tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post2445430171932455016..comments2024-03-17T08:25:33.806+00:00Comments on Thoughts of Francis Turretin: Question to LucianTurretinfanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-25799904836097392772007-10-31T15:50:00.000+00:002007-10-31T15:50:00.000+00:00The Canon of the NT include the divinely inspired ...The Canon of the NT include the divinely inspired writings that post-date Christ's incarnation.<BR/><BR/>You may be surprised to learn that Luke (for example) was not an apostle.<BR/><BR/>-TurretinfanTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-15664832706566987412007-10-31T15:39:00.000+00:002007-10-31T15:39:00.000+00:00The Canon of NT Scriptures contain the writings of...The Canon of NT Scriptures contain the writings of the Apostles. The commentaries on Scripture are not part of Scripture. <BR/>The number of writings suspected of Apostolic origin is limited. This number stabilized at 25-26 for the last 1,500 yrs. And at 27 for the last millennium. <BR/>It never went below the Fourfold Gospel and the bulk of Pauline writings (the 9 epistles to the seven cities ..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-23202210964995244032007-10-31T06:36:00.000+00:002007-10-31T06:36:00.000+00:00I thought it was obvious. If Basil writes somethin...<I>I thought it was obvious. If Basil writes something down and calls it an unwritten tradition, then he would be contradicting himself.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, we all agree γραφος can mean scripture, therefore ἄγραφος can mean not-scripture. This too is obvious.<BR/></I><BR/><BR/>1. Apparently, you still can't follow an argument. If something is "apostolic" and written then it why is it not canonized?GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-90896679244535332592007-10-31T04:09:00.000+00:002007-10-31T04:09:00.000+00:00G: "I note you don't note any lexical evidence. Ra...G: "I note you don't note any lexical evidence. Rather you assert without argument."<BR/><BR/>O: I thought it was obvious. If Basil writes something down and calls it an unwritten tradition, then he would be contradicting himself.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, we all agree γραφος can mean scripture, therefore ἄγραφος can mean not-scripture. This too is obvious.<BR/><BR/>G: If these "traditions" were orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-10368206930368361532007-10-29T01:41:00.000+00:002007-10-29T01:41:00.000+00:00suggest that a more appropriate translation of ἄγρ...<I>suggest that a more appropriate translation of ἄγραφος might often be "extra-scriptural" rather than "unwritten".</I><BR/><BR/>I note you don't note any lexical evidence. Rather you assert without argument.<BR/><BR/>This, of course, touches nothing I wrote. If these "traditions" were unwritten and then <I>written</I> by Basil, then they were <I>preserved</I>, and it is your belief they are <GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-35246088779723211692007-10-27T03:07:00.000+01:002007-10-27T03:07:00.000+01:00TF: "Perhaps you need to become more familiar with...TF: "Perhaps you need to become more familiar with Basil's work before you jump to conclusions."<BR/>O: "That's rich considering you admit not having read the Fathers, and that you started down this thread based on a quote I provided you."<BR/><BR/>I respond: Careful what you assume. I'm quite sure I did not admit any such thing. You're confusing one thing with another.<BR/><BR/>TF: "a) if theTurretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-47306184350287852282007-10-26T23:15:00.000+01:002007-10-26T23:15:00.000+01:00"Perhaps you need to become more familiar with Bas..."Perhaps you need to become more familiar with Basil's work before you jump to conclusions."<BR/><BR/>That's rich considering you admit not having read the Fathers, and that you started down this thread based on a quote I provided you.<BR/><BR/>"a) if the "Orthodox" of Basil's day practiced infant Baptism"<BR/><BR/>Since the Church was still in a rapid growth phase, and since baptism was a publicorthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-44571063533498604872007-10-26T21:16:00.000+01:002007-10-26T21:16:00.000+01:00The Holy Tradition of the Chruch was no secret for...<I>The Holy Tradition of the Chruch was no secret for its followers, or members</I><BR/><BR/>Then why does Basil indicate that the people don't know the reason they do some of these things? That's quite the quandry for you,isn' t?<BR/><BR/>Also, notice that Basil is, in point of fact, writing down some practices, so they aren't unwritten after all, and if nobody knows the reason behind at least GeneMBridgeshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10504383610477532374noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-40140977629725398952007-10-26T17:04:00.000+01:002007-10-26T17:04:00.000+01:00The Holy Tradition of the Chruch was no secret for...The Holy Tradition of the Chruch was no secret for its followers, or members. It was however kept a secret for those outside of its communion ("don't give your bread to the dogs", "don't put your pearls before swines"), but not a secret per se by any chance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-84928969209891429332007-10-26T13:39:00.000+01:002007-10-26T13:39:00.000+01:00Orthodox, you're confused.a) if the "Orthodox" of ...Orthodox, you're confused.<BR/>a) if the "Orthodox" of Basil's day practiced infant Baptism ...<BR/>but more importantly<BR/>b) Basil actually mentions that some of the secrets are hidden in the rites of the church. Thus, for example, Basil points out that the laity kneel and rise in prayer (and pray to the East) for a reason, but that the reason is not necessarily known even to the people who Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21597890.post-75638293368040673862007-10-26T12:15:00.000+01:002007-10-26T12:15:00.000+01:00Secrecy is relative in this case. The example that...Secrecy is relative in this case. The example that Basil gives of a secret doctrine is:<BR/><BR/>"And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? "<BR/><BR/>Since this "secret" is part of the baptism ceremony (one that BTW, is still observed in Orthodox baptism to this very day), for obvious reasons this "secret", would be no orthodoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09445301151975209564noreply@blogger.com