I'm becoming Orthodox

[Taufgesinnter]

Hi, all!

I just thought I'd let you be among the first to know that I'm seriously considering becoming Orthodox, so I won't be posting on the Baptist-only fora anymore.

I examined Orthodoxy a little bit a couple of years ago and again last year. What I read was so persuasive and thus so frightening, that I put all the materials away, writing a Word file of books to read or reread several years from now and sending everything back to its respective library. Despite that resolve to stay away, I peeked here and there occasionally at things on the web, then scurried away again. I had no one to talk about all this with, as none of my Continental Baptist friends could have been expected even to begin to understand, though at least I could've counted on most of them to dissuade me, which I certainly would've wanted. Nevertheless, by keeping things largely out of sight, out of mind, I was able to maintain my evangelicalism and my Radical Reformation views intact. There were little cracks made in my armor now and again, though, because I still continued on occasion to read church history, especially early church history.

Then last month, something amazing happened. On most major theological, doctrinal, and biblical issues in my growth over the last decade or so, either my best friend or I would finally tell the other that we had been studying this thing or that thing, or had come to the conclusion that such-and-such was the original intent behind a favorite Scripture passage, or some pet teaching of ours didn't really seem to be scriptural on closer examination. You get the idea, I hope. Normally, we would have one to three several-hours-long heart-to-hearts like that each year. We found that time after time, year after year, over and over with very few exceptions, we kept "paralleling" each other. We kept walking the same paths, often unbeknownst to each other for months at a time, then would go ahead and bring it up, only to find that we'd taken the same turn or chosen the same exact fork in the road. Continually amazing.

In May, my best friend's curiosity was piqued reading about Orthodoxy in a denominational handbook (Mead, 11th ed.), and days later, out of the blue and very uncharacteristically, he called a couple of Orthodox presbyters. He made and kept an appointment with one of them to talk about the Orthodox Faith. He found his Anabaptist views were seriously challenged by what he learned during this talk and by reading the materials given him; in one instance after another, not only did he find historical facts did not line up with his evangelical or Taufgesinnte teachings, but also that the spiritual journeys of others entering Orthodoxy that he was reading reflected his own. He then confessed his experiences, feelings, and new knowledge to me, albeit with trepidation. Naturally, he was shocked when I told him that I had done the same investigation and some of the same reading nearly two years before. And I was astounded that we had once again paralleled each other. In earnest, we joined forces in our investigation. Now we started having heart-to-hearts many hours long several times every week.

One potential problem was that his wife was an ex-Catholic and Orthodoxy bears some superficial resemblance to Catholicism, mostly in those things that both shared before the Great Schism in 1054. She opposes Catholicism so much that even things that remind her of it are anathema. She didn't understand the changes her husband was undergoing. She also felt left out of our talks, but her "Romophobia" made her uneasy--often very uneasy--when he did try to broach the subject with her. Several weeks into our investigation, though, after she'd been praying over the matter, she was receptive to having him summarize what he had learned; she asked many questions and they discussed Orthodox history, doctrine, and practice for hours. Literally overnight, she embraced everything. The very next evening, she solidly and thoroughly defended Orthodoxy, all on her own, against a very skeptical relative. It definitely seemed to be the moving and blessing of the Holy Spirit.

All three of us may be catechumens this fall.

I thought you might like to know,
Tauf

[Ed Edwards]

Ed looks into his book of blessings
for a blessing for
Baptists Converting to Orthodox -- ah,here
it is on page 1247:

May God's best blessings be unto Brother
Taufgesinnter, his family, and his ministry.
May this request be honored so that all the more
Glory and Honor will be given unto our Blessed
Lord and Savior: Messiah Yeshua. Amen

[Taufgesinnter]

Thank you! smile.gif

[SouthernBoy]

Tauf,

I have been thinking of becoming Eastern Orthodox myself. I was raised Southern Baptist but now I feel the truth lies elsewhere. I love Jesus and I trust He will led me to the Truth.

[Taufgesinnter]

You definitely wouldn't be alone.

There's a story about the most famous ex-Southern Baptist I know of in the Orthodox Church here. (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/006/5.46.html)

How long have you been looking into Orthodoxy?

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter

I'm curious...I dont know that much about the Orthodox faith...but do they acknowledge the truth of justification through faith alone, and the truth that it is the scriptures alone that we are to turn to for authoritative truth?

Thanks, and God bless,

Mike

[steaver]

I never really researched this. What key difference is there between them and say baptist? And do the differences carry any eternal wieght?

God Bless!

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
What I read was so persuasive and thus so frightening...and again, though, because I still continued on occasion to read church history, especially early church history...the conclusion that such-and-such was the original intent behind a favorite Scripture passage, or some pet teaching of ours didn't really seem to be scriptural on closer examination...He found his Anabaptist views were seriously challenged by what he learned during this talk and by reading the materials given him; in one instance after another, not only did he find historical facts did not line up with his evangelical or Taufgesinnte teachings, but also that the spiritual journeys of others entering Orthodoxy that he was reading reflected his own.Taufgesinnter, I would be interested in your communicating to us specific things about the Orthodox position you found so persuasive, teachings that seemed more scriptural, points that challenged the Anabaptist viewpoint, historical facts that changed your mind, etc. I can't begin to fathom what about Orthodoxy would look like the New Testament church. I don't want to debate about it - just want to understand something about what you're seeing. Thanks.

