Those knowledgable of the Bible - please help me out!!!

[AJB4]

Guys like...Jacob4707, Repentant, Protoevangel... Actually, anyone who's up for a discussion. You guys know about Orthodox positions on stuff better than I would.

Futile mission though it may be, I'm trying to discuss Orthodoxy over at the CoC board with a certain CoC elder (one with the belief that all other churches apart from the CoC are false).

I shouldn't be doing it probably...but I got kind of hooked.

In particular, I'd say pay attention to post #69...
http://foru.ms/t3957146&page=7

[SaintPhotios]

Sooo.... exactly what angle are you approaching this debate from? Not to detract from the theological nature of the discussion.... but debate is a science in and of itself. So what are you debating at this time?

It's not that I don't want to read the whole thread.... but there's a million ways to debate the Campbellite position from an Orthodox perspective. Do you think you could narrow it down a little?

[rusmeister]

With all due respect, AJ...

You should take the age and experience of your opponent into account. If the person is much older and/or much more experienced, it would be like a sheep debating with a wolf.

You need solid ground of faith to stand on before you can truly defend a position. As long as you don't really hold a position, you are liable to be defeated.

[Akathist]

Reading post 69 as requested I see a fundamental problem that happens when one debates someone who is not Orthodox.

They have no understanding of our beliefs about the Body of Christ being the Orthodox Church. The Apostles and other followers were sent the Holy Spirit to guide us. They were the Church. Christ is also the Church. As Christ is in us, He embodies the Church. The Church is the body of believers and over the centuries it is the body of believers who fight over and over to maintain our traditions because we are called to do so by the Holy Spirit.

I agree with the other comments here. You are not strong enough in Orthodox beliefs to defend the faith just yet. In fact, I have seen others who (regardless of age btw) have been burnt up in such debates and ended up leaving the catechumanate or stopped being an enquirer.

It is better to spend this time reading and learning about the faith. Reading the debates that other Orthodox Christians are a part of can be a learning experience too. But it is important that you never take what any of us say as being the full truth. If a bunch of us say the same thing...well.. that is a sign it is probably right. ;)

[Hoankan]

I have to agree with Akathist. It's easy to give into the temptation to debate when one is not ready. It's our pride saying that we should do this debate and that we're ready when truth is usually very different and we end up paying dearly for it.

[repentant]

Guys like...Jacob4707, Repentant, Protoevangel... Actually, anyone who's up for a discussion. You guys know about Orthodox positions on stuff better than I would.

Futile mission though it may be, I'm trying to discuss Orthodoxy over at the CoC board with a certain CoC elder (one with the belief that all other churches apart from the CoC are false).

I shouldn't be doing it probably...but I got kind of hooked.

In particular, I'd say pay attention to post #69...
http://foru.ms/t3957146&page=7

I am kind of shocked I was one of the named..but anyway, after reading what he said in 69..ask him what the NT says about the Church being the pillar and foundation of Truth, and ask him if that was ever said about any of the Apostles. I wonder what he will say about that...or if you like, I can do it..of course there is alot more that can be said, but we can start small.

[AJB4]

I am kind of shocked I was one of the named..but anyway, after reading what he said in 69..ask him what the NT says about the Church being the pillar and foundation of Truth, and ask him if that was ever said about any of the Apostles. I wonder what he will say about that...or if you like, I can do it..of course there is alot more that can be said, but we can start small.
Don't be shocked! ;) You always have something to say about Orthodox positions on stuff. :D

Alright, I'll say that. Thanks for the tip.

Reading post 69 as requested I see a fundamental problem that happens when one debates someone who is not Orthodox.

They have no understanding of our beliefs about the Body of Christ being the Orthodox Church. The Apostles and other followers were sent the Holy Spirit to guide us. They were the Church. Christ is also the Church. As Christ is in us, He embodies the Church. The Church is the body of believers and over the centuries it is the body of believers who fight over and over to maintain our traditions because we are called to do so by the Holy Spirit.

I agree with the other comments here. You are not strong enough in Orthodox beliefs to defend the faith just yet. In fact, I have seen others who (regardless of age btw) have been burnt up in such debates and ended up leaving the catechumanate or stopped being an enquirer.

It is better to spend this time reading and learning about the faith. Reading the debates that other Orthodox Christians are a part of can be a learning experience too. But it is important that you never take what any of us say as being the full truth. If a bunch of us say the same thing...well.. that is a sign it is probably right. ;)

Thanks for the tip. I will cease these foolish debates...just after I post what Repentant said. ;)

[Jacob4707]

A story that is probably not true, but makes a point:

Some people were standing on the beach when they heard a man cry out: "Help! I'm drowning!"

While they watched the man struggle and struggle, the lifeguard continued to sit in his spot, though he was watching the man.

"Go get him! Save him! Do something!" the people shouted to the lifeguard.

But the lifeguard continued sitting and watching the man.

Finally, when the drowning man had exhausted himself and was starting to sink, the lifeguard dove into the water, quickly swam to the man, and just as quickly hauled him back safely to shore.

"Why didn't you save him when he first cried for help?" the people asked the lifeguard.

"If I had gotten to him when he was still flailing and panicking and had his strength, he might have pulled us both under in his efforts to swim. I had to wait until he had no more fight left in him. Then I could safely get ahold of him when he would no longer resist me and inadvertantly fight against my efforts to save him."

- - -

As long as your CoC or other friends are still strong in their dogmas and doctrines about Sola Scriptura and inerrancy and needing "no Creed but Christ" and "no book but the Bible" and "no Traditions of men," then your debates will be like the above story, in which you very likely could lose or weaken your faith.

Or your debates will be like the proverb: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." (Plus, you get all covered with mud, etc.)

Wait till their foundational doctrines start to evidence or manifest to themselves some serious cracks. After you have begun to seriously live the Orthodox life, with or without their criticisms and arguments, but being faithful in prayer and in the life of the Church, and you persevere in these things and in being at peace within yourself and with all men, then when they come to you for help re: why what they have been taught and/or believed does not jive with history or even the Bible itself, then they might be ready to listen to another point of view.

Or if they ask questions, or even if they argue or criticize you, instead of getting in an argument with them, give them an irenic (i.e., peaceful) book or booklet on the subject. There are several out there that discuss or present the Orthodox Church and her beliefs without attacking Protestantism. E.g.:

Timothy Ware's THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
Frederica Mathewes-Green's books
LIGHT FROM THE CHRISTIAN EAST: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ORTHODOX TRADITION by James R. Payton, Jr.
COMMON GROUND by Jordan Bajis
THE MOUNTAIN OF SILENCE
FATHER ARSENY: PRIEST, PRISONER, SPIRITUAL FATHERHenry Chadwick's THE EARLY CHURCH is by a non-Orthodox church historian and might give CoC people an overview of Church history that will alter their preconceptions.

Avoid the polemical/argumentative books/authors like Clark Carlton and Matthew Gallatin and Frank Schaeffer and Michael Whelton. I tend to find that Regina Orthodox Press books can often be argumentative, and not always effectively so. (At least that's my view of some of these books.)

If they don't want to read it, that's fine. You continue to pray and live your faith.

This doesn't mean that all confrontation and debate is useless or unnecessary. Some converts are won in that manner.

But as Archbishop +Dmitri wrote in his book on the Parables: "Thus, when we are only beginners in the Christian way and not yet strengthened and armed against attack, we should not make a show of what we have nor attempt to convince others. We might easily be defeated by skilled detractors and end up full of doubt. Or we could appear proud and self-righteous. A life lived in complete accordance with the truth is finally the most convincing argument for the Gospel."

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by -DRA-

My concern with these understandings goes back to Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit. It is my understanding that He promised to send the Spirit to guide the apostles - not the church - to all truth. To me, it seems the whole Orthodox system is built upon an erroneous understanding of Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles. By mistakenly applying the promise to the church, the door is open for authority coming from the church, instead of looking to God's word to be "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:17 NKJV). In essence, the Orthodox rendering of truth is that the Scriptures + Orthodox Tradition = Truth. Sorry, but that reasoning stands opposed to the teaching of the New Testament.

I am kind of shocked I was one of the named..but anyway, after reading what he said in 69..ask him what the NT says about the Church being the pillar and foundation of Truth, and ask him if that was ever said about any of the Apostles. I wonder what he will say about that...or if you like, I can do it..of course there is alot more that can be said, but we can start small.

ABJ4's Response (as coached by Repentant)

1 Timothy 3:15 says "...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.".

You would probably be correct in saying that it was initially the Apostles and not the church (even though the Apostles were a part of the church, interestingly enough) that were guided into all truth. BUT, the above scripture seems to indicate that since the church is the pillar and ground (Greek, hedraiōma, meaning support) of the truth, it would be the church that preserves the truth, no?

DRA's Response to Repentant & ABJ4

First off, please be gracious and allow me to discuss spiritual matters with you as we on the Restoration Forum have been to you in discussing matters with us on our Forum.

Second, concerning the discussion ABJ4 asks your advice about, he began the OP with this thought: "...OK, first up, I am a Church of Christ-goer, and have been my entire life, and will probably go for the rest of my life. However, lately, I've come to the conclusion that I DON'T believe that the Church of Christ is the only church that serves Jesus (as many think they are) and I DON'T believe that they are the one true church, in which only it's members go to heaven." ABJ4 has initiated several discussions along these same lines as he has tried to find an angle to undermine the "one church" concept in the Scripture (i.e. one body = one church according to Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4).

As ABJ4 very well knows, I will provide a scriptural basis for what I teach. I believe that is exactly what God expects from all of us per 1 Peter 4:11a. I indeed believe that Jesus established His church He promised to build (i.e. Matt. 16:18) in Acts 2, and that He adds the saved to it (per Acts 2:47) -- not to some man-made "church," built and established later upon the teachings and traditions of men (specifically, without God's approval).

Before addressing 1 Timothy 3:15 and discussing the pillar and ground of the truth, I think we should first consider the foundation of the truth. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, in a general way, Jesus Christ is presented as being the foundation. And, in Ephesians 2:20, being more specific, the foundation is made up of the apostles and prophets - with Jesus being the chief corner stone. I believe it is upon this foundation that the church (those called out by God) - the pillar and ground of the truth is set (i.e. 1 Tim. 3:15). With these passages in mind, Repentant's concern about where the apostles fit into the picture is addressed. Their teaching is a part of the foundation. Jesus assured that it would be when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to them in John chapters 14-16, which, by the way, Repentant did NOT address.

