Eastern Orthodoxy [Archive] - Christian Forums

Pages : [1] 2

colinlindsay

1st August 2007, 07:28 AM

Can anybody point me to a good critical article about this?
Preferably one that's had some response from the Orthodox.

Thanks

Iosias

1st August 2007, 08:36 AM

Unfortunately not but I can point you to this (http://www.monergismbooks.com/easternorthodox2478.html). :)

colinlindsay

1st August 2007, 10:04 AM

Thanks for this.
I've read 2 very provocative and yet heart-warming books by evangelicals who have converted to Orthodoxy.
But why are reformed people (the link you posted) so sympathetic and generaous towards Orthodoxy?
The latest 'conversion book' by Michael Gallatin carries some fairly scathing assessments about the impossibility of the reformed project succeeding.
Is this really 'compatibility'?

Iosias

1st August 2007, 10:21 AM

But why are reformed people (the link you posted) so sympathetic and generaous towards Orthodoxy?

It would depend what you mean by "generous". Those in the Reformed camp can see the attraction of EO. We look upon the current state of evangelicalism and are dismayed at the post-modernist approach to worship and so we can understand why people are drawn to established ways that are unchanging for this offers stability which evangelicalism does not.

That we condone the errors of the EO is another thing entirely.

The latest 'conversion book' by Michael Gallatin carries some fairly scathing assessments about the impossibility of the reformed project succeeding.

What does he say?

Christiangal01

1st August 2007, 11:41 AM

are you familiar with Michael Butler?
Supposedly he wrote a few articles on Eastern orthodoxy

Cajun Huguenot

1st August 2007, 03:16 PM

Eastern Christians are paedo-communionists and that appeals to some in the Reformed Community. They also use leavened bread in communion which is practised by some Reformed Christians also. They are an ancient Church and have strong differences with Rome over the authority of the Bishop of Rome. These are things that may also appeal to some Reformed Christians.

Franky Schaeffer went over to the Orthodox Communion some years back, but he has not been very nice to Reformed Christians since his conversion to Eastern Christianity.

In Christ,
Kenith

colinlindsay

1st August 2007, 03:20 PM

There's a book I've read detailing the contacts and understandings that have been made between the Evangelical Alliance and the Orthodox, with a lot of mutual appreciation. Nothing like the approach the Catholics tend to get!
Anyway, Gallatin's book is called "Thirsting for God"
He seems to regard evangelicalism the same way Paul regarded his training and background as a Pharisaical Jew. Now they have both fallen in love with Jesus, with the offer of real permanent fellowship with Him in sacramentalism, rather than the occasional fillip you get from a good sermon or worship experience. The conversion couldn't be more profound.
He argues that Protestantism's methodology is rationalism and relativism, and is a cul-de-sac against the unity of tradition and scripture.
True experience of the living Christ through sacramnetal living leads to true understanding of doctrine. The protestant insistence on head knowledge leading to heart knowledge is just the wrong way round.

SaintPhotios

3rd August 2007, 02:59 AM

As a former Calvinist (Reformed Presbyterian), perhaps I can provide some insight in Orthodox/Calvinist relations.

I know that I left Calvinism and converted to traditional Roman Catholicism because Calvinism strayed from the teachings of all the early Church Fathers and ultimately what the whole Church taught for nearly 12 centuries with few exceptions. Calvinism instilled in me a sense of tradition... but it was the tradition of the Reformers and the Westminster Confession that I was adhering to. So I ran towards Roman Catholicism.

However, even in the traditional sects of Roman Catholicism that detested the modernism of the Second Vatican Council, when looking to the teachings that the Church had always espoused, the Church of Rome was inherently innovative on such doctrines as purgatory, immaculate conception, the filioque, and as I eventually realized, even Papal primacy. So I took the next logical step and joined the only Church that I could find that adhered strictly to early Church doctrines... I found that in Orthodoxy.

I think that Reformed circles find some kinship in Orthodoxy due to the fact that they were both fighting the corruptions of the same enemy. The Reformers fought the sales of indulgences and other ecclesiastical power trips of the Roman clergy. Rome left the Orthodox communion over 1,000 years earlier because Rome's arrogance led to them butchering the Nicene Creed by inserting the filioque clause and asserting universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff.

However, I think this is where similarities end. As I ventured through all three groups, I've noticed that above Rome simply being the wild tyrant, there is a sharp distinction between Western and Eastern thought. And only after I left Calvinism and finally embraced Orthodoxy did I realize that Roman Catholicism and classical Reformed theology shared one mind... and that it was internal issues that caused the divisions. When you read Calvin and Luther, and then more modern Reformed theologians like Van Til, there is an overwhelming air of Thomastic scholasticism that is utterly absent in Eastern thought. Ultimately, while they differ in position, the methods of Reformed systematic theology and argumentation are direct decendants of Thomas Aquinas, Thomas More, and a host of otherwise rabidly anti-Protestant Roman theologians.

arunma

3rd August 2007, 10:05 AM

It would depend what you mean by "generous". Those in the Reformed camp can see the attraction of EO. We look upon the current state of evangelicalism and are dismayed at the post-modernist approach to worship and so we can understand why people are drawn to established ways that are unchanging for this offers stability which evangelicalism does not.

That we condone the errors of the EO is another thing entirely.

Yes, I think that is it exactly. To be sure there are some great things about the EO church, and it is far better than apostate Roman Catholicism. Unfortunately they don't emphasize the sovereignty of God very much, nor do they seem to emphasize preaching at all, and they don't have a very evangelical spirit.

Iosias

3rd August 2007, 11:21 AM

I know that I left Calvinism and converted to traditional Roman Catholicism because Calvinism strayed from the teachings of all the early Church Fathers and ultimately what the whole Church taught for nearly 12 centuries with few exceptions.

CHAPTER 1. OF PREDESTINATION

Introduction (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_intro.htm)
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section01.htm)
SECTION 2. - Ignatius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section02.htm)
SECTION 3. - Justin (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section03.htm)
SECTION 4. - Minutius Felix (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section04.htm)
SECTION 5. - Irenaeus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section05.htm)
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section06.htm)
SECTION 7. - Tertullian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section07.htm)
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section08.htm)
SECTION 9. - Caecillius Thascius Cyprianus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section09.htm)
SECTION 10. - Novatianus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section10.htm)
SECTION 11. - Athanasius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section11.htm)
SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section12.htm)
SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section13.htm)
SECTION 14. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section14.htm)
SECTION 15. - Gregorius Nazianzenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section15.htm)
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Diaconus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section16.htm)
SECTION 17. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section17.htm)
SECTION 18. - Joannes Chrysostomus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section18.htm)
SECTION 19. - Hieronymus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter1/chap01_section19.htm)CHAPTER 2. OF REDEMPTION.

Introduction (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_intro.htm)
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section01.htm)
SECTION 2. - Barnabas (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section02.htm)
SECTION 3. - Ignatius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section03.htm)
SECTION 4. - Justin (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section04.htm)
SECTION 5. - Ecclesia Smyrnensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section05.htm)
SECTION 6. - Irenaeus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section06.htm)
SECTION 7. - Tertullian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section07.htm)
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section08.htm)
SECTION 9. - Cyprian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section09.htm)
SECTION 10. - Lactautius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section10.htm)
SECTION 11. - Paulinus Tyrius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section11.htm)
SECTION 12. - Eusebius Pamphilius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section12.htm)
SECTION 13. - Julius Firmicus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section13.htm)
SECTION 14. - Athanasius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section14.htm)
SECTION 15. - Macarius AEgyptius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section15.htm)
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Pietaviensia (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section16.htm)
SECTION 17. - Basilius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section17.htm)
SECTION 18. - Optatus Milevitanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section18.htm)
SECTION 19. - Victorinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section19.htm)
SECTION 20. - Marcus Eremita (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section20.htm)
SECTION 21. - Faustinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section21.htm)
SECTION 22. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section22.htm)
SECTION 23. - Gregorius Nazianzenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section23.htm)
SECTION 24. - Didymus Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section24.htm)
SECTION 25. - Gregorius Nyssenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section25.htm)
SECTION 26. - Pacianus Bareinonensis vel Barcilonensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section26.htm)
SECTION 27. - Hilarius Diaconus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section27.htm)
SECTION 28. - Ambrosius Mediolanesiss (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section28.htm)
SECTION 29. - Epiphanius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section29.htm)
SECTION 30. - Gaudentius Brixiensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section30.htm)
SECTION 31. - Joannes Chrysostomus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section31.htm)
SECTION 32. - Ruffinus Aquileiensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section32.htm)
SECTION 33. - Hieronymus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter2/chap02_section33.htm)CHAPTER 3. OF ORIGINAL SIN, THE IMPOTENCE OF MAN’S FREE WILL, ETC.

