@Daи @JackDouglas I'll ask in another way:

Why did God create man?

@PaulVargas Hi Paul, your still hanging out. What's up?

@user2479 Hi! How have you been?

@PaulVargas Good, but tired. I have a 12 hour shift ahead of me to stay awake. What's your take on the discussion between Dan & ScottS?

@Daи I have a question which may help; what is your position on the Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching on Sacred Revelation?

@Daи I share most of the same convictions as ScottS; but I suspect he is "Sola Scriptura" which those in Orthodox or Catholic traditions have a difficult time with.

@PaulVargas I believe the answer to your question, straight out of the catechism, is to "Love, honor, and obey God",(ie: Glorify God)

@PaulVargas Still there?

@user2479 I'm not familiar with theses. Can you describe it a little?

@PaulVargas I'm not sure what you are asking?

@Davïd yeah, thanks, fixed it now

@user2479 The Eastern Orthodox Church's teaching on Sacred Revelation. ;-)

@Davïd I would disagree with his basic premise that they are actually paradoxical

I'm more inclined towards thinking that a properly defined vision of reality and proper understanding of scripture results in the paradoxes actually making sense

granted, some of that requires very out of the box thinking, but it also leaves a very slim number of options available to us

which I see as part of the beauty of the way scripture is written

it's very hard to form a consistent view of scripture, which many detractors view as a negative, but I view as a positive

@PaulVargas Daи is perhaps much better in answering that question. In both Catholic and Orthodox traditions, Sacred Scripture, or "canon" comprises 1 part of Sacred Revelation. The other parts consist of Sacred Tradition-which is a euphemism to describe "the Holy Spirit's work throughout the ages". Church Councils are seen as part of Sacred Tradition. The Eastern Orthodox, I believe, expand it to include Sacred Liturgy.

I don't know of any conflicts in scripture that I have been exposed to that I don't have a possible solution to

@user2479 Ah! Thank you.

Well, the tradition is interesting, but I prefer only the Scriptures.

@PaulVargas What is important is that although the "church" does not consider itself the "source" for Divine Revelation(that would be presumptuous) it considers itself the "protector" and it is entrusted to "make the simple wise" in accurately guarding and preserving it in character and integrity. So Councils, and "Ex-Cathedra" teachings are part of this "Sacred Tradition".

@PaulVargas Martin Luther broke this tradition when he said to Cardinal Bellarme, "Reason and the scriptures tell me this is so."

@PaulVargas What happened as a result of Martin Luther's declaration(and getting Elector Fredrick to side with him) was that Church and government became separated. Since "the conscience of the individual" and not the "church" became the guiding force in determining God's Will, governments no longer were 'compelled' to listen to the church as God's voice in their time.

This, of course, opened the door for the Age of Reason, which dropped Martin Luther's "...and the scriptures" to "Reason alone" is sufficient to determine one's destiny. From there. reason became "non-reason" as the subjective views of men frequently contradicted each other, and as the moral anchor of scripture was less and less noticeable, until "moral relativism" becomes the norm of society.

@PaulVargas Hence, we have governments that are "religiously secular", guided by a moral compass that points to the latest social trend. It all started, so to speak, with Martin Luther.

@user2479 I wonder how it was in the early church. But since those first days some began to deviate from the teachings of the apostles.

@PaulVargas If you remember(we have a few questions in this regard) in Rev. 12:18 the woman(Spiritual Israel) was carried into the wilderness, and the "earth" protected her from the flood. The "wilderness" is a "type" of place where Jesus, John the Baptist, and all those who would maintain their integrity go to from time to time, in the face of the "floods"-one of which being heresies.

@PaulVargas Many of the Early Church fathers kept their stance, in spite of martyrdom, but also convened in remote places to discuss through these heresies, which swept through the more populous regions and threatened to undermine the faith and zeal of new converts. Then, when the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople convened, after Christianity became the 'state religion', these truths were made dogma, and the heresies which attempted to sweep them away were quelled.

@user2479 However, the tradition may shed light on the interpretation of a Bible passage.

@PaulVargas Of course, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition can in no way be contradictory. But it is important to understand the Holy Spirit works in every generation to bring to light the Truth; certain questions our parents couldn't have asked ,"What about test-tube babies, do they have souls?" are important to understand this day and time.

@PaulVargas "When does life begin?" is another. God has not quit speaking, just because "canon" has already been determined. The church must continue to speak, under the unction of the Holy Spirit, to an increasingly hostile world.

@user2479 What do you think about the Sufficiency of Scripture‌​?

Are the Scriptures sufficient?

@PaulVargas "Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of God"(St. Augustine) We are indeed to "search the Scriptures, to determine these things be so". But an OPEN SECRET is that each denomination has it's interpretation of Scripture, and if you don't believe me, tell your pastor(if he is cessationist) that "I believe the Gifts of the Holy Spirit are valid for today, just as at Pentecost."

@PaulVargas If he can't 'gently' or 'firmly' dissuade you, be prepared for the "Left foot of Fellowship". That's what happened to me. The same Scriptures, both our bibles read the same thing. But PEOPLE and denominations can 'interpret' them differently, depending who you fellowship with. So "Sola Scriptura" is really a way of saying, "I'm right, and those that agree with me are also".

