Eastern Orthodoxy [Archive] - Page 2

Alchemist

5th November 2007, 07:02 AM

Brad,

That whole post is a pefect explanation of why EO is not Christianity.
I thought that us (according to you) being heretical, idolatrous, spiritually dead pagans who pray to saints, bow down to graven images and worship a "pantheon of gods" would make us unchristian enough without taking into consideration our soteriology, but anyway! Still waiting for an answer to my post (http://foru.ms/showpost.php?p=39966527&postcount=201) by the way :).

We were not in need of justification
If by justification you mean that God needed to kill someone to "forgive us", a concept not found anywhere in scripture nor Christianity pre-1500's Protestantism, then no, we weren't.

we just needed a ticket out of hades?
No, we "just" needed our nature sanctified by being joined to Christ, to repent of our sins and accept God's forgiveness so that we could live in His light for all eternity.

Heretical in its idolatry, soteriology and ecclesiology. What more do you need ?
Ah, "idolatry"! I haven't heard that word since you baselessly accused me of that a couple of pages ago for venerating icons, a Biblical practice explictly commanded by God in the Old Testament, and practiced by every orthodox Christian on the planet before the 15th... mm, do I detect a pattern here?

Hi Rick,

But I "got a problem" with your no-atonement theory. Not only did the Jews have an annual atonement sacrifice...
You are right, Rick, they did :). But did the sacrifice actually atone for their sins, or was it a symbol of the redemptive death of Christ on the Cross, through which the effect of sin is destroyed and we can once again come to God? If you already believe that Christ's death was an atonement sacrifice then of course you will affirm the first option, but if you don't, you will find no scriptural support for this position at all.

Will you find scriptural support that Christ died for our sins? Certainly. That Christ's death was a sacrifice? Yes; for any man to offer His life to God in martyrdom is a sacrifice, and in Christ living a perfect life he undoubtedly fulfilled that criteria. That His blood covers our sins? Yes, for through (and only through) his death can our nature be restored and we can face God. But is there any scriptural basis that His death was an atonement sacrifice, or indeed, that atonement rituals in Judaic worship had any intrinsic, spiritual consequences and were anything other than a foreshadowing of Christ's death? Not one iota!

but you state Adam changed our very nature.
Do not Calvinists believe the same?

In order for us to get into heaven without being annihilated by holiness, wouldn't our nature have to be changed? Our fallen nature is obviated by death, so I describe it as "spiritualy dead", requiring being "born again"(in spirit) to even be able to discern & desire spiritual things.
We do not think that the Fall completely took away our desire for God, but indeed, you are right again; we must be "born again" by joining ourselves to Christ to be saved :).

I don't mean to reduce everything to science of law procedure at all. I recognize the poignant altruism, the passion & suffering involved. Law without compassion, "the letter of the law" is death. Poeticaly that evokes emotive details... mechanisticaly it provokes justice - a price / consequence. I don't see God as angry, but definitely having personality. I see God as administering "poetic justice".
Certainly, one can see the altruism in it, and even in rejection of substitutionary atonement soteriology I can see the mercy of God in actually dying for us instead of just letting us die. But nonetheless, do you not believe that unless a "payment" is paid, God will not forgive us of our sins? That is not just a poetic consideration; substitutionary atonement is a realis fact in Reformed theology.

And that's what it comes down to. Either God demands blood before he forgives anything (in my opinion, well-and-truly incompatible with Scripture in light of the parable of the Prodigal Son, unless Christ is a complete hypocrite) or He simply forgives us if we repent but something more is needed before we can enter into His presence - namely, the cleansing of our sinful nature so we are fit to be with him. Certainly, if you have already convinced yourself that God needs "justice" (in other words, blood payment) to forgive us you will be able to pull up some verse in Scripture which seems to confirm your beliefs.

But if you truly are sola scriptura, and don't just presume substitutionary atonement to be correct cause that's what your pastor / parents / Sunday school teacher / Calvin (RIP) told you the Bible said, you will find those same verses you would quote in defence of substitutionary atonement really give you absolutely no reason to accept substitutionary atonement is true at all, unless you ignore other parts of the Bible. It is great that you recognise the altruism; Christ gave much for us that we did not deserve! But that God wants or needs blood payment for sins is not the poetry of Scripture. Your work is better than many, indeed, but I think re-examining the Master's might help you out :)

Peace,
Nick

Rick Otto

5th November 2007, 10:45 AM

The yearly atonement foreshadowed Christ's final atonement. Blood was the requirement since day one(Cain & Abel).
The atonement was for a specific group(Isreal), as was Christ's(the elect/believers).
But did the sacrifice actually atone for their sins, or was it a symbol of the redemptive death of Christ on the Cross, through which the effect of sin is destroyed and we can once again come to God? If you already believe that Christ's death was an atonement sacrifice then of course you will affirm the first option, but if you don't, you will find no scriptural support for this position at all.
The yearly sacrifice was a symbolic foreshadowing, but symbols are not impotent & acts of obedience aren't worthless or meaningless.
Destroying sin cost a price only Jesus could pay.
But is there any scriptural basis that His death was an atonement sacrifice, or indeed, that atonement rituals in Judaic worship had any intrinsic, spiritual consequences and were anything other than a foreshadowing of Christ's death? Not one iota!

His sacrificial death atoned for man's sin.
1obsolete : reconcile (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/reconcile)2: to supply satisfaction for : expiate (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/expiate)intransitive verb: to make amends <atone for sins>
Without His sacrificial death, amends & satisfaction would not have been achieved, so yes, His death was an atonement, even if atonement sacrifices of Levitical priests were only foreshadows. Both the real thing & the foreshadows were about atonement regardless of their relative effectiveness.
Iotas don't get any bigger than that.
:cool:

jckstraw72

5th November 2007, 12:01 PM

wnwall -- i dont understand how my answer didnt suffice ....
Jesus condemned sin by breaking its power over us by never sinning.

wnwall

5th November 2007, 12:25 PM

wnwall -- i dont understand how my answer didnt suffice ....
Jesus condemned sin by breaking its power over us by never sinning.

Ok, I see what you're saying now, but that's not at all what the verse says.

First let's get a definition of condemn. The first two definitions from dictionary.com are,1. to express an unfavorable or adverse judgment on; indicate strong disapproval of; censure.
2. to pronounce to be guilty; sentence to punishment
So to condemn is to judge, to sentence to punishment. It doesn't mean to defeat.

We can see this very clearly in the immediate context of the verse in question,There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. (Romans 8:1-2)
Here condemn means judgment against because of sin. We are no longer under condemnation. That means when God sees us he will no longer say, "guilty" and sentence us to punishment. We don't have to die although the law demands the death of those who sin. Now verse 3,God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh.
The first sentence says God has done something. The second sentence tells us what God did. (1) God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh. Jesus took on human flesh. (2) God condemned sin in the flesh. Whose flesh? Jesus' flesh. This verse does not say Jesus defeated sin. Jesus did defeat sin, but that's not what this verse says. This verse says God condemned Jesus for sin. God looked at Jesus in the likeness of sinful flesh and said "guilty" and sentenced him to punishment. That's what condemn means.

Putting it all together, there is no condemnation for those in Jesus -- why? Because God condemned Jesus instead of condemning us. He was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities.

jckstraw72

5th November 2007, 02:06 PM

it says sin was condemned, not Jesus ... i dont understand how you got that out of that verse.

wnwall

5th November 2007, 04:32 PM

it says sin was condemned, not Jesus ... i dont understand how you got that out of that verse.

Are you being honest? If you take a serious look at that verse, you really can't see how it says God condemned Jesus in his flesh for the sin of those who are in Jesus? What does "sin was condemned" even mean? It's meaningless the way you're trying to interpret it. To condemn is to punish for wrongdoing. You can't punish sin. You punish for sin. Who was punished? Jesus. For whose sin? Ours. Who sentenced him to that punishment? God. That's why I asked for a definition of condemnation. You punish people for the things they do; you don't punish the things people do.

Please take a long, hard, prayerful look at this verse and don't react to it rashly. These are the words of God that he gave us in order to teach us. This verse isn't meaningless. It's communication from God.Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh (NASB).
You can talk around truth all you want. You can cover it up and act like it doesn't say what it does. But be aware it is God's eternal truth you're concealing. Not only that but it's one of the most beautiful, Christ-exalting, God-glorifying, heaven-opening truths there is. This isn't just an academic game. The stakes are high, the importance is immeasurable. This is life and death.

jckstraw72

5th November 2007, 06:45 PM

it says sin was condemned, not Jesus. Sin takes us all further from God and brings us death. God condemned it for this and defeated it by Christ.

Jesus did nothing to be punished for. and why would punishing Jesus, which would be the ultimate injustice, please our just God?