Introduction (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_intro.htm)
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section01.htm)
SECTION 2. - Barnabas (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section02.htm)
SECTION 3. - Ignatius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section03.htm)
SECTION 4. - Justin (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section04.htm)
SECTION 5. - Irenaeus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section05.htm)
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section06.htm)
SECTION 7. - Tertullian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section07.htm)
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section08.htm)
SECTION 9. - Gregorius Neocaesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section09.htm)
SECTION 10. - Cyprian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section10.htm)
SECTION 11. - Arnobius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section11.htm)
SECTION 12. - Lactantius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section12.htm)
SECTION 13. - Eusebius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section13.htm)
SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section14.htm)
SECTION 15. - Athanasius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section15.htm)
SECTION 16. - Hilarius Pietaviensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section16.htm)
SECTION 17. - Victorinus Afer (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section17.htm)
SECTION 18. - Optatus Milevitanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section18.htm)
SECTION 19. - Cyrillus Hierosolymitanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section19.htm)
SECTION 20. - Basilius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section20.htm)
SECTION 21. - Gregorius Nazianzenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section21.htm)
SECTION 22. - Gregorius Nyssenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section22.htm)
SECTION 23. - Hilarius Diaconus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section23.htm)
SECTION 24. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section24.htm)
SECTION 25. - Epiphanius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section25.htm)
SECTION 26. - Marcus Eremita (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section26.htm)
SECTION 27. - Joannes Chrysostomus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section27.htm)
SECTION 28. - Hieronymus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter3/chap03_section28.htm)

Iosias

3rd August 2007, 11:21 AM

CHAPTER 4. OF EFFICACIOUS GRACE

Introduction (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_intro.htm)
SECTION 1. - Clenems Romanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section01.htm)
SECTION 2. - Barnabas (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section02.htm)
SECTION 3. - Justin (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section03.htm)
SECTION 4. - Irenaeus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section04.htm)
SECTION 5. - Clemens Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section05.htm)
SECTION 6. - Tertullian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section06.htm)
SECTION 7. - Origenes Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section07.htm)
SECTION 8. - Cyprian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section08.htm)
SECTION 9. - Eusebius Caesyreinsis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section09.htm)
SECTION 10. - Athanasius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section10.htm)
SECTION 11. - Marcus Egyptius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section11.htm)
SECTION 12. - Hilarius Pictaviensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section12.htm)
SECTION 13. - Basilius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section13.htm)
SECTION 14. - Gregorius Nazianzenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section14.htm)
SECTION 15. - Didymus Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section15.htm)
SECTION 16. - Gregorius Nysseuus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section16.htm)
SECTION 17. - Hillarius Diaconus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section17.htm)
SECTION 18. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section18.htm)
SECTION 19. - Marcus Eremita (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section19.htm)
SECTION 20. - Joannes Chrysostomus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section20.htm)
SECTION 21. - Hieronymus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter4/chap04_section21.htm)CHAPTER 5. OF PERSEVERANCE.

Introduction (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_intro.htm)
SECTION 1. - Clemens Romanus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section01.htm)
SECTION 2. - Barnabas (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section02.htm)
SECTION 3. - Ignatius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section03.htm)
SECTION 4. - Irenaeus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section04.htm)
SECTION 5. - Epistola Martyrum Galliae (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section05.htm)
SECTION 6. - Clemens Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section06.htm)
SECTION 7. - Tertullian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section07.htm)
SECTION 8. - Origenes Alexandrinus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section08.htm)
SECTION 9. - Cyprian (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section09.htm)
SECTION 10. - Lactantius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section10.htm)
SECTION 11. - Eusebius Caesariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section11.htm)
SECTION 12. - Chronomatius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section12.htm)
SECTION 13. - Athanasius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section13.htm)
SECTION 14. - Macarius Egyptius (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section14.htm)
SECTION 15. - Hilarius Pictaviensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section15.htm)
SECTION 16. - Basilius Ceasariensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section16.htm)
SECTION 17. - Gregorius Nazianzenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section17.htm)
SECTION 18. - Oregorius Nyssenus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section18.htm)
SECTION 19. - Hilarius Diaconus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section19.htm)
SECTION 20. - Ambrosius Mediolanensis (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section20.htm)
SECTION 21. - Joannes Chrysostomus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section21.htm)
SECTION 22. - Hieronymus (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Cause_of_God_and_Truth/Part%204/chapter5/chap05_section22.htm)

colinlindsay

3rd August 2007, 01:51 PM

Come on - surely we are being far too easy-going on Orthodoxy as reformed people.
They don't believe in the atonement or an angry God that 'was pleased to wound His son" (John Piper) They repudiate St Augustine, blaming him for our guilt neuroses and paving the way for schizophrenia between justification and sanctification. They kiss icons, see images as venerable and sacramental (opening up our spirits to God), they venerate Mary, they have a hierachy, private interpretation is frowned on, the priest has moral jurisdiction over his flock, and they have an unbending liturgy. They insist that the church is the ground and pillar of the truth, and that true doctrine is what the church has always believed at all times and in all places (apparently contrary to the observed chaos of church history)
Surely the major pillars of refomed thought are undermined (maybe justifiably) - sola scriptura, eternal assurance, legal justification, effective priesthood of all believers.
It just seems that if Orthodoxy is to given this easy ride so why do we get apoplectic over protestant things like Alpha and the Toronto blessing?

Iosias

3rd August 2007, 04:47 PM

SaintPhotios

3rd August 2007, 06:13 PM

Despite having the irrelevant part of my post taken due to some petty bone of contention, it begs a response.

I won't post the entire list, but you can refer to the posts by AV1611. These are supposed to be lists of Patristic works arguing in favor of Calvinism. And I understand the temptation, as I read lists like these with quite a bit of enthusiasm. But to put it lightly, if these butchered, out-of-context soundbites of Patristic works were in the realm of journalism, they would be Fox News.

You posted the exerpts on predestination, which we Orthodox totally accept, but left out the thousands of quotes blatantly advocating free will. You did this with all of the topics. You take one half of the mystery, which we Orthodox accept more or less, and leave out the other side of the mystery. That's why I likened you to Fox News... slicing and dicing the facts to report what fits your agenda. Not to mention, you leave out some of the most crucial doctrines while reporting on perseverance such as almost every single Father showing the real presence in the eucharist, the liturgy, and most damning in this case, apostolic succession which Protestantism does not claim. If you're just searching "defense of Calvinism" on Google, then please quit wasting your time. I bought the Fathers Set after leaving Calvinism. While I am by no means anywhere close to finished (Fathers Set is massive), I have read many of the Church Fathers, and the deception of these silly internet sources is very apparent. So I ask you to read the Church Fathers. You don't have to buy the set, you can get most of them for free on newadvent.com (beware, it's Romanist).

We Orthodox are perfectly content with accepting mysteries, Divine truths above our understanding. The Trinity is both one and three simultaneously, it is a mystery. The incarnation is simultaneously man and God undivided, it is a mystery. However, Protestantism inherited the Scholastic mind from Romanism that leaves no room for mystery in the great mind of man. This is why Protestants have been doomed from the beginning to scrurry around to polarized extremes while never stopping to consider the balance of those extremes wrapped in the acceptance of mystery found in Orthodoxy.

They repudiate St Augustine, blaming him for our guilt neuroses and paving the way for schizophrenia between justification and sanctification.

No... we actually venerate St. Augustine as one of the great saints. He was wrong on the filioque, and he took predestination to an extreme (although he never denied free will). But he is venerated in the East nonetheless.

They kiss icons, see images as venerable and sacramental (opening up our spirits to God), they venerate Mary, they have a hierachy, private interpretation is frowned on, the priest has moral jurisdiction over his flock, and they have an unbending liturgy. They insist that the church is the ground and pillar of the truth, and that true doctrine is what the church has always believed at all times and in all places (apparently contrary to the observed chaos of church history)

What you've just described is the beliefs of the early Church and all of the Church Fathers my friend.

Ceridwen

3rd August 2007, 06:20 PM

cygnusx1

3rd August 2007, 06:27 PM

my experience of othodoxy was through two advocates , i eventually gave up with debating the first with these posts ;

I too give men the benefit of the doubt , unless shown otherwise I accept all who say they Love The Lord as Brothers and Sisters in Christ ........

but ,
the problem arises when you are speaking with Christians who cannot do that ....
here is an extract from a very productive article , wish I had read this weeks ago , it really helps explain what has been a trying time over the last few weeks for me in Soteriology ........

Traditional Orthodox Christian Elitist Exclusivism

The Bible says: John 13:35 "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." 1 John 3:14,15 "We know that we have passed from death to life, because we love our brothers. Anyone who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life in him."

The problem is that Traditional Orthodox Christianity doesn't reckon anyone outside of its own organization as being brethren in Christ, and thus contemptuously rejects as heretics multitudes of true believers. I'm speaking not of the modernistic variety of Orthodox Theology, which is ecumenical, but of the Traditional type. They reject mutitudes of Christians who believe in Jesus, and who have been baptized and walk as Jesus walked. But by doing so, the Bible calls into question whether they themselves have passed from death to life. And even in the early church there existed elitist exclusivists reflected today in "Orthodox" Christianity.3John 9-11 I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church. Dear friend, do not imitate what is evil but what is good. Anyone who does what is good is from God. Anyone who does what is evil has not seen God.The Orthodox refer to those Christians outside of the Orthodox institutional church as "Heterodox" of whom they say, "we would say that the heterodox cannot be seen as Her members (members of Christ's true Church), because they have not been grafted into the one true Body of Christ through Holy Baptism." *** And they recognize no Christian baptism outside of the "Orthodox" church as legitimate.

http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/orthodox.html (http://www.bcbsr.com/topics/orthodox.html)

It will help all who post here to read the entire article , otherwise you too may spend weeks 'banging your head against a brick wall '

Greetings in Christ
Cygnus

Soj , all i can say is there is far too much disagreement for us to continue debating this anymore ........ I find your comments extremely rude arrogant and devoid of any real understanding of where I and many who are Christians but who are not Orthodox are in the Lord , all I can sense is out and out attacks ........

the final straw was in your statement

Quote:
Scripture is simply a book and has no authority. Soj

so I leave you as I found you , and will not even attempt at any further interaction as it has proved utterly pointless ........... have a fruitfull life.

Cygnus

http://www.christianforums.com/t1694349&page=13 (http://www.christianforums.com/t1694349&page=13)

SaintPhotios

3rd August 2007, 07:53 PM

cygnusx1,

hah, I'm not sure who wrote that article, but I assure you that they are utterly ignorant of Orthodox theology.

The problem is that Traditional Orthodox Christianity doesn't reckon anyone outside of its own organization as being brethren in Christ, and thus contemptuously rejects as heretics multitudes of true believers. I'm speaking not of the modernistic variety of Orthodox Theology, which is ecumenical, but of the Traditional type.

the first serious mistake is saying that "modernistic" Orthodoxy is ecumenical. First of all, Orthodoxy rejects modernism in the proper sense of the word. You separate Traditional Orthodox Christianity and Ecumenical Orthodox Christianity into two schools. But I assure you, even liberal Orthodox Christians consider non-Orthodox believers to be outside the Church -- heretics or schismatics. They may be more candy-coated in presentation, but the belief is the same. The only thing ecumenical about the second group is how far they're willing to go to talk with heretics and schismatics... but the belief that non-Orthodox believers are heretics or schismatics is universal in Orthodox theology. I dare say, that if someone fails to believe that, then they're hardly Orthodox themselves.

cygnusx1

4th August 2007, 04:29 AM

and as a result both Orthodox and Roman Catholic each claim that they are exclusively the only true Church .........

it's all just a power struggle ..... read between the lines

"we are in charge here"

"no we are"

"no WE ARE!!!!!"

doesn't sound much like Jesus at all does it ?