As for the truth that the church supports, that's where 2 Timothy 3:16-17 come into play. As previously pointed out, "All Scripture" is that which makes us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NKJV). While it is true that Scriptures include the traditions passed down from the apostles' teaching (i.e. 2 Thess. 3:6), any traditions that originated outside of Scripture are nothing more than the traditions of men (without authority from God). Therefore, those traditions must be opposed by the faithful (Jude 3). In a nutshell, that's what I propose. Stick to the truth. Nothing more. Nothing less. Does anyone have a problem with just the truth? :confused:

[Jacob4707]

Originally Posted by -DRA-

My concern with these understandings goes back to Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit. It is my understanding that He promised to send the Spirit to guide the apostles - not the church - to all truth. To me, it seems the whole Orthodox system is built upon an erroneous understanding of Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles. By mistakenly applying the promise to the church, the door is open for authority coming from the church, instead of looking to God's word to be "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:17 NKJV). In essence, the Orthodox rendering of truth is that the Scriptures + Orthodox Tradition = Truth. Sorry, but that reasoning stands opposed to the teaching of the New Testament.



ABJ4's Response (as coached by Repentant)

1 Timothy 3:15 says "...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.".

You would probably be correct in saying that it was initially the Apostles and not the church (even though the Apostles were a part of the church, interestingly enough) that were guided into all truth. BUT, the above scripture seems to indicate that since the church is the pillar and ground (Greek, hedraiōma, meaning support) of the truth, it would be the church that preserves the truth, no?

DRA's Response to Repentant & ABJ4

First off, please be gracious and allow me to discuss spiritual matters with you as we on the Restoration Forum have been to you in discussing matters with us on our Forum.

Second, concerning the discussion ABJ4 asks your advice about, he began the OP with this thought: "...OK, first up, I am a Church of Christ-goer, and have been my entire life, and will probably go for the rest of my life. However, lately, I've come to the conclusion that I DON'T believe that the Church of Christ is the only church that serves Jesus (as many think they are) and I DON'T believe that they are the one true church, in which only it's members go to heaven." ABJ4 has initiated several discussions along these same lines as he has tried to find an angle to undermine the "one church" concept in the Scripture (i.e. one body = one church according to Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4).

As ABJ4 very well knows, I will provide a scriptural basis for what I teach. I believe that is exactly what God expects from all of us per 1 Peter 4:11a. I indeed believe that Jesus established His church He promised to build (i.e. Matt. 16:18) in Acts 2, and that He adds the saved to it (per Acts 2:47) -- not to some man-made "church," built and established later upon the teachings and traditions of men (specifically, without God's approval).

Before addressing 1 Timothy 3:15 and discussing the pillar and ground of the truth, I think we should first consider the foundation of the truth. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, in a general way, Jesus Christ is presented as being the foundation. And, in Ephesians 2:20, being more specific, the foundation is made up of the apostles and prophets - with Jesus being the chief corner stone. I believe it is upon this foundation that the church (those called out by God) - the pillar and ground of the truth is set (i.e. 1 Tim. 3:15). With these passages in mind, Repentant's concern about where the apostles fit into the picture is addressed. Their teaching is a part of the foundation. Jesus assured that it would be when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to them in John chapters 14-16, which, by the way, Repentant did NOT address.

As for the truth that the church supports, that's where 2 Timothy 3:16-17 come into play. As previously pointed out, "All Scripture" is that which makes us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NKJV). While it is true that Scriptures include the traditions passed down from the apostles' teaching (i.e. 2 Thess. 3:6), any traditions that originated outside of Scripture are nothing more than the traditions of men (without authority from God). Therefore, those traditions must be opposed by the faithful (Jude 3). In a nutshell, that's what I propose. Stick to the truth. Nothing more. Nothing less. Does anyone have a problem with just the truth? :confused:

No problem at all.

Just a reminder, though, that the rules for TAW are as follows (note that debate here is only allowed between Orthodox; non-Orthodox can fellowship or ask questions):

The Ancient Way Forum Specific Rules

The Ancient Way is a forum for Orthodox Christians and catechumens belonging to a canonical Orthodox Church, which is in communion with one or more of the Patriarchs listed at http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/

Rules For Posting In 'The Ancient Way" Forum:
1. Non-Orthodox are permitted only fellowship and honest, sincere questions. No debating, teaching or preaching will be tolerated.
2. All posters will treat each other respectfully.
3. Debate between Orthodox allowed as long as the other rules are followed.
4. Active Promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of canonical Orthodox Churches are prohibited.
5. All members claiming to be clergy must be verified with staff.
6. Only members belonging to a canonical Orthodox Church (as outlined above), will be considered for Moderators of TAW.

[AJB4]

Originally Posted by -DRA-

My concern with these understandings goes back to Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit. It is my understanding that He promised to send the Spirit to guide the apostles - not the church - to all truth. To me, it seems the whole Orthodox system is built upon an erroneous understanding of Jesus' promise to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles. By mistakenly applying the promise to the church, the door is open for authority coming from the church, instead of looking to God's word to be "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:17 NKJV). In essence, the Orthodox rendering of truth is that the Scriptures + Orthodox Tradition = Truth. Sorry, but that reasoning stands opposed to the teaching of the New Testament.



ABJ4's Response (as coached by Repentant)

1 Timothy 3:15 says "...which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.".

You would probably be correct in saying that it was initially the Apostles and not the church (even though the Apostles were a part of the church, interestingly enough) that were guided into all truth. BUT, the above scripture seems to indicate that since the church is the pillar and ground (Greek, hedraiōma, meaning support) of the truth, it would be the church that preserves the truth, no?

DRA's Response to Repentant & ABJ4

First off, please be gracious and allow me to discuss spiritual matters with you as we on the Restoration Forum have been to you in discussing matters with us on our Forum.

Second, concerning the discussion ABJ4 asks your advice about, he began the OP with this thought: "...OK, first up, I am a Church of Christ-goer, and have been my entire life, and will probably go for the rest of my life. However, lately, I've come to the conclusion that I DON'T believe that the Church of Christ is the only church that serves Jesus (as many think they are) and I DON'T believe that they are the one true church, in which only it's members go to heaven." ABJ4 has initiated several discussions along these same lines as he has tried to find an angle to undermine the "one church" concept in the Scripture (i.e. one body = one church according to Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4).

As ABJ4 very well knows, I will provide a scriptural basis for what I teach. I believe that is exactly what God expects from all of us per 1 Peter 4:11a. I indeed believe that Jesus established His church He promised to build (i.e. Matt. 16:18) in Acts 2, and that He adds the saved to it (per Acts 2:47) -- not to some man-made "church," built and established later upon the teachings and traditions of men (specifically, without God's approval).

Before addressing 1 Timothy 3:15 and discussing the pillar and ground of the truth, I think we should first consider the foundation of the truth. In 1 Corinthians 3:11, in a general way, Jesus Christ is presented as being the foundation. And, in Ephesians 2:20, being more specific, the foundation is made up of the apostles and prophets - with Jesus being the chief corner stone. I believe it is upon this foundation that the church (those called out by God) - the pillar and ground of the truth is set (i.e. 1 Tim. 3:15). With these passages in mind, Repentant's concern about where the apostles fit into the picture is addressed. Their teaching is a part of the foundation. Jesus assured that it would be when He promised to send the Holy Spirit to them in John chapters 14-16, which, by the way, Repentant did NOT address.

As for the truth that the church supports, that's where 2 Timothy 3:16-17 come into play. As previously pointed out, "All Scripture" is that which makes us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (NKJV). While it is true that Scriptures include the traditions passed down from the apostles' teaching (i.e. 2 Thess. 3:6), any traditions that originated outside of Scripture are nothing more than the traditions of men (without authority from God). Therefore, those traditions must be opposed by the faithful (Jude 3). In a nutshell, that's what I propose. Stick to the truth. Nothing more. Nothing less. Does anyone have a problem with just the truth? :confused:
-DRA- you should post in here more often. I'm sure that the people here can answer your questions better than me.

[AJB4]

I must get around to reading those books you suggested, Jacob4707.

[Orthosdoxa]

DRA is not fellowshipping, he is debating, and rather forcefully at that. Can a mod move this to St. Justin's corner? I think such debates are fruitless, but for those who like them, rock on. :)

[Philothei]

Yes, I agree please remove this thread to the debate area where the OP can discuss this issue more freely.


God bless,
Philothei

[Sacrum Silentium]

Thirded.

[Orthosdoxa]

I used your post to report this for a request to be moved, Isaac - just in case you wondered. :)

[- DRA -]

No problem at all.

Just a reminder, though, that the rules for TAW are as follows (note that debate here is only allowed between Orthodox; non-Orthodox can fellowship or ask questions):

The Ancient Way Forum Specific Rules

The Ancient Way is a forum for Orthodox Christians and catechumens belonging to a canonical Orthodox Church, which is in communion with one or more of the Patriarchs listed at http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/

Rules For Posting In 'The Ancient Way" Forum:
1. Non-Orthodox are permitted only fellowship and honest, sincere questions. No debating, teaching or preaching will be tolerated.
2. All posters will treat each other respectfully.
3. Debate between Orthodox allowed as long as the other rules are followed.
4. Active Promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of canonical Orthodox Churches are prohibited.
5. All members claiming to be clergy must be verified with staff.
6. Only members belonging to a canonical Orthodox Church (as outlined above), will be considered for Moderators of TAW.

No problem. Similar rules are in place for the Restoration Forum. However, we have been more gracious about things than you are. We have allowed those of the Orthodox faith to freely participate. Guess that was "our bad."

Anyway, you folks know who I am and that I'm willing to study the Scriptures ... if you are. My conviction is the truth has nothing to hide.

Sorry for intruding. :(

[Philothei]

No problem. Similar rules are in place for the Restoration Forum. However, we have been more gracious about things than you are. We have allowed those of the Orthodox faith to freely participate. Guess that was "our bad."

Anyway, you folks know who I am and that I'm willing to study the Scriptures ... if you are. My conviction is the truth has nothing to hide.

Sorry for intruding. :(
We are not "afraid"of the truth. We are saying that our forum would be better off to be "free" of debate. We are not saying we are not up to debate either. I reassure you that our motives are not of trying to "avoid" this debate rather to be at the appropriately "place". Believe me there are many of us here they would not mind to take up this challenge.

God bless,
Philothei

[Sacrum Silentium]

We just want things to be light, DRA. Plenty of us would be glad to reply should this thread by moved to the proper place. Simple as that.

@ Orthosdoxa: No problem. :)

[AJB4]

:swoon:

This'll be interesting. CoC VS Orthodoxy, just like two halves of my brain colliding together and exploding.