St. John Chrysostom's commentary on Romans 8:3:
Again, he seems indeed to be disparaging the Law. But if any one attends strictly, he even highly praises it, by showing that it harmonizes with Christ, and gives preference to the same things. For he does not speak of the badness of the Law, but of "what it could not do;" and so again, "in that it was weak," not, "in that it was mischievous, or designing." And even weakness he does not ascribe to it, but to the flesh, as he says, "in that it was weak through the flesh," using the word "flesh" here again not for the essence and subsistency itself, but giving its name to the more carnal sort of mind. In which way he acquits both the body and the Law of any accusation. Yet not in this way only, but by what comes next also. For supposing the Law to be of the contrary part, how was it Christ came to its assistance, and fulfilled its requisitions, and lent it a helping hand by condemning sin in the flesh? For this was what was lacking, since in the soul the Lord had condemned it long ago. What then? is it the greater thing that the Law accomplished, but the less that the Only-Begotten did? Surely not. For it was God that was the principal doer of that also, in that He gave us the law of nature, and added the written one to it. Again, there were no use of the greater, if the lesser had not been supplied. For what good is it to know what things ought to be done, if a man does not follow it out? None, for it were but a greater condemnation. And so He that hath saved the soul it is, Who hath made the flesh also easy to bridle. For to teach is easy, but to show besides a way in which these things were easily done, this is the marvel. Now it was for this that the Only-Begotten came, and did not depart before He had set us free from this difficulty. But what is greater, is the method of the victory; for He took none other flesh, but this very one which was beset with troubles. So it is as if any one were to see in the street a vile woman of the baser sort being beaten, and were to say he was her son, when he was the king's, and so to get her free from those who ill treated her. And this He really did, in that He confessed that He was the Son of Man, and stood by it (i.e. the flesh), and condemned the sin. However, He did not endure to smite it besides; or rather, He smote it with the blow of His death, but in this very act it was not the smitten flesh which was condemned and perished, but the sin which had been smiting. And this is the greatest possible marvel. For if it were not in the flesh that the victory took place, it would not be so astonishing, since this the Law also wrought. But the wonder is, that it was with the flesh (meta sarkoj) that His trophy was raised, and that what had been overthrown numberless times by sin, did itself get a glorious victory over it. For behold what strange things there were that took place! One was, that sin did not conquer the flesh; another, that sin was conquered, and conquered by it too. For it is not the same thing not to get conquered, and to conquer that which was continually overthrowing us. A third is, that it not only conquered it, but even chastised it. For by not sinning it kept from being conquered, but by dying also, He overcame and condemned it, having made the flesh, that before was so readily made a mock of by it, a plain object of fear to it. In this way then, He at once unnerved its power, and abolished the death by it introduced. For so long as it took hold of sinners, it with justice kept pressing to its end. But after finding a sinless body, when it had given it up to death, it was condemned as having acted unjustly. Do you observe, how many proofs of victory there are? The flesh not being conquered by sin, Its even conquering and condemning it, Its not condemning it barely, but condemning it as having sinned. For after having convicted it of injustice, he proceeds to condemn it, and that not by power and might barely, but even by the rules of justice. For this is what he means by saying, "for sin condemned sin in the flesh." As if he had said that he had convicted it of great sin, and then condemned it. So you see it is sin that getteth condemned everywhere, and not the flesh, for this is even crowned with honor, and has to give sentence against the other. But if he does say that it was "in the likeness" of flesh that he sent the Son, do not therefore suppose that His flesh was of a different kind. For as he called it "sinful," this was why he put the word "likeness."16 (file:///D:/data/fathers2/NPNF1-11/footnote/fn25.htm#P2590_2471604) For sinful flesh it was not that Christ had, but like indeed to our sinful flesh, yet sinless, and in nature the same with us. And so even from this it is plain that by nature the flesh was not evil. For it was not by taking a different one instead of the former, nor by changing this same one in substance, that Christ caused it to regain the victory: but He let it abide in its own nature, and yet made it bind on the crown of victory over sin, and then after the victory raised it up, and made it immortal. What then, it may be said, is this to me, whether it was this flesh that these things happened in? Nay, it concerns thee very much.

wnwall

5th November 2007, 07:58 PM

it says sin was condemned, not Jesus. Sin takes us all further from God and brings us death. God condemned it for this and defeated it by Christ.

You're ignoring the phrase "in the flesh". God condemned sin in the flesh.

jckstraw72

5th November 2007, 08:37 PM

the incarnate Christ (in the flesh) condemned sin ... youre rearranging the words of the verse to make it say Jesus was condemned.

Rick Otto

6th November 2007, 04:05 AM

maybe he is, but the truth remains... He was both condemned & executed.

jckstraw72

6th November 2007, 09:20 AM

maybe he is, but the truth remains... He was both condemned & executed.

yeah, by the Jews/Romans, not by God.

Rick Otto

6th November 2007, 02:22 PM

God planned it, tho.

bradfordl

6th November 2007, 07:08 PM

yeah, by the Jews/Romans, not by God.
http://www.puritanboard.com/images/smilies/rofl.gif

Act 2:22-23 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- (23) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.

jckstraw72

6th November 2007, 10:53 PM

Quote:
Act 2:22-23 "Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know-- (23) this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men.
i never denied that God had His hand in it -- of course He did -- seeing as how Jesus is God and God desires our salvation. but to say God condemned Christ and killed Him to appease His hurt pride (I didnt realize God ever needed anything ...) is just insanity.

bradfordl

7th November 2007, 07:53 AM

but to say God condemned Christ and killed Him to appease His hurt pride (I didnt realize God ever needed anything ...) is just insanity.Nobody has in any way inferred that here but you. God's holiness requires justice, and He met that requirement for His elect Himself at the cross.

jckstraw72

7th November 2007, 10:11 AM

what was just about the sinless Christ dying? thats actually the ultimate injustice.

Rick Otto

7th November 2007, 12:54 PM

what was just about the sinless Christ dying? thats actually the ultimate injustice.
What was just about it was that it was required by law.
What was injust about it was that He wasn't personaly guilty of any of the sins He paid for.
Law requires Justice. Mercy trumps Justice.:cool:
The only guy who could do the time for our crime, did so out of mercy.

jckstraw72

7th November 2007, 03:02 PM

yes, out of mercy, not out of a need to appease the Father's sense of justice.

orthedoxy

7th November 2007, 07:26 PM

I read through this thread. I see accusation of EO not being Christians but no facts on why.
Do Calvinists believe they have orthodox teachings or do they accept the fact their teachings are heterodoxy?.
Can Calvinist show which established Church have always accepted limited atonement, eternal security, faith alone, bible alone, rejected the real presence of Christ in the communion, rejected infant baptism.
How do you determine what is a heresy? Is it if anything doesn’t fit your interpretation of the bible then it’s a heresy or is it the way the church always believed where they had councils and determined if something is a heresy? If a gospel is not orthodox can it still be true?

Rick Otto

7th November 2007, 10:03 PM

yes, out of mercy, not out of a need to appease the Father's sense of justice.
Jack!
Please find a different way of sayin' that.
You make it sound like His sense of justice is an emotional state, and appeasing it sounds like stickin' a lolipop in a three yr olds hands to keep him from throwin' a tantrum.
- Or maybe it's just me.

If a gospel is not orthodox can it still be true?

Does the truth depend on orthodoxy, or does orthodoxy depend on the truth?

wnwall

7th November 2007, 11:21 PM

How do you determine what is a heresy?

We read the Bible, which the actual prophets and apostles gave us, the people Jesus personally appointed to start his church. It's very easy to tell from the Bible that the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church teach things that are in direct opposition to what the apostles taught because we can read what the apostles taught for ourselves.

Is it if anything doesn’t fit your interpretation of the bible then it’s a heresyThe Bible actually does make explicit statements. It doesn't come down to interpretation. It comes down to what it says and whether you are faithful to it. The authors intended something when they wrote it.

To give a secular example, you can argue all you want over what Newton meant when he said, "An object will remain at rest until acted upon by a force," but regardless of how you interpret it, Newton did actually mean something when he said it. And the way to find out what he really meant is to read more of what he said on the subject.

To find out what a particular verse means, we read more of the Bible because God put the words in the minds and mouths of the authors, so it is his way of communicating to us.

If the Bible said, "Let the church councils decide matters of doctrine," we'd let the church councils decide matters of doctrine. But the Bible doesn't say that. God has chosen to speak authoritatively and primarily through a book, not church councils. And one easy way to see that is because the book God communicates through disagrees with the Orthodox church councils, and God is one and does not give false testimony. Therefore, either the book is wrong or the councils are wrong.

I'm voting on the book that was written by those hand-selected by God to write his word. Otherwise, why do we have it?

bradfordl

8th November 2007, 12:36 AM

If a gospel is not orthodox can it still be true?
Orthodox: From the Greek "ortho (right or correct) and "dox" (thought or opinion). So if any gospel were not orthodox, it would of course not be true, as it would be incorrect thought. But your organization's use of the word orthodox in it's title is by no means proof that correct thought exists within it's theology. Quite the contrary, actually.

You complain about EO being characterized here as a non-christian religion without proof. Here it is, cut and dried.... everything else is immaterial: Idolatry is aggregious sin and apostasy. EO approves and practices flat idolatry in its hilarious, looney iconagraphy. Even have purported images of Christ that are claimed to have been "made without hands" before which they perform acts of obeisance. In light of God's Word, this is heterodoxy, not orthodoxy. Look it up, then perhaps we could petition those preisty-dudes to change the title to Eastern Heterodoxy to more accurately describe the organization.

This is nuts. What complete balderdash!

Go read the bible!

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 12:37 AM

wnwall

8th November 2007, 01:55 AM

So are you saying the councils are wrong when it proclaimed the Trinity (and without the fillioque)

Or the council erred when it said God came down from heaven and assumed flesh in the womb of Mary? , instead the man Jesus became divine later on when God the Son entered Jesus body and possessed it (at his baptism perhaps, as some prtoestants teach)?

Or did the council err when it proclaimed that Christ has 2 natures in one hypostasis, perfect man and perfect God without mixture, alteration, disrinct yet inseperable?

When did I say everything a council has ever said is wrong? That'd be like accusing Jesus of saying murder isn't a sin because he disagreed with the Pharisees and they happened to say murder was a sin. If the council agrees with the Bible it's right, but the council isn't our source for determining whether our doctrine is right, the Bible is. God had the authors of the Bible write books. It is through those books that he has revealed himself and his word authoritatively and unchangingly. When Jesus came he didn't point to those in authority and say, "Believe them," he pointed to the scriptures.

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 02:20 AM

When did I say everything a council has ever said is wrong? That'd be like accusing Jesus of saying murder isn't a sin because he disagreed with the Pharisees and they happened to say murder was a sin. If the council agrees with the Bible it's right, but the council isn't our source for determining whether our doctrine is right, the Bible is. God had the authors of the Bible write books. It is through those books that he has revealed himself and his word authoritatively and unchangingly. When Jesus came he didn't point to those in authority and say, "Believe them," he pointed to the scriptures.
Can you explain to me then the reason for the existence of 40,000 western christian sects, that say the same?

wnwall

8th November 2007, 02:24 AM

Can you explain to me then the reason for the existence of 40,000 western christian sects, that say the same?

Total depravity (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html).

We (Calvinists) determine who's right by the authority of the Bible.

My turn; I'm curious what authority you have to say your church councils are right and Rome's are wrong. How do you determine that?

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 02:37 AM

Total depravity (http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/piper/depravity.html).

