystery of ordination and how it is has always been understood and practiced by the Church from the very beginning until now. To start with, it is not some kind of membership of some elect or holier group of people (though, all things being equal, they are holier), it is a grace filled office of the Church of Jesus Christ and a calling of God by the Holy Spirit. This is the office prefigured in the Old Testament, initiated by the King Melchizedek, ordained in the Priesthood of Aaron, practiced in the days of the Prophets, fulfilled by our High Priest Jesus Christ, and revealed in its heavenly glory in the vision to St. John the Theologian. The Priesthood was not abolished by the New Covenant, it was expanded and ascended by the saving work of our Lord Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit. The awaited Messiah and Child of the virgin, fulfilling the concealed and revealed truths across all nations, the salvation of man by the Incarnate Word/Logos/Tao of God! The Son of Man and King and Judge of creation, born in the House of Judea, in the line of David, in the town of Bethlehem, in a cold manger on the outskirts of the town and surrounded by beasts of burden and holy angels, the child given unto us now come into the world to save us from our sins, and both heaven and earth rejoices! Glory to the King of Israel! (you can tell that I can't wait for Christmas!! )

But since you asked for more quotes from the Bible from me, here are some more.

We read about the double honor of those ordained by the laying of hands to be presbyters in 1 Timothy 5:17

Let the presbyters who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer is worthy of his wages.”

Here's another mention:

Acts 14:23

So when they had appointed elders (literal word from the original Greek is presbyters-TER) in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

When you read the original Greek, it LITERALLY says: "So when they had cheirotoneo (which literally means 'to ordain by the laying of hands' and is insufficiently translated in English as 'appointed') presbyterio in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."

Unfortunately (or perhaps, conveniently/intentionally?), the modern western bible seems to have changed the translation to de-emphasize the true literal translations of the words bolded above. Not to mention which translation of the Old Testament used by the Church and the number of books of the original Canon, but that is for another discussion and another time.

Here are some more:

1 Titus 5

For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders (in literal Greek saying 'the laying on the hands of presbyters'- TER) in every city as I commanded you— if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not given to wine, not violent, not greedy for money, but hospitable, a lover of what is good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled, holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict.

To study more on this, read the writings of St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch from AD 67-107, who wrote extensively about the presence of the four orders in church structure during the very heart of the Apostolic New Testament era. Indeed, to the church at Philadelphia he writes of "Christians [laity] at one with the bishop and the presbyters and the deacons".

Ordination is not however some infallibility card or 'God' card or even a get-out-jail-free card which you misunderstand it to be. That is an inaccurate characterization and it should be corrected for you. We must always remember that Judas himself was one of the chosen, and even still he was damned on account of his sins. And with this knowledge and with great fear and trembling do those worthy of the priesthood receive such grace in ordination, in humility and holy fear before Christ our God. (and if not in such humility and fear, then they are indeed not worthy and woe to them and their eternal souls!)

The grace of ordination and office of the priesthood come from God and is indeed powerful. The miracles experienced by witnesses over the centuries during such holy mysteries confirm it, and they are innumerable. It is an office sanctified by our High Priest Jesus Christ (in the order of Melchizedek, the King and High Priest of Peace).

Christ breathed unto them the Holy Spirit and gave great power and authority to those Twelve (John 20:23) who by the grace of God could cast away demons and heal infirmities. And we learn:

(Acts 8:14)

"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost. "

If one is going to make have Sola Scriptura as their doctrine and tradition, then at least accept what was said in the bolded part to actually be fact. This may be one time when 'the Bible interprets itself'. This is the grace of ordination, and this is how St. Peter, St. John, St. Paul, and all the other Apostles ordained presbyters of the Church to receive the Holy Spirit. St. Polycarb was ordained this way by St. John, as was St. Ireneus ordained by this sacrament. Indeed, to the Christians of the first 1500 years, this was not even debatable, it was a common truth, a known and a given.

To go back to this office, Christ makes it very clear in His teachings and parables that with great power comes great responsibility, AND accountability. That everyone will have to give an account for their transgressions and sins. And that is why with fear and trembling one should approach such an office of service to God and His creation.

For in Luke 12 Christ said:

Sell that ye have, and give alms; provide yourselves bags which wax not old, a treasure in the heavens that faileth not, where no thief approacheth, neither moth corrupteth. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.

Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning; And ye yourselves like unto men that wait for their lord, when he will return from the wedding; that when he cometh and knocketh, they may open unto him immediately.

Blessed are those servants, whom the lord when he cometh shall find watching: verily I say unto you, that he shall gird himself, and make them to sit down to meat, and will come forth and serve them. And if he shall come in the second watch, or come in the third watch, and find them so, blessed are those servants.

