The "Original Sin" is unbiblical

[TER]

Not a single one of those examples is a quotation from one of the books that you are claiming to be part of the Old Testament that the Western Bibles exclude.

My point is that just because something was not written in the canonized Holy Scriptures or is sourced in it, does not mean it was not regarded by the apostolic Church to be inspired by God.

 

[Carehn]

Im so glad that wile Rome is burning people are fighting over what a poorly written FICTIONAL story meant.

 

[TER]

Im so glad that wile Rome is burning people are fighting over what a poorly written FICTIONAL story meant.

Romes will come and go (as will you), and this story you think is fictional will live on.

 

[erowe1]

Yes, it does say that we must eat of the Flesh and drink of the Blood of Christ (Christ Himself said that)

Right. And when Christ said that, there was no such thing as the sacrament of the eucharist. So what was he talking about? He tells us in John 6:35-36, believing in him.

Except it does, where it is clearly stated that they layed hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit

Nowhere when the New Testament says this does it refer to a "sacrament of holy ordination."

Tell me then where in the original faith is the doctrines of Sola Scriptura expressed? Which earliest Christian writers express this as the apostolic faith?) (and spare me your misinterpretations of the writings of St. Paul, as I don't care what your interpretation is but that of those who testified to the faith in the first century)

All of the fathers of the second century believed in sola scriptura. I don't know when the idea developed that Church traditions could be on a par with Scripture. But it had to be some time later than Irenaeus.

 

[Carehn]

Romes will come and go (as will you), and this story you think is fictional will live on.

Its fictional. You know it, I know it. You are just trying to save face because you where raised to believe it, at some point in time around 8 or 10 began to understand it was BS. And now you don't want to admit you let social pressures run your life and opinion so you continue to live a lie...

Look. you and all others will disagree with me on this but its true. I have to much respect for you and others to think you actually believe any of that stuff. I mean, come on. you would have to have some kind of mental handicap to TRULY buy in to any of it. I know your are smart so I know you are faking it to give in to peer pressures. God forbid you have to say what I just said to you to your grandmother or friends.

 

[TER]

Right. And when Christ said that, there was no such thing as the sacrament of the eucharist. So what was he talking about? He tells us in John 6:35-36, believing in him.

Christ was preparing His chosen for the Last Supper which had not happened yet. And St. John the Evangelist included this event in his gospel pointing to that Mystical Supper which he himself believed to the Body and Blood of Christ.

Nowhere when the New Testament says this does it refer to a "sacrament of holy ordination."

No, it doesn't say it in those exact terms, but it refers to it nonetheless in the actions described.

All of the fathers of the second century believed in sola scriptura. I don't know when the idea developed that Church traditions could be on a par with Scripture. But it had to be some time later than Irenaeus.

Oh really? Now you refer to the second century Christian writers over the first century writers? How convenient! But you still have it wrong, because those fathers you are mentioning were - guess what? - baptized members of the Church who also steadfastly defended the office of the Bishops, the presbyters and the deacons all the while teaching that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[TER]

Its fictional. You know it, I know it. You are just trying to save face because you where raised to believe it, at some point in time around 8 or 10 began to understand it was BS. And now you don't want to admit you let social pressures run your life and opinion so you continue to live a lie...

Look. you and all others will disagree with me on this but its true. I have to much respect for you and others to think you actually believe any of that stuff. I mean, come on. you would have to have some kind of mental handicap to TRULY buy in to any of it. I know your are smart so I know you are faking it to give in to peer pressures. God forbid you have to say what I just said to you to your grandmother or friends.

Well, interesting that you would speak for me, but I am older than 8 or 10 and not only do I believe it, I would give my life for it. Why don't you leave this thread to people who are interested in learning about Christ and stop interjecting your trolling posts.

 

[Carehn]

Well, interesting that you would speak for me, but I am older than 8 or 10 and not only do I believe it, I would give my life for it. Why don't you leave this thread to people who are interested in learning about Christ and stop interjecting your trolling posts.

Your right. I had no reason to troll the thread. My apologies.

 

[erowe1]

Christ was preparing His chosen for the Last Supper which had not happened yet.

No. He was telling those people what they needed to do then and there.

Oh really? Now you refer to the second century Christian writers over the first century writers?

Isn't that exactly what you stipulated I had to do in the question you asked?

If you want first century, then that means the New Testament itself. In that case, the highest authorities for the churches of the first century were the words of the scriptures that already existed (the Old Testament), and the teachings of the apostles. There was no provision made for something else that could equal those after the apostles were gone. These sources are the same ones I mean when I refer to sola scriptura, the writings that the apostles accepted as authoritative, and the ones that were produced under their authority to communicate their teachings.