By all means, move this to the debate chambers. After I take my break (mentioned in another thread), I shall come back and see if this has come to anything. http://i.imdb.com/Photos/CMSIcons/emoticons/confused/mjeyds.gif

Sorry, I'm feeling a little weird at the moment.

[Akathist]

This thread has been moved to the area where members can debate with TAW members at the request of the OP. A pm was sent to DRA encouraging him to come and continue to participate in the thread.

[AJB4]

This thread has been moved to the area where members can debate with TAW members at the request of the OP. A pm was sent to DRA encouraging him to come and continue to participate in the thread.
Hunky-bloody-dory...:D

[buzuxi02]

The foundation of the church truly is built upon the apostles and prophets with Christ being the chief cornerstone. Historically that makes the Orthodox Church alone fit the description.

All protestant churches are built on the foundation of the 16th century reformers with Martin Luther being the chief cornerstone. They are geographically trapped in western Europe and America. The true Apostolic foundations were set in Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Greece, Cyprus, Alexandria by the Apostles. And these foundations still exist with thriving christian communities in an unbroken succession, these are all Orthodox. One can still visit the church in Thesaloniki and Damascus and Jerusalem, they all share the same Faith, the Orthodox Faith.

On the other hand the faulty western european sects had no conncetion to these places and to this day use faulty translations into their vernacular. The Orthodox church still uses the Koine greek and the Septuagint.

This has led to further splintering of an already fragmented western christianity. Each person adding his own man-made traditions to not only his faulty interpretation but to his falsely translated bible. Whats ironic is that in protestamtism, it is the bible itself which has caused the most harm. Or should we say the man-made traditions attributed to it by the "restorers":

These squabbles are many, here is a short list of the man-made innovations found in western christianity:

1. Denial of the Trinity (Oneness penetecostals, unitarians, JW etc)

2. Pre-tribulation Rapture (belief of charismatic protestants about 130 years old)

3. Use of grapejuice for the Last Supper (Grapejuice doesnt exist in April, but in america theres too many alcoholics, so they had to switch)

4. Single Immersion of Baptism (If the protestants could read koine greek they would know that Mathhew speaks of triple immersion)

5. Belief that one must speak in tongues or hes not a christian (bible says that this is the least important of the gifts and this gift consists of authentic rational languages not gibberish)

6.Once saved always saved. (I guess they forgot about Judas Iscariot and the apostate Nicholas of Acts 6.5 who later formed the Nicolatians)

7. The Eucharist is a symbolic memorial- (No explanation given as to why a symbolic meal would kill those who partook unworthily in 1Cor 11.28-30 and chapter 6 of the gospel of John is avoided altogether by this faction)

8.Forbid the portrayal of images as idolatry (hippocrisy, they still have televisions, cameras , framed art, subscribe to magazines allwhich portray images. In fact Jesus would be the biggest idolator since he assumed flesh and became matter and was the visible image of the invisible God.)

9. Age of Accountability (In this innovation, severely diabled and mentally retarded adults can never be baptised since they are not accountable for their actions, depriving them of the gifts of Christ)

10.The holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son- ( adopted from the roman catholics, vitually all the factions of protestantism defend this innovation even though the scripture condemnd it John 15.26)

11. The theory that there is an invisible church which all christians belong to regardless of denomination but these individuals are only known to God ( Protestants argue amongst themselves between this theory, the branch theory and the ones who think they alone are the church. None of these three groups can prove their beliefs using scripture, although all three say they can and the other is wrong!)

12. John the baptist started the christian church (a primitive belief of the baptists. They have used this myth to propagate the lie that baptist churches existed in the holy land and even predate the chritian church.)

13. Christ resurrected on Monday (we can blame sola scripture for this one. Literally taking the pophecy of Jonah trapped in the belly of a whale, where he spent 3 days and nights.)

14. Christ resurrected as a spirit only (popular among the JW and a few other reformers, once again reviving the docetist heresy)

15.Elizabeth was the Virgin Mary's cousin (Mistranslation of the greek word suggeneis in the kjv, properly rendered as "kinswoman")

16. Sola Scripture (has lead to 40,000 different sects and has no biblical approval. The definition of "sola scripture" also varies. The above example are by-products of this innovation. There is no need to prove an above example using the rules of antiquity, univerality, and apostolicity.)

[- DRA -]

With all due respect, AJ...

You should take the age and experience of your opponent into account. If the person is much older and/or much more experienced, it would be like a sheep debating with a wolf.

You need solid ground of faith to stand on before you can truly defend a position. As long as you don't really hold a position, you are liable to be defeated.

Your thoughts contain a measure of wisdom. Borrowing from the imagery of Matthew 7:15, one would indeed be wise to shy away from encounters with the wolf (false prophet or teacher) ... assuming, that one is facing a wolf. On the other hand, one would be unwise to disregard the voice of an experienced shepherd that truly has the sheep's best interest at heart and is using nothing more than the Scriptures to try to help a poor lamb intent on leaving the flock to remain faithful to God(i.e. Acts 20:28).

From a personal perspective, I am not trying to win a debate(s) with ABJ4 or anyone else. I am just interested in the truth. If you have it, and I don't, you would be my friend to share with me the things that I need to know.

[Orthosdoxa]

If you have it, and I don't, you would be my friend to share with me the things that I need to know.

How about a basic book? "What Every Protestant Needs to Know About the Orthodox Church", by Clark Carlton. In fact, if you promise to read it cover to cover, I'll even send you a copy.

[- DRA -]

Reading post 69 as requested I see a fundamental problem that happens when one debates someone who is not Orthodox.

They have no understanding of our beliefs about the Body of Christ being the Orthodox Church.

Speaking only for myself, I simply don't see the connection between the first-century church I read about in the New Testament and the Orthodox Church. For sure, I don't see where the Lord's church was ever called the Orthodox Church. Perhaps you would be kind enough to point out where that particular passage(s) is.

The Apostles and other followers were sent the Holy Spirit to guide us. They were the Church.

I agree that the Lord sent the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles to "all truth" in John 16:13. However, the point that I think is being overlooked is that the Holy Spirit completed this work. James 1:25 (NKJV) describes the product as the "perfect law of liberty." The apostle Paul described it as "all Scripture," which make us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). How do you view the Holy Scriptures?

Christ is also the Church. As Christ is in us, He embodies the Church. The Church is the body of believers and over the centuries it is the body of believers who fight over and over to maintain our traditions because we are called to do so by the Holy Spirit.

I agree that Christ is head over His church -- the one He established in Acts 2. What I need is some convincing the Orthodox Church is that particular church. As for the traditions of the church, if you are alluding to the thought of 2 Thessalonians 3:6, then we are in agreement. However, if you are alluding to traditions that arose outside of Scripture, then you need to help me understand why the Scriptures don't do what 2 Timothy 3:16-17 say they are supposed to do.

I agree with the other comments here. You are not strong enough in Orthodox beliefs to defend the faith just yet. In fact, I have seen others who (regardless of age btw) have been burnt up in such debates and ended up leaving the catechumanate or stopped being an enquirer.

It is better to spend this time reading and learning about the faith. Reading the debates that other Orthodox Christians are a part of can be a learning experience too. But it is important that you never take what any of us say as being the full truth. If a bunch of us say the same thing...well.. that is a sign it is probably right. ;)

I encourage ABJ4 and others to not necessarily listen to the majority (or bunch), but to listen to God's word. See Matthew 7:13-14, 21-23 for further thought. Clearly, those are examples where following the majority will result in spiritual disaster.

[- DRA -]

How about a basic book? "What Every Protestant Needs to Know About the Orthodox Church", by Clark Carlton. In fact, if you promise to read it cover to cover, I'll even send you a copy.

For now, I'm going to politely decline. My interest is in the word of God. I am not a Protestant. However, if there are Scriptures that I am overlooking or misunderstanding, then please direct me to them so I can better understand the Orthodox Church. Frankly, I can't find one hint of that particular church in the Scriptures. I'm not trying to be offensive, but stating what I consider to be an honest observation. I'll tell you what I'll do, if you can show me some scriptural basis for the Orthodox Church, I would be more than happy to read "What Every Protestant Needs to Know About the Orthodox Church" -- cover to cover. Deal? :thumbsup:

[- DRA -]

A story that is probably not true, but makes a point:

Some people were standing on the beach when they heard a man cry out: "Help! I'm drowning!"

While they watched the man struggle and struggle, the lifeguard continued to sit in his spot, though he was watching the man.

"Go get him! Save him! Do something!" the people shouted to the lifeguard.

But the lifeguard continued sitting and watching the man.

Finally, when the drowning man had exhausted himself and was starting to sink, the lifeguard dove into the water, quickly swam to the man, and just as quickly hauled him back safely to shore.

"Why didn't you save him when he first cried for help?" the people asked the lifeguard.

"If I had gotten to him when he was still flailing and panicking and had his strength, he might have pulled us both under in his efforts to swim. I had to wait until he had no more fight left in him. Then I could safely get ahold of him when he would no longer resist me and inadvertantly fight against my efforts to save him."

- - -

As long as your CoC or other friends are still strong in their dogmas and doctrines about Sola Scriptura and inerrancy and needing "no Creed but Christ" and "no book but the Bible" and "no Traditions of men," then your debates will be like the above story, in which you very likely could lose or weaken your faith.

Or your debates will be like the proverb: "Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig." (Plus, you get all covered with mud, etc.)

Wait till their foundational doctrines start to evidence or manifest to themselves some serious cracks. After you have begun to seriously live the Orthodox life, with or without their criticisms and arguments, but being faithful in prayer and in the life of the Church, and you persevere in these things and in being at peace within yourself and with all men, then when they come to you for help re: why what they have been taught and/or believed does not jive with history or even the Bible itself, then they might be ready to listen to another point of view.

Or if they ask questions, or even if they argue or criticize you, instead of getting in an argument with them, give them an irenic (i.e., peaceful) book or booklet on the subject. There are several out there that discuss or present the Orthodox Church and her beliefs without attacking Protestantism. E.g.:

Timothy Ware's THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
Frederica Mathewes-Green's books
LIGHT FROM THE CHRISTIAN EAST: AN INTRODUCTION TO THE ORTHODOX TRADITION by James R. Payton, Jr.
COMMON GROUND by Jordan Bajis
THE MOUNTAIN OF SILENCE
FATHER ARSENY: PRIEST, PRISONER, SPIRITUAL FATHERHenry Chadwick's THE EARLY CHURCH is by a non-Orthodox church historian and might give CoC people an overview of Church history that will alter their preconceptions.