And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through. Be ye therefore ready also: for the Son of man cometh at an hour when ye think not.

Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?

And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?

Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.

But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers.

And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes.

For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

I will try to address your other points in a future time and as time permits as I am really busy these days. You have made several inaccuracies in your most recent posts which demonstrates a certain lacking of the history of the Church and the worship of the Church. For one example, you keep mentioning St. Ireneus and telling me what he would think when you probably have never even read one writing of his in earnest. Presuppositions will not make for fruitful discussions, and I would rather avoid them if you don't mind.

To be frank with you, it seems to me that many of your misunderstandings comes from simple ignorance, which is understandable because you may not have read many of the works of the Church Fathers (though you seem to think that you know more then them and judge them to be wrong). I urge you to read them so that you might know what you are judging.

Finally, I certainly do not hold anything against you. I respect your zeal for truth and consider you a true seeker of God. And for this reason I urge you to read the writings of the Holy Fathers instead of debating me and to be careful when you are considering your interpretations and understandings to be superior to those who went before you. The Christian path to truth is through humility, for only by humility do we find the Kingdom of Heaven.

 

[carclinic]

First you say "we decide to be bad". Now you say it's not our choice, it's "our nature". I don't think there's disagreement that "Original Sin" is something everyone (except possibly "Jesus") is born with.

What's so complicated about the fact that being born with sin we have INCLINATIONS, that we can accept or reject?

No man can reject every wrong inclination. So, it is a matter of choice to wage an inner battle against sin, but sin is in a sense a defect of nature, a very obvious one too. Us Christians attribute it as an inherited trait from our forefathers.

 

[jmdrake]

jmdrake, first I wish you to know that I am not offended by anything you have written or by your 'screaming' as you put it, (though I detect a change in your tone and am saddened by it). Secondly, I am not angry with PierzStyx or Matt Collins and I am saddened by this as well that you would even make such a comment. I am also not trying to force you to do anything. If it appears that way to you, then I am sorry for that as well. I have never met you, don't know what your face looks like, don't know which state you live in and yet I am somehow forcing you to do something. My friend, only the Holy Spirit has such force. Definitely not I.

TER, with all due respect I'm done with this thread. I was open to discussion when I was sharing Bible verses. Had you responded in kind we could have had a meaningful discussion. It's too late for that now. I will address the issue of how Christians can have meaningful discussions with each other without calling each other "arrogant" or trying to uplift themselves or their particular points of view in another thread. If you were serious about discussing the Bible then you should have done that back at post # 57.

 

[TER]

TER, with all due respect I'm done with this thread. I was open to discussion when I was sharing Bible verses. Had you responded in kind we could have had a meaningful discussion.It's too late for that now. I will address the issue of how Christians can have meaningful discussions with each other without calling each other "arrogant" or trying to uplift themselves or their particular points of view in another thread. If you were serious about discussing the Bible then you should have done that back at post # 57.

I'm sorry you are quitting this discussion. I have indeed shared Bible verses with you demonstrating the Scriptural evidence for the grace of ordination. Unfortunately, you seem to have ignored these verses, possibly because you have no good response for them as they clearly describe the grace filled sacrament of ordination which you seem to oppose or belittle. I am happy to restart this discussion with you when you are ready however.

Since we are being frank with one another here, I would say that I do sense a degree of arrogance in your approach to the Holy Scriptures (meaning, in you putting your own fallible mind's interpretation of the Holy Writ above those who have labored before you and finished the race). Such reliance on one's own mind and interpretation lacks the spirit of humility and attempts to place the responsibility of one's understandings (or misunderstandings!) on the Bible itself, saying 'the Bible interprets itself'. If only saying it over and over again made it true!

Finally, I am describing to you the way the Church has approached the doctrines of the faith from the beginning (note, not MY approach or MY understanding, but that which has been written, taught, defended, lived and maintained since the days of the Apostles) because I am trying to help you learn things you have not studied or put any time or effort to learn. If you think I do it to 'lift myself up', then you are just demonstrating that you have no intention of opening your heart and learning anything more then what your mind has already decided is so. And so you ignore the verses in the Bible I have mentioned above and then quite the discussion when you have no answer to them. But if you do have an answer to them based on anything more then your interpretation, such as with historical proofs within the writings and worship of the Church from the very beginning, then I would be very happy to continue this discussion. Otherwise, perhaps it is best if you did quite this discussion. I too say this with all due respect as it would be a waste of time for both of us to continue if you believe your interpretation of the teachings and faith of Christ is greater then 2000 years of saints.

