Really? Show one verse explaining the complexity of the Trinitarian doctrine? No Apostolic Tradition? Show me one verse mentioning canonization of the OT & NT?
In another thread on the Trinity in Scriptures I wrote: "As an orthodox, you certainly know the Old Testament Trinity (the Lord as three angels (Genesis 18).
In the New Testament there are several instances 1) in which Jesus and God the Father are mentioned as identical (John 1; Romans 9:5 etc) and 2) In which the Holy Spirit is linked with God the Father or Father and the Son (John 14: 16-17; the grand commission in Matthew 18:19; 1. Corintheans 3: 16). And, of course the Annunciation (Luke 1: 36) reveals us that while Jesus was begotten by the Holy Spirit, He should be called as the Son of God.
Therefore there has been quite from the beginning an understanding among Christians that when we talk about God, we talk about three (uncreated) Persons.
Regarding the authority of Scriptures, I wrote in another thread: "Regarding the authority of the OT, we have Jesus’ own words (Matt 5, 17-19). We can also see int the Bible that the first Christians recognised the OT as authoritative word of God (1 Timothy, 13; 2 Timothy 15 - 17).
Regarding the NT, Luke specifically says that his motivation to write his Gospel was to convince the readers how reliable and accurate the (presumably) oral teaching they have received is (Luke 1, 1- 4). In other words the Scripture was put as a standard for the accuracy of the teaching.
The Scriptures do not contain everything of Jesus’ life (18 years are missing) . According to John, “the world would not contain” all the books that should be written, if everything were recorded (John21, 25). This being the case, of course the most essential and most important facts were recorded, especially when the intention was to write so that the reader " might believe that Jesus is Christ, Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His Name" (John 20, 31).
Exactly! Because words are oral teachings written down. Written words are always taught and mentioned orally first,not vice vera.
What I meant (and I apologise if I was not clear enough, English is not my first language) is that we do not find in Ignatios, Polycarp or Justin the Martyr anything that is not already contained in the Scriptures and no phrases like: “In addtion to what has been written, the Apostle John told me etc…” You do not find doctrines that have not already expressed.
If Purgatory, Papal supremacy, Immaculate conception and Assumption were part of oral tradition, why were they not written down by the apostles, and why - if there was a consensus that they are authenthic traditions - they were disputed and not unanimously acknowledged when they pop up in the late writings.
No. Developments are not considered irregular. Irregular would fall more on the lines of introducing unorthodox teachings.
Read the instructions of Didache regarding the Eucharist, and just try to celebrate the Eucharist in that way in any Catholic Church to day (or - for that matter - in the main line Protestant churches).
Then according to you Jesus’ only promised the Holy Spirit to the 12 and after their deaths it ceased to exist? Then tell me, if there is no guarantee of correct teaching, then what certitude do we have doctrines such as the Trinity ratified in 325 AD is truly accurate?
The Holy Spirit ignites our faith and sanctifies us and is constantly among us.I do not believe that it His task to reveal us historical events that God has seen fit not to record in Scriptures or reliable history, or if He did this, I would think that He would use some other means than the fanciful tales like, for example, the stories of the Dormition of the Virgin are.
Regarding the huffing and puffing in Nicea at 325 all the philosophising fathers just managed, by Divine Providence, to formulate the Trinitarian belief that already was in existense in the Scriptures (and I am not quite sure that they managed all too well, witness the Filioque argument).
Second hand? And all the OT writers after Abraham over the years also were second hand thinkers over the centuries. Should we discredit them too? St. Augustine as any other is entitled to his or her theological views and speculations, that in itself does not discredit his staunch defense of Apostolic Authority an teachings.
So, the predestination doctrine (which Augustine, as far as I know) did not retract, was not Apostolic, and he erred. Then what guarantee we really have about the Apostolicity of his other doctrines (like equalizing the original sin with sexuality).
False! When were doctrines such as the Trinity,Hypostatic Union and Incarnation made official? In the 4th and 5th centuries…do they lack apostolic weight? When did Jesus remotely teach all Truths would cease at a specific point in time? God is Eternal,hence we are confined to space,matter and time…big difference.
The hypostatic union, incarnation and much of the terminology came from the attempt to express a semitic religion in the terms of Greek philosophy. They themself are not holy, just human attempts to comprehend the incomprehensible. Jesus definitely was not an Aristotelean or Platonic philosopher.
No, I do not believe that new truths regarding the Christianity will be revealed before the Second Coming. " For now we see in a mirror, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I have been known (1 Cor. 13 :12)". Therefore too much speculation of matters that have not been firmly revealed is dangerous, unnecessary and sinful.
Chapter and verse where Scripture is the ONLY place where authority is confined? Second, tell me **when,where and who **decided scripture would be standard to use to measure doctrines,tradtions, and teachings?