 

[TER]

Your right. I had no reason to troll the thread. My apologies.

its okay. I don't think you were being hurtful in it. I do appreciate you showing respect for those are interested in this stuff though.

 

[TER]

No. He was telling those people what they needed to do then and there.

That may be your interpretation, but not the interpretation of the fathers of the first, second, third, fourth..etc...etc....centuries.

If you want first century, then that means the New Testament itself. In that case, the highest authorities for the churches of the first century were the words of the scriptures that already existed (the Old Testament), and the teachings of the apostles. There was no provision made for something else that could equal those after the apostles were gone. These sources are the same ones I mean when I refer to sola scriptura, the writings that the apostles accepted as authoritative, and the ones that were produced under their authority to communicate their teachings.

This is the final Protestant defense. That after the Apostles died, the Church they were commissioned to established ceased to exist. So in order to make your interpretations of the writings of the Holy Scriptures to be correct (even though they are not in accordance to the historical witness of the preceeding 1500+ years), you assume the gates of hell have overcome the Church, that it has been utterly corrupted and lost all its grace (even as Revelation contradicts this), and that the saints and martyrs of the Church from the beginning knew less about the faith and teachings of Christ then you (even as your interpretations of these teachings differ within 30,000 denominations which ironically all ascribe to a belief of Sola Scriptura and that the 'Bible interprets itself').

 

[Sola_Fide]

What’s the purpose of holding people “accountable” for deeds they didn’t commit?

If the reason is "for the glorification of God”, how does that glorify him, and why is that good?

Men do commit the sins. God doesn't. He preordaines them, He doesn't commit them. Men are not robots...they have wills and sin willfully with their sinful wills.

Why does God preordain sin? For His own good purpose. God preordained that Jesus be falsely accused and executed like a criminal. Why? To the good end of saving a people unto Himself.

How does the eternal judgement of wicked men glorify Him? Because God has chosen to glorify His wrath and justice, not just His love. Also, He judges the wicked so that the chosen ones truly know how glorious His mercy is. This is discussed in Romans chapter 9.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The Word of God is not a book of pages but Jesus Christ. But if you wish to make the Bible into a god, then why do you ignore verses and traditions which are in fact described within it?

And this of course is a major error in regards to the nature of truth. By saying that truth is something other than the written Word is to push truth into the subjective realm of experience. How else would we know this "Word of God" that you describe but by an experience we must have?

This is nothing but the evisceration of the Christian faith. Philosophically, it leads to atheism (and historically it has done so as well). The existentialists, for example, grounded the truth of faith on experience. It was a man-centered and unstable theology, which lead them to reject Christianity altogether.

Jesus said:

John 17:17 NIV

Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth.

Our experiences, even our experiences of God, are not true. God's Word is true.

 

[TER]

Our experiences, even our experiences of God, are not true. God's Word is true.

Thank you, but I don't want to be in a Church in which our experiences of God are not true. You go worship the pages of a book. I'll go worship the Holy Trinity.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Thank you, but I don't want to be in a Church in which our experiences of God are not true. You go worship the pages of a book. I'll go worship the Holy Trinity.

Maybe you are worshipping your own experience. Have you ever considered that?

 

[TER]

Just a side question I had about your comments TER: Why do you assume that the experience of the church in the book of Acts is the normative experience of the church in every age?

Because when one humbles himself before God and his neighbor, and partakes in the sacramental life of the Church as She has lived since the Day of Creation, and counts himself as nothing, then he will experience the Holy Spirit in the Light of the Transfiguration just as the Apostles did before them, becoming temples of the Living God and beholders of spiritual truths which have endured all ages. This is lived now, in this world, as we speak. Why don't we live this way? Should we not at least strive with our hearts and minds to live this way? Is this not us putting on Christ, our transformation and fulfillment in Christ, as adopted co-inheretors of the Kingdom of Heaven. These are biblical teachings and should not be ignored.

 

[TER]

Maybe you are worshipping your own experience. Have you ever considered that?

I consider myself to be less than a gnat. Have you considered that?

But I would say that the simple fact that I rely on the teachings of the Church Fathers rather then my own interpretations proves my will to free myself from worshiping my own mind or mind's interpretations. For the mind is as fallen as our genitals, and indeed, worse so, for pride is the greatest of sins to repent of.

I don't wish this thread to become a pissing match. I would like to stay on topic and discuss the differences of Original Sin and Ancestral Sin, the two dividing branches of the greatest philosophies. This exchange we are having is not fruitful for anyone.