 

[jmdrake]

I'm sorry you are quitting this discussion. I have indeed shared Bible verses with you demonstrating the Scriptural evidence for the grace of ordination. Unfortunately, you seem to have ignored these verses, possibly because you have no good response for them as they clearly describe the grace filled sacrament of ordination which you seem to oppose or belittle. I am happy to restart this discussion with you when you are ready however.

You didn't read what I wrote. I said I would post another thread and I have. It's 1 Kings 13. And I'm not "belittling" ordination. But I don't believe ordination is a "mystery". Christianity is not a "mystery religion." Mystery religions began in Babylon. Mystery religions have occult or "hidden" knowledge that is reserved for accolytes. In Revelation 17:5 Christians were called out of the "mystery" of Babylon. Ordination is straightforward. All Christians all called to the general priesthood of believers. Some get asked to serve in special duties. Their setting aside, or "ordination" is not what grants them the Holy Spirit. Having the Holy Spirit is what prepares them for service. I gave you the story of Stephen in the book of Acts to explain this to you and you ignored that. Then you want to complain about me ignoring your Bible verses? Chutzpah!

As for your Bible verse you didn't start quoting them until after you ignored my Bible verses. You can't ignore scripture put forward by someone else, attack them for using scripture by saying "That's your arrogant interpretation", and then several posts later talk about someone else ignoring scripture! That's selective scriptura.

Yes Jesus breathed on the disciples the Holy Spirit. And the disciples later breathed the Holy Spirit on entire congregations. You ignore that. The entire body is supposed to be a priesthood of believers. Jesus never intended for there to be the dichotomy that exists today. I've given you the Bible verses that show this and you ignore them. You do this because you have an agenda. You aren't seeking "meaningful discussion" as you claimed. And you are setting yourself up to be above the Holy Spirit by appealing to the "saints" in ways that I doubt they would approve of.

Anyway, like I said, I've posted another thread. I'm done with this one. I've wasted enough time in it already. I should have done like Matt Collins and PierzStyx and just ignored your response.

Edit: One more thing.

I too say this with all due respect as it would be a waste of time for both of us to continue if you believe your interpretation of the teachings and faith of Christ is greater then 2000 years of saints.

^That is simply not an accurate reflection of the facts. It is the year 2012 A.D. 2000 years ago Jesus was 12. I accept the teachings of the Bible which is based on 2000 year old Bible writers and older. This discussion began because you mistakenly claimed someone who wasn't around when Jesus physically walked the earth "physically sat and ate with Jesus". If you are going to continue to propagate this charade after admitting you were wrong on that, then yes it really is a waste of time for us to talk about this or anything else. If you are going to say "Well he was with Jesus because he participated in the Eucharist" well that counts for people living in 2012! Just be straightforward TER and quit hopping around in your timelines! Is that too much to ask?

 

[robert68]

What's so complicated about the fact that being born with sin we have INCLINATIONS, that we can accept or reject?

No man can reject every wrong inclination. So, it is a matter of choice to wage an inner battle against sin, but sin is in a sense a defect of nature, a very obvious one too. Us Christians attribute it as an inherited trait from our forefathers.

If God is one's creator, the "defect of nature" and "inclinations" come from him. That logically means it’s God's fault, not one's own, if one “sins” because of them.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If God is one's creator, the "defect of nature" and "inclinations" come from him. That logically means it’s God's fault, not one's own, if one “sins” because of them.

If by this you mean "God is the ultimate cause of everything, including sin existing right now", you would be correct. And why is this a problem at all? God has an ultimately good reason for sin to exist. No logical problem whatsoever.

But if you mean by this "God is accountable for the sin that exists right now", you would be wrong and unbiblical. Since God is the Creator, Lawgiver, and Judge, He is able to declare the rules of His creation. And He says that man is accountable for his own willful sin, even though God predestined that the sin exists.

 

[Dr.3D]

I fail to see how talking about the opinion of some people who were born long after the apostles lived has anything to do with something being Biblical. If it's not in the Bible, it isn't Biblical!

 

[TER]

I fail to see how talking about the opinion of some people who were born long after the apostles lived has anything to do with something being Biblical. If it's not in the Bible, it isn't Biblical!

The 'opinions' of the Church Fathers, be them in the first, tenth or twentieth century are unified in doctrine and worship, upholding the faith of the Apostles, handed down by the Apostles by the grace of the Holy Spirit. They provide a consistent witness throughout the centuries, the great miracle of the Church of which the gates of hell cannot overcome, for Christ has smashed the gates of hell and has brought us to resurrection and life eternal.