The true authority resides not in man but in God , and not in the Body (Church) but in the Head (Christ) , and not in man's word (church fathers etc) but in God's Word... (Scripture)

The Church is built upon the Apostles and Prophets Christ being the Chief cornerstone , this is still the case and has been the case since the beginning ......... where do we then find this authority because the Apostles Prophets and Christ Himself are in heaven ?

The Answer is The Sacred Scriptures alone.... as these are totally sufficient and represent all the teaching of Christ His Prophets and Apostles .

those who tell you scripture is inadequate to govern Christians and only Church voted positions of power have authority , have replaced the real and only foundation of Christian authority .

SaintPhotios

4th August 2007, 05:04 AM

It's no different than the Early Church battling the early heresies such as Gnosticism, Arianism, etc... The fact that Romanism and Orthodoxy both claim to be the one two Church isn't an argument against either of them.

where do we then find this authority because the Apostles Prophets and Christ Himself are in heaven ?

That's easy... apostolic succession. It's interesting that the two oldest bodies in Christendom, despite their rabid opposition of one another, both share this doctrine in common. Even some Protestants admit this doctrine. In fact, the primary argument defeating Gnosticism was not anything in Scripture. The primary argument against Gnosticism was Apostolic Succession. The Gnostics didn't have a successive lineage of bishops that they could trace back to the Apostles. So arguably the oldest of all heresies was defeated not by Scriptural proof texts, but by what you refer to as authority of man.

cygnusx1

4th August 2007, 05:40 AM

It's no different than the Early Church battling the early heresies such as Gnosticism, Arianism, etc... The fact that Romanism and Orthodoxy both claim to be the one two Church isn't an argument against either of them.

That's easy... apostolic succession. It's interesting that the two oldest bodies in Christendom, despite their rabid opposition of one another, both share this doctrine in common. Even some Protestants admit this doctrine. In fact, the primary argument defeating Gnosticism was not anything in Scripture. The primary argument against Gnosticism was Apostolic Succession. The Gnostics didn't have a successive lineage of bishops that they could trace back to the Apostles. So arguably the oldest of all heresies was defeated not by Scriptural proof texts, but by what you refer to as authority of man.

Apostles (and prophets) are foundational , not needing repetition or succession , we have now a more sure word ; scripture..... http://www3.christianforums.com/images/icons/icon11.gif

which church father is an apostle ?

cygnusx1

4th August 2007, 05:44 AM

Is apostolic succession Biblical? (http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html) :idea:

"APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION" (http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/top/aposucc.htm) :cool:

Christiangal01

4th August 2007, 12:02 PM

Is apostolic succession Biblical? (http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html) :idea:

"APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION" (http://www.ccel.org/contrib/exec_outlines/top/aposucc.htm) :cool:
ouch!

SaintPhotios

5th August 2007, 12:39 PM

Is apostolic succession Biblical? (http://www.gotquestions.org/apostolic-succession.html)

umm, yeah... it is. The election of Judas' successor is even in Scripture. Is the term "apostolic succession" found in Scripture? I concede that it is not, but as I also concede that neither is the word "Trinity". While the evidence of what we now call Trinitarian theology is found in Scripture, it is never clearly expressed that there are three persons in one essence. This was defined later, and given the name Trinity. In fact, if Calvinists hold to the Trinity, they must grant that it was the early Church that defined it explicitly, and not Scripture. What we now know to be the Trinity took several hundred years to hammer out. And by that same token, the Church Fathers were far more universal in their teaching of apostolic succession than the details of the Trinity. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Iranaeus of Lyons all argued explicitly for apostolic succession long before all of the intricate details of the Trinity were manifested. So at least historically, apostolic succession was more fundamental and understood than the basic tenant of Christianity, the Trinity.

We Orthodox have been accused here of "repudiating" St. Augustine, but I suggest that we are adhering more closely to his teachings than those rejecting apostolic succession:

"There are many other things which most properly can keep me in the Catholic Church’s bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here."

You can scoff at the Church Fathers as mere men, but it is nothing more than pure arrogance to think that the pillars of Church, what was taught for hundreds of years, was all one big misunderstanding and it wasn't until the rogue saviors of the Church 1,500 years later in the persons of Luther and Calvin that Scripture would be properly understood for the first time.

cygnusx1

5th August 2007, 12:41 PM

umm, yeah... it is. The election of Judas' successor is even in Scripture. Is the term "apostolic succession" found in Scripture? I concede that it is not, but as I also concede that neither is the word "Trinity". While the evidence of what we now call Trinitarian theology is found in Scripture, it is never clearly expressed that there are three persons in one essence. This was defined later, and given the name Trinity. In fact, if Calvinists hold to the Trinity, they must grant that it was the early Church that defined it explicitly, and not Scripture. What we now know to be the Trinity took several hundred years to hammer out. And by that same token, the Church Fathers were far more universal in their teaching of apostolic succession than the details of the Trinity. Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and Iranaeus of Lyons are argued explicitly for apostolic success long before all of the intricate details of the Trinity were manifested. So at least historically, apostolic succession was more fundamental and understood than the basic tenant of Christianity, the Trinity.

We Orthodox have been accused here of "repudiating" St. Augustine, but I suggest that we are adhering more closely to his teachings than those rejecting apostolic succession:

"There are many other things which most properly can keep me in the Catholic Church’s bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here."

You can scoff at the Church Fathers as mere men, but it is nothing more than pure arrogance to think that the pillars of Church, what was taught for hundreds of years, was all one big misnunderstanding and it wasn't until the rogue saviors of the Church 1,500 years later in the persons of Luther and Calvin that Scripture would be properly understood for the first time.

the election of Judas sucessor was simply to make up the number 12 , no doctrine stands on a single text ....... man talk about the flimsiest of reasons !

especially as Church Fathers are not Apostles! :D

Christ is the cornerstone, His apostles and prophets are
the foundation, and all other Christians are 'living
stones' - cf. Ep 2:19-22; 1 Pe 2:5

Christ is the Head, Christians are members of His body
- 1 Co 12:27; Co 1:18

cygnusx1

5th August 2007, 12:51 PM

Furthermore, the apostles and those on whom they laid their hands could speak with tongues, prophesy and work miracles. They worked miracles to demonstrate their authority, to show that they were indeed inspired of God. In defense of his own authority, Paul said, "Indeed, the signs of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in miracles and wonders and deeds of power." (2 Cor. 12:12). No one can work miracles today as they did; thus, no one is inspired today and no one has the same authority today.

SaintPhotios

5th August 2007, 01:19 PM

especially as Church Fathers are not Apostles!

Were they not? The word apostle simply means "one who is sent on a mission, a commissioned representative of a congregation, a messenger for God" .... so there were the 12 original apostles, but what was so special about the number 12? Why did Judas need a successor? Furthermore, Jesus had already ascended when Matthias was chosen as Judas's successor. This means that Matthias was an Apostle, but he wasn't chosen by Jesus. So this means that the title Apostle originates with Christ, but it does not mean that Christ need be present to continue this process. And I'm pretty sure all of this fits pretty well with the fact that every single Church Father adhered to the doctrine of apostolic succession.

No one can work miracles today as they did; thus, no one is inspired today and no one has the same authority today.

Where did you get this idea? Again, the modernist-secular scholasticism of the Protestant Reformation has caused you to now reject miracles? Of course they have the authority... their authority comes from Christ. Now, without apostolic succession, I'd say the authority of inspiration and miracles is pretty much lost. But it's an interesting corelation that the only Christian group to deny apostolic succession (Protestantism) is the only Christian group to deny miracles. I will grant that miracles are less necessary now than then because the Church is now well established, but to deny their existence altogether is absurd and unfounded. Miracles come from the Holy Spirit. So to say that miracles have altogether ceased entirely is to deny that the Holy Spirit exists in the Church today... and that's something the Orthodox have never made a habit of doing.

cygnusx1

5th August 2007, 01:38 PM

Were they not? The word apostle simply means "one who is sent on a mission, a commissioned representative of a congregation, a messenger for God" .... so there were the 12 original apostles, but what was so special about the number 12? Why did Judas need a successor? Furthermore, Jesus had already ascended when Matthias was chosen as Judas's successor. This means that Matthias was an Apostle, but he wasn't chosen by Jesus. So this means that the title Apostle originates with Christ, but it does not mean that Christ need be present to continue this process. And I'm pretty sure all of this fits pretty well with the fact that every single Church Father adhered to the doctrine of apostolic succession.
I am well aware of what an Apostle means , even Christ is an Apostle

KJV: (http://kjv.biblebrowser.com/pbchapters/hebrews/3.htm) Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus; Heb 3:1

, but that is a general use , like missionary ......... they are sent , but the 12 Apostles are something special otherwise why only replace Judas .
There is no scriptural support for any other successor/s to the Apostles. They are foundational , and you don't repeat a foundation , unless it is inadequate.

Where did you get this idea? Again, the modernist-secular scholasticism of the Protestant Reformation has caused you to now reject miracles?

are you having difficulty understanding me ? I don't believe in the cessation of miracles , just miracle workers!

Of course they have the authority... their authority comes from Christ. Now, without apostolic succession, I'd say the authority of inspiration and miracles is pretty much lost. But it's an interesting corelation that the only Christian group to deny apostolic succession (Protestantism) is the only Christian group to deny miracles. I will grant that miracles are less necessary now than then because the Church is now well established,

and for exactly the same reasons I will argue that Apostolic succession and PROPHETS are now unecessary , this is why I am no longer a Pentecostal .

but to deny their existence altogether is absurd and unfounded. Miracles come from the Holy Spirit. So to say that miracles have altogether ceased entirely is to deny that the Holy Spirit exists in the Church today... and that's something the Orthodox have never made a habit of doing.
I was speaking of the "signs of an apostle" , not miracles per say !

healings still happen , so dos other Divine interventions , but tell me , how many Church Fathers raised the dead .... I want names and numbers!