We (Calvinists) determine who's right by the authority of the Bible.

My turn; I'm curious what authority you have to say your church councils are right and Rome's are wrong. How do you determine that?
We believe in the Christology of the 7 Ecumenical councils. (Rome also holds to these but probably more on a historical acknowledgement since they now believe in the authority of the pope).
We believe in the bible and canonized it at the Council of Laodicea in 364 a.d.(With the exception of Revelation which gradually entered the conscience of the church within 100-150 years later). The NT in its current form was officially ratified at the 6th Ecumenical Council and now the canon is closed.
The scripture is the core of Tradition but not "the all" of Christian belief. Theres also the liturgical texts, that which is handed down unadultered, and the consensus of the Church Fathers aka: the conscience of the ekklesia.

wnwall

8th November 2007, 02:42 AM

We believe in the Christology of the 7 Ecumenical councils. (Rome also holds to these but probably more on a historical acknowledgement since they now believe in the authority of the pope).
We believe in the bible and canonized it at the Council of Laodicea in 364 a.d.(With the exception of Revelation which gradually entered the conscience of the church within 100-150 years later). The NT in its current form was officially ratified at the 6th Ecumenical Council and now the canon is closed.
The scripture is the core of Tradition but not "the all" of Christian belief. Theres also the liturgical texts and the consensus of the Church Fathers aka: the conscience of the ekklesia.

That doesn't explain on what authority you base your claim that Rome's councils are wrong. How can you, as an individual know that Nicene Creed shouldn't have the filioque?

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 02:51 AM

That doesn't explain on what authority you base your claim that Rome's councils are wrong. How can you, as an individual know that Nicene Creed shouldn't have the filioque?
The fillioque was a western invention added later on.

We accept the Creed as put forth in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. This is the consensus of the Church Fathers if it were not, then it would been added originally. That the fillioque is a fallacy is verified in scripture as well (Jn 15.26)

Not to mention that the roman church has deleted the fillioque from all RC parishes in Greece about 10 years ago, in what they call "an experiment"

Ironically the "bible only" believers tend to agree with the fillioque even though its non-biblical!

wnwall

8th November 2007, 02:58 AM

The fillioque was a western invention added later on.

We accept the Creed as put forth in the councils of Nicea and Constantinople. This is the consensus of the Church Fathers if it were not, then it would been added originally. That the fillioque is a fallacy is verified in scripture as well (Jn 15.26)

Not to mention that the roman church has deleted the fillioque from all RC parishes in Greece about 10 years ago, in what they call "an experiment"

Ironically the "bible only" believers tend to agree with the fillioque even though its non-biblical!

Ok, you'll have to forgive me if I used a bad example. I'm not familiar with the different councils. Was the filioque defined by a council? If not, then please supply me with an example of a Roman belief that you disagree with that was determined by a Roman council after the split with the Orthodox church. :) Then explain to me how you can be certain that what Rome's council decided was wrong.

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 03:37 AM

Ok, you'll have to forgive me if I used a bad example. I'm not familiar with the different councils. Was the filioque defined by a council? If not, then please supply me with an example of a Roman belief that you disagree with that was determined by a Roman council after the split with the Orthodox church. :) Then explain to me how you can be certain that what Rome's council decided was wrong.
ok , Purgatory.

the word "purgatory" doesnt even have a greek equivalent that can be refered back to the Greek theologians of the first 10 centuries. It was a latin innovation. The basis of Truth is that which was always taught in all places and all times since the beginning.

Without going into details the eastern Orthodox church refuted the Romans on this doctrine in the pseudo-Council of Florence in 1439. Mark Evgenikus of Ephesus laid down the Orthodox interpretation of certain scriptural verses; that the romans use to justify purgatory (mainly 1 Cor 3.15) in this council. Also the romans relied on a few spurious latin Church Fathers. The Orthodox who were greek claimed they were not familiar with these latin theologians but could use an abundance of greek Fathers to defend their position. The latins (RC) made use of the greek Father St John Chrysostom of the 4th century, The greeks laughed at the latin interpretation of John Chrysostom's commentary on 1 cor 3.15, the Orthodox (being greek) said, "It is very right to suppose that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners."

I can give you A link on what Mark of Ephesus debated, but leaving theology aside i will simply give you practical reasons: That even the romans arent too sure of how precise their teaching is.

The Uniates (byzantine rite catholics under the pope) have made an agreement that this teaching is optional. The exact words of the Union of Brest document on purgatory and the uniate parishes reads ; "it shall not be discussed".
Thus in certain byzantine catholic parishes, purgatory is is an optional belief. It depends on the level of latinization. The more independent from latin influence the more likely they consider it false and yet there still in good standing with the roman pope.

Rome has also tinkered with this purgatory theory, they tend not to mention that purgatory is a cathartic "fire" any longer. Nowadays its simply a temporary "state" to cleanse minor sins away.
That fire was the instrument of ceansing was a major obstacle in the Florence council with the Orthodox. The Orthodox asserted that there is only one eternal fire: Gehenna (hell), at the second coming. Not two fires as rome was implying; a temporal fire (purgatory) and an eternal fire (hell). Nowadays the aspect of fire plays a minimal role in RC purgatory.

colinlindsay

8th November 2007, 05:00 AM

A lighter note -

Joe's at it again (see my previous post). But he's given me a little revelation .
He stopped 2 ladies at the coffee serving hatch, saying he had something VERY important to share from the scriptures.
He proceeded to read the passage about the woman with the issue of blood. He then proudly annouced that we'd got it wrong all these years.
Jesus knew he'd been touched by someone,(apparently)
because the woman had made Him unclean. (not just taht power had gone from Him)
Joe understood that we evangelicals had missed this, because we weren't Jewish in our thinking. (In this case because we have failed to understand the concept of uncleanness)
I've heard this before. The reformed need a new hermeneutic, because they have refused to look at the scriptures through their proper Jewish roots. We need Arnold Fruchtenbaum to properly unpack the meaning of the scriptures.
I thank Joe, becuase he's reminded me that there is not such a thing as "Sola Scriptura". He needs and we all need a framework or set of presuppositions or a reference point outside of scripture to understand God's Word.
So I'm asking again - what is that reference point for the Orthodox and for the Calvinist?

orthedoxy

8th November 2007, 05:55 AM

We read the Bible, which the actual prophets and apostles gave us, the people Jesus personally appointed to start his church. It's very easy to tell from the Bible that the Orthodox church and the Roman Catholic church teach things that are in direct opposition to what the apostles taught because we can read what the apostles taught for ourselves.

Where does the bible say The book is the foundation for truth? What verse?
You know before 400 ad they didn't even decide on which books were cannon so how did they test the truth?
What is your basses for accepting the 66 books? can you quote verses to show which is scripture? Why not reject the book of James and Hebrew just like Luther did?

The Bible actually does make explicit statements. It doesn't come down to interpretation. It comes down to what it says and whether you are faithful to it. The authors intended something when they wrote it.

To give a secular example, you can argue all you want over what Newton meant when he said, "An object will remain at rest until acted upon by a force," but regardless of how you interpret it, Newton did actually mean something when he said it. And the way to find out what he really meant is to read more of what he said on the subject.

To find out what a particular verse means, we read more of the Bible because God put the words in the minds and mouths of the authors, so it is his way of communicating to us.

Tell me how can you understand John 3:16 to mean Jesus only died for the elect unless you are reading the verse with Calvinist glasses on? You read the bible and make it fit what you believe.
Here is another example John 6
53Jesus said to them, "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me. 58This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your forefathers ate manna and died, but he who feeds on this bread will live forever." 59He said this while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.

Many Disciples Desert Jesus
60On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?"

How can you come up from this that Jesus is not speaking literally?
Do you really come up with your doctorine from bible alone or is it first you have to be taught your doctorine then interpret the bible to your doctorine?

If the Bible said, "Let the church councils decide matters of doctrine," we'd let the church councils decide matters of doctrine. But the Bible doesn't say that. God has chosen to speak authoritatively and primarily through a book, not church councils. And one easy way to see that is because the book God communicates through disagrees with the Orthodox church councils, and God is one and does not give false testimony. Therefore, either the book is wrong or the councils are wrong.

I'm voting on the book that was written by those hand-selected by God to write his word. Otherwise, why do we have it?
Who wrote the book of Hebrew? How do you know who wrote it?
The bible says The church is the pillar not a book.
1tim 3:15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Jesus also promised gates of hell will not overcome the church.
Did gates of hell overcome The Church? if not where was he Church in 300ad?
Would you admit your whole gospel was never taught by any church before 1500ad?

orthedoxy

8th November 2007, 06:08 AM

Orthodox: From the Greek "ortho (right or correct) and "dox" (thought or opinion). So if any gospel were not orthodox, it would of course not be true, as it would be incorrect thought. But your organization's use of the word orthodox in it's title is by no means proof that correct thought exists within it's theology. Quite the contrary, actually.

You complain about EO being characterized here as a non-christian religion without proof. Here it is, cut and dried.... everything else is immaterial: Idolatry is aggregious sin and apostasy. EO approves and practices flat idolatry in its hilarious, looney iconagraphy. Even have purported images of Christ that are claimed to have been "made without hands" before which they perform acts of obeisance. In light of God's Word, this is heterodoxy, not orthodoxy. Look it up, then perhaps we could petition those preisty-dudes to change the title to Eastern Heterodoxy to more accurately describe the organization.

This is nuts. What complete balderdash!

Go read the bible!

Orthodox means established religion.
Heresy means going against the established teaching.
I don't take you serious anymore because EO have totally refuted you in regard to idle worship, you couldn't give answers to what they said and now you are accusing EO of the same thing.

wnwall

8th November 2007, 12:07 PM

Where does the bible say The book is the foundation for truth? What verse?

Again, you see this principle all over the New Testament. Whenever Jesus or Paul or any of the other authors of the New Testament wanted to prove something, they did it scripturally. They did not refer to the past decisions and thoughts of the rabis, they referred to the scriptures.