What I fail to understand is why the Protestant Christian adheres to the doctrines of men 1500+ years later and apart from the consistent witness of the Church from time memorial, interpretations which were never recorded in the annuals of written history and are in stark contrast to the faith handed down by the Apostles. Things as fundamental as the grace of ordination and office of the bishop, presbyter and deacon. This is clearly described in the writings of the New Testament and supported by the earliest writings. It was the Church and life and worship of the Church, the Body of Christ, those baptized in Christ at the risk of death simply for proclaiming the truths listed above. We shouldn't ignore these Biblical passages or just willy nilly make up novel interpretations to suit our own needs, but rather we should humble ourselves and try to learn the truth as held from the beginning, as uncomfortable it my cause our minds which are prone to pride and vainglory. For it was by the testimony and blood of these martyrs, who humbled themselves like Christ and who were baptized in water and shared of the Agape meal from the hands of the appointed priests, that the story of a little boy born in Bethlehem, the Hope of our race and Savior of creation (which He created), reach us to this day. Should we not seek to know how the earliest recorded Church witnessed and their interpretations of the faith? Why are they trumped over by the modern seeker for Christ? Are we holier then them, those who performed even greater miracles then what our humble Christ did, just as He said they would? Is not an understanding of the worship and life of the Church from the beginning not important to the modern day Christian? To understand things as close as possible to the very Apostles which whom Christ promised He would reveal all truths. If we will use only the Holy Bible, let us then use ALL of Scripture, instead of bits and pieces and ignoring the fundamental truths with regards to true worship and service to God as living members of the baptized in Christ, the Church. Truths such as partaking of the Holy Eucharist in reverance and preparation as described by St. Paul, in commemoration and celebration of the Resurrection and Acension of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of the World, the Eternal Manna from Heaven, Who feeds us in flesh and spirit, and all for eternal life. The Mystical Supper and entering of into the divine and eternal Kingdom of Heaven, in joyous celebration with all the thrones and dominions and the angels and archangels. Is this not what is described in Revelation? How did the Apostles understand the End of Days and what faith did they live and teach and spread? The earnest seeker in Christ will understand this to be an important question which must be sought, and the humble seeker of those will find the Kingdom of Heaven and worship God with heaven and earth in loving and eternal communion with Him our Creator.

Why do you choose the innovative doctrines of men 1500 years later over the historical witness of the One Church as lived since the very beginning and testified to by the witness of the saints? Some mock that I rely on the doctrine and traditions of men while all the while they themsleves do the same. The difference being that mine can be traced to the Church of the New Testament which speak as One Mind through time and creation, in accordance to the unchanging and unshakeable fundamental truths revealed by our Lord Jesus Christ. And these truths include the grace of confession and ordination and partaking of the blessed meal as prefigured by the High Priest Melchezedek and fulfilled by the Eternal High Priest Jesus Christ. These truths are indeed Biblical but have been suppressed to fulfill the selfish desires of men and because of simple ignorance to the consistent witness of saints on account of one's education and readings. But in this Information Age, where the truth is confirmed amidst a sea of facts and human knowledge and may be ignored or cast away for reasons seemingly infinite, there is one voice amongst the Christian Churches which through the passage of time in this world has never ignored any part of the Holy Scriptures or teachings and worship of the children of God, indeed it was they who wrote the Holy Scriptures and they who shed blood in witness of it. We should ask ourselves what wisdom and grace has God given them, what understanding and what worship did they give unto God? How did they understand communion with the Risen Christ in a time when miracles abounded and the beauty and power of God shone bright in His holy saints? The saints whose works will be the linen of the tapestry of the Kingdom of Heaven, also described in the Holy Scriptures but ignored by some.

My challenge remains on anyone to find me in the writings and lives of the saints going back to the beginning that the Sacraments of Holy Ordination, Holy Baptism, Holy Eucharist, Holy Unction, and Holy Matrimony were not as they are currently understood by the Eastern Orthodox Church, that is a mystery and work of the Holy Spirit causing real transformation by the grace of God. Remember, an argument of silence does not cut the mustard as that proves nothing. I want positive proof that these Biblically described elements of the Church were not regarded as grace filled mysteries of the Holy Spirit. Until then, I remain Orthodox Christian, and I don't say this to brag but to explain to you the reasoning of why I remain Orthodox Christian. Even before the Age of Information, the truths of Christ have been always present and maintained and defended and will be so until the End of Days, another truth revealed to St. John which is also Biblical and ignored by some.

 

[pcosmar]

Paul of Tarsus is the one who came up with the idea of "Original Sin".

No,, he did not. He only repeated what had been written long before.

Ecclesiastes 7:20
There is not a righteous man on earth who does what is right and never sins.