SaintPhotios

5th August 2007, 02:12 PM

But I think the fact that Judas had a successor is a big issue that requires more attention. Again, why 12 Apostles? Why do you think the original Apostles had more authority than St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, or St. John Chrysostom? They had the blessing of being chosen by Christ and living in His company... but where in Scripture does it advocate putting the apostles in one category while their successors in another.

However, ultimately, none of this changes the fact that succession is Scriptural as in the case of Matthias. There didn't have to be 12 Apostles... there could have been 10 or 200. But after Christ had left this world, there was succession. It's in Scripture, all of the Church Fathers acknowledged this, and I suppose I'm unable to believe that the entire world could be misled about a doctrine as important about this for 1,500 years.... while merely two dissenters, Calvin and Luther disagree. If I have to choose between 1,500 years of consistent theological thought --- and two lawyers [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off at Rome, I'll go with the former.

cygnusx1

5th August 2007, 02:26 PM

But I think the fact that Judas had a successor is a big issue that requires more attention. Again, why 12 Apostles?

the number Christ chose was significant , 12 , not 10 or 18 , the twelve were chosen to UNDERLINE a break with the Old Covenant based around the 12 tribes of Israel.

Why do you think the original Apostles had more authority than St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, or St. John Chrysostom?

because they were EYE witnesses to Christs resurrection and they had been chosen by Christ , they also were FOUNDATIONAL , furthermore they alone could Baptise men in The Spirit ......

They had the blessing of being chosen by Christ and living in His company... but where in Scripture does it advocate putting the apostles in one category while their successors in another.

there are no successors to the Apostles , I am still reading Paul James and John , their work inspired by God has never been bettered , we don't do what Mormons do , claim they have new APOSTLES and PROPHETS with NEW revelations and "new" traditions , no! scripture alone is the final authority in Church matters.

However, ultimately, none of this changes the fact that succession is Scriptural as in the case of Matthias.

you cannot build any doctrine on one scripture , that's how cults are made!

There didn't have to be 12 Apostles... there could have been 10 or 200. But after Christ had left this world, there was succession. It's in Scripture, all of the Church Fathers acknowledged this, and I suppose I'm unable to believe that the entire world could be misled about a doctrine as important about this for 1,500 years.... while merely two dissenters, Calvin and Luther disagree. If I have to choose between 1,500 years of consistent theological thought --- and two lawyers [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]ed off at Rome, I'll go with the former.

then you are going by the traditions of men and making the Word of God null and void.

Apostolic Succession

Advanced Information

This theory of ministry in the church did not arise before A.D. 170-200. The Gnostics claimed to possess a secret tradition handed down to them form the apostles. As a counterclaim the Catholic church pointed to each bishop as a true successor to the apostle who had founded the see and therefore to the truth the apostles taught. The bishop, as an authoritative teacher, preserved the apostolic tradition. He was also a guardian of the apostolic Scriptures and the creed. In a generation when the last links with the apostles were fast dying out this emphasis on apostolic teaching and practice was natural. In the third century the emphasis changed from the open successors of the apostles. This development owed much to the advocacy of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (248-58). Harnack regards this as a perversion rather than a development. The terminology is not found in the NT. Diadoche ("succession") is absent from the NT and the LXX. There is little evidence for the idea in the NT (cf. II Tim. 2:2). All early succession lists were compiled late in the second century.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/apossucc.htm

cygnusx1

5th August 2007, 02:44 PM

A look at the qualifications of the apostles reveal they would not have successors. An apostle had to be an eye-witness of Christ. (See Acts 1:15-26). Paul defended his apostleship by saying, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" (1 Cor. 9:1). The apostles were indeed witnesses in the fullest sense. They were the eye-witnesses, carefully chosen by the Lord, who would witness to mankind what they saw and heard concerning Jesus. Acts 1:8 says, "...But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit comes upon you, and you shall be witnesses for me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and even to the very ends of the earth." The Lord said to Paul, "...I have appeared to thee for this purpose, to appoint thee to be a minister and a witness to what thou hast seen, and to the visions thou shalt have of me." (Acts 26:16). Peter declared, "For we were not following fictitious tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eye-witnesses of his grandeur." (2 Pet. 1:16).

cygnusx1

5th August 2007, 03:11 PM

"Some churches which use the word apostle for modern men recognize this dilemma and so call contemporary church leaders apostles with a small "a" reserving the capital "A" for the 12 Apostles." ;)

SaintPhotios

6th August 2007, 06:48 PM

A look at the qualifications of the apostles reveal they would not have successors. An apostle had to be an eye-witness of Christ.

It doesn't phrase it as a general requirement, but rather the credentials of that specific case. It makes perfect sense that if choosing an apostle, more credence would be given to a witness of Christ's life. But that was never stated as a timeless requirement for general apostleship.

Acts 14:14 says that St. Barnabas is an apostle, and even names him before St. Paul. But Barnabas never met Christ.

Paul defended his apostleship by saying, "Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?"

That's not because knowing Christ was to be necessary at all times. Unlike the other apostles, Paul was neither appointed by another apostle or by Christ during his lifetime. This caused many to doubt his apostleship... for all they knew, he appointed himself and had no authority. So he argued that in fact Christ did appointed him in a vision.

the number Christ chose was significant , 12 , not 10 or 18 , the twelve were chosen to UNDERLINE a break with the Old Covenant based around the 12 tribes of Israel.

Actually, if you agree that Paul is an Apostle, appointed by Christ, then you'll agree that there were not twelve apostles, but thirteen. Matthias made the number twelve after the death of Judas. However, Christ himself broke the number twelve by appointed Paul as the thirteenth. And then there was Barnabus... does he in fact make fourteen?

there are no successors to the Apostles , I am still reading Paul James and John , their work inspired by God has never been bettered , we don't do what Mormons do , claim they have new APOSTLES and PROPHETS with NEW revelations and "new" traditions , no! scripture alone is the final authority in Church matters.

you say all of these as if they are fact, but there are no sources. I've shown that Judas had a successor in Matthias, and that the number twelve was irrelevant because Christ later made Paul an apostle, and then Barnabas was made an apostle as well. And I agree, we Orthodox do not claim that the apostolic successors have no new traditions. The original apostles of Scripture didn't establish new traditions, they simply upheld what Christ taught them. That's precisely what the recipients of apostolic succession today do.

you cannot build any doctrine on one scripture , that's how cults are made!

I surely won't, and you cannot throw out even one scripture... after all, that is how Protestantism was made.

Now... I have to ask: Consider that all of the early Patriarchs were first-hand associates to the Apostles of Christ. Clement of Rome knew St. Peter, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch were both students of St. John, and the list goes on. So how is it that EVERYONE in the early Church adopted apostolic succession. Not just a few, literally everyone. Were they universally decieved, not just at first, but for the next 1,500 years. Do you not see how silly believing this is? Read J.N.D. Kelly... he's a Protestant patristics scholar. He remains Protestant, but he admits that apostolic succession was a universal doctrine of the early Church. Your reasoning is comparable to those that believe in aliens. Evidence is utterly absent, yet that somehow makes them all the more arrogant.

cygnusx1

6th August 2007, 07:22 PM

It doesn't phrase it as a general requirement, but rather the credentials of that specific case. It makes perfect sense that if choosing an apostle, more credence would be given to a witness of Christ's life. But that was never stated as a timeless requirement for general apostleship.

yes the specific case being the only time any apostolic replacement is mentioned in scripture!

Acts 14:14 says that St. Barnabas is an apostle, and even names him before St. Paul. But Barnabas never met Christ.

apostle is here used as missionary ...... sent one , not one of the 12.

That's not because knowing Christ was to be necessary at all times. Unlike the other apostles, Paul was neither appointed by another apostle or by Christ during his lifetime. This caused many to doubt his apostleship... for all they knew, he appointed himself and had no authority. So he argued that in fact Christ did appointed him in a vision.

the church didn't know they guessed , just like your guessing.......

Actually, if you agree that Paul is an Apostle, appointed by Christ, then you'll agree that there were not twelve apostles, but thirteen. Matthias made the number twelve after the death of Judas. However, Christ himself broke the number twelve by appointed Paul as the thirteenth. And then there was Barnabus... does he in fact make fourteen?

12 Apostles chosen by Christ are sent to the Jews alone , Paul considers himself an odd case unlike any other Apostle , the rest are better termed "missionaries"(cf. missio.Latin, apostello.Grk) to the Gentiles.... like William Carey .

you say all of these as if they are fact, but there are no sources. I've shown that Judas had a successor in Matthias, and that the number twelve was irrelevant because Christ later made Paul an apostle, and then Barnabas was made an apostle as well. And I agree, we Orthodox do not claim that the apostolic successors have no new traditions. The original apostles of Scripture didn't establish new traditions, they simply upheld what Christ taught them. That's precisely what the recipients of apostolic succession today do.

a replacement is no evidence of Apostolic succession , God replaced one of the twelve tribes of Israel , shall we construe that to mean more tribes are meant to be added also ?

are prophets also 'succeeded' ?

I surely won't, and you cannot throw out even one scripture... after all, that is how Protestantism was made.

:confused:

what are you on about , Luther and the book of James ?

or ditching the Apocrapha ?

Now... I have to ask: Consider that all of the early Patriarchs were first-hand associates to the Apostles of Christ. Clement of Rome knew St. Peter, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch were both students of St. John, and the list goes on. So how is it that EVERYONE in the early Church adopted apostolic succession. Not just a few, literally everyone. Were they universally decieved, not just at first, but for the next 1,500 years. Do you not see how silly believing this is? Read J.N.D. Kelly... he's a Protestant patristics scholar. He remains Protestant, but he admits that apostolic succession was a universal doctrine of the early Church. Your reasoning is comparable to those that believe in aliens. Evidence is utterly absent, yet that somehow makes them all the more arrogant.

"apostolic succession"
This theory of ministry in the church did not arise before A.D. 170-200.

how many Church Fathers (not church Apostles) raised the dead ?

names and numbers please !

or don't signs of an Apostle mean anything anymore !

how many foundations does the Church need ?