Avoid the polemical/argumentative books/authors like Clark Carlton and Matthew Gallatin and Frank Schaeffer and Michael Whelton. I tend to find that Regina Orthodox Press books can often be argumentative, and not always effectively so. (At least that's my view of some of these books.)

If they don't want to read it, that's fine. You continue to pray and live your faith.

This doesn't mean that all confrontation and debate is useless or unnecessary. Some converts are won in that manner.

But as Archbishop +Dmitri wrote in his book on the Parables: "Thus, when we are only beginners in the Christian way and not yet strengthened and armed against attack, we should not make a show of what we have nor attempt to convince others. We might easily be defeated by skilled detractors and end up full of doubt. Or we could appear proud and self-righteous. A life lived in complete accordance with the truth is finally the most convincing argument for the Gospel."

In focusing on what I consider to be essence of your post (the text in bolded-red font), please explain why I need any other creed than Christ, a book (or books) other than the Bible, and why I need to be concerned with the traditions of men (versus the traditions passed down by the apostles and recorded in God's word)?

[Orthosdoxa]

The Bible doesn't "say" anything. It is a text. And as such is open to various interpretations, and anything I can say, you'd have an explanation for (one I would think is ridiculous, but would make perfect sense to you ;))- haven't you seen these arguments before? I've seen them a million times with people arguing 'is baptism necessary', 'can salvation be lost', 'what about works', when I was in the Protestant world. If two Protestants can spend hours throwing Scripture back and forth and get nowhere because their basic framework is so different, do you think we'd get anywhere, when our frameworks are from different planets?

All I can say is, the Orthodox Church IS the Church spoken of in Scriptures, and the Orthodox Church is the one that COMPILED the Scriptures. That book I offered gives a historical overview of these events, but apparently you're not interested in the historical facts, you only want to argue over what certain Scriptures mean. I'm not trying to be rude, but I know already that can get us NOWHERE and I'm not really interested. I'm certain someone more patient than I will share Scriptures with you, and you'll respond we're interpreting them incorrectly, we'll tell you your interpretations are traditions of men as they are only a few hundred years old, and the circle will continue. I want to start with something different than the same old same old.

PS - and your beliefs and Scriptural interpretations did not exist before the Reformation, hence you are Protestant. :)

[- DRA -]

No problem at all.

Just a reminder, though, that the rules for TAW are as follows (note that debate here is only allowed between Orthodox; non-Orthodox can fellowship or ask questions):

The Ancient Way Forum Specific Rules

The Ancient Way is a forum for Orthodox Christians and catechumens belonging to a canonical Orthodox Church, which is in communion with one or more of the Patriarchs listed at http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/

Rules For Posting In 'The Ancient Way" Forum:
1. Non-Orthodox are permitted only fellowship and honest, sincere questions. No debating, teaching or preaching will be tolerated.
2. All posters will treat each other respectfully.
3. Debate between Orthodox allowed as long as the other rules are followed.
4. Active Promotion of views contrary to the established teachings of canonical Orthodox Churches are prohibited.
5. All members claiming to be clergy must be verified with staff.
6. Only members belonging to a canonical Orthodox Church (as outlined above), will be considered for Moderators of TAW.

Okay, now the thread has been moved where we can openly talk. So, what would you like to discuss. For starters, I can't find the Orthodox Church mentioned anywhere in any of the translations I am familiar with (e.g., KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NRSV, NIV, ESV). Perhaps you can help me out.

[AJB4]

Hey -DRA-, thanks for coming! :D

For now, I'm going to politely decline. My interest is in the word of God. I am not a Protestant. However, if there are Scriptures that I am overlooking or misunderstanding, then please direct me to them so I can better understand the Orthodox Church. Frankly, I can't find one hint of that particular church in the Scriptures. I'm not trying to be offensive, but stating what I consider to be an honest observation. I'll tell you what I'll do, if you can show me some scriptural basis for the Orthodox Church, I would be more than happy to read "What Every Protestant Needs to Know About the Orthodox Church" -- cover to cover. Deal? :thumbsup:

Okay, now the thread has been moved where we can openly talk. So, what would you like to discuss. For starters, I can't find the Orthodox Church mentioned anywhere in any of the translations I am familiar with (e.g., KJV, NKJV, ASV, NASV, NRSV, NIV, ESV). Perhaps you can help me out.

I don't think there's any use fishing for a passage in scripture in direct relation to the Orthodox church (boy, that doesn't look good, does it? :D), because simply, there isn't one.

-DRA-, thanks for coming here. :wave: I think I'll just sit and watch the grown-ups without participating much...

[- DRA -]

The Bible doesn't "say" anything. It is a text. And as such is open to various interpretations, and anything I can say, you'd have an explanation for (one I would think is ridiculous, but would make perfect sense to you ;))- haven't you seen these arguments before? I've seen them a million times with people arguing 'is baptism necessary', 'can salvation be lost', 'what about works', when I was in the Protestant world. If two Protestants can spend hours throwing Scripture back and forth and get nowhere because their basic framework is so different, do you think we'd get anywhere, when our frameworks are from different planets?

All I can say is, the Orthodox Church IS the Church spoken of in Scriptures, and the Orthodox Church is the one that COMPILED the Scriptures. That book I offered gives a historical overview of these events, but apparently you're not interested in the historical facts, you only want to argue over what certain Scriptures mean. I'm not trying to be rude, but I know already that can get us NOWHERE and I'm not really interested. I'm certain someone more patient than I will share Scriptures with you, and you'll respond we're interpreting them incorrectly, we'll tell you your interpretations are traditions of men as they are only a few hundred years old, and the circle will continue. I want to start with something different than the same old same old.

PS - and your beliefs and Scriptural interpretations did not exist before the Reformation, hence you are Protestant. :)

I am going to have to politely disagree with you. I believe that God indeed speaks to us through His word (the sacred writings which make up the Bible). I believe that "all Scripture is inspired by God" and is profitable to give us everything we need to serve God and please Him (2 Tim. 3:16-17). That's why we are admonished to speak as the oracles of God (1 Pet. 4:11a). And, I also believe it is where we go to find the power of the gospel in saving those who are lost (Romans 1:16).

No doubt, the Scriptures are open to "various interpretations." Matthew 4:5-7 is one such example. satan quotes Psalm 91:11-12. He quotes it accurately, and makes a correct application to Jesus. However, something is still amiss with his understanding. He is trying to use to passage to justify an action that contradicts Deuteronomy 6:16. That's why Jesus quotes that particular passage. Truth will harmonize among passages ... assuming our understanding (i.e. interpretation) is correct. When it doesn't, then truth has not been obtained. I honestly believe that Jesus is showing us here how truth works (i.e. John 8:32). As for the issues you alluded to, this basic principle of Bible interpretation should help resolve all those issues. Take faith alone. If John 3:16 really means by "faith alone" or "faith only," then that particular concept will harmonize with other passages that discuss salvation under the gospel of Christ. Enough said. I don't believe Jesus' method of Bible interpretation is that hard to understand.

Okay, I understand loud and clear that you believe the Orthodox Church is the "church spoken of in the Scriptures." However, I've told you my problem with this understanding. I don't see any basis for it. Like you, I'm not trying to be rude, just factual and honest. It's simply not there. Nor are any of the Protestant Churches that you seem to be familiar with. Think about it. They could make the same claim you are making. They could claim they are the church of the Scriptures, they just can't show any Scriptural basis for it. Frankly, whether you or them, the bottom line is still the same -- there's absolutely NO Scriptural basis for such a claim. Do you understand my concern?

Let's see. Here's what you present to me. A historical book that is supposed to explain how the Orthodox Church is really the church we read about in the Scriptures. Now, if this idea was true, why couldn't I just go to the Scriptures and read about the Orthodox Church? :scratch:

My "interpretation" of this discussion is that you are suggesting the "Scriptures" and a particular history book will lead me to the truth, and yet God's word says the Scriptures by themselves will give me all I need (sorry to keep bringing up 2 Timothy 3:16-17). Who should I believe? Are you familiar with a story of a man who clearly understood what God said to him, but instead chose to listen to someone else? It's an interesting story. If you're interested you can read the story for yourself in 1 Kings 13. After you read it, please tell me whether or not I should follow God's word.

[Orthosdoxa]

God's word says the Scriptures by themselves will give me all I need (sorry to keep bringing up 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Actually, it doesn't. That passage simply speaks of the Bible's excellency, not it's all-sufficiency. The Bible actually says not even all the books in the world could contain all there is to know.

To expound further, (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm)

a). Does the Scripture teach that it is "all sufficient?"

The most obvious assumption that underlies the doctrine of "Scripture alone" is that the Bible has within it all that is needed for everything that concerns the Christian’s life — all that would be needed for true faith, practice, piety, and worship. The Scripture that is most usually cited to support this notion is:

...from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works (II Timothy 3:15-17).

Those who would use this passage to advocate Sola Scriptura argue that this passage teaches the "all sufficiency" of Scripture — because, "If, indeed, the Holy Scriptures are able to make the pious man perfect... then, indeed to attain completeness and perfection, there is no need of tradition." [1]

But what can really be said based on this passage?
For starters, we should ask what Paul is talking about when he speaks of the Scriptures that Timothy has known since he was a child. We can be sure that Paul is not referring to the New Testament, because the New Testament had not yet been written when Timothy was a child — in fact it was not nearly finished when Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy, much less collected together into the canon of the New Testament as we now know it. Obviously here, and in most references to "the Scriptures" that we find in the New Testament, Paul is speaking of the Old Testament; so if this passage is going to be used to set the limits on inspired authority, not only will Tradition be excluded but this passage itself and the entire New Testament.
In the second place, if Paul meant to exclude tradition as not also being profitable, then we should wonder why Paul uses non-biblical oral tradition in this very same chapter. The names Jannes and Jambres are not found in the Old Testament, yet in II Timothy 3:8 Paul refers to them as opposing Moses. Paul is drawing upon the oral tradition that the names of the two most prominent Egyptian Magicians in the Exodus account (Ch. 7-8) were "Jannes" and "Jambres." [2] And this is by no means the only time that a non-biblical source is used in the New Testament — the best known instance is in the Epistle of St. Jude, which quotes from the Book of Enoch (Jude 14-15 cf. Enoch 1:9).
When the Church officially canonized the books of Scripture, the primary purpose in establishing an authoritative list of books which were to be received as Sacred Scripture was to protect the Church from spurious books which claimed apostolic authorship but were in fact the work of heretics (e.g. the gospel of Thomas). Heretical groups could not base their teachings on Holy Tradition because their teachings originated from outside the Church, so the only way that they could claim any authoritative basis for their heresies was to twist the meaning of the Scriptures and to forge new books in the names of apostles or Old Testament saints. The Church defended itself against heretical teachings by appealing to the apostolic origins of Holy Tradition (proven by Apostolic Succession, i.e. the fact that the bishops and teachers of the Church can historically demonstrate their direct descendence from the Apostles), and by appealing to the universality of the Orthodox Faith (i.e. that the Orthodox faith is that same faith that Orthodox Christians have always accepted throughout its history and throughout the world). The Church defended itself against spurious and heretical books by establishing an authoritative list of sacred books that were received throughout the Church as being divinely inspired and of genuine Old Testament or apostolic origin.
By establishing the canonical list of Sacred Scripture the Church did not intend to imply that all of the Christian Faith and all information necessary for worship and good order in the Church was contained in them. [3] One thing that is beyond serious dispute is that by the time the Church settled the Canon of Scripture it was in its faith and worship essentially indistinguishable from the Church of later periods — this is an historical certainty. As far as the structure of Church authority, it was Orthodox bishops together in various councils who settled the question of the Canon — and so it is to this day in the Orthodox Church when any question of doctrine or discipline has to be settled.