What did Jesus say to the Sadducees? He didn't say, "You are wrong because you disagree with the rabbis of the past." He said, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). The scriptures are how we learn God's word.All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16-17).
You know before 400 ad they didn't even decide on which books were cannon so how did they test the truth?Using the same criteria which were used to decide the canon. Obviously if the book was written by an apostle (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) who Jesus personally appointed to spread his message then what they wrote is pretty important. Other than that the other authors of the New Testament were disciples and fellow travelers with the apostles and the brother of Jesus, all of whom the apostles themselves had close fellowship with and saw fit to be in positions of teaching in the church.

I have to go now, I'll get to the rest of your post later.

orthedoxy

8th November 2007, 04:58 PM

Again, you see this principle all over the New Testament. Whenever Jesus or Paul or any of the other authors of the New Testament wanted to prove something, they did it scripturally. They did not refer to the past decisions and thoughts of the rabis, they referred to the scriptures.

Here is a quote from Matt 23:1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

What verse in the OT that mentions Moses seat? Was Jesus quoting a tradition [something outside of scripture] as law? Jesus is also commanding oral tradition because Moses seat is not bible only.

What did Jesus say to the Sadducees? He didn't say, "You are wrong because you disagree with the rabbis of the past." He said, "You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God" (Matthew 22:29). The scriptures are how we learn God's word.All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:16-17).
Using the same criteria which were used to decide the canon. Obviously if the book was written by an apostle (Matthew, John, Paul, Peter) who Jesus personally appointed to spread his message then what they wrote is pretty important. Other than that the other authors of the New Testament were disciples and fellow travelers with the apostles and the brother of Jesus, all of whom the apostles themselves had close fellowship with and saw fit to be in positions of teaching in the church.

I have to go now, I'll get to the rest of your post later.

Not all were disciples also if these men were fallible men. Why take everything they say as scripture?
The bible does say it's inspired but it doesn't say to our faith based upon the book only.
2 Thes 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.
This seems the early Church didn't believe in the written word only. They didn't base their doctrine upon the written only.
I'm going to wait for your answer to 1Tim 3:15 what does this mean?

jckstraw72

8th November 2007, 05:15 PM

colinlindsay -- as Orthodox our reference point is what has always been believed and taught by the Church -- Tradition. any Orthodox person, whether it be a bishop, priest, deacon, or laymen, is held accountable to the universal Tradition of the Church. Innovations are NOT welcome.

bradfordl

8th November 2007, 06:47 PM

I don't take you serious anymore because...
No prob. I haven't taken you seriously from the moment I noticed the "icon" of that idolatrous club you're a member of. Your 'explanations' have been heard and rejected. You perform all sorts of linguistic and mental gymnastics to deny that your idolatry is idolatry. <shrug> So what? Every abortionist does the same to deny what they do is murder. Every tax cheat does the same to deny what they do is theft. Every fornicator does the same to deny what they do is sin. Etc. & etc.... ad nauseum. Who cares? Means nothing.

It may frustrate you that I don't swallow your swill and agree with your contradiction of scripture, but that is immaterial to me. I will stand on the truth, not the simpering obfuscation of heretics.

TraderJack

8th November 2007, 07:31 PM

colinlindsay -- as Orthodox our reference point is what has always been believed and taught by the Church -- Tradition.

Included in that "tradition" is a council that was considered an ecumenical council at the time, guided by the Holy Spirit without error.

EPITOME OF THE DEFINITION OF THE ICONOCLASTIC CONCILIAbULUM, HELD IN CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 754.

THE DEFINITION OF THE HOLY, GREAT, AND ECUMENICAL SEVENTH SYNOD.
The holy and Ecumenical synod, which by the grace of God and most pious command of the God-beloved and orthodox Emperors, Constantine and Leo,(2) now assembled in the imperial residence city, in the temple of the holy and inviolate Mother of God and Virgin Mary, surnamed in Blachernae, have decreed as follows.
Satan misguided men, so that they worshipped the creature instead of the Creator. The Mosaic law and the prophets cooperated to undo this ruin; but in order to save mankind thoroughly, God sent his own Son, who turned us away from error and the worshipping of idols, and taught us the worshipping of God in spirit and in truth. As messengers of his saving doctrine, he left us his Apostles and disciples, and these adorned the Church, his Bride, with his glorious doctrines. This ornament of the Church the holy Fathers and the six Ecumenical Councils have preserved inviolate. But the before-mentioned demi-urgos of wickedness could not endure the sight of this adornment, and gradually brought back idolatry under the appearance of Christianity. As then Christ armed his Apostles against the ancient idolatry with the power of the Holy Spirit, and sent them out into all the world, so has he awakened against the new idolatry his servants our faithful Emperors, and endowed them with the same wisdom of the Holy Spirit. Impelled by the Holy Spirit they could no longer be witnesses of the Church being laid waste by the deception of demons, and summoned the sanctified assembly of the God-beloved bishops, that they might institute at a synod a scriptural examination into the deceitful colouring of the pictures (omoiwmatwn) which draws down the spirit of man from the lofty adoration (latreias) of God to the low and material adoration (latreian) of the creature, and that they, under divine guidance, might express their view on the subject.
Our holy synod therefore assembled, and we, its 338 members, follow the older synodal decrees, and accept and proclaim joyfully the dogmas handed down, principally those of the six holy Ecumenical Synods. In the first place the holy and ecumenical great synod assembled at Nice, etc.
After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation--namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.
Wherefore we thought it right, to shew forth with all accuracy, in our present definition the error of such as make and venerate these, for it is the unanimous doctrine of all the holy Fathers and of the six Ecumenical Synods, that no one may imagine any kind of separation or mingling in opposition to the unsearchable, unspeakable, and incomprehensible union of the two natures in the one hypostasis or person. What avails, then, the folly of the painter, who from sinful love of gain depicts that which should not be depicted--that is, with his polluted hands he tries to fashion that which should only be believed in the heart and confessed with the mouth? He makes an image and calls it Christ. The name Christ signifies God and man. Consequently it is an image of God and man, and consequently he has in his foolish mind, in his representation of the created flesh, depicted the Godhead which cannot be represented, and thus mingled what should not be mingled. Thus he is guilty of a double blasphemy--the one in making an image of the Godhead, and the other by mingling the Godhead and manhood. Those fall into the same blasphemy who venerate the image, and the same woe rests upon both, because they err with Arius, Dioscorus, and Eutyches, and with the heresy of the Acephali. When, however, they are blamed for undertaking to depict the divine nature of Christ, which should not be depicted, they take refuge in the excuse: We represent only the flesh of Christ which we have seen and handled. But that is a Nestorian error. For it should be considered that that flesh was also the flesh of God the Word, without any separation, perfectly assumed by the divine nature and made wholly divine. How could it now be separated and represented apart? So is it wish the human soul of Christ which mediates between the Godhead of the Son and the dulness of the flesh. As the human flesh is at the same time flesh of God the Word, so is the human soul also soul of God the Word, and both at the same time, the soul being deified as well as the body, and the Godhead remained undivided even in the separation of the soul from the body in his voluntary passion. For where the soul of Christ is, there is also his Godhead; and where the body of Christ is, there too is his Godhead. If then in his passion the divinity remained inseparable from these, how do the fools venture to separate the flesh from the Godhead, and represent it by itself as the image of a mere man? They fall into the abyss of impiety, since they separate the flesh from the Godhead, ascribe to it a subsistence of its own, a personality of its own, which they depict, and thus introduce a fourth person into the Trinity. Moreover, they represent as not being made divine, that which has been made divine by being assumed by the Godhead. Whoever, then, makes an image of Christ, either depicts the Godhead which cannot be depicted, and mingles it with the manhood (like the Monophysites), or he represents the body of Christ as not made divine and separate and as a person apart, like the Nestorians.
The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper. This and no other form, this and no other type, has he chosen to represent his incarnation. Bread he ordered to be brought, but not a representation of the human form, so that idolatry might not arise. And as the body of Christ is made divine, so also this figure of the body of Christ, the bread, is made divine by the descent of the Holy Spirit; it becomes the divine body of Christ by the mediation of the priest who, separating the oblation from that which is common, sanctifies it. The evil custom of assigning names to the images does not come down from Christ and the Apostles and the holy Fathers; nor have these left behind then, any prayer by which an image should be hallowed or made anything else than ordinary matter.

Only to have another "ecumenical" council condemn the council of Constantinople, AD754, as heretical at a later point. Both claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, without error.

So goes "tradition".

jckstraw72

8th November 2007, 07:41 PM

the fact that that council is not accepted means its not Ecumenical and never was. you can not call an Ecumenical Council, it only becomes regarded as Ecumenical when it is seen that the Holy Spirit leads the Church to accept it as a valid expression of what has always been believed (you cant be like hey bishops come together for the 8th Ecumenical Council). sure there's been a number of councils that were not accepted -- we dont deny that Orthodox ppl make mistakes, but the Holy Spirit weeded out those mistakes by working through the entirety of the Church. its like in 1400 whatever year --- a bunch of Orthodox clergy "officially" submitted to Papal authority and accepted the filioque and all that stuff, but the laity absolutely refused to accept it, and that was that -- the council is not accepted by us, bc the Holy Spirit caused Truth to prevail.

bradforl -- i have never worshipped anyone or thing besides the Holy Trinity. if i worship icons then you worship the Bible.

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 08:12 PM

Included in that "tradition" is a council that was considered an ecumenical council at the time, guided by the Holy Spirit without error.

Only to have another "ecumenical" council condemn the council of Constantinople, AD754, as heretical at a later point. Both claimed to be guided by the Holy Spirit, without error.

So goes "tradition".
A council becomes Ecumenical in time. It must be accepted by the "oikomene". The council of Constantinople in 381 a.d. did not become "Ecumenical" until 451 a.d.
The conscience of the Church makes a council Ecumenical , it can happen right away or take decades. Councils that are not ecumenical become forgotten historical relics and in time are dubbed "robber synods".

Your reference is a perfect example. The iconoclasts held a council in 754, and the iconodules held their council in 787 a.d.. The conscience of the Church lead by the Holy Spirit acknowledged the council of 787 by the Iconodules to be the legitimate Ecumenical council in 843 a.d. Another words the iconodule council clarified that which was always believed by all, in all places since the beginning. And this is verified in the frescos of the earliest house church discovered in Syria in 240 a.d. A controversy lasting about 140 years came to an end, and the Entire laity of the universal church dubbed the iconoclastic council of 754 as heretical and a robber synod and celebrated the Council of 787 as Ecumenical.