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.
Ephesians 2:19-22

cygnusx1

6th August 2007, 07:38 PM

there are 12 OT + 12 NT elders = 24 elders in Rev 4.4; 12 gates for the 12 tribes Rev 21.12; 12 foundations for the 12 apostles Rev 21.14; etc.

Around the throne were twenty-four thrones, and on the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white robes; and they had crowns of gold on their heads. Rev 4.4

Also she had a great and high wall with twelve gates, and twelve angels at the gates, and names written on them, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel Rev 21.12

Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. Rev 21.14

cygnusx1

6th August 2007, 07:48 PM

Who are the 12 Apostles of the Lamb ? (http://www.apostasynow.com/articles/apostles.html)

this page will answer the question of who replaced Judas (Matthias or Paul) conclusively I believe , ending a popular debate :)

SaintPhotios

6th August 2007, 11:34 PM

apostle is here used as missionary ...... sent one , not one of the 12.

the false assumption is that the term isn't used as "missionary" in the case of all the apostles, including the original 12 chosen by Christ.

the church didn't know they guessed , just like your guessing.......

I'm not sure what you mean... my point was that Paul was citing his vision of Christ as proof of his apostleship, not as a requirement of apostleship. At no point in time does he refer to it as required.

12 Apostles chosen by Christ are sent to the Jews alone , Paul considers himself an odd case unlike any other Apostle , the rest are better termed "missionaries"

Is this assumption found in Scripture or is it a Protestant assumption? Because nowhere in Scripture is there a distinction made between Paul or Barnabas and the other apostles. Paul refers to himself as unworthy of the title because he persecuted the Christians. This was a gesture of humility... he never stated or even implied that he wasn't an apostle.

what are you on about , Luther and the book of James ? or ditching the Apocrapha ?

Both are very good examples.....

This theory of ministry in the church did not arise before A.D. 170-200.

Pope Clement I argued in favor of apostolic succession as early as A.D. 80. So this quote is mistaken.

how many Church Fathers (not church Apostles) raised the dead ?
names and numbers please !
or don't signs of an Apostle mean anything anymore !
how many foundations does the Church need ?

The Church has only one foundation in Christ. The apostles after Christ merely sustain the truth of the first Foundation. The Orthodox Church has experienced numerous miracles over the years. The miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem was first documented in the 4th century, and is probably significantly older than that. Another famous miracle was about a man that visited an Orthodox convent in 2006 was attacked and robbed, even decapitated, and was raised from the dead -- this particular convent was rumored to host many miraculous events. You can cast doubt on these miracles... however, many people doubted the miracles of Christ... but that doesn't mean that they were not real. But miracles have a strong presence throughout the history of the Orthodox Church.

Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

I certainly agree that the original 12 apostles hold typological relevance... but to equate that with saying that the number of apostles is enterally limited to 12 is absurd....

....... a lot of our disagreements are truly petty, and neither make nor break the case for apostolic succession. But I'm dying to hear an explanation as to why it was taught universally by the Church Fathers (and even earlier than A.D. 170 as your quote falsely claimed) if it was entirely unfounded.

colinlindsay

7th August 2007, 05:18 AM

I have to say that I am enjoying this thread.
I've been becoming convinced over a number of months that the protestant sola scriptura project is doomed to lack of resolution (in terms of arriving at the Truth or offering a path to sanctification). They seem to be happiest tearing into the soft unbellies of the flaky charismatics.
I'm glad that the intellectual big guns of reformed doctrine are now having to grapple with Orthodoxy, the real alternative.
I still have issues over Orthodoxy, primarily over the apparent mess of those first centuries. (I've even had and Orthodox guy confessing as much and even giving glory to the Spirit who enabled the Church to be the prophesied "Pillar and Ground of the Truth"

cygnusx1

7th August 2007, 05:30 AM

Apostolic Succession (http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:vkw3OAeiRHQJ:www.gracesermons.com/robbeeee/) :cool:

yes ONE foundation and you don't repeat a foundation in any building ....... :)

http://www.geocities.com/k9ocu/ApostlesHowMany.htm

cygnusx1

7th August 2007, 05:31 AM

Iosias

7th August 2007, 09:26 AM

Known as Church Fathers NOT Apostles

also , Known as Bishops NOT Apostles .

so apostolic succession is a straw man......

The 12 Apostles and Paul .

Paul said last of all Christ appeared to him , thus ended the calling of Apostles by Christ .......... the foundation is complete.

I believe that apostolic succession is Scriptural:

2 Timothy 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

The Authority of Apostles (http://churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_119_2_Ovey.pdf)

Iranaeus on the Authority of Scripture, the 'Rule of Truth' and Episcopacy (http://churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_117_1_Paice.pdf)-Part 1

Irenaeus on the Authority of Scripture, the 'Rule of Truth' and Episcopacy (http://churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_117_2_Paice.pdf) (http://churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_117_2_Paice.pdf)- Part 2

colinlindsay

7th August 2007, 02:02 PM

To continue in a rumbustious fashion this discussion about the revelation to the early church....

Jacob Prasch asserts in his typically uncompromising way that :

< < Of the fathers, only Irenius [sic] even knew people who knew any of the apostles (specifically – John) .
Irenius [sic] was a disciple of Polycarp – a good guy, but Polycarp wrote little before he was martyred.
Irenius [sic] however wrote prolifically.
Heggisippus may have even known some of the apostles, but he is only a quoted source.
That is it.Even Justin Martyr came more than a generation after the last apostle died circa 150 AD.
Irenius [sic] (the only father to wrote in both Greek and Latin and who authored ‘Against All Heresies") never affirmed Peter as the Rock. None of your fathers did. Neither did that vehement scoundrel John Chrysostom.
The Latin fathers responsible for the Roman Catholic fiasco (Augustine, his twisted mentor Ambrose, that sicko Cyprian of Carthage, Jerome with his contaminated Vulgate, and Tertullian who went into the error of Montanism) had no contact with the apostles.
Neither did that Eastern father adopted by both Rome & Eastern Orthodoxy – crazy Iggy (Ignatius of Antioch).
The Eastern Orthodox claimed it was Rome who was responsible for the schism. They claim the apostles taught episcopacy, not papacy and that the New Testament was written in their language Greek, not the mongrel tongue of Rome (Latin). I am not Eastern
Orthodox by any means, but they are historically right in what they say about Roman Catholicism.
Eusebius was 4th century and admitted he only knew of very tenuous sources of first century Church history (outside of The Book of Acts). > >

Because the early church failed to keep to its Jewish moorings and stay with its Jewish apostolic witness all the above confusions occurred, Prasch seems to be saying.

Now I value people who don't beat about the bush. To put this in the context of my concerns, is it possible to find a satisfactory consensus of what the church always believed at all times and in all places. This underpins Orthodox and I presume much of Catholic understanding of revelation as opposed to Sola Scripture. When you look at the church history of those early centuries, don't you find more chaos than light? The only time when decisions were made was when emperors forced theologians in conclave in order to keep the peace.

Indeed an Orthodox guy said recently:
There never was a "Golden Age" - Apostolic, sub-Apostolic, Patristic, Carolingian, Byzantine, Kievan, Medieval, Tridentine, Baroque, Ultramontane or post-Conciliar. It has always been a shambles, from Acts on, of heresiarchs, fanatics, schismatics and rival bishops throwing the furniture over this or that point of doctrine or discipline. There is, however an identifiable, coherent, continuous Tradition which those who look for it find without difficulty, whether in second century Smyrna or twenty-first century Santiago.

Is his last sentence believable?

Rick Otto

7th August 2007, 05:30 PM

SaintPhotios;the false assumption is that the term isn't used as "missionary" in the case of all the apostles, including the original 12 chosen by Christ.
That isn't the assumption. The assumption(conclusion) is that its restrictive use as "missionary" is applied to the extra-foundational 12.

I'm not sure what you mean... my point was that Paul was citing his vision of Christ as proof of his apostleship, not as a requirement of apostleship. At no point in time does he refer to it as required.
Proof 0f = Requirement.

Is this assumption found in Scripture or is it a Protestant assumption? Because nowhere in Scripture is there a distinction made between Paul or Barnabas and the other apostles.
"Eye" witness is the distinction.
Paul refers to himself as unworthy of the title because he persecuted the Christians. This was a gesture of humility... he never stated or even implied that he wasn't an apostle.
Who did imply that? Cygnus? I don't remember him saying that.

The Church has only one foundation in Christ. The apostles after Christ merely sustain the truth of the first Foundation.The Orthodox Church has experienced numerous miracles over the years. The miracle of the Holy Fire in Jerusalem was first documented in the 4th century, and is probably significantly older than that. Another famous miracle was about a man that visited an Orthodox convent in 2006 was attacked and robbed, even decapitated, and was raised from the dead -- this particular convent was rumored to host many miraculous events.You can cast doubt on these miracles... however, many people doubted the miracles of Christ... but that doesn't mean that they were not real. But miracles have a strong presence throughout the history of the Orthodox Church.
The doubt enters when we examine their purpose.
We don't doubt that Pharo's magicians turned their staffs into snakes, either.
I certainly agree that the original 12 apostles hold typological relevance... but to equate that with saying that the number of apostles is enterally limited to 12 is absurd....
Then you dilute the typological significance you agree to.

....... a lot of our disagreements are truly petty, and neither make nor break the case for apostolic succession.
They boil down to jurisdictional claims.
If we err, it is on the side of God, not men.

But I'm dying to hear an explanation as to why it was taught universally by the Church Fathers (and even earlier than A.D. 170 as your quote falsely claimed) if it was entirely unfounded.[/quote]
You've already heard it. "Universal" is arguable, and motive is at issue.

I'd rather be branded anti-nomian while clinging to scripture, than judged apostate for clinging to traditions of men.

