This gibberish does nothing but prove exactly how little the Papists think of God’s word.
Well, since the Orthodox are NOT papist, I presume you’re referring to people such as me, since I wrote cautiously approvingly of the post.
You ask, “If Christianity was not a religion of a book, why did the preaching of the church rely upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power to establish it, and reference the OT about 250 times? What not just quote oral tradition and not reprove ignorance of Scripture?”
What I already wrote was, “Truly, the bible is an expression of the Holy Tradition given to the Church by Christ. And while anything that is not in accord with the Scriptures is thereby revealed to be counterfeit to the Holy Tradition, and while it sustains that Holy Tradition, and while it breathes the life of that Holy Tradition within the reader of it, it is NOT the temporal source of that Holy Tradition” for the Holy Tradition pre-existed was what the apostles and prophets wrote down when they wrote the bible.
So, to answer your question: Jesus, Paul and others used the Old Testament sources to prove that what they were saying was consistent with scripture. Mind you, not that it was based solely on scripture! It was not within the power of human reason to have anticipated the ways in which Jesus would fulfill scripture!
>> The exaltation of the sovereignty of God and the working of the Divine Will (predestination) are hallmarks of Muslim thought. They eventually become hallmarks within certain forms of Christian scholasticism. <<
Incredibly, you seem to think that you disprove this statement by demonstrating that God is sovereign. The author is not saying that God is not soveriegn; he’s saying that Christian scholasticism exalted this fact in ways that resemble Muslim thought.
>>Here a false dilemma is employed, yet to confess the Lord Jesus is a confession of submission, but which does not mean compelled such as under Rome’s “coercive jurisdiction.”. >>
The fact that you just presumed an Orthodox priest is demanding that one submit to “Rome’s ‘coercive jurisdiction’ “ should alert you that you are badly misreading the statement.
>> Which is neither an infallible perpetuated papal office nor EO “priests,” both of which are contrary to Scripture, and thus the attempt to marginalize Scripture and elevate men “above that which is written.” <<
Once again: “”[A]nything that is not in accord with the Scriptures is thereby revealed to be counterfeit to the Holy Tradition,”