(and here we go...)

[- DRA -]

Hey -DRA-, thanks for coming! :D

I don't think there's any use fishing for a passage in scripture in direct relation to the Orthodox church (boy, that doesn't look good, does it? :D), because simply, there isn't one.

-DRA-, thanks for coming here. :wave: I think I'll just sit and watch the grown-ups without participating much...



Okay ... let's assume you are correct. Therefore, if the Scriptures indeed make us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17), and we can't even find a hint of the Orthodox Church in the Scriptures, what's the conclusion that should be drawn?

[- DRA -]

Actually, it doesn't. That passage simply speaks of the Bible's excellency, not it's all-sufficiency. The Bible actually says not even all the books in the world could contain all there is to know.

To expound further, (http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm)

(and here we go...)

Before I respond to what you've cut and pasted, please allow me to ask one question: "Have you actually studied 2 Timothy 3:14 thru 2 Timothy 4:6 for yourself and are satisfied that what you have cut and pasted is the truth?

For starters ... does 2 Timothy 3:16-17 say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for excellency," or does it say, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God ... that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work"?

[Orthosdoxa]

16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Oddly, mine says nothing about Scriptures making us "complete", just speaking of its own excellency. It helps us do good works. That's not the same as "This is ALL you need." Not even by a long shot, no matter how much you try to twist it, and believe me, I've seen plenty of Protestant dancing "(ie, the "Twist and Shout") with this passage!

The idea that the Bible is ALL that is needed is itself an extra-biblical tradition. I love paradoxes. :D

[- DRA -]

We are not "afraid"of the truth. We are saying that our forum would be better off to be "free" of debate. We are not saying we are not up to debate either. I reassure you that our motives are not of trying to "avoid" this debate rather to be at the appropriately "place". Believe me there are many of us here they would not mind to take up this challenge.

God bless,
Philothei

Great. The "place" has been taken care of. We are currently in the right location. So, how can you help me better understand the Orthodox Church?

[- DRA -]

Oddly, mine says nothing about Scriptures making us "complete", just speaking of its own excellency. It helps us do good works. That's not the same as "This is ALL you need." Not even by a long shot, no matter how much you try to twist it, and believe me, I've seen plenty of Protestant dancing "(ie, the "Twist and Shout") with this passage!

The idea that the Bible is ALL that is needed is itself an extra-biblical tradition. I love paradoxes. :D

Okay, what translation are you using?

[Orthosdoxa]

So, how can you help me better understand the Orthodox Church?

Ask questions without being combative, and let us answer - we might even have a Scripture or two in the answer! ;) But just asking a stupid question you know there's no answer to ("please give me chapter and verse where the phrase Orthodox Church appears in Scripture") does nobody any good. I for one would love to share what we actually believe with you. But you have to ask sincere questions to get there.

[Orthosdoxa]

I just used biblegateway and NIV was the default translation. If you're like my MIL, you'll say using that translation just proves I actually don't believe in Christ at all. We don't get hung up on translations too much (unless they're these stupid paraphrases or gender inclusive ones so prevalent nowadays :sick: ). That's another difference. Our Holy Fathers spoke the actual language Scripture was written in, and we have held on to their teachings as passed down by the Apostles. If Thomas Nelson screws up a word here or there, it really has nothing to do with us.

[- DRA -]

Oddly, mine says nothing about Scriptures making us "complete", just speaking of its own excellency. It helps us do good works. That's not the same as "This is ALL you need." Not even by a long shot, no matter how much you try to twist it, and believe me, I've seen plenty of Protestant dancing "(ie, the "Twist and Shout") with this passage!

The idea that the Bible is ALL that is needed is itself an extra-biblical tradition. I love paradoxes. :D

key words in 2 Timothy 3:17 says (NKJV),
complete (translated from the Koine Greek word "artios")
thoroughly equipped (from "Exartizo")
every ("pas")
good ("agathos")
work ("ergon")
Reference: Strong's Online KJV and NASV

The only "twisting and shouting" I'm seeing and hearing are the attempts to avoid the idea that the Scriptures are complete ... and they they thoroughly equip us for every good work.

[Orthosdoxa]

Ok then. KJV

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (King James Version)


16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


Is that better? If not, which translation meets your standards? I still see nothing that says "Everything you need is in this book."

Ah, extra-biblical traditions that rail against extra-biblical traditions... I love it. :D

[- DRA -]

Ask questions without being combative, and let us answer - we might even have a Scripture or two in the answer! ;) But just asking a stupid question you know there's no answer to ("please give me chapter and verse where the phrase Orthodox Church appears in Scripture") does nobody any good. I for one would love to share what we actually believe with you. But you have to ask sincere questions to get there.


Okay, you've got the rest of the evening to answer or share.

Frankly, I don't really see where having a book, chapter, and verse is such a stupid idea (see 1 Peter 4:11a). I sense your frustration. However, red herrings aren't the answer. Please stay focused on the task at hand. If you indeed have a Scripture or two as you say, then present it or them for consideration.

Meanwhile, tomorrow, Lord willing, we can discuss that article you cut and pasted about 2 Tim. 3:16-17.

[Orthosdoxa]

Okay, you've got the rest of the evening to answer or share.

The rest of the evening to answer or share what? Orthodoxy in general? If so, I offered books that would speak more eloquently than I, but you refused.

If you'd read an article, try these:

http://www.protomartyr.org/links.html (any of them are good)

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/worship_early_church_ext.htm

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/from_baptist_to_first_century.htm (I esp. recommend this one)

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm
(and this one)

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/2ndth.htm

If you refuse to read these as well, then I certainly wouldn't waste MY time writing anything. Why should I? I couldn't say anything better than the articles above.

I invited you to ask further questions beyond the initial one, but you haven't. If there's anything you sincerely want to know, the invite is still open. And, I already told you that there's no answer to your first question, the Orthodox Church is not mentioned by its current name in Scriptures (which you already knew, but were trying to make a point, albeit a lame one). (And if you'd be open to looking at history, you'd see why, but you refused. I guess it's easier to keep a closed mind and continue to be sure in your rightness , than even hear someone else out, right? :))

red herrings aren't the answer.

What red herring? A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective. What's the objective here? Trying to talk about Orthodoxy! If I start talking about how cute my son is, then you can accuse me of that. ;)

People throw that and "strawmen" around here when they don't even know what it means! :D I've noticed in GT accusing someone of a red herring is often used as a red herring in itself! :D Awesome.

I sense your frustration.

I'm not frustrated. Please don't try to make this about me or my feelings.

The ball's in your court now. You can read the articles and come back with REAL questions, or you can continue to ask silly questions in attempts to make a point, and argue with me about what Scripture means.

[nestoj]

key words in 2 Timothy 3:17 says (NKJV),
complete (translated from the Koine Greek word "artios")
thoroughly equipped (from "Exartizo")
every ("pas")
good ("agathos")
work ("ergon")
Reference: Strong's Online KJV and NASV

The only "twisting and shouting" I'm seeing and hearing are the attempts to avoid the idea that the Scriptures are complete ... and they they thoroughly equip us for every good work.
What are this good works that a scripture is preparation for?

nestoj
God helps

[the_Abbot]

Although you will not find the word Orthodox in the Bible, I believe this verse is speaking of the Orthodox Church.

Acts 11:26
26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Who were these Christians in Antioch at this time? What Church did they attend? Can your church trace it's history back to starting in this ancient city?

Or is the history of the Orthodox Church all a lie?

I am not Orthodox (yet), but I truely believe in my heart that the OC is the original Church through everything I have read and studied on the subject.

Peace

[AJB4]

Although you will not find the word Orthodox in the Bible, I believe this verse is speaking of the Orthodox Church.

Acts 11:26
26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Who were these Christians in Antioch at this time? What Church did they attend? Can your church trace it's history back to starting in this ancient city?

Or is the history of the Orthodox Church all a lie?

I am not Orthodox (yet), but I truely believe in my heart that the OC is the original Church through everything I have read and studied on the subject.

Peace
Not in reference to your post in terms of an argument, but just to share a little background information...

Those in the Restoration Movement actually use Acts 11:26 quite a lot. What they get most out of this verse is that they seem to object to Christian believers using any name for themselves other than "Christian" itself (ie. Orthodox). They believe that using the term "Christian" is a fulfillment of the Isaiah 62:2 prophecy. Just thought I'd share that little bit of background info.

[the_Abbot]

Not in reference to your post in terms of an argument, but just to share a little background information...

Those in the Restoration Movement actually use Acts 11:26 quite a lot. What they get most out of this verse is that they seem to object to Christian believers using any name for themselves other than "Christian" itself (ie. Orthodox). They believe that using the term "Christian" is a fulfillment of the Isaiah 62:2 prophecy. Just thought I'd share that little bit of background info.
Thank you for the information.

Oh I am sure they do use that scripture to support their beliefs. I just can't to see how they can deny the history of the Orthodox Church that can trace back to that very same Church.

I am still learning and am willing to listen to your points of view, but as I said everything I studied makes me believe the Orthodox Church is the one One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

[AJB4]

Thank you for the information.

Oh I am sure they do use that scripture to support their beliefs. I just can't to see how they can deny the history of the Orthodox Church that can trace back to that very same Church.