@user2479 Hey, just bringing my response to your question in here. I would say none of the Jewish apocalypses were fulfilled in the first century. (With the exception of the Olivet discourse, but that's not usually classified as an 'apocalypse' in the academic sense of the term.)

Isaiah 24-27, Zechariah 9-14, Ezekiel 38-39, Daniel, 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Shepherd of Hermas, Sibylline Oracles, etc., were either written about events outside of the first century, or weren't fulfilled in the first century (if at all), or simply weren't predictive apocalypses.

@MarkEdward I appreciate your response, I just asked to clarify your position, which tends to look 'backward' rather than forward towards fulfillment. Do you see a future fulfillment of Deut. 30:1-7, or do you see it as past fulfillment?

@user2479 I wouldn't say Deuteronomy 30.1-7 was intended to be fulfilled in any singular sense. The covenant between God and Israel was a Suzerain Covenant Treaty. This passage was part of the conditional If-Then rewards and penalties in Israel's covenant with God, which were potentially cyclical.

I actually just wanted to drop in to clarify the Jewish apocalypse question. I need to join my wife for a movie now.

Grace and peace.

@MarkEdward We'll chat later -be blessed!

@user2479 Yes, he is cessationist! I will not guarantee it, but I will try to deliver your message. ;-P

@PaulVargas Good Luck! Wear Kelvar.

@user2479 And what is your job?

@PaulVargas I am a Maintenance Electrician(I'm also an Electrical Contractor). My maintenance job just requires me to "put out fires, not start them", so if there's nothing going on......? It's better to stay awake and answer scriptural questions than snooze.

@user2479 Hey, many think differently. Look at this: Strange Fire Conference ;-) What do you think?

@PaulVargas John Wimber used to say, "...and the beat goes on". I always tend to respond, "And who do YOUR children cast them(demons) out?" Demons don't leave by themselves. Jesus never said, 'Your skepticism has saved you, go in peace...'. It is convenient to poke fun at someone who's actually attempting to do what the Bible says we should do, I used to do it myself. I held up a sign(on a street corner) the other week which said, "I'm a fool for Jesus".

@PaulVargas (con't) Everybody laughed, some 'thumbs upped' me. On the other side it said, "And who's fool are you?" The "foolishness of God" is wiser than the wisdom of men. The Gifts of the Spirit are "foolishness" to our human comprehension and understanding, yet God uses our "foolishness" in operating in them to manifest Himself.

@PaulVargas The admonition really is to live a godly life. I heard the testimonies of David Hogan, how he wouldn't allow a woman to approach him without his wife present, the amount of fasting and spiritual preparation he did before confronting the demonic strongholds in Mexico, and the way he submitted his life and message to our pastor before he ministered. That says something.

@user2479 this sums it up pretty well

@user2479 and I do not subscribe to sola scriptura (nor do I think anyone does, as we all bring presuppositions and interpretive traditions to the text, some are just honest about it)

@PaulVargas this is a good explanation of it

@PaulVargas to the best of your ability anyways, we all bring presuppositions to the text. The very act of learning a language that the text is being read in, not to mention the interpretive decisions involved in translating the text to that language, also brings along bias

no one approaches the text in a vacuum. It's never "just" the scriptures. Even Jesus' name itself is a transliteration of the Latin/Greek, which is a transliteration from the Hebrew/Aramaic for what is usually transliterated as "Joshua" for others' names. Everything has context, and we bring bias to everything

@PaulVargas I'm not Roman Catholic, but this does a pretty good job explaining some of my objections to sola scriptura

@PaulVargas and these are all presuppositions / tradition brought to the text that cannot be found in the Scriptures themselves

@Daи I remember that you said that the Bible is an incomplete revelation. So you do not embrace the sufficiency of Scripture, right?

@PaulVargas Best things I know on this are two books by Tim Ward, one academic, the other for a wider readership. The latter is rooted in the former. FWIW.

@PaulVargas I don't know what you mean when you say 'sufficiency of scripture'

@Daи I can't presume to speak for @PaulV but sufficiency never means 'exclusive means'. Usually something like "the only inspired/inerrant words of God needed in order to know the way of salvation and obedience" (paraphrased from Piper)

> The sufficiency of Scripture is an important doctrine. It teaches that everything that humankind needs to know about God and ourselves has been revealed in the Bible. These truths should be studied. While the truth of Scripture is sufficient it is not exhaustive - it does not tell us everything that we would like to know.

> Consequently believers do not need any type of external authority to understand and interpret the Scriptures - whether it may be a church, a creedal statement or the teaching of some leader. It is not reasonable to think that God would give a communication to humanity that could not be understood by the masses. In fact, believers are commanded to study the Bible for themselves.

Hey, @MarkEdward How have you been?

@Dan amazon.com/Word-Supplement-Biblical-Sufficiency-Scripture/dp/…

@Daи ^^^^ Also in "Oxford Scholarship Online" if you have access.