Proverbs 20:9
Who can say, "I have kept my heart pure; I am clean and without sin"?

Job 15:14
"What is man, that he could be pure, or one born of woman, that he could be righteous?

 

[Sola_Fide]

The 'opinions' of the Church Fathers, be them in the first, tenth or twentieth century are unified in doctrine and worship, upholding the faith of the Apostles, handed down by the Apostles by the grace of the Holy Spirit. They provide a consistent witness throughout the centuries, the great miracle of the Church of which the gates of hell cannot overcome, for Christ has smashed the gates of hell and has brought us to resurrection and life eternal.

No there isn't a unity of thought. There is no such thing as "unity" with the "church fathers". The "church fathers" taught and defended every kind of heresy there was...from Gnosticism to Arianism to Pelegianism.

 

[TER]

No there isn't a unity of thought. There is no such thing as "unity" with the "church fathers". The "church fathers" taught and defended every kind of heresy there was...from Gnosticism to Arianism to Pelegianism.

You don't understand the definition of Church Father and so you mischaracterize and confuse the term. Arian was not a Church Father and neither was Pelagius. While their innovative teachings not according 'to the faith once handed down by the saints' began to infect the population (not unlike what John Calvin did over a thousand years later), those who are proclaimed to be Fathers of the Church are not proclaimed as such until way after their death, precisely because they did not succumb to such heresies and maintained right faith and right worship as defended by the Church from the beginning even as the world fought against it.

And in typical fashion, you attack one portion of my previous post only to show your ignorance, and then ignore the more important part. Why are you not addressing the questions I asked above about the Biblical tradition and practice of ordination and the Holy Eucharist? Where is the proof that John Calvin (who would be called the father of your church) ascribed to the true Biblical understanding of bishops, presbyters, deacons, holy baptism, holy unction, and the Holy Eucharist? These instead have been understood and practiced and defended since the beginning by those who wrote the Bible and by the earliest Church - from before there even WAS a New Testament written (!) and they do not agree with the innovative and false doctrines introduced 1500 years later by the people whose traditions and doctrines you follow and have unwittingly made fathers of your church, people such as Luther and Calvin. Perhaps their mistake was in not understanding Greek or not having the access to learn about the Church in the East which held to the right teachings and right interpretations since the beginning. Perhaps on account of their ignorance they will find mercy on that Final Day and I pray this is so.

But you cannot claim such ignorance, for the access to the information is before you and the truth is literally at your fingertips for you if you make the effort. What then will be your excuse in ignoring the Biblical traditions listed above and considering yourself greater then the saints of the Church (by whose blood has testified to these teachings and traditions as being those instructed by Christ and passed down by His Apostles)? Indeed, those same Apostles ordained bishops, presbyters and deacons and partook in collective prayer and ate of the Body and Blood of Christ which you reject now in accordance to the teachings and traditions of men 1500 years after the New Testament was written.

 

[TER]

No,, he did not. He only repeated what had been written long before.

We are born into sin, we are not however born with the guilt of Adam and Eve which is taught by the western Churches. This error was first made popular by St. Augustine because of a Latin mistranslation of the original Greek as described in one of my posts above.

 

[Sola_Fide]

We are born into sin, we are not however born with the guilt of Adam and Eve which is taught by the western Churches. This error was first made popular by St. Augustine because of a Latin mistranslation of the original Greek as described in one of my posts above.

No its not about anything Augustine said or any Latin mistranslation. It is because of what Paul says in Romans 5.

 

[TER]

No its not about anything Augustine said or any Latin mistranslation. It is because of what Paul says in Romans 5.

Augustine did not read Greek. He relied on Latin translations of the Scriptures and (selected and limited) early Christian writings. this caused him to understand certain verses which differed from those who read the writings in the original Greek. He also did not have the ability (on account of his geographical location and cultural distance) to fact check his understandings and interpretations with the older Church in the east (which read and understood correctly the original Greek) to see if what he believed and preached adhered to the faith from the beginning. These are some of the reasons why he misinterpreted certain verses from the Bible and why he introduced certain foreign interpretations and doctrinal concepts which were distortions of the faith handed down by the Apostles.

And even still, he is a great saint and one of the greatest thinkers of all time, though mistaken in certain things with respective to the original faith. To tie in with the discussion we are having (of which you continue to remain silent and ignore), St. Augustine (who you keep referring to as source of proof and authority to support the 17th century innovative doctrines you hold) was ordained into the priesthood and became a Bishop and partook of the Holy Eucharist. For even with the certain misunderstandings he had of the apostolic faith, he at least understood the vital importance of the sacraments of the Church as they were practiced and taught everywhere and from the very beginning.