I am still learning and am willing to listen to your points of view, but as I said everything I studied makes me believe the Orthodox Church is the one One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Hey, I'm on your side! :D Well, trying to be. Why do you think my profile is decked out in Orthodox stuff. ^_^

[Philothei]

Hey, I'm on your side! :D Well, trying to be. Why do you think my profile is decked out in Orthodox stuff. ^_^
AJ, the term orthodox was a later development. The Church had that excact name Church of Christ. We, the One Holy Catholic (universal) and Apostolic Church. The church of the fathers who radified the Bible as a canon. But... on the other hand I know you know all these things right?

The restoration movement (what I know) came as a later development and "organized" as to say the 'scattered christians' behind the organized Church... i.e. the Catholic and Orthodox Church...I hope I kind of have it right... I think.

So... if the First Church of the Apostles went "underground" then we talk about another conspiracy theory another gnostic... heresy. The Church of Christ is the same Church of the Apostles and the Fathers. Compairing and looking through the history of the Church we can see that. Get a copy of the Penguin series by Chadwick and you can see how historically the Church of the first century AD is the later known as Orthodox Church.

Hope that helps... sorry no verses here....I am sure others could contribute to that.

God bless,
Philothei

[buzuxi02]

key words in 2 Timothy 3:17 says (NKJV),
complete (translated from the Koine Greek word "artios")
thoroughly equipped (from "Exartizo")
every ("pas")
good ("agathos")
work ("ergon")
Reference: Strong's Online KJV and NASV

The only "twisting and shouting" I'm seeing and hearing are the attempts to avoid the idea that the Scriptures are complete ... and they they thoroughly equip us for every good work.
Protestants obsession for 2 Tim 3.16-17 as support for sola scripture makes no sense. If anything it disproves "bible only".

The bible comes forth from the Church as a portion of its Holy Tradition and outside of the Church its only a book.

But what does 2 Tim 3.16 really say; when taken out of the hands of the heterodox and put back into its proper apostolic context?

2Tim 3.14-15, "But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of , knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation tthru faith which is in Christ Jesus."

Timothy knew the OT scriptures from youth, due to the influence of his mother, and she learned it from her mother (2 TIM 1.5). This is called tradition, transmitting that which was delivered down from one generation to the next.

And from whom did Timothy learn the proper meaning of these scriptures in light of the gospel????
It was not from individual interpetation. It was transmitted to Timothy from Paul himself,

"Hold fast the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me, in faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. That good thing which was committed to you, keep by the Holy Spirit who dwells in you." (2Tim1.13-14). He does not say to keep it by writing it down on papyrus nor is it all recorded in scripture.

Paul drives this point home all the more in 2 Tim2.2
"And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses,commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also."

In fact 3Tim 3.14-17 applies, for the preparation against situations like this very thread!!! 2Tim 4.1-5 warns against the misuse of scripture by people who recieved their gospel from illegitmate sources who in turn recieved them out of nowhere;

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers, and they will turn their ears away from truth and be turned aside to fables." 2Tim 4.3-4; this is Pauls explanation as to why scripture coupled with the Apostolic tradition (v14) is necessary.

For a particular interpretation of scripture to be correct it must represent the mind of the Church, that which was taught in all places and in all times since the beginning. The myriad of "bible only" preachers invent their interpretation out of thin air as Paul warns us in the above verse.

Paul reiterates this point in his first epislte to Tim: "O Timothy!. Guard what was committed to your trust , avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge. By professing it some have strayed soncerning the faith..." (1Tim 6.21)

The 2 epistles of Timothy is a warning against the "contradictions" and to hold firm in the Apostles traditions. It is a warning against...... protestantism!

As far as the Orthodox Church not being the historical church founded at Pentecost, this is more of a case of western sects catching a bad case of envy.

Ephesians 2.11 teaches that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets and Christ being the chief cornerstone. This is spoken in a few places in scripture (Eph 3.5, Rev 21.14).

Only Orthodoxy fits this description. Protestants are built upon the foundation of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli. "Bible only" believers who would like to distance themselves from their reformer brethren and sometimes call themselves restorers admit that the bible is their foundation not the apostles. They are atleast honest, they never knew the apostles or the 45 apostolic churches they found. They are compartmentalized in western europe and america and are complete strangers to the lands of the bible and the apostles. Not only that, there roots only reach back 500 years, being daughters, granddaughters and great grandaughters of Rome.

In the book of Acts Paul was brought to a house-church on the road called straight in Damascus (acts 9.11). Today this same address is the headquarters of the Orthodox patriarchate of the Antiochan Church.

In the epistle of the Corinthians Paul speaks how he planted that church and Apollo watered it. The Corinthian Church still exists, always has since the day it was planted and it is Orthodox.

The ruins of the 7 churches of the book of Revelation found in Asia Minor can be visted today in Turkey. These church were persecuted to the point of extinction in 1922 but the survivors and their offspring still exist in America and in Greece. Bishop Chrysostomos was the last bishop of Smyrna martyred in 1922.

The island of Patmos where John recieved the Apocalypse is entirely Orthodox and the chapels built around the cave he lived in predate the reformation.

I can go on and on and on.....

[AJB4]

The restoration movement (what I know) came as a later development and "organized" as to say the 'scattered christians' behind the organized Church... i.e. the Catholic and Orthodox Church...I hope I kind of have it right... I think.

Yes, Philothei, this is correct, if you're talking about the view that after the last apostle died, everything went to pot pretty much right away, and the true church went underground somewhere. They do hold this view.

[AJB4]

Protestants are built upon the foundation of Luther and Calvin and Zwingli.

Isn't Zwingli connected with the idea of symbolic eucharist? About 1500 and something?

[Orthosdoxa]

Isn't Zwingli connected with the idea of symbolic eucharist? About 1500 and something?

Yep. The other Reformers, who still believed in the RP, hated him for it. When Zwingli died, Luther wrote a letter rejoicing about this, to a friend.

[- DRA -]

The rest of the evening to answer or share what? Orthodoxy in general? If so, I offered books that would speak more eloquently than I, but you refused.

If you'd read an article, try these:

http://www.protomartyr.org/links.html (any of them are good)

I took a look at the this link. Here's an excerpt from the article entitled, What Orthodox Christians Believe: "THE BIBLE is the divinely inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16), and is a crucial part of God's self-revelation to the human race. The Old Testament tells the history of that revelation from Creation through the Age of the Prophets. The New Testament records the birth and life of Jesus as well as the writings of His Apostles. It also includes some of the history of the early Church and especially sets forth the Church's apostolic doctrine." If I understand this statement correctly, and I believe I do, it correctly concludes that both the Old and New Testament writings are being alluded to in 2 Timothy 3:16. On the other hand, a previous excerpt from an obviously different source concluded that 2 Tim. 3:15-17 were all referring to the Old Testament Scriptures (see Post #33 on Page 4). I'm confused. :confused: You are offering conflicting views. Do you recall my asking if you really studied the idea you were presenting on Post #33 versus just copying and pasting it? I wasn't trying to belittle you. However, leave no doubt in your mind, I was indeed trying to get you to (diligently - 2 Tim. 2:15) "think" and "study" for yourself. I make no apologies for that. :amen:

http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/worship_early_church_ext.htm

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/from_baptist_to_first_century.htm (I esp. recommend this one)

http://fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/sola_scriptura_john_whiteford.htm
(and this one)

http://www.kalvesmaki.com/2ndth.htm

If you refuse to read these as well, then I certainly wouldn't waste MY time writing anything. Why should I? I couldn't say anything better than the articles above.

I invited you to ask further questions beyond the initial one, but you haven't. If there's anything you sincerely want to know, the invite is still open. And, I already told you that there's no answer to your first question, the Orthodox Church is not mentioned by its current name in Scriptures (which you already knew, but were trying to make a point, albeit a lame one). (And if you'd be open to looking at history, you'd see why, but you refused. I guess it's easier to keep a closed mind and continue to be sure in your rightness , than even hear someone else out, right?

My sincere question is why you feel comfortable and justified in being a part of a church that is not even mentioned in the Holy Scriptures? I am not refusing to consider history. The apostle Paul, by the inspiration of God, foretold of the history of the first-century church in 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Here are those verses: "1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." Do you believe this falling away or departure from the truth occurred? I sure do. I believe history shows this to be true. Therefore, if our interests are really in the church that our Lord established in Acts 2 ... the one we read about in the pages of the New Testament ... where should we go to better understand the church that our Lord established? To the history of those who departed from the faith, or to the inspired word of God? Obviously, I believe the word of God is the place to do the searching.

Sorry if I come across as closed-minded. My ears are open to what you are saying. However, please understand where I'm coming from. Saying you believe the Orthodox Church is the church we read about it in the New Testament isn't the type of faith I believe one should have (i.e. Romans 10:17). Since it is obvious to all of us the Orthodox Church isn't even mentioned in the Scriptures, then I need some help understanding how you make the connection between the church that Jesus built and the Orthodox Church - whose name even isn't scriptural.

What red herring? A red herring is a metaphor for a diversion or distraction from an original objective. What's the objective here? Trying to talk about Orthodoxy! If I start talking about how cute my son is, then you can accuse me of that. ;)

I imagine your son is cute. Most children are in their own unique way. However, a red herring isn't always about diverting the topic of discussion. It also involves slander against the person presenting the opposing view. The idea is that one who can't defend his/her reasoning will attack the other persons character - instead of dealing directly with the reasoning the person is presenting. It's what the Jews did in Matthew 12:24.

People throw that and "strawmen" around here when they don't even know what it means! I've noticed in GT accusing someone of a red herring is often used as a red herring in itself! :D Awesome.

People shouldn't be doing those things.

I'm not frustrated. Please don't try to make this about me or my feelings.

The ball's in your court now. You can read the articles and come back with REAL questions, or you can continue to ask silly questions in attempts to make a point, and argue with me about what Scripture means.

Your reference to "silly" questions reinforces my point about the red herring. I could read the articles. Years ago, I spent a lot of time reading what others believe. While it wasn't wasted time, I finally realized that if I spent more time focused on what God says through His word, then I would be better equipped to do what is right and recognize those things that arise that are contrary to what His word teaches. Like I said, I could read the articles. However, I'm more interested in what you believe and why you believe it. Is that such a "silly" concept? If so, then I truly am silly.

[Thekla]

My sincere question is why you feel comfortable and justified in being a part of a church that is not even mentioned in the Holy Scriptures?

I think you have mistaken a descriptive (Orthodox) for a nominative (name). Orthodox describes an adherence to the teachings and practice of the apostles.



I am not refusing to consider history. The apostle Paul, by the inspiration of God, foretold of the history of the first-century church in 1 Timothy 4:1-3. Here are those verses: "1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, 3 forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." Do you believe this falling away or departure from the truth occurred? I sure do.

the history of the Church is replete with examples of the battle against heresy (in the NT and beyond).