Thank you for your kind attention, gentlemen.:cool:

P.S.
"Is his last sentence believable?"
Totaly, Colin!

cygnusx1

7th August 2007, 06:35 PM

I believe that apostolic succession is Scriptural:

2 Timothy 2:2 "And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also."

:confused: so Paul's teachings are comitted to faithful men who can teach what he taught ...... yes , no mention of Apostolic succession here.

how many Apostles do you know AV?

there is one very good reason why Apostolic succession is a pipe dream , besides not being in scripture , and it is that God gifts men with being Apostles DIRECTLY without any succession in the NEW Testament , the only exception to this which is more replacement than succession is Judas/Matthias to keep the number 12. ... all other Apostles in scripture are chosen by God without a "predecessor" every single one of them!

SaintPhotios

7th August 2007, 06:38 PM

I'd rather be branded anti-nomian while clinging to scripture, than judged apostate for clinging to traditions of men.

I'm afraid you're in grave danger of both.

Known as Church Fathers NOT Apostles
also , Known as Bishops NOT Apostles .
so apostolic succession is a straw man......

people keep saying this, but it's a false problem... successors to the apostles aren't claiming to comprise part of some abstract "foundation" dating back to Christ. They merely sustain the teaching of which would be far too vast to fit in the few books of the New Testament. Furthermore, there very well may have been (and I posit most likely were) additional books that were intended to be among what we call the New Testament canon. In this scenerio, and likewise if all the Bibles in the entire world were gathered up and burned, neither of these cases are a problem because the successors to the Apostles have preserved the teachings of Christ by Divine assisstance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. With your view, the fate of the Church rests on mere paper and ink.

To put this in the context of my concerns, is it possible to find a satisfactory consensus of what the church always believed at all times and in all places.

There were many disagreements. And where these appear, we study with a sober mind. But ultimately, the Church has no concern with the disagreements of the Fathers. Because it is their agreements that confirm the tradition that has been handed down to us.

Imagine you are raised with a knowledge of your fallen ancestors. If you hear a story from your parents alone, then you believe them, but the certainty is questionable. So you go to your aunts and uncles and elder cousins, and the stories remain the same. There are a few inconsistencies about times and locations, but the vast majority share the same account. You no longer have to doubt the account you've been given, that you may faithfully pass it on to your young. Now imagine that the accounts handed down to you were guided by the Holy Spirit, how much more certainty can you have of the truth you've been given?

When you look at the church history of those early centuries, don't you find more chaos than light?

There were certainly great times of tormoil. But that makes the triumph of the Church even more amazing. There have been reports as high as 97% of all the clergy were Arian heretics at peak of the controversy. And yet, the Divinity of Christ was upheld. Shouldn't that great number affect the efficacy of tradition? If that isn't seen as a miracle, then I would hardly be impressed by the raising of the dead.

Indeed an Orthodox guy said recently:
There never was a "Golden Age" - Apostolic, sub-Apostolic, Patristic, Carolingian, Byzantine, Kievan, Medieval, Tridentine, Baroque, Ultramontane or post-Conciliar. It has always been a shambles, from Acts on, of heresiarchs, fanatics, schismatics and rival bishops throwing the furniture over this or that point of doctrine or discipline. There is, however an identifiable, coherent, continuous Tradition which those who look for it find without difficulty, whether in second century Smyrna or twenty-first century Santiago.

The Church will always have powerful enemies. However, the fact that throughout it all -- barbarians, tyranny, Enlightenment, the rise and fall of Communism, the worship of secular science. The fact that all of these things have commenced and yet the Church still stands as firm as ever is a testament to the fact that those looking for a short glorious Golden Age will run into difficulty. The Golden Age began at Pentecost, and it is still strongly running its course. There will be a time for Christ to conquer His enemies, and for the Church to triumph over its assailants, but that time hasn't yet come. Now is the time to test the faithful through threat of destruction, and for the faithful to overcome... to resist evil is our victory. That's our Golden Age that has not yet ended.

Rick Otto

7th August 2007, 06:44 PM

One cannot be both anti-nomian and a respecter of men's traditions.

Oxymorons aren't mysteries, they are self-contradictions by definition.

cygnusx1

7th August 2007, 06:49 PM

people keep saying this, but it's a false problem... successors to the apostles aren't claiming to comprise part of some abstract "foundation" dating back to Christ. They merely sustain the teaching of which would be far too vast to fit in the few books of the New Testament. Furthermore, there very well may have been (and I posit most likely were) additional books that were intended to be among what we call the New Testament canon. In this scenerio, and likewise if all the Bibles in the entire world were gathered up and burned, neither of these cases are a problem because the successors to the Apostles have preserved the teachings of Christ by Divine assisstance of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church. With your view, the fate of the Church rests on mere paper and ink.

The fate of the Church rests in God .

The fate of Scripture rests in God .

your post makes a few assumptions and completely ignores the Reformed view of God and the preservation and exactness of scripture , far from there being any Divinely inspired books that got lost there are no words lost.

no wonder one of your orthodox advocates said the Bible is just a book , with no authority!

cygnusx1

7th August 2007, 06:52 PM

I have a question for orthodox Photios ;

is there salvation outside of the orthodox church , if so explain how !

SaintPhotios

7th August 2007, 10:41 PM

One cannot be both anti-nomian and a respecter of men's traditions.

I meant grave danger of being branded anti-nomian and being judged apostate... I was talking about the "clinging to the traditions of men" part.

is there salvation outside of the orthodox church , if so explain how !

the Orthodox view of salvation accepts the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church" ... However, while this may be true as a theological principle, because God is completely sovereign, we also acknowledge that He will have mercy on whomever He wills. So we do not feel that we can bind God to theological "rules" .... so ultimately, the Orthodox view is that men do not have in their power to say with infallible certainty that those outside the Church are certainly damned to hell. We hold that the Church is the Body of Christ, and as the Body of Christ, it is the way to salvation. And those outside the Church certainly have no assurance or even promise of salvation. However, if God chooses to have mercy on anyone outside the Church, He is perfectly capable of doing so as a sovereign God.

Conclusion: Orthodoxy maintains the doctrine without claiming that God is bound by it.

Rick Otto

7th August 2007, 11:10 PM

the Orthodox view of salvation accepts the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church" ...
Accepting the truth with one hand, while holding it in unrighteousness with other?
Watch how accepted priciples are redfined by rules, and how "completely sovereign" becomes partly sovereign:

However, while this may be true as a theological principle, because God is completely sovereign, we also acknowledge that He will have mercy on whomever He wills. So we do not feel that we can bind God to theological "rules" .... so ultimately, the Orthodox view is that men do not have in their power to say with infallible certainty that those outside the Church are certainly damned to hell.
And yet,"the Orthodox view of salvation accepts the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church"

We hold that the Church is the Body of Christ, and as the Body of Christ, it is the way to salvation. And those outside the Church certainly have no assurance or even promise of salvation. However, if God chooses to have mercy on anyone outside the Church, He is perfectly capable of doing so as a sovereign God.
And so, while"...the Church is the Body of Christ, and as the Body of Christ, it is the way to salvation", "those outside the Church certainly have no assurance or even promise of salvation", but in to avoid the embarrassment of de facto infallability, we always keep the rules God sometimes doesn't.

Conclusion: Orthodoxy maintains the doctrine without claiming that God is bound by it.

Translation: We can't live with the authority in the principles of God given doctrine, so in order to have it both ways, we assert that God violates His principles and disregards His own rules even tho we don't.

Cross your eyes & it's twice as convincing!^_^

SaintPhotios

8th August 2007, 03:12 AM

Accepting the truth with one hand, while holding it in unrighteousness with other?

I'm not sure what you mean.

Watch how accepted priciples are redfined by rules, and how "completely sovereign" becomes partly sovereign:

You falsely assume that the word "sovereign" somehow necessitates the Calvinistic rejection of free will. But that merely your dishonest use of the false dilemna fallacy.

And yet,"the Orthodox view of salvation accepts the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church"

Correct...The Orthodox view of salvation does not deal with those that have not been granted salvation via God's economical manifestation in the Church, because we do not know God's will. All we can know is what He has promised. The word salvation denotes being saved from something. The Orthodox view is that the Church is the sanctuary of salvation. Within it, salvation is assured. Outside it, salvation is not assured. But salvation is only promised in the Church. That does not mean that God, in His Divine will, cannot grant it apart from His economical role in the Church. He false presume (in the long list of false presumptions) that salvation is a dichotomy. It is not. It is merely the primary avenue, and only certain one as well, of salvation. Salvation apart from this is hidden amongst the backroads. Keep in mind, I'm not even saying that God will save those outside the Church. It may be true that God will choose to rightly judge those outside the Church, as we have all fallen short of the glory of God. So perhaps "no salvation outside the Church" is both true as theological principle as well as eternal reality. However, because we do not claim to know God's Divine will, we concede that it is, at the very least, true as a theological principle, and that God may or may not choose to show mercy on some of those outside the confines of Christ's Body.

And so, while"...the Church is the Body of Christ, and as the Body of Christ, it is the way to salvation", "those outside the Church certainly have no assurance or even promise of salvation", but in to avoid the embarrassment of de facto infallability, we always keep the rules God sometimes doesn't.
You apparently have no concept of the economy of God and the eternal God. The Church is with the confines of the economy of God -- His role in dealing with man. "No salvation outside the Church" is by no means a rule that God is bound by. It is a rule man is bound by. When I say that God can grant salvation to someone outside the Church, I am not referring to His economy, whereas that would involve the Church holding to a principle while allowing for the breach of that same principle. I am referring to the work of God eternally and totally distinct from His economy in the Church.

Translation: We can't live with the authority in the principles of God given doctrine, so in order to have it both ways, we assert that God violates His principles and disregards His own rules even tho we don't.

Again... I already addressed this and you're simply trying to be antagonistic despite already receiving a perfectly sufficient answer.

Rick:
I'm not sure if you even believe your arguments are valid or if you just like the attention. But in case you are in fact 52 and have grown past the need for online attention of anonymous message board posters, then I would ask that you save everyone the taxing pain of listening to your theologically ignorant rambling. I know how it feels to be a zealous Calvinist (or zealous Christian of any variety for that matter) wanting to be a bigtime theologian, I've been there as well, but you lack the most important quality -- that being a shred of theological understanding and logical coherence. So feel free to respond with something useful. But so far you've done nothing but post the theological debate equivalent of arm-pit noise and fart jokes.

colinlindsay

8th August 2007, 01:12 PM

Photios said:

< < I know how it feels to be a zealous Calvinist (or zealous Christian of any variety for that matter) wanting to be a bigtime theologian, I've been there as well, but you lack the most important quality -- that being a shred of theological understanding and logical coherence > >

I've a lot of sympathy for this. Matthew Gallatin drew a picture of childish amateur theologians doing what earnest young theologians do - arguing out the major controversies like Assurance at the dinner table. A precious, profound doctrine is wrapped up with a "and who do you think won then?"