TraderJack

8th November 2007, 08:18 PM

A council becomes Ecumenical in time.

So, the council of Nicea didn't become "ecumenical" until after time had passed, and a later "council" that itself had to wait to become "ecumenical" deemed it so, which had to also wait until time pass so another potential ecumencial council can declare it ecumencial, even though it has not been determined that it is ecumencial either.

Do you realize that argument is one of infinite regress?

Councils that are not ecumenical become forgotten historical relics and in time are dubbed "robber synods".

That council stated it was ecumenical and was accepted at that time as ecumenical, just as Nicea was.

bradfordl

8th November 2007, 08:19 PM

The only admissible figure of the humanity of Christ, however, is bread and wine in the holy Supper.
I will say Amen to that!

we dont deny that Orthodox ppl make mistakes, but the Holy Spirit weeded out those mistakes by working through the entirety of the Church.
Yeah. It happened in the days of the reformation, and your club got left to its heresy. Come out of that synagogue of satan.

bradforl -- i have never worshipped anyone or thing besides the Holy Trinity. if i worship icons then you worship the Bible.
You say that, yet your devilish club performs acts of obiesance to images. Believing the bible is not worshipping the bible, it is believing the Word of my Redeemer, whom alone I worship, whom alone I venerate. Believing clowns in big hats who tell you its OK to perform acts of obiesance to images when God's Word tells His people not to makes you not one of His people. You, sir, and the whole of your satanic club, reject the Holy Writ in preference to the idolatrous babblings of clowns in big hats. And you think I would care whether you take me seriously? Why would anyone take you seriously?

Go mumble some abracadabras in front of some image you revere.... it may relieve your stress.

I am a member of a Church that purchased their building from a Methodist club, and there is an idolatrous image of some heretic's idea of what Jesus might have looked like in the stained glass window. One of the reasons the Session has not removed it is because they know some folks there really admire it. They get all goosepimply and sentimental over it. Just like you EO people. And they are practicing idolatry. We are fighting to have this idolatrous image destroyed. Just 'cuz something gives you the warm fuzzies does not mean it is acceptable to God. I'm sure Aaron's sons were all pumped about the new incense they concocted to burn in the tabernacle. God obviously did not share their enthusiasm. Go read about it. Listen to God's Word and leave behind the babbling bozos in byzantine bonnets.

TraderJack

8th November 2007, 08:21 PM

Believing the bible is not worshipping the bible, it is believing the Word of my Redeemer, whom alone I worship, whom alone I venerate.

AMEN, AMEN and AMEN:thumbsup: :clap:

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 08:27 PM

TraderJack

8th November 2007, 08:43 PM

orthedoxy

8th November 2007, 09:04 PM

No prob. I haven't taken you seriously from the moment I noticed the "icon" of that idolatrous club you're a member of. Your 'explanations' have been heard and rejected. You perform all sorts of linguistic and mental gymnastics to deny that your idolatry is idolatry. <shrug> So what? Every abortionist does the same to deny what they do is murder. Every tax cheat does the same to deny what they do is theft. Every fornicator does the same to deny what they do is sin. Etc. & etc.... ad nauseum. Who cares? Means nothing.

It may frustrate you that I don't swallow your swill and agree with your contradiction of scripture, but that is immaterial to me. I will stand on the truth, not the simpering obfuscation of heretics.
You want us to just call you names with no facts?
Your causation has been answered with bible verses. You couldn't answer the questions they asked you.
Just to let you know we don't have statues in our church so I don't worship statues. I don't think EO worship idols or there is something wrong with what they are doing.
You are acting like a Jehovah witness that says just because you have a cross you are idolatrous.

bradfordl

8th November 2007, 09:50 PM

Jesus is the Word of God not the bible.
You said the bible is not the Word of God.

It flabbergasts me that you would call yourself a Christian.

SaintPhotios

8th November 2007, 10:54 PM

You said the bible is not the Word of God.

It flabbergasts me that you would call yourself a Christian.
haha..... no dude. Whenever "Word" is used in Scripture and even in patristic literature, it is referring to the second Person of the Trinity.

He wasn't saying that Scripture isn't the word of God, but the proper noun version of "Word" does not refer to Scripture, but Christ. It has nothing to do with a written word.... go to the original Greek.

buzuxi02

8th November 2007, 10:55 PM

So, the council of Nicea didn't become "ecumenical" until after time had passed, and a later "council" that itself had to wait to become "ecumenical" deemed it so, which had to also wait until time pass so another potential ecumencial council can declare it ecumencial, even though it has not been determined that it is ecumencial either.

Do you realize that argument is one of infinite regress?

That council stated it was ecumenical and was accepted at that time as ecumenical, just as Nicea was.
A council only clarifies right belief from wrong belief. A controversy may still persist after a council, as the arian controversy did for another 50 years after Nicea. But the right belief always prevails and the council which proclaimed right belief is recognized as the authentic Apostolic Tradition.

The Council of Constantinople was an eastern council only, while it taught the truth it was not meant for the universal Church but in time it was absorbed into all the Churches and by the council of Chalcedon in 451 a.d. it was recognized as ecumenical.
Even many protestant churches accept the Creed that came from these two councils.(granted with the western fillioque innovation which scripture condemns)

Another words the Apostolic Truth is that which was believed in all places and all times since the beginning.

When i asked a pentecostal friend where in the bible does it say that Matthew, Mark and Luke authored the gospel books attributed to them, he opened his bible to the table of contents!

The holy scriptures are divinely inspired, but none of us are infallible interpreters. This is why the West are the originators of over 40,000 denominations all claiming the same thing, that the calvinists of this forum are. But scripture teaches that the doctrines are transmitted and recieved as Jude 9 says "To contend ernestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

Lets see what those same scriptures say when taken in context:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them. And from childhood you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction." 1Tim 3.14-16

Notice the italics, what did Paul mean? First off Paul says Timothy has known the scripture since he was a child, this is due to the influence of his mother Eunice who learned it from her mother Eloise(Timothy's grandmother 2Tim 1.5)

Timothy also learned the truth from Paul himself:
"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are Christ Jesus. The good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us." 2Tim1.13

And again:
"All the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will also be able to teach others also". 2 Tim2.2

The doctrine of Sola scripture and each person's interpretation of it is against the scripture they defend:

"And God has appointed these in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...1Cor11.28

Sola scripture pre-supposes all inherit the gift of teacher. Yet 1 Cor 11.29 fights against this very fallacy, "Are all apostles?, Are all prophets?, Are all teachers?"...
Whats the point of teacher if the Holy Spirit leads every indivdual to their own personal understanding ?

I think everyone on this thread will believe what they will at this point, so for me this thread has run its course.

And i depart in obedience to the words of Paul 2Thess 3.6, "But we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he recieved by us."

bradfordl

8th November 2007, 11:22 PM

But the right belief always prevails
Hence the reformation and the debunking of false shepherds such as your bozos in byzantine bonnets and their teachings. Look atcha! Even a stopped watch is right twice a day!

Notice the italics, what did Paul mean? First off Paul says Timothy has known the scripture since he was a child, this is due to the influence of his mother Eunice who learned it from her mother Eloise(Timothy's grandmother 2Tim 1.5)

Eggzactly! The scriptures. His mother and grandmother. Not bozos in bonnets touting titles as the basis of their authority.

"And God has appointed these in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...1Cor11.28

... which none of your priesty-dudes are...

And i depart in obedience to the words of Paul 2Thess 3.6, "But we command you brethren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he recieved by us."
Fine. But the key word in that verse is "brother", which cannot apply to idolators. So I'll say tata to you on the basis of a more appropriate verse:

Tit 3:10-11 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Rick Otto

9th November 2007, 12:09 AM

buzuxi02;A council only clarifies right belief from wrong belief. A controversy may still persist after a council, as the arian controversy did for another 50 years after Nicea. But the right belief always prevails and the council which proclaimed right belief is recognized as the authentic Apostolic Tradition.

"Is recognized as ~"
...but not universaly recognized as pronounced.

Another words the Apostolic Truth is that which was believed in all places and all times since the beginning.
As is recognized by us to be so...

When i asked a pentecostal friend where in the bible does it say that Matthew, Mark and Luke authored the gospel books attributed to them, he opened his bible to the table of contents!
I guess he showed you!^_^

The holy scriptures are divinely inspired, but none of us are infallible interpreters.
So then the Pope & The Magesterium are not one or any, of "us"?

This is why the West are the originators of over 40,000 denominations all claiming the same thing, that the calvinists of this forum are.
... Would only that be true, God willing!
But scripture teaches that the doctrines are transmitted and recieved as Jude 9 says "To contend ernestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.
Pending Council Approval...

Lets see what those same scriptures say when taken in context:

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them. And from childhood you have known the holy scriptures which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof for correction." 1Tim 3.14-16

Notice the italics, what did Paul mean? First off Paul says Timothy has known the scripture since he was a child, this is due to the influence of his mother Eunice who learned it from her mother Eloise(Timothy's grandmother 2Tim 1.5)

Timothy also learned the truth from Paul himself:
"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are Christ Jesus. The good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in us." 2Tim1.13

And again:
"All the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will also be able to teach others also". 2 Tim2.2

We see it is all the same stuff, nothin' new, no bells & whistles...
The doctrine of Sola scripture and each person's interpretation of it is against the scripture they defend:
Nice pirohuette!

"And God has appointed these in the church, first apostles, second prophets, third teachers...1Cor11.28

Sola scripture pre-supposes all inherit the gift of teacher.

Now yer trippin' dude. SS only holds scripture to be the tool we use to calibrate the truth of everything else.

Yet 1 Cor 11.29 fights against this very fallacy, "Are all apostles?, Are all prophets?, Are all teachers?"...
This is a nice little Punch & Judy show ya got goin', but it has nothin' to do with reality.

Whats the point of teacher if the Holy Spirit leads every indivdual to their own personal understanding ?
What's the point of saying you believe anything about something if you don't even understand what it is your talking about?

