Steve Ray has a list of 35 loaded Questions for "Bible Christians" (quotation marks his)(link to the whole list). This is number 26/35. I'm trying to provide the answers in a common format, for easy reference.
26) How could the Apostle Thomas establish the church in India that survives to this day (and is now in communion with the Catholic Church) without leaving them with one word of New Testament Scripture?
Simple Answer(s):
LOL
Important Qualification(s):
1) Whether Thomas himself actually evangelized India is a question that is open to debate.
2) There's no reasonable basis for Steve Ray to claim that Thomas didn't bring any New Testament Scripture with him.
3) The Indian Orthodox church (also known as the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) uses the so-called Liturgy of St. James. That liturgy includes the reading of the gospels.
4) The Malankara church was out of communion with Rome for centuries (whether it is now in full communion is an interesting question in itself). Taking Steve Ray's claim in that regard for granted, however, why does their experience suddenly become relevant now, simply because they are now communing with Rome? In other words, isn't it odd for Steve Ray to point to a church that was apart from communion with Rome as though it were an example of authentic Christianity (given Steve Ray's own beliefs)?
- TurretinFan
Thursday, February 04, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
LOL
LOL
Where most of those books destroyed when the Portuguese seized that part of India?
Good question. The Portuguese did shake things up in India when they arrived.
"....Taking Steve Ray's claim in that regard for granted, however, why does their experience suddenly become relevant now,....".
Aaaah, because they have been recently educated and sometimes it takes a bit for it to suddenly sink in as to what they believe they believe has been taught.
In this case, what they believe they believe has been taught is so far from the Truth and believing Him and being set free by Truth from that education, what a waste of time it was, normative pride seems to cloud out the necessity for real instruction, correction and reproof in Righteousness!
Why?
Why does God elect some and damn others?
I am now sure what Jesus said, He meant:::>
Mat 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
Mat 7:16 You will recognize them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Mat 7:17 So, every healthy tree bears good fruit, but the diseased tree bears bad fruit.
Mat 7:18 A healthy tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a diseased tree bear good fruit.
Mat 7:19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 7:20 Thus you will recognize them by their fruits.
How could the Apostle Peter establish the church in Rome that survives to this day (and is now apostate) without leaving them with one pope?
In Christ,
CD
This is a bit off topic, but I've been wondering why certain Reformed types seem to insist on using terms like "Romanist" in regarding to Catholics, but have no qualms about calling the Orthodox, well, the Orthodox. Why no use of "Russianist" or "Greekist"?
I sense a double-standard.
Most Eastern Orthodox don't make adherence to a particular see an article of faith. We also have less of a problem with their claim to be orthodox (captured in their name) than with Romanism's claim to be "catholic."
Sectarian adherence to the Roman see is the opposite of catholicity. So, even though the "Orthodox" have a few unorthodox positions, we cut them more slack (and besides, there are not a lot of other easy ways to identify them as a group).
-TurretinFan
"Sectarian adherence to the Roman see is the opposite of catholicity. So, even though the "Orthodox" have a few unorthodox positions, we cut them more slack (and besides, there are not a lot of other easy ways to identify them as a group)."
Isn't adherence to unorthodox positions the opposite of orthodoxy? Why cut them any slack? Don't you disagree with their sacramental and ecclesiological theology?
"Isn't adherence to unorthodox positions the opposite of orthodoxy? Why cut them any slack? Don't you disagree with their sacramental and ecclesiological theology?"
We're kinder than you think we are.
"Oriental Conciliarist" or "Eastern Conciliarist" is a better name for the EOC, but nobody would know what I was talking about and I don't want to have to explain myself every single time.
2) There's no reasonable basis for Steve Ray to claim that Thomas didn't bring any New Testament Scripture with him."
If theres no evidence for Thomas bringing the scriptures and no scriptures in the community then its reasonable to conclude Thomas did not bring the scriptures with him.
3) The Indian Orthodox church (also known as the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church) uses the so-called Liturgy of St. James. That liturgy includes the reading of the gospels.
The gospels are only part of the scriptures. It shows us the Gospel can and was transmitted orally and scripturally from the time of the apostles.
JM
I wrote: "There's no reasonable basis for Steve Ray to claim that Thomas didn't bring any New Testament Scripture with him."
JM responded: "If theres no evidence for Thomas bringing the scriptures and no scriptures in the community then its reasonable to conclude Thomas did not bring the scriptures with him."
There are scriptures in the community. That defeats your argument.
JM also wrore: "The gospels are only part of the scriptures. It shows us the Gospel can and was transmitted orally and scripturally from the time of the apostles."
The written gospels are the only authentic gospels. There are no "oral gospels" that are authentic.
Post a Comment