Honestly, it's laughable to think we'll resolve an issue like that after 2000 years of thought by saints, many of whom suffered martyrdom for their convictions.

Maybe Gallatin is right when he says that "true experience (of Christ) must come before true doctrine".
Evangelicals have got it the other way round and show so little evidence however of spiritual experience. They are the ultimate rationalists. If they have true belief about Christ then they think they have a true knowledge OF him. The martyred Polycarp was able to refer to the "Friend who had never disappointed or let him down". I bet you he didn't have his doctrine in line with Calvin.

Rick Otto

8th August 2007, 04:19 PM

I'm not sure if you even believe your arguments are valid or if you just like the attention.
Like most of us among your inferiors, I both believe them & like attention.
But in case you are in fact 52
You suspect I lie about that? Smells like paranoia, or sophisticated condescension.
...and have grown past the need for online attention of anonymous message board posters,
That is juvenile per se? It isn't needing attention that is juvenile, needing excessive ego gratification is.
...then I would ask that you save everyone the taxing pain of listening to your theologically ignorant rambling.
One man's trash...~ you get my drift.
I know how it feels to be a zealous Calvinist (or zealous Christian of any variety for that matter)
I would suggest what you realy know is what you just projected onto me: the juvenile need to be an attention-getting ignoramus...
...wanting to be a bigtime theologian,
You are definitely being grandiose if you think posting on CF is part of an ambition to be a "big-time theologan".
I've been there as well,
An admission serving as a cloak of humility in order to deliver a manufactured accusation. Pretty sophisticated.
Here comes the attempt of looking elegant, sounding eloquent, while inserting the knife...
...but you lack the most important quality -- that being a shred of theological understanding and logical coherence.
:blush: 4U
So feel free to respond with something useful.
At this point, any defiance of your arrogant put downs are useful.
But so far you've done nothing but post the theological debate equivalent of arm-pit noise and fart jokes.
This isn't "antagonistic"?
I don't debate, I discuss until the perjoratives & polemics get as thick as the skulls they originate from.
I'm not sure what you mean.
I was trying to find a less antogonistic way of saying you speak out of 'both sides of your mouth'.
You falsely assume that the word "sovereign" somehow necessitates the Calvinistic rejection of free will.
Inaccurate at best. I conclude that the sovereignity of an omnipotent being is total.
But that merely your dishonest use of the false dilemna fallacy.
Not sure what you mean exactly, by "false dilemma dichotomy"(I've heard that before), but it sure makes your self contradictions sound sophisticated.
Correct...The Orthodox view of salvation does not deal with those that have not been granted salvation via God's economical manifestation in the Church, because we do not know God's will.
Admitting you don't know is how you 'deal'...
All we can know is what He has promised.
But you edit that to fit your presumptions.
The word salvation denotes being saved from something. The Orthodox view is that the Church is the sanctuary of salvation.
You define "Church" in self-serving, unscriptural terms.
Within it, salvation is assured.
The temporal manifistation of salvation-regenerated belief, is the entry point.
Outside it, salvation is not assured.
By the definition I just gave, damnation is is assured outside of it. The clarity of truth is liberating indeed.
But salvation is only promised in the Church.That does not mean that God, in His Divine will, cannot grant it apart from His economical role in the Church.
Then membership in your definition of "the Church" isn't entirely necessary to, or synonymous with, salvation.
He false presume (in the long list of false presumptions) that salvation is a dichotomy. It is not.
I presume one is saved or one is not.
It is merely the primary avenue, and only certain one as well, of salvation.
So faithful EOs are all of them saved.
Salvation apart from this is hidden amongst the backroads.
Only hidden by religious blinders to those who insist on wearing them.
Keep in mind, I'm not even saying that God will save those outside the Church.
Double-talk.
It may be true that God will choose to rightly judge those outside the Church,
He "rightly judges" all. You are evading your own double talk, trying to cover your tracks.
...as we have all fallen short of the glory of God. So perhaps "no salvation outside the Church" is both true as theological principle as well as eternal reality.
You pontificate on your own admittede ignorance.
However, because we do not claim to know God's Divine will, we concede that it is, at the very least, true as a theological principle, and that God may or may not choose to show mercy on some of those outside the confines of Christ's Body.
How generous of you.
You apparently have no concept of the economy of God and the eternal God.
I have no concept like yours, that is certain.
The Church is with the confines of the economy of God -- His role in dealing with man. "No salvation outside the Church" is by no means a rule that God is bound by. It is a rule man is bound by.
This all hinges on your exclusive, religiously affected concept of "Church".
When I say that God can grant salvation to someone outside the Church, I am not referring to His economy, whereas that would involve the Church holding to a principle while allowing for the breach of that same principle.
You need to learn the difference between principles and rules. Rules can be broken when principles allow (eg.David eating the showbread, Jesus & disciples gathering handfuls of wheatberries to eat on the Sabbath)
I am referring to the work of God eternally and totally distinct from His economy in the Church.
Now that is a false dichotomy, based on a self-serving definition.
I find farting less offensive than sophisticated patronization.

cygnusx1

8th August 2007, 05:11 PM

my only question at this point is should I resume my subscription as a site supporter to CF so I can get beyond this block ;

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Rick Otto again. :)

Dorothea

8th August 2007, 05:40 PM

cygnusx1

8th August 2007, 05:45 PM

Who compiled the writings and put the Bible together with the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

here we go again ...............:wave:

who restrained the prophets madness :D

Dorothea

8th August 2007, 06:02 PM

I meant grave danger of being branded anti-nomian and being judged apostate... I was talking about the "clinging to the traditions of men" part.

the Orthodox view of salvation accepts the doctrine of "no salvation outside the Church" ... However, while this may be true as a theological principle, because God is completely sovereign, we also acknowledge that He will have mercy on whomever He wills. So we do not feel that we can bind God to theological "rules" .... so ultimately, the Orthodox view is that men do not have in their power to say with infallible certainty that those outside the Church are certainly damned to hell. We hold that the Church is the Body of Christ, and as the Body of Christ, it is the way to salvation. And those outside the Church certainly have no assurance or even promise of salvation. However, if God chooses to have mercy on anyone outside the Church, He is perfectly capable of doing so as a sovereign God.

Conclusion: Orthodoxy maintains the doctrine without claiming that God is bound by it.
You're doing great, StPhotios! Much better than I! I just wanted to add something on this subject and then I'll scoot out of here because I am not half as intelligent as you are! :)

Today many Orthodox Christians live in societies of cultural, linguistic and religious pluralism. This has cultivated and nourished a deeply-felt attitude of respect, tolerance and understanding toward other people and their religions. The Orthodox Church has no official pronouncement on this matter. However, the long-standing tradition of respect and tolerance for other faiths is well stated by Archbishop Anastasios: "Being created in the image of God, every human being is our brother and sister."[33] (http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp#_edn33)

The salvation of all people, including non-Christians, depends on the great goodness and mercy of the Omniscient and Omnipotent God who desires the salvation of all people. Those who live in faith and virtue, though outside the Church, receive God's loving grace and salvation. Saint Paul reminds us, "O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!" (Rom. 11: 33).

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article8089.asp

Rick Otto

8th August 2007, 06:30 PM

Dorothea;"... I am not half as intelligent as you are!"
Exactly the impression he projects.

jckstraw72

8th August 2007, 06:41 PM

Paul writes in 1 Timothy and Titus about finding able men to lead the Church who will faithfully pass on the faith -- that is apostolic succession.

cygnusx1

8th August 2007, 06:50 PM

Paul writes in 1 Timothy and Titus about finding able men to lead the Church who will faithfully pass on the faith -- that is apostolic succession.

no , that is finding suitable men to teach what Paul taught !

there are many such teachers and pastors in the Church today who are not apostles or prophets .

the only mention of succession or apostle in that text is your own addition .......

how many times must the foundation of the church be laid ?

SaintPhotios

8th August 2007, 07:43 PM

Rick Otto:
I apologize for anything I may have said that seemed to be caused by anger instead of constructive theological discussion. I don't think issues that ultimately have a bearing on eternal life should be taken lightly, and I was starting to get the feeling that it was myself that was being attacked rather than my position with more regard for defending Calvinism at all costs rather than being open to truth. In the past 2 1/2 years I've gone from Calvinist, to sedevacantist Roman Catholic, to Eastern Orthodox. I hope that is because I've desired truth rather than comfort, and defended various aspects of my faiths only when they there was a good defense. That is all that I would hope for here.

I was trying to find a less antogonistic way of saying you speak out of 'both sides of your mouth'.
I don't feel that I can respond to unfounded accusations against my integrity.

Inaccurate at best. I conclude that the sovereignity of an omnipotent being is total.

Alright, well this entire discussion is getting extremely sidetracked due to talk of these particulars, but you're stating that God is sovereign in vague terms. When I talked about a sovereign God, you responded by saying "Watch how accepted priciples are redfined by rules, and how 'completely sovereign' becomes partly sovereign:" . So this would mean that for some reason my definition of God does not portray sovereignity. So if we could settle this really quick, could you first 1.) give me your definition of sovereign and 2.) explain how my description of God is inconsistent with sovereignity. I assumed that it was because I didn't reject free will, but you said that wasn't true. So please explain.

Not sure what you mean exactly, by "false dilemma dichotomy"(I've heard that before), but it sure makes your self contradictions sound sophisticated.

The false dilemna is arguing on the basis of a dilemna that does not exist. In this case, you were arguing that there is a dilemna between my position on salvation and my position on God's sovereignty. However, you're arguing on the basis of a dilemna that does exist (or if it does, you at least have not specified what that dilemna is... so for all we know, there isn't one).