[- DRA -]

I just used biblegateway and NIV was the default translation. If you're like my MIL, you'll say using that translation just proves I actually don't believe in Christ at all. We don't get hung up on translations too much (unless they're these stupid paraphrases or gender inclusive ones so prevalent nowadays :sick: ). That's another difference. Our Holy Fathers spoke the actual language Scripture was written in, and we have held on to their teachings as passed down by the Apostles. If Thomas Nelson screws up a word here or there, it really has nothing to do with us.

Actually, generally speaking, I have found the NIV to be pretty good. However, it makes absolutely no claim to try to be a word-for-word translation. Rather, its translators use a thought-for-thought process. That means they try to give us what they think the early writings meant ... translated into current English.

If interested, here's some general information about some of the more popular English translations:
http://www.victorious.org/translat.htm

[Orthosdoxa]

My sincere question is why you feel comfortable and justified in being a part of a church that is not even mentioned in the Holy Scriptures?

I don't know. Why do you feel comfortable being part of a church whose scriptural interpretations didn't exist (therefore that church did not exist) until after the Protestant Reformation? Alexander Campbell was an innovator. In regards to cooking, innovation is awesome. In regards to Christian doctrine, innovation is from the devil.

The verse in Timothy refers to the OT, as the NT wasn't compiled or fully agreed upon until nearly 400 AD. That's just simple historical fact. What you quoted in red did not say that the NT was referenced in it; it simply was not specific. Pretty silly thing to latch on to as proof of "conflicting" evidence. And even if it DID specify that, then the article would have just been wrong. But it didn't.

I finally realized that if I spent more time focused on my personal interpretation of what God says through His word, then I would be better equipped to do what is right according to my traditions and recognize those things that arise that are contrary to my individualistic interpretation of what His word teaches.

Fixed.

I was indeed trying to get you to (diligently - 2 Tim. 2:15)"think" and "study" for yourself. I make no apologies for that. :amen:

Funny, I was trying to do the same for you. :) But you won't ask questions about what we believe, and you won't read articles I point you to that tell you what we believe, you just want me to write some exposition on... what? You won't even tell me. It's becoming pretty obvious you're just playing games.

However, I'm more interested in what you believe and why you believe it.

Which I have tried to share with you through books and articles, which you refuse to read. Everything those articles say are what the Orthodox Church teaches.

When you read an article and come back with "Ok, so why do you guys believe....?" I will answer you. Right now, this is a waste of my time.

[Orthosdoxa]

That means they try to give us what they think the early writings meant ... translated into current English.


Right... they put what they think things meant, based on their traditions. There is no such thing as not using tradition - the question is, whose tradition are you going to use?

[Orthosdoxa]

Good post, Thekla.

[- DRA -]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

key words in 2 Timothy 3:17 says (NKJV),
complete (translated from the Koine Greek word "artios")
thoroughly equipped (from "Exartizo")
every ("pas")
good ("agathos")
work ("ergon")
Reference: Strong's Online KJV and NASV

The only "twisting and shouting" I'm seeing and hearing are the attempts to avoid the idea that the Scriptures are complete ... and they they thoroughly equip us for every good work.

What are this good works that a scripture is preparation for?

nestoj
God helps

Once again, here's 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in the NKJV: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

To better understand the good works alluded to in verse 17, I suggest we continue the reading ...
2 Timothy 4:1
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom:
4:2
Preach the word! [emphasis mine] Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4:4
and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
4:5
But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

[Thekla]

Originally Posted by - DRA -

key words in 2 Timothy 3:17 says (NKJV),
complete (translated from the Koine Greek word "artios")
thoroughly equipped (from "Exartizo")
every ("pas")
good ("agathos")
work ("ergon")
Reference: Strong's Online KJV and NASV

The only "twisting and shouting" I'm seeing and hearing are the attempts to avoid the idea that the Scriptures are complete ... and they they thoroughly equip us for every good work.



Once again, here's 2 Timothy 3:16-17 in the NKJV: "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

To better understand the good works alluded to in verse 17, I suggest we continue the reading ...
2 Timothy 4:1
I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at* His appearing and His kingdom:
4:2
Preach the word! [emphasis mine] Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
4:4
and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.
4:5
But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.
a grammatical description of 2Tim 2:14

"Graphe is used here in the partitive, not in a collective sense (ai graphai). "God-inspired" can be rendered as attributive of graphe, reading "every God-inspired Scripture";accordingly "and (kai) has the force of 'also,' thus reading:

"Every God-inspired Scripture also profitable..."


(in this sentence, there is no copula -is- in the Greek )

This gives a different sense to the passage than the one you provided.

[- DRA -]

Although you will not find the word Orthodox in the Bible, I believe this verse is speaking of the Orthodox Church.

Acts 11:26
26And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Who were these Christians in Antioch at this time? What Church did they attend? Can your church trace it's history back to starting in this ancient city?

Or is the history of the Orthodox Church all a lie?

I am not Orthodox (yet), but I truely believe in my heart that the OC is the original Church through everything I have read and studied on the subject.

Peace

Here's the chronology of events as I understand them:
1st. Jesus promised to build His church in Matt. 16:18
2nd. He built His church (the Koine Greek word "ekklesia" - the called out of God) in Acts 2:38,41,47 in Jerusalem.
3rd. The church continued to grow in Jerusalem (Acts 5:14).
4th. The stoning of Stephen caused disciples to scatter from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1).
5th. The scattered disciples preached the word wherever they went (Acts 8:4)
6th. Churches were established in other areas when people obeyed the gospel of Christ i.e. Judea, Samaria, Antioch, etc. (the rest of the book of Acts).

As for your questions, I believe the Christians in Antioch worshipped with the Lord's church - the same one established in Jerusalem. No, they didn't go to Jerusalem, but they obeyed the gospel just as the Jews did in Acts 2:38,41. Therefore, they were added to the Lord's church (Acts 2:47) - those called out by our Lord - and they met (or assembled) where they lived. In Acts 11, those particular Christians lived in Antioch of Syria. Soon, churches were established in other places in the same way. Preach the truth. People obey it and become saved from their sins. And, those folks worship together as the apostles, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, instructed.

I believe the church of Christ can be traced back to Jerusalem and Antioch. How? It teaches what the apostles and first-century Christians taught concerning salvation under the gospel of Christ. It worships as the fist-century church worships. It is organized as the first-century church was organized. And, it describes itself (by the name that it bears) in scriptural terms (Colossians 3:17). See the point? It's not like tracing a lineage. More like planting seed. See the parable of the sower in Matthew 13.

For sure, the history of the church that Jesus built is NOT a lie. That's the church I'm concerned about. Not the man-made ones. Just the one that results when the truth is taught.

In His service, :bow:
- DRA -

[- DRA -]

a grammatical description of 2Tim 2:14

"Graphe is used here in the partitive, not in a collective sense (ai graphai). "God-inspired" can be rendered as attributive of graphe, reading "every God-inspired Scripture";accordingly "and (kai) has the force of 'also,' thus reading:

"Every God-inspired Scripture also profitable..."


(in this sentence, there is no copula -is- in the Greek )

This gives a different sense to the passage than the one you provided.

First off, what's your reference source?

Second, your conclusion leads us with a dilemma - there are inspired Scriptures and non-inspired Scriptures. Uh oh. How is one supposed to discern the difference? Continue reading the context. In 2 Timothy 4:2, Timothy is commanded to "preach the word." Is that the inspired or non-inspired version? Given the nature of the discussion there in its context, some folks definitely prefer the non-inspired version. They look to the teachings of men for that particular version.

Third, your conclusion about this text (2 Tim. 3:16, not 2 Tim. 2:14) totally disagrees with two previous ones that have been tossed out for us to consider.

[Thekla]

First off, what's your reference source?

Second, your conclusion leads us with a dilemma - there are inspired Scriptures and non-inspired Scriptures. Uh oh. How is one supposed to discern the difference? Continue reading the context. In 2 Timothy 4:2, Timothy is commanded to "preach the word." Is that the inspired or non-inspired version? Given the nature of the discussion there in its context, some folks definitely prefer the non-inspired version. They look to the teachings of men for that particular version.

Third, your conclusion about this text (2 Tim. 3:16, not 2 Tim. 2:14) totally disagrees with two previous ones that have been "thrown out."
I provided a more literal rendering from the Greek from a study Bible.

It indicates the effect that tradition can have on translation.

[Orthosdoxa]

Here's the chronology of events as I understand them:
1st. Jesus promised to build His church in Matt. 16:18
2nd. He built His church (the Koine Greek word "ekklesia" - the called out of God) in Acts 2:38,41,47 in Jerusalem.
3rd. The church continued to grow in Jerusalem (Acts 5:14).
4th. The stoning of Stephen caused disciples to scatter from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1).
5th. The scattered disciples preached the word wherever they went (Acts 8:4)
6th. Churches were established in other areas when people obeyed the gospel of Christ i.e. Judea, Samaria, Antioch, etc. (the rest of the book of Acts).

As for your questions, I believe the Christians in Antioch worshipped with the Lord's church - the same one established in Jerusalem. No, they didn't go to Jerusalem, but they obeyed the gospel just as the Jews did in Acts 2:38,41. Therefore, they were added to the Lord's church (Acts 2:47) - those called out by our Lord - and they met (or assembled) where they lived. In Acts 11, those particular Christians lived in Antioch of Syria. Soon, churches were established in other places in the same way. Preach the truth. People obey it and become saved from their sins. And, those folks worship together as the apostles, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, instructed.

I believe the church of Christ can be traced back to Jerusalem and Antioch. How? It teaches what the apostles and first-century Christians taught concerning salvation under the gospel of Christ. It worships as the fist-century church worships. It is organized as the first-century church was organized. And, it describes itself (by the name that it bears) in scriptural terms (Colossians 3:17). See the point? It's not like tracing a lineage. More like planting seed. See the parable of the sower in Matthew 13.

Hey AJ :wave:

Since this thread is ultimately for you, I'm directing this at you.

The above description of church history is overall good, with an error here or there, but overall good. Too bad there's no evidence whatsoever that this is the Campbellite churches. They just simply didn't exist, in any form, until a few centuries ago.

People who follow the revisionist view of modern church history simply have to claim that the "real" Christians were in hiding for the first millenium , because there's no historical evidence on anyone existing outside the basic Catholic/Orthodox framework (including the early heretical movements). It's a claim that became necessary when all these new parachurch communions sprung up after the Reformation- they had to explain their existence SOMEhow. Plenty of Baptists claim it about themselves, too, though they are adamantly not Campbellites (as in the Baptist view, the Campbellites make baptism into a "work").