And i depart...
:wave:

wnwall

9th November 2007, 12:54 AM

The 'WORD" of your Redeemer is the Logos the second person of the Trinity who came down from heaven and was incarnate and assumed our humanity to save us. This one and same Jesus Christ both Perfect God and Perfect Man is whom I worship.

Jesus is the Word of God not the bible.

Jesus referred to scripture as the word of God. Not only that but he did it while addressing the error the Pharisees made in placing tradition above the scriptures.Then Pharisees and scribes came to Jesus from Jerusalem and said, "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat." He answered them, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? For God commanded, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.' But you say, 'If anyone tells his father or his mother, "What you would have gained from me is given to God," he need not honor his father.' So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God. You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, when he said: "'This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.'" (Matthew 15).

jckstraw72

9th November 2007, 02:21 AM

Now yer trippin' dude. SS only holds scripture to be the tool we use to calibrate the truth of everything else.yeah thats waht ppl say, but somehow it always rears its head as "the Bible doesnt say that!!" thats a whole 'nother thing -- only believing whats written as compared to using it as a standard guideline

Ceridwen

9th November 2007, 06:54 PM

babbling bozos in byzantine bonnets
http://bluraysucks.com/media/entities/1168-416-rofl.jpg

orthedoxy

9th November 2007, 09:23 PM

Rick Otto

9th November 2007, 10:34 PM

orthedoxy;Calvinism is really John Mcartherism. Calvinist today wouldn’t accept Calvin today as Christian. John Calvin believed God so loved everyone that he sent his son, he also believed in infant baptism and receiving the holy spirit at baptism among other things.
Arguable, but... whatever...
You guys claim that you are the only true Christian.
Only some of us. All y'all make that claim, not us generaly. Personaly, I think most Protestant churches have reverted to Catholic soteriology.

You religion is not orthodox, there were no church that ever believed like you do today.
We base our beliefs on scripture, not on somebody's idea of who "the church" is, and what somebody tries to represent them as saying they believe anything.
orthodox means the established religion.
Ya mean like the one Jesus came out of and was killed by?
To be a Calvinist you would have to believe Jesus lied when he said gates of hell couldn’t overcome the Church.
Or have a more mature understanding of what "Church" means.

You also have to believe your church didn’t have pillar and foundation for 1900 years.
Wrong.
You think you can reach God by bible only.
Wrong again.
You are so wrong it appears you don't even care that you might be wrong, you so love spewing anti-Prot malice.
This is what the people thought when they build the tower of Babel and all their languages were confused.
You are confused.
You guys claim you have the right interpretation of the bible well so does every single Christian and Christian cults.
I don't call the RCC a cult when they make that claim.

You claim you believe in bible only but the bible doesn’t teach that.
No we don't. You either haven't been paying attention, you're misled,somebody lied to you, or you are just trying to stir trouble by lying outright.

We do believe the bible is the word of God but the words of God can be twisted to suit what you want to believe.
And we are trying to tell you not to do that anymore.

God didn’t only give us a book and say whoever interprets it right will be saved. During the time of the bible Paul says hold on to my oral teaching. This means they didn’t believe in bible only.
No it doesn't. It means the oral was the same as the written.

You claim you believe in bible only but you can’t find anywhere in the bible where it says which books to accept.
It says to accept truth.
You can't find anywhere in the Bible where it says make a Bible.
You have to rely on Church Fathers or I don’t know what else to show that God have reviled his infallible truth from outside the bible.
Interesting typo.
Yes, you don't have a clue what else, I'm sure.

You just don’t want to admit it was The Church (the one that rejected your gospel) and Church council that determined which book should be included in the bible.
I don't have a problem with that. It was their rejecting the truth that annoys me.
When you can’t rely on Church fathers and councils then you can’t rely on the bible.
I rely on God.
I don't give His glory to anyone else.
You guys have to realize the gospel of Calvinism is a new gospel.
The truth is only new to you, because you weren't shown where what you think is legitimate authority, realy isn't. Authority is in Truth. You have been taught that the truth is in authority.

wnwall

10th November 2007, 02:35 AM

Calvinism is really John Mcartherism. Calvinist today wouldn’t accept Calvin today as Christian. John Calvin believed God so loved everyone that he sent his son, he also believed in infant baptism and receiving the holy spirit at baptism among other things.

You've got a lot of bad information from whatever Calvinists you're referring to. A lot of the people on this board are Presbyterians, and Presbyterians practice infant baptism. I, myself, was baptized as an infant. John Calvin did not believe in baptismal regeneration. Calvinists baptize infants for a completely different reason from the Orthodox Church. We would certainly accept Calvin as a Christian today and agree with most of what he taught.

You guys claim that you are the only true Christian.We do not claim Calvinists are the only true Christians, but we do claim the true gospel stands on justification by grace alone through faith alone and that justification of sinners was made possible by Christ becoming the propitiation for our sin. Anyone who teaches otherwise, as the Orthodox do, do not teach the true gospel, but 5 point Calvinists aren't the only people who hold to the true gospel.

You religion is not orthodox, there were no church that ever believed like you do today.That's funny because we teach the same thing the apostles taught, as is evidence by the books they left us. So your statement cannot be true.

To be a Calvinist you would have to believe Jesus lied when he said gates of hell couldn’t overcome the Church.There is a true church and a visible, outward church. The true bride of Christ will never be overcome because God sovereignly preserves his elect. The outward, visible church is subject to corruption.

You also have to believe your church didn’t have pillar and foundation for 1900 years.??? I don't even know what you're trying to say here. We believe no such thing. We believe the true church has always existed and Christ has always been faithful to his bride. But as it was in the days of the prophets, and as it was in the days of Jesus, so it is today. Wicked people love prestige and places of honor, and they are able to fool others with outward deeds in order to obtain places of honor in the church, so the visible church becomes corrupted, just as the synagogues were corrupt in Jesus' day.

When you can’t rely on Church fathers and councils then you can’t rely on the bible.That's a pretty rash statement. What if Peter had said that to Jesus when he defended his positions against the Pharisees with scripture? "If you can't rely on Pharisees and the writings of the rabbis then you can't rely on scripture." I think Jesus' reply would have been something like, "Get behind me, Satan." God's word stands firm when men fail.

SaintPhotios

10th November 2007, 03:25 AM

Oh, I see. The use of a capital letter has changed the meaning.
No.... the differing Greek is what changed the meaning. The use of a capital letter is because it's referring to God.

Sort of like how you EO's use the word "orthodox" to mean the title of the heresy taught by your babbling bozos in byzantine bonnets, right?
It appears the chip on your shoulder is growing as we speak. Disrespect won't get you anywhere in what's supposed to be healthy debate... people will simply quit listening.

You can keep your "patristic" literature to yourself.
Calvin himself quoted Church Fathers when he felt it suited his case. And even in my experience, Calvinist circles have no problem quoting St. Augustine. Is this your disdain for Church Fathers? or something in your particular circle of Calvinists?

Hence the reformation and the debunking of false shepherds such as your bozos in byzantine bonnets and their teachings. Look atcha! Even a stopped watch is right twice a day!
You're suggesting that the Reformation is evidence that right belief prevails? If you'd like to make this about numbers, Eastern Orthodoxy outnumbers Reformed Churches by about 200,000 members. Numbers don't ultimately matter, but it makes no sense to cite the Reformation in this case. In any case, Calvin broke away from Roman Catholicism, not Eastern Orthodoxy. Rome left Orthodoxy 500 years earlier, so the two events are completely unrelated.

I guess he showed you!^_^
That simply shows his ignorance... he's putting his faith in Nelson Publishing or whoever the publisher of his Bible is... neither God nor the Apostles ever listed a canon. What if you found a Bible with the Gospel of Judas in it? or what you call the Apocrypha? How would you know which canon was correct? What authority did Luther and Calvin have to remove books from the canon? And how can you trust their judgement?

..... Seriously guys, consider the logical consequences of adhering to total depravity on one hand, holding sola scriptura on the other... and then somehow coming to the conclusion that you have any amount of certainty whatsoever about the doctrines you espouse. If you truly adhere to total depravity, without some authority by which to infallibly interpret Scripture, then the infallibility of Scripture is of no effect to you. Because while Scripture may be infallible, all you have is the end result of inerrant Scripture after it has been filtered through your totally depraved judgement, which in turn takes away both any effect of its infallibility as well as any certainty on your part as to what it actually means.

This Calvinistic system of authority is one logical fallacy after another. It may take the Holy Spirit to know truth, but it only takes an ounce of reason to know when your system has more holes in it than the Titanic.

heymikey80

10th November 2007, 09:57 AM

yeah thats waht ppl say, but somehow it always rears its head as "the Bible doesnt say that!!" thats a whole 'nother thing -- only believing whats written as compared to using it as a standard guideline
If you're willing to let anything in that someone can kinda halfway shoehorn into consistency with the text of Scripture, then yeah, I'm more than willing to assert where "The Bible doesn't say that!" The Reformed have well experienced what happens to such churches.

Councils have failed in the past, they continue to fail, they will continue to fail. The Church is not infallible, be it in popes, bishops, elders or councils or just the progress of history. And obviously if it takes the progress of history, the Church is always fallible at any particular spot in that progress. Some of your tradition are simply flights of fancy or wishful thinking.

Where it can be confirmed historically I've no qualms about it informing and from that standpoint, reforming the Reformed. "Semper Reformanda." But don't expect it to attract the Reformed to your side. Because they'll never get beyond the simple realization that a bunch of fallible people does not an infallible Church (or Church tradition) make.

Again I say, we have the advantage here. Because we don't see the Church as you do. You want to assail Scripture? You're assailing yourself. Your Church declared it Apostolic, whom they held as authorities over the entire Church. Why aren't you listening to Scripture as authoritative over the Church, and protecting the Church from people who misinterpret it and lead the Church astray?

But for us the Church carries a mass of sin. But She's our Mother, and I'll work with Her and defend Her as I ever can. Christ will cleanse Her, not Church history. And doesn't that mean She needs cleansing from sin.