Admitting you don't know is how you 'deal'...
Haha... are you serious? No, of course we don't know God's will. Are you saying that conceding that we don't know God's will is somehow a cop-out? Because that's the only realistic position you can have about God's will.

But you edit that to fit your presumptions.

Umm.. You'll have to be more specific. You're very vague in your accusations. If you can be clear about what exactly I'm "editing" about exactly which presumptions. Because when you just say "edit that to fit your presumptions" I know its an accusation, but that's about all I know. I don't really know what you're talking about. You'll have to be more specific.

By the definition I just gave, damnation is is assured outside of it. The clarity of truth is liberating indeed.
Then in reality, I am more Calvinistic than you are. Because whereas I can hold the principle theologically, but you negate God's sovereignity and deny that He can have mercy on whomever He wills.

I presume one is saved or one is not.
Presuming you know who is saved is fine, but presuming you know who is not is the problem. A Judge cannot pass judgement on anyone, but only those who are guilty. However, should a judge choose to have mercy on someone guilty of a crime, he has the liberty to do so.

So faithful EOs are all of them saved.

Correct

Double-talk.
Double-talk is evasive or ambiguous language. But I was very clear in saying that admitting that God can have mercy on those outside Christ's Body is not the same as saying God will have mercy on those outside Christ's Body. If you're going to accuse me of something, try to at least accuse me of something I did.

He "rightly judges" all. You are evading your own double talk, trying to cover your tracks.
Please think about your accusations before making them. I've already made it clear that there's been no double-talk. And while we will all come before God, God's final judgement is for the reprobate. Please stick to the issues, you're sabotaging this entire thread by picking out irrelevant little non-issues and taking it off course... unjustifyably at that.

Now that is a false dichotomy, based on a self-serving definition.
All the theologians throughout history, Calvin included, have been aware of the distinctions between the economy of God and the eternal God. God is outside of time, but man is inside time... so how can God operate inside time with man while remaining outside of time? This is a prime example of the economy of God. God is manifested to man in his economy or the Greek "economia" ... This is not a false dichotomy. And please do your homework before continually accusing me of these things and sidetracking the entire thread while I answer your silly accusations.

From this point on, for the sake of the thread, I am going to refrain from responding to Rick Otto's posts directed towards me. I think that they have utterly sidetracked the thread, and to no benefit, as they have comprised primarily of polemical sucker-punches and false accusations with no theological value.

If something is said defaming the Church, no matter who, then I may feel the need to defend Her. But I'm afraid this choppy dialogue having nothing to do with the real issues is going to drive participants away. And I think this thread can be really helpful, because throughout history there has been very little Orthodox/Reformed dialogue. Had it happened much earlier in history, I think it could've been more beneficial. But it's never too late to start. All that to say, I don't want to contribute to the sidetracked flow of the thread anymore. So I don't want it to be misconstrued that I'm going quit replying to Rick out of anger or out of spite. I have nothing against Rick, I just think our choppy dialogue has no edifying value and is ultimately harming a thread with otherwise great potential.

Rick Otto

8th August 2007, 08:55 PM

SaintPhotiosRick Otto:
I apologize for anything I may have said that seemed to be caused by anger instead of constructive theological discussion.

That actualy impressed me until I read your closing paragraphs.
I don't think issues that ultimately have a bearing on eternal life should be taken lightly, and I was starting to get the feeling that it was myself that was being attacked rather than my position with more regard for defending Calvinism at all costs rather than being open to truth.
Your self is invested in the identity of the church, so when I pointed out the error in your definition of that, you took it personaly. No need to apologize for it, I do the same, but face the music and articulate your position in a defendable way. It is my position that you can't.

I don't feel that I can respond to unfounded accusations against my integrity.
You compromised your integrity when you indulged in personal comment rather than articulation of my position's weaknesses.

"... you're stating that God is sovereign in vague terms."

I object. Total Sovereignity, Predestination, Election, omnipotence,... all are clear terms (to me) and their linkage is equaly clear (to me).
When I talked about a sovereign God, you responded by saying "Watch how accepted priciples are redfined by rules, and how 'completely sovereign' becomes partly sovereign:" . So this would mean that for some reason my definition of God does not portray sovereignity.
I said that because Christ's body, His church, is defined by regenerated belief, which is the identifying element of church membership, and regeneration with its fruit- belief, is totaly dependant upon God's mercy, not a decision of any man's making. Total Depravity renders our self-righteousness no better than filthy rags, in God's eyes. Any denominational claim to righteousness
is therefore, "filthy". To make the claim on one hand, while allowing for exceptions on the other, is double-talk.
So if we could settle this really quick, could you first 1.) give me your definition of sovereign
No mystery:
Main Entry: 1sov·er·eign
1 b : one that exercises supreme authority within a limited sphere(in this case, an unlimited sphere)

and 2.) explain how my description of God is inconsistent with sovereignity. I assumed that it was because I didn't reject free will, but you said that wasn't true. So please explain.
While it is true that free will is an abrogation of God's sovereignity, I assert that your definition of Church has equal effect.
If one can become a member of Christ's body before salvific (regenerated) belief, then Jesus allows a damned finger to be part of His hand. He advises amputation is such cases, not patient instruction, not prayer.
You said the promise of salvation lies only within the Church. I assert that you can't be considered within His church, until you have been regenerated(saved).
Irresistable Grace and Perseverance of the Saints come into play.
Thank you for your personal history. I do believe it is relevant input. I was raised Catholic, abandoned religion until my 1st son was old enough to start needing moral instruction, and spent 12+years in a non-denom Charismatic congregation. I didn't discover the Reform version of Reform Theology until I went online in 2000.
I remain convinced of the 5 points of T.U.L.I.P., but diverge radicaly from "Calvinists" on ecclesiology, especialy in the area of church discipline.

The false dilemna is arguing on the basis of a dilemna that does not exist. In this case, you were arguing that there is a dilemna between my position on salvation and my position on God's sovereignty. However, you're arguing on the basis of a dilemna that does exist (or if it does, you at least have not specified what that dilemna is... so for all we know, there isn't one).
Again, salvation & God's sovereignity over it are inextricably linked to church identity, much of which would be clearer if the term "ekklesia" (called out ones) was used instead. That word illustrates the ant-religious establishment position of Jesus, where "church" does exactly the opposite.

Haha... are you serious? No, of course we don't know God's will.
It is my experience and assertion that scripture makes it exceedingly clear. So much so that it renders a "clergy" criminaly redundant.

Are you saying that conceding that we don't know God's will is somehow a cop-out?
In no uncertain terms, I assert the same, with clear articulation on "somehow".

Because that's the only realistic position you can have about God's will.
Call me idealistic, then.

Umm.. You'll have to be more specific. You're very vague in your accusations. If you can be clear about what exactly I'm "editing" about exactly which presumptions.
His promises are what you edit. His promise is not that salvation is only within His church. His promise that all of His chuch is saved. Then you edit what He defines as His church, with "apostolic succession" and a morass of "(T)tradions"

Because when you just say "edit that to fit your presumptions" I know its an accusation, but that's about all I know. I don't really know what you're talking about. You'll have to be more specific.
I hope I was, above.
Then in reality, I am more Calvinistic than you are. Because whereas I can hold the principle theologically, but you negate God's sovereignity and deny that He can have mercy on whomever He wills.
I don't deny His will is sovereign. I deny ours is.

Presuming you know who is saved is fine, but presuming you know who is not is the problem.
It's not a problem unless I mistreat them.
You could be saved, but simply lacking maturity in the faith. I doubt I'm not saved, because since accepting Totatal Sovereignity & the other "4 points", i know that God is the Finisher of my faith, not me. That has given me the peace to respond in gratitude rather than the bondage to works of merit that free will solicits.

A Judge cannot pass judgement on anyone, but only those who are guilty.
You mean He cannot condemn anyone who isn't guilty - subtle but important difference.

However, should a judge choose to have mercy on someone guilty of a crime, he has the liberty to do so.
A judge is not above the law(even His own). Only after a condemning judgement can a judge extend mercy, because without condemnation, mercy is irrelevant.

Double-talk is evasive or ambiguous language.
No double talk is presenting two contradictory assertions as one affirmation.
But I was very clear in saying that admitting that God can have mercy on those outside Christ's Body is not the same as saying God will have mercy on those outside Christ's Body. If you're going to accuse me of something, try to at least accuse me of something I did.
What I accused of is having a de facto double standard for being a part of His body.

Please think about your accusations before making them. I've already made it clear that there's been no double-talk.
Clear in your mind, bro.

And while we will all come before God, God's final judgement is for the reprobate.
Condemnation... condemnation!(chuckle)
Please stick to the issues, you're sabotaging this entire thread by picking out irrelevant little non-issues and taking it off course... unjustifyably at that.:sigh:

All the theologians throughout history, Calvin included, have been aware of the distinctions between the economy of God and the eternal God. God is outside of time, but man is inside time... so how can God operate inside time with man while remaining outside of time?
Omnipresence.
This is a prime example of the economy of God. God is manifested to man in his economy or the Greek "economia" ... This is not a false dichotomy. And please do your homework before continually accusing me of these things and sidetracking the entire thread while I answer your silly accusations.
:sick:

From this point on, for the sake of the thread, I am going to refrain from responding to Rick Otto's posts directed towards me.:thumbsup:

I think that they have utterly sidetracked the thread, and to no benefit, as they have comprised primarily of polemical sucker-punches and false accusations with no theological value.
:scratch:
If something is said defaming the Church, no matter who, then I may feel the need to defend Her.
Defend her against something you said? Typo?
But I'm afraid this choppy dialogue having nothing to do with the real issues is going to drive participants away.
Always thinking of others...:thumbsup:
And I think this thread can be really helpful, because throughout history there has been very little Orthodox/Reformed dialogue.
Wonder why.
Had it happened much earlier in history, I think it could've been more beneficial. But it's never too late to start. All that to say, I don't want to contribute to the sidetracked flow of the thread anymore. So I don't want it to be misconstrued that I'm going quit replying to Rick out of anger or out of spite. I have nothing against Rick, I just think our choppy dialogue has no edifying value and is ultimately harming a thread with otherwise great potential.
Groovy.