So AJ, if you want to buy into the notion that the "real" Christians were hiding from the evil Church of history - who would you believe? The Baptists' claim is just as valid as the CoC claim and has just as much evidence (which is none on either count) - so why couldn't the Baptist claim be true, if you'd be willing to entertain the CoC notion?

To connect the above history with a 19th century Brit who was completely disconnected from the historical Church and tried to reinvent the wheel using only his own personal interpretation of Scripture is absurd. The Orthodox Church has kept the faith handed down once for all to all the saints, for 2000 years. It never needed a "restoration movement" - (to say that such a movement is necessary is in fact to call Christ a liar). No reformation. No change. Just the original. DRA wants to make a big deal about the word "Orthodox" not appearing in Scripture. As Thekla pointed out, it's an issue of descriptive vs. nominative.

It seems that DRA's favorite terms here are "traditions of men" and "church built by men". The problem he doesn't realize is EVERYONE uses traditions to interpret how they understand Scripture, including him. He is following the Campbellite tradition. If he was a Baptist, he'd follow that Baptist tradition (whichever one he happened to be in), and he would have a much different view of baptism. If he was a Nazarene, he would have a much different view of eternal assurance. It is no mistake that Baptists all believe roughly the same things, and CoC's believe roughly the same things, and Nazarenes all believe roughly the same things - because they are each taught from their common tradition - yet they believe very DIFFERENT things. And they can't all be right, obviously - even though they think they each follow ONLY the Bible. That's because how they INTERPRET the Bible is influenced by their traditions. Traditions invented by a 19th century Brit? Or traditions handed down, unchanged, since the time of the Apostles, that have a trace-able lineage from then til now? You decide. :)

I'll make you the same offer I made DRA, which he refused: There is an excellent basic book of history and such called "What Every Protestant Should Know about the Orthodox Church". If you promise to read it, I'll send you a copy, free of charge. I really think it would clear up a lot of your questions.

[Thekla]

Here's the chronology of events as I understand them:
1st. Jesus promised to build His church in Matt. 16:18
2nd. He built His church (the Koine Greek word "ekklesia" - the called out of God) in Acts 2:38,41,47 in Jerusalem.
3rd. The church continued to grow in Jerusalem (Acts 5:14).
4th. The stoning of Stephen caused disciples to scatter from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1).
5th. The scattered disciples preached the word wherever they went (Acts 8:4)
6th. Churches were established in other areas when people obeyed the gospel of Christ i.e. Judea, Samaria, Antioch, etc. (the rest of the book of Acts).

As for your questions, I believe the Christians in Antioch worshipped with the Lord's church - the same one established in Jerusalem. No, they didn't go to Jerusalem, but they obeyed the gospel just as the Jews did in Acts 2:38,41. Therefore, they were added to the Lord's church (Acts 2:47) - those called out by our Lord - and they met (or assembled) where they lived. In Acts 11, those particular Christians lived in Antioch of Syria. Soon, churches were established in other places in the same way. Preach the truth. People obey it and become saved from their sins. And, those folks worship together as the apostles, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, instructed.

I believe the church of Christ can be traced back to Jerusalem and Antioch. How? It teaches what the apostles and first-century Christians taught concerning salvation under the gospel of Christ. It worships as the fist-century church worships. It is organized as the first-century church was organized. And, it describes itself (by the name that it bears) in scriptural terms (Colossians 3:17). See the point? It's not like tracing a lineage. More like planting seed. See the parable of the sower in Matthew 13.

For sure, the history of the church that Jesus built is NOT a lie. That's the church I'm concerned about. Not the man-made ones. Just the one that results when the truth is taught.

In His service, :bow:
- DRA -[/QUOTE]

Your description does not exclude the Orthodox Church.

[AJB4]

Here's the chronology of events as I understand them:
1st. Jesus promised to build His church in Matt. 16:18
2nd. He built His church (the Koine Greek word "ekklesia" - the called out of God) in Acts 2:38,41,47 in Jerusalem.
3rd. The church continued to grow in Jerusalem (Acts 5:14).
4th. The stoning of Stephen caused disciples to scatter from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1).
5th. The scattered disciples preached the word wherever they went (Acts 8:4)
6th. Churches were established in other areas when people obeyed the gospel of Christ i.e. Judea, Samaria, Antioch, etc. (the rest of the book of Acts).

As for your questions, I believe the Christians in Antioch worshipped with the Lord's church - the same one established in Jerusalem. No, they didn't go to Jerusalem, but they obeyed the gospel just as the Jews did in Acts 2:38,41. Therefore, they were added to the Lord's church (Acts 2:47) - those called out by our Lord - and they met (or assembled) where they lived. In Acts 11, those particular Christians lived in Antioch of Syria. Soon, churches were established in other places in the same way. Preach the truth. People obey it and become saved from their sins. And, those folks worship together as the apostles, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, instructed.

I believe the church of Christ can be traced back to Jerusalem and Antioch. How? It teaches what the apostles and first-century Christians taught concerning salvation under the gospel of Christ. It worships as the fist-century church worships. It is organized as the first-century church was organized. And, it describes itself (by the name that it bears) in scriptural terms (Colossians 3:17). See the point? It's not like tracing a lineage. More like planting seed. See the parable of the sower in Matthew 13.

For sure, the history of the church that Jesus built is NOT a lie. That's the church I'm concerned about. Not the man-made ones. Just the one that results when the truth is taught.

In His service, :bow:
- DRA -
Just a couple of observations:

1) The CoC doesn't even seem to fully reject "tradition". For example,
when pressing the issue of Instrumental Music, they are always quick to point out that the early church fathers (Orthodox saints) didn't teach in favour of it, and that the Christian church in general didn't use them until up to 600AD or so. Just one idea of use of tradition in the CoC.

-DRA-, give the Orthodox this, if nothing else. They can prove their claims through history*. They can trace their practices back to the early church fathers, and some early church fathers were students of the spirit-guided apostles themselves.

2) In the post-first century church that you consider Apostate, there were many martyrdoms. Ignatius, Polycarp and the like, were all killed (mostly at Rome). As well as martyrdoms, the post-first century church, as Thekla said before, was rampant against heresies.

If the Great Apostasy theory is correct, I don't think that it paints the underground ones in a positive light. So, the "true Christians" worshiped in their homes huh? No doubt, the visible church would've considered them heretical. You'd think that, just as the visible church fought so heartily against Gnosticism and other things, they'd fight against the CoC as well. Surely the two would've crossed paths at some point. After all, the underground Christians would've probably worshiped with the visible Christians at some point in time, because they would've left them when they began seeing them as Apostate. Yet, the early church fathers make no reference to them anywhere.

All of the Orthodox claims are verifiable by history. The CoCs claims are generally not, unless they, like I said above with the instrument issue, appeal to the visible (so-called, apostate) early Christians for help to verify their arguments, and pay attention to what they did up until about 600AD or so. So basically the CoCs claims are unverifiable. It is kind of nice you know, a church that can claim to be the original and back up their claims with history while they're at it.

* This book delves into history a lot more in-depth, including Biblical history too: http://www.intratext.com/X/ENG0804.HTM

[- DRA -]

Here's the chronology of events as I understand them:
1st. Jesus promised to build His church in Matt. 16:18
2nd. He built His church (the Koine Greek word "ekklesia" - the called out of God) in Acts 2:38,41,47 in Jerusalem.
3rd. The church continued to grow in Jerusalem (Acts 5:14).
4th. The stoning of Stephen caused disciples to scatter from Jerusalem into Judea and Samaria (Acts 8:1).
5th. The scattered disciples preached the word wherever they went (Acts 8:4)
6th. Churches were established in other areas when people obeyed the gospel of Christ i.e. Judea, Samaria, Antioch, etc. (the rest of the book of Acts).

As for your questions, I believe the Christians in Antioch worshipped with the Lord's church - the same one established in Jerusalem. No, they didn't go to Jerusalem, but they obeyed the gospel just as the Jews did in Acts 2:38,41. Therefore, they were added to the Lord's church (Acts 2:47) - those called out by our Lord - and they met (or assembled) where they lived. In Acts 11, those particular Christians lived in Antioch of Syria. Soon, churches were established in other places in the same way. Preach the truth. People obey it and become saved from their sins. And, those folks worship together as the apostles, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, instructed.

I believe the church of Christ can be traced back to Jerusalem and Antioch. How? It teaches what the apostles and first-century Christians taught concerning salvation under the gospel of Christ. It worships as the fist-century church worships. It is organized as the first-century church was organized. And, it describes itself (by the name that it bears) in scriptural terms (Colossians 3:17). See the point? It's not like tracing a lineage. More like planting seed. See the parable of the sower in Matthew 13.

For sure, the history of the church that Jesus built is NOT a lie. That's the church I'm concerned about. Not the man-made ones. Just the one that results when the truth is taught.

In His service,
- DRA -



Your description does not exclude the Orthodox Church.[/QUOTE]

Actually, it does. Note the bolded part of the text.

[Thekla]

It teaches what the apostles and first-century Christians taught concerning salvation under the gospel of Christ. It worships as the fist-century church worships. It is organized as the first-century church was organized. And, it describes itself (by the name that it bears) in scriptural terms (Colossians 3:17).
In His service,
- DRA -


Actually, it does. Note the bolded part of the text.

can you explain ? What is it that the EO teaches that can be proven as not taught in the 1st century. The NT does not give extensive description of 1st c. worship (neither instruction or visuals, but reference). Anotherwords, you would need to provide extensive description of these practices in the 1st century, and compare them to the EO in order to claim this. The NT provides no such extensive description.

[AJB4]

Hey everyone, I must apologize in advance for this thread if anyone's faith is being compromised.

This is very entertaining to witness - I mean, really, but I'm really not sure that this thread will amount to anything in the long run. I'm not sure if -DRA- is reading the things we're posting. He seems to want to understand Orthodoxy better though.

I thought bringing -DRA- in here would help him to understand Orthodoxy a little better, and so, let him ease up on me a little bit, and so make me feel better. This thread, while entertaining in the highest order, is making me feel like all debates have so far - worse.

I'll let this thread go on for the time being...keep going adults.

[AJB4]

And, those folks worship together as the apostles, under the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, instructed.

It's interesting you should say that - "as the apostles instructed". As I said in my above post, the Orthodox church derives its practices from the early church fathers, many of which were students of the apostles themselves. How is the CoC more right than them?! They lived in the same years as the Apostles!