Rick Otto

10th November 2007, 12:12 PM

. If you truly adhere to total depravity, without some authority by which to infallibly interpret Scripture, then the infallibility of Scripture is of no effect to you.
I know the concept is probably foreign to you, but truth is authoritative. And it is not all of it completely indecipherable without a priest.

Because while Scripture may be infallible, all you have is the end result of inerrant Scripture after it has been filtered through your totally depraved judgement, which in turn takes away both any effect of its infallibility as well as any certainty on your part as to what it actually means.
Regeneration relieves us of Total Depravity and The Holy Spirit isn't impotent in His leading & teaching simply because you have replaced Him with a catechism.

wnwall

10th November 2007, 01:13 PM

Calvin himself quoted Church Fathers when he felt it suited his case. And even in my experience, Calvinist circles have no problem quoting St. Augustine.

Correction, Calvin quoted church fathers when they agreed with scripture. We're not anti-theologians. We have many theologians of our own and recognize many past theologians, such as Augustine, as being helpful in expounding the scriptures. But no theologian is infallible. Augustine was very wrong on his understanding of marriage and sexuality, as can be seen clearly in scripture. Calvin said no one is more than 8% right in his theology. That's the approach we take to theologians. We come willing to be taught and always hoping to hear them expound scripture faithfully, but if they depart from scripture, we reject their teachings because the scriptures are what God has given us to test the validity of other's teachings. The scriptures are authoritative. And EO isn't faithful to scripture.

colinlindsay

10th November 2007, 05:07 PM

< < < Calvin said no one is more than 8% right in his theology. That's the approach we take to theologians. > >

This I really don't understand. In this case any theolginas could be 92% slightly off the mark or 91 % dodgy and 1% heretical or 46% herteical etc etc. This is FAR worse a scenario than N T Wright saying that he
accepts that 25% of what believes at the moment is probably wrong. He got a lot of stick on these boards amongst fundamentalists for that.

If this is true for theologians what chance is there for the amateur posters on these boards?
Surely it would be better to hold counsel, especially when attempting to disagree with Church Fathers who were so much closer to the apostles . You should logically have NO confidence that you are reading the Bible aright.
But of course this all comes back to my point earlier. To have confidence in our interpretation of a scripture we all inevitably DON'T believe in Sola Scriptura. We throw our lot in with a favourite teacher, system of theology or set of presuppositional passages.

wnwall

10th November 2007, 06:51 PM

I don't know where the 8% thing came from, I have only heard someone else quote it, and at the time the impression I got was not that he meant only 8% of what we claim to be true is true and the rest is false, but that no theologian knows more than 8% of what God has revealed. In other words, we've all got a lot to learn. My rendition of it was probably not put in the best way. Forgive me, Calvin.

Alchemist

10th November 2007, 09:16 PM

I know the concept is probably foreign to you, but truth is authoritative. And it is not all of it completely indecipherable without a priest.
Of course :). The question is, how do you know you are being guided by the Holy Spirit and not being deceived when you read the Bible? Because the Bible says so? The circular logic in that argument aside, Scripture is pretty clear:
"Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."
St. John 16:13
"But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
1 Timothy 3:15
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
2 Thessalonians 2:15
"Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you."
- 1 Corinthians 11:2
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand."
- 2 Thessalonians 2:15
"And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest? And he said, How can I, except some man should guide me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him."
- Acts 8:30-31
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
- St. Matthew 16:18

Catechism is the way we are to know the truth; that is what the Bible says. The Church is the ground of truth, not individual interpretations of Scripture; that is what the Bible says. The gates of Hell did not prevail against the Church, only to be "rebuilt" at the Reformation, for it is guided by the Holy Spirit to all truth, and will never fall, regardless of how sinful we may be; that is what the Bible says.

So when I want to know what the Bible is, I can read it myself. But I would be a fool to think that just because I think the Bible says something that it actually does, unless it is accepted as true by the Church whom Christ and St. Paul are talking about. That is what the Bible says. And there is only one church around which fits that description :).

Peace,
Nick

SaintPhotios

11th November 2007, 08:35 AM

I know the concept is probably foreign to you, but truth is authoritative.
First of all, no... it's not foreign to me, because I was a Calvinist for several years. And secondly, you're going in circles. We both agree the truth (by that, I think we both mean Scripture) is authoritative.... but the problem is that Scripture being authoritative is of no effect in the Calvinist worldview. You can say that Scripture is infallible.... but the only access we have to the truth contained within Scripture is interpretation. In Calvinistic theology, the interpretation of Scripture is individualistic... meaning no man has any more authority than than the next to interpret, so it is to each one's individual interpretation that you must rely on. And therein the problem lies. If your theology suggests that each individual is responsible for interpretation (which according sola scriptura, is essential), then infallible understanding of scripture is impossible without infallible interpretation. And fallible interpretation is at the heart of sola scriptura.

And you can't say that Scripture is totally "self-evident". It's infallibility may be, but not the meaning contained within it. If this were actually true, then 1.) satan could not lead us astray nor would the holy spirit be required for proper interpretation, because something that is self-evident does not require interpretation. and 2.) if it were truly self-evident, the existence of varying denominations all subscribing to the same Scriptures would be logically impossible.

Regeneration relieves us of Total Depravity and The Holy Spirit isn't impotent in His leading & teaching simply because you have replaced Him with a catechism.
but it has not relieved you of fallibility.... and that's the point here. you cannot have infallible teaching which relies on fallible interpretation. If your ultimate authority of interpretation is a fallilble authority (in the case of Calvinism, individual interpretion), then your result is fallible. Therefore, for you to make the claim that you are infallibly certain that Christ is the Son of God betrays your own theological system. You can accuse Eastern Orthodoxy of having a fallible authority as well. Okay... we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say our authority is actually fallible, and we just don't realize it. But our system at leasts assumes an infallible authority, which makes it at the very least possible, according to our theological system, that infallible truths such as the Divinity of Christ, can be held. You're theological system doesn't even make that possible. So even if we're wrong, it's because somewhere in our authority there is an unknown mistake. But your Calvinistic theological system doesn't even ALLOW for infallible truths. Holding infallible truths is utterly inconsistent with your fallibilistic system. This means that even if we are wrong, we are infinitely closer than your fallibilistic Calvinist theological system due to our system which at least allows for those infallible truths to be held (which means, in these case, whether or not we are right or wrong becomes irrelevant).

Correction, Calvin quoted church fathers when they agreed with scripture. We're not anti-theologians.
I was responding to someone who told me to "keep my patristics to myself"..... you may not be anti-patristic, be he apparently was.

Rick Otto

11th November 2007, 11:07 AM

SaintPhotios;
You can say that Scripture is infallible.... but the only access we have to the truth contained within Scripture is interpretation.

We also have revelation of those truths by the Holy Spirit, but scripture is self-referential and verifies itself, thus our "interpretations" aren't without verification.

In Calvinistic theology, the interpretation of Scripture is individualistic... meaning no man has any more authority than than the next to interpret,
The man with more authority is the man with more truth.

so it is to each one's individual interpretation that you must rely on.
We are individualy esponsible in many ways. We each have a conscience. Even with a superstructure of people with assumed authority & assumed Holy Spirit guidance, what we personaly decide to believe is still subject to our individual interpretation of its meaning.

And therein the problem lies. If your theology suggests that each individual is responsible for interpretation (which according sola scriptura, is essential), then infallible understanding of scripture is impossible without infallible interpretation. And fallible interpretation is at the heart of sola scriptura.
Infallable interpretation isn't any more difficult for the individual than it is for the clergy, providing for adequate study.

And you can't say that Scripture is totally "self-evident".
I wouldn't attempt to.
It's infallibility may be, but not the meaning contained within it. If this were actually true, then 1.) satan could not lead us astray nor would the holy spirit be required for proper interpretation, because something that is self-evident does not require interpretation. and 2.) if it were truly self-evident, the existence of varying denominations all subscribing to the same Scriptures would be logically impossible.
Regenerated selves find evident what reprobate minds don't.
but it has not relieved you of fallibility.... and that's the point here.
Fallibility is the human condition. We get relieved from it, but not of it.

you cannot have infallible teaching which relies on fallible interpretation.
That's why we reserve the adjective "infallable" for divine personages only.
If your ultimate authority of interpretation is a fallilble authority (in the case of Calvinism, individual interpretion), then your result is fallible.
Authority rests on truth, not on fallible people.

Therefore, for you to make the claim that you are infallibly certain that Christ is the Son of God betrays your own theological system.
Isn't that much "self-evident" from scripture?

You can accuse Eastern Orthodoxy of having a fallible authority as well. Okay... we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say our authority is actually fallible, and we just don't realize it. But our system at leasts assumes an infallible authority, which makes it at the very least possible, according to our theological system, that infallible truths such as the Divinity of Christ, can be held.

Scripture is our infallable authority. Problem solved.
Even an infallable authority has to be interpreted by the people it assumes authority over. Some guy having the infallible truth is no guarantee his audience will 'get it'.
Your human authority is the oppopsite of scapegoating - placing all the responsibility on one pair of shoulders in order to relieve your own sense of vulnerability.

You're theological system doesn't even make that possible. So even if we're wrong, it's because somewhere in our authority there is an unknown mistake.
So then your system is no better, admitting that possibility. The vulnerability/responsibility of the individual remains.
But your Calvinistic theological system doesn't even ALLOW for infallible truths.
Sure it does. We call it "scripture".

Holding infallible truths is utterly inconsistent with your fallibilistic system.
Total fantasy trip, that one.

This means that even if we are wrong, we are infinitely closer than your fallibilistic Calvinist theological system due to our system which at least allows for those infallible truths to be held (which means, in these case, whether or not we are right or wrong becomes irrelevant).
Being wrong is never irrelevant or closer to the truth.

I was responding to someone who told me to "keep my patristics to myself"..... you may not be anti-patristic, be he apparently was.
Actualy, neither of us is "anti-Patristic". What we object to is the unnatural reverence given them simply because of their historical proximity to Jesus & the apostles.
Judas was an apostle & personal aquaintence of Jesus, too. Peter was constantly screwing up big time.
So the calibration of truth rests on scripture, not on time, place, or acquaintence.