 

[Sola_Fide]

I consider myself to be less than a gnat. Have you considered that?

But I would say that the simple fact that I rely on the teachings of the Church Fathers rather then my own interpretations proves my will to free myself from worshiping my own mind or mind's interpretations. For the mind is as fallen as our genitals, and indeed, worse so, for pride is the greatest of sins to repent of.

I don't wish this thread to become a pissing match. I would like to stay on topic and discuss the differences of Original Sin and Ancestral Sin, the two dividing branches of the greatest philosophies. This exchange we are having is not fruitful for anyone.

Well, its fruitful for me. I care about you as a person.

You deride me for "worshipping a book", but in the above post, you say you "rely on the teachings of the Church Fathers". So, why shouldn't I ask you why you worship the teachings of men?

The point here is that you believe in sola ecclesia. You believe your church is the final authority for truth. This is not a Christian view of truth. Jesus and the Apostles did not believe in sola ecclesia. Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone.

 

[TER]

Well, its fruitful for me. I care about you as a person.

You deride me for "worshipping a book", but in the above post, you say you "rely on the teachings of the Church Fathers". So, why shouldn't I ask you why you worship the teachings of men?

The great irony is that it is you who worship the teachings of men, because the Holy Scriptures are works of men. Inspired by God and graced by Him, no doubt. Indeed, HOLY Scriptures. But works of men nonetheless, and worship of them is unheard of in the history of the Church, even after they were written and eventually canonized.

The Holy Scriptures are critically important, indeed a must. Necessary study and meditation of the Holy Bible is tantamount. I agree completely.

However, the Holy Scriptures do not supplant the rest of the teachings and traditions and witness of the Church. Nor do they negate the worship and sacramental life the earliest Christians lived. They were used instead to cement certain Holy writings within the education of the members of Christ's Church, to be used as an authoritative kanon (ruler) to the truths of the faith.

And in the clearly described example given by St. Luke about the Ehtiopian Eunuch, we learn how we should approach the writings of the Church, and that in humility,we should understand such writings through the lens of the Church of believers who actually taught them, defended them and lived them, both in word and deed.

As good and helpful as the Holy Scriptures are, we are not saved by a book, but by the Incarnate Word of God Who became as us in order to save us, because He healed us and our nature and has given us eternal life.

The point here is that you believe in sola ecclesia. You believe your church is the final authority for truth. This is not a Christian view of truth.

Except that in matters with regards to the life of the Body of Christ in the world, this was percisely the original view of truth. For before the Church ever produced the Holy Scriptures, they already had established certain holy traditions of worship and witness. Unless one comes to accept this fundamental truth, then they will remain apart from the faith of the Apostles and the Church they were commissioned to establish around the world.

Jesus and the Apostles did not believe in sola ecclesia. Jesus and the Apostles believed in Scripture alone.

And yet we learn that Christ did not write a book, but rather He built a Church

 

[erowe1]

This is the final Protestant defense. That after the Apostles died, the Church they were commissioned to established ceased to exist. So in order to make your interpretations of the writings of the Holy Scriptures to be correct (even though they are not in accordance to the historical witness of the preceeding 1500+ years), you assume the gates of hell have overcome the Church, that it has been utterly corrupted and lost all its grace (even as Revelation contradicts this), and that the saints and martyrs of the Church from the beginning knew less about the faith and teachings of Christ then you (even as your interpretations of these teachings differ within 30,000 denominations which ironically all ascribe to a belief of Sola Scriptura and that the 'Bible interprets itself').

It's hard for me to see how what you're saying here can make sense to you.

It seems like what's happening is that you have this organization that declares about itself that it is the Church that the apostles established. Your reason for believing that is simply that the organization itself says so. And on that basis, anyone who doesn't agree with this organization must think that the Church the apostles established ceased to exist. But the very fact that I don't agree with that organization is why I don't have to think the Church ceased to exist. The Church the apostles established is a spiritual body, comprised of all those who have saving faith in Jesus Christ, having nothing to do with the organization you put your trust in. There's no special group of people out there who get to tell me or anyone else, "We get to decide who can be united with Jesus, because the only way to be united to Jesus is by a valid eucharist, and a eucharist is only valid if you get it from one of us." The apostles knew nothing of this concept. It didn't come about until Ignatius of Antioch. Again, I go back to the earlier apostolic traditions. You follow novel fads like the teachings of Ignatius.

The Church existed before the Eastern Orthodox organization came into existence. And it will continue to exist long after that organization is gone.