Stephen M. Adams wrote:
> "Gary McNees"  writes:
> >"Stephen M. Adams"  wrote:
> >>
> >> lsenders{at}hotmail.com writes:
> >>
> >
> >Stephen, I don't see that that is what Loren is doing. And you
> >know that I don't believe much of what he believes as regards
> >Calvinism.
>
> I don't believe in his Calvinism either, I came out of that dark
place
> many years ago.

Did you purposefully use this phrase?

> But yes, he is purposely equating us with the Romans
>
Let me defend what I wrote.  I equate the two as following the same
paradigm though the notitia of each is different.  That one airplane
has upside down wings and another has square wings only relates when it
is shown that neither can fly.  To fly, it must conform to the
established laws.
>
> so that he can a) attach to us all of the critique of the Roman
Church
> from Protestants over the centuries; b) tar us with their false
teachings
> and c) make people believe something that is untrue - that we are co-
> religionists.
>
Neither theological gets off the ground.  Each respectively equate
traditions with Scripture, in doctrinal statement, tradition over
Scripture in interpretive fact.
>
> I have news for you - EVERY Christian relies on tradition to some
> extent.

Trinitarianism, for instance.  This is an excellent example to
distinquish the Protestant understanding of traditions.  Traditions are
only validated by the Scriptures themselves.  The Scriptures are never
validated nor interpreted based upon tradition.  Herein lies the
substantive difference.  Sola scriptura maintains that scripture alone
has doctrinal authority.  It alone is the rule of life.  It alone is
"alive and sharper than any two edged sword."

> The only argument is how much.

Oh no.  It is much more fundamental than that.

> If you believe in "Scripture
> alone" please show me a) a specific list of what is and what is not
> Scripture *in* the Scriptures.

"All scripture is inspired" (God breathed).  Traditions find their
source in Scripture.  Scripture is the living Word, the very being of
"that Prophet."

> If you can't, you are relying on
> tradition and have to concede the point if you are honest.  Once you
> have done this, the only argument can be over degrees.
>
Providence, my friend.  The covers are as inspired as the text.  From
the onset, the Church knew, via the Spirit, what was canon and what was
not.  Obviously the two lost letters to Corinth did not make.

The canon, as with Trinitarianism, existed prior to ecclesiastical
formulation.  When one reads the apocrypha or pseudepigraph, there are
many contrasting characteristics to the accepted 66 books of the canon.
Scripture tests scripture.  The character of the "scriptures" deny
these two augmentations.
>
> >Now, Stephen, I would ask you, how do you know that the
> >traditions of the RCC are false, and the traditions of the OC
> >are true?
>
> Simple - compare the teachings of the two churches.  In every case
where
> they differ, the Orthodox teaching is the older one and the Romans
changed
> their theology.
>
Do you accept this methodology in all cases?  Certainly not.  You claim
this hermeneutic but you fail to remain consistent in its application.
Millennialism is an immediate evidentiary.  Normative interpretation
long preceded Allegorism.  All it takes is a cursory inquiry into
Jewish hermeneutics to establish that fact.  So, please tell, why is
the "older one" in this instance the orthodox one?
"Older" is not always reflective of what the actual reality.

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 12/28/04 4:47:02 PM