SaintPhotios

11th November 2007, 02:32 PM

We also have revelation of those truths by the Holy Spirit, but scripture is self-referential and verifies itself, thus our "interpretations" aren't without verification.
That's completely circular. Every Christian sect makes that claim. If all Christian sects claim inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yet disagree, then obviously most (if not all) are wrong. They don't think they're wrong, as you don't think you're wrong. But you have no external indication (or even internal other than some vague "feeling" you might mistake for the Holy Spirit at work) whatsoever that you are the one of all those opposing claims that is actually right. This is precisely why Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Oriental Orthodox have external scales by which they can determine the Holy Spirit. Individual men are fallible... we all agree on that. So there's no way you can discern that in fact that Holy Spirit is leading you towards Calvinism, and that it's not simply Satan disguising himself as the Holy Spirit.

As as I said regarding self-verification... its utterly circular. If something is in need of verification, then by that fact alone it can't be self-verifying... otherwise, verification plays no part in the equation. It's like using a double negative. So either Scriptural interpretation needs to be verified by something external, or Scriptural need does not need to be verfied at all, in which case you must subscribe to doctrinal relativism (not to mention moral relativism) and you must view the whole of Christendom as on level ground with Calvinism. The latter, relativism, is obviously false... that would be heretical by both our standards. So you're still left with the first option which is the need for external verification of Scriptural interpretation -- which none of Protestantism has, including Calvinism.

The man with more authority is the man with more truth.
Exactly! Within the framework of sola scriptura, all men have equal authority... and therefore, there is no difference in validity between your interpretation of Scripture and a Methodist.... because sola scriptura gives no higher authority than the individual, each individual receives equal stake in his claim to truth -- again, moral relativism.

Infallable interpretation isn't any more difficult for the individual than it is for the clergy, providing for adequate study.
Infallible interpretation isn't only difficult for the individual... its impossible for a fallible individual to have infallible interpretation. Infallible by definition leaves no room for even the possibility of error, and that's something individual man cannot accomplish. All the clergy essentially is, according to the Orthodox view, is Christ's representative in the Church. Individual man can always err, but the Church can never err (the gates of hell shall never prevail against it). I think many Protestants draw this unfair comparison between Roman Catholcism and Orthodoxy. But I think your primary problem is with the abuses of the Roman Catholic monarhaic system of clergy. In reality, the Orthodox clergy is set up quite similarly to that of Presbyterianism. There is not Pope-esque figures that act as a monarch-- but rather collegially. The same now as they did when the Protestant accepted Ecumenical Councils were conveined. The difference is that they aren't going out independently. The come from a line of succession that goes back to the Apostles. Augustine, Athanasius, and all of the Church Fathers that Protestants revere held to this. Whereas in the Presbyterian form, independent guys can get together and start their own presbyteries and preside over their own miniature "councils".... But because of their independence in doing that, the fact that they meet together is of no effect, because the foundation still retains its individualistic qualities. And because we believe there is one Body of Christ, and One Church, independence has no role Christ's Body. It is one unified entity. And this is why I think where Rome has gone off and made countless new innovative doctrines over the years, Orthodoxy has remained, doctrinely, exactly the same. I don't mean to go off on another issues. But the issues of authority and interpretation of Scripture are so connected, and then authority and our concepts of the Church are so connect, the topics really couldn't be talked about independently.

Regenerated selves find evident what reprobate minds don't.
This again begs the question of how you know who is regenerate who is not. You think that Orthodox Christians are not because they hold to false doctrines. And you think they hold to false doctrines because they interpret Scripture differently than you do.... and once again it all comes back to what authority determines the proper interpretation and all of the things I've just pointed out.

That's why we reserve the adjective "infallable" for divine personages only.
The Church is infallible because the Church is the Body of Christ. And although the Body of Christ contains fallible people, because the Church is the communion between corruptible man and the Divine, collectively in their operations concerning the Body of Christ there is an infallibility than men in their operation of the Church, as the Body of Christ, can have. But none of this can be viewed independently of our views of the Church and authority.

Authority rests on truth, not on fallible people.

Again, that's just another way of stating that Scripture authenticates Scriptures (Scripture is the authority -- Scripture is truth).... the same circular argument with different terminology.

Isn't that much "self-evident" from scripture?
According to your system of sola scriptura, you can't be certain that Christ is God. You can be convinced on a personal level, but not certain. Because the Arians in the 3rd and 4th centuries, one of the oldest heresies in Church history, were using the exact same Scriptures as we're using today, and they denied exactly that. They argued that Christ was not truly Divine. In fact, the Arian heresy was so widespread that 97% of the Bishops in the Church during that time were professing Arians. Athanasius, second to Protestants only after Augustine, was deposed from his Patriarchate. So if 97% of the Church can be confused about what Scripture says about something as seemingly obvious as the Divinity of Christ, then that would seem to suggest that Scripture isn't quite as self-evident as Protestants would argue.

Scripture is our infallable authority. Problem solved.
I think my past two posts are fairly detailed about the problems with this position.

Even an infallable authority has to be interpreted by the people it assumes authority over. Some guy having the infallible truth is no guarantee his audience will 'get it'.
Correct... if a number of the laymen do not "get it" then, just as the heresies of the Early Church, a Council is called and the specific heresy is condemned. The Council of Nicaea was called becaused people just didn't get it that Christ was the son of God. The Council of Ephesus was called because people just didn't get it that Christ was in fact one Person.... and so on. Most of the time, people get it. If they don't, it can typically be corrected on the local level. It people show a major trend of "not getting it" on a large enough scale, then that's when they call a Council and the aforementioned confusion is put to rest.

Your human authority is the oppopsite of scapegoating - placing all the responsibility on one pair of shoulders in order to relieve your own sense of vulnerability.
Well, to be technical it's human authority.... but keep in mind that the Church is the Body of Christ even though it contains human members. So yes, I am taking it off of my own shoulders and putting it on Christ's as He guides the Church, and I don't think He'd have it any other way.

Total fantasy trip, that one.
Or a logical fact.... you can't mix fallibilism with infallibilism. They're like oil and water.

Being wrong is never irrelevant or closer to the truth.
I wasn't suggesting that Orthodoxy is wrong... I was stating a hypothetical for the sake of argument. So granted it was a hypothetical, in the case I stated it would be irrelevant.

Actualy, neither of us is "anti-Patristic". What we object to is the unnatural reverence given them simply because of their historical proximity to Jesus & the apostles.
To say, and I quote, "You can keep your 'patristic' literature to yourself" is a blatantly anti-patristic statement. All I did was quote Early Church Fathers on a post a long time ago, and I responded to his anti-patristic statement by pointing out that Calvin utilized them as well. Had I given undue reverence to Church Fathers on that post, then all of this would be relevant. But that wasn't the case.

I realize that was lengthy, but we're talking about two opposing worldviews.... so I guess when we put in perspective, that was really a gross summary. But on any account, I'm not trying to come across as beligerant and simply arguing for the sake of arguing. I truly believe that the fullness of God's promises are contained within the Orthodox Church, as you believe regarding Reformed churches. If I present myself aggressively or pridefully, then I won't accomplish anything, so I'll try to be firm in my position without doing that. All that I ask is that everyone considers this honestly and open to correction. I went from Calvinism, to traditional Roman Catholicism, to Eastern Orthodoxy. So though I'm convinced of the flaws in Calvinism, I've been wrong in the past, so I'll remain open to correction. The point is, if all these issues are approached honestly and openly, then I won't feel like I'm wasting my time, so I would hope that's the case.

Rick Otto

11th November 2007, 03:14 PM

SaintPhotios;That's completely circular.
So is the dictionary. Circularity doesn't equal invalidity.

Every Christian sect makes that claim. If all Christian sects claim inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yet disagree, then obviously most (if not all) are wrong. They don't think they're wrong, as you don't think you're wrong. But you have no external indication (or even internal other than some vague "feeling" you might mistake for the Holy Spirit at work)
There you go again... completely disregarding the plain truths in scripture that provide precepts for building upon, and stridently reducing our spiritual experience as a "vague feeling". Back away from the incense for awhile. You are high on Catholicism.

This is precisely why Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Oriental Orthodox have external scales by which they can determine the Holy Spirit.
They aren't at all external. Everything gets interpreted by everybody all the time. It is a fact of life, not a sin or a doctrine.
Individual men are fallible... we all agree on that.
You are being completely disengenuous, in light of your doctrinal exception to that. We don't agree at all.
So there's no way you can discern that in fact that Holy Spirit is leading you towards Calvinism, and that it's not simply Satan disguising himself as the Holy Spirit.
All y'all have the exact same vulnerability, especialy with your self-indulgent propensity for props & regalia, and with your habit of making someone else responsible for what you yourself choose to believe. Creates a loophole the size of Nuremburg.

As as I said regarding self-verification... its utterly circular. If something is in need of verification, then by that fact alone it can't be self-verifying... otherwise, verification plays no part in the equation.
It doesn't need, we need.
Works like a dictionary.
It's like using a double negative.
Not at all.
So either Scriptural interpretation needs to be verified by something external,
...that would be me. I am external to it, & I need to verify it.
or Scriptural need does not need to be verfied at all, in which case you must subscribe to doctrinal relativism
I don't bother to verify what I don't need to.
I have verified that scripture agrees with itself.
(not to mention moral relativism) and you must view the whole of Christendom as on level ground with Calvinism.
Well, all are certainly on the level ground of being sinners in need of a Savior. You're just pontificting your idea of philosophical fairness. That is all vanity in the face of justice.

The latter, relativism, is obviously false... that would be heretical by both our standards. So you're still left with the first option which is the need for external verification of Scriptural interpretation -- which none of Protestantism has, including Calvinism.
Youre confused.

Exactly! Within the framework of sola scriptura, all men have equal authority...
Only if they have equal truth, and then they have to hold it in righteousness.
and therefore, there is no difference in validity between your interpretation of Scripture and a Methodist....
They do get a few things right...

because sola scriptura gives no higher authority than the individual, each individual receives equal stake in his claim to truth -- again, moral relativism.
Sola Scriptura doesn't give anyone any authority.
Truth does.

Infallible interpret