[steaver]

Taufgesinnter, I would be interested in your communicating to us specific things about the Orthodox position you found so persuasive, teachings that seemed more scriptural, points that challenged the Anabaptist viewpoint, historical facts that changed your mind, etc. I can't begin to fathom what about Orthodoxy would look like the New Testament church. I don't want to debate about it - just want to understand something about what you're seeing. Thanks. Me too! :D

[rsr]

Tauf, I'm confused.

"One potential problem was that his wife was an ex-Catholic and Orthodoxy bears some superficial resemblance to Catholicism, mostly in those things that both shared before the Great Schism in 1054."

In what vital areas do the Latin Rite and the Orthodox church disagree (except on papal supremacy, Purgatory and liturgy?)

[Marcia]

The Orthodox believe that the icons have a spiritual connection to the saints they depict.


An icon is a picture of a saint, of God, or of angels painted on a piece of wood which, when completed, is blessed by the church. The painting is not technically considered an icon until it has been blessed because the blessing establishes a link between the icon and the actual subject which it portrays. Once blessed, icons are placed in churches, homes, and various public places. The first action of an Orthodox worshipper when entering the church would be to acknowledge and honor the icons displayed there. The Orthodox believe that when they contemplate the icon with the right attitude of heart, they are mystically brought into the presence of the one portrayed by the icon.
http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/orthdox3.html
Orthodoxy also has a belief called Theosis, that man can participate in God's divine nature without becoming God himself.

From the same link as above (a very good overview of Orthodoxy, btw)

Eastern Orthodox theological thought regarding humanity, sin, and redemption is closely linked and revolves around the concept of theosis. The doctrine is also called deification or divinization, and though it is a hallmark of Eastern Orthodoxy it is shrouded in mystery which the Orthodox are hesitant to analyze. Simply put, theosis means being deified or becoming like God. Theosis connotes participation in God's nature while maintaining a distinct human nature. Orthodox thinkers consistently deny that theosis is a pantheistic worldview on the grounds that theosis does not involve the destruction of the human nature as part of the process. Theosis is held by the Orthodox to be the chief end of Humanity. Humans were created for deification.
Other good articles:
http://www.probe.org/content/view/619/148/

http://www.onearthasinheaven.com/beliefs.html

They also believe that one must be baptized to be saved. From link above:
Eastern Orthodoxy believes:
1. That there are three Divine Persons in God, distinct, yet equal.
2. That the Father is the head of the Trinity, neither begotten, nor proceeds from anyone.
3. That the Son is begotten from the Father, of the very same essence (omo'ousios) of the Father. He is God and also truly Man like us, because He assumed human nature from the Blessed Virgin Mary, except for sin. He died on the Cross to save mankind, and He ascended into Heaven. He will come again to "judge the living and the dead".
4. That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.
5. That the world is not self-created but is the work of one God.
6. That there are Seven Sacraments: Baptism, Holy Chrismation, Holy Eucharist, Holy Confession, Ordination, Marriage, and Holy Unction.
7. That no one can be saved unless he is baptized.
8. That the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition are of equal value, and that they complete each other.
9. That God assigned to every man an Angel to guide and help him.
10. That after death, man's body goes to earth, and the soul, which is immortal, is presented before God and, according to its actions, pre-enjoys happiness or pre-suffers punishment until the General Judgement.
11. That of all saints, the Mother of God has a supreme grace, and that the veneration given to icons and relics relates not to the sacred images as such, but to the person whom they represent.
12. That God knows which road man will take, but He does not predestine him.

[Doubting Thomas]

Tauf and Southernboy,

Wow...thanks for sharing! That seems to be the path I'm on now. I too have been a lifelong Southern Baptist, but over the past 3 or so years, after studying the Scriptures and early Chruch History, I've concluded that many of my long cherished baptist beliefs are doctrinal novelties, not part of the historical consensus of the Church. Currently, I'm in "denominational limbo" for family reasons, but I would become an Orthodox catechumen tomorrow if I could.
God bless you both on your journey. smile.gif

DT

[BobRyan]

I attended some kind of Orthodox church a year or two ago - lots of praying to pictures, tons of incense, loads of ritual and liturgy (things you never see in scripture).

I think it was still better than Catholicism - but it seems to have just as much dry formality.

What did I miss?

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

BTW - something was mentioned about anabaptists "as if" the church was teaching that the first century Christians record a lot of "infant baptism". Since even the Catholic historians admit that this is false - I have never been able to see where the "incentive' comes from to deny scripture, and history AND EVEN one of the oldest infant-baptizing groups (The RCC's via their historians) on the subject of HOW it evolved into infant baptism over the centuries.

In Christ,

Bob

[mioque]

"What did I miss?"
"
Presumably the part where the congregation takes part in the Divine.

Or to put it in more secular terms, for some reason tons people seem to think that the Eastern-Orthodox liturgies are the most beautiful and meaningfull set of religious ceremonies on earth.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by mioque:
[QB] "What did I miss?"
"
Presumably the part where the congregation takes part in the Divine.

Good answer. graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Eric B]

So you still haven't been baptized yet? Does that mean that you would be lost if you died today?
Why would they keep holding out for so long?

[D28guy]

Concerning the Orthodox faith, it was posted....

(the bolding is mine)

"7. That no one can be saved unless he is baptized.

8. That the Holy Scriptures and Holy Tradition are of equal value, and that they complete each other.

9. That God assigned to every man an Angel to guide and help him.

10. That after death, man's body goes to earth, and the soul, which is immortal, is presented before God and, according to its actions, pre-enjoys happiness or pre-suffers punishment until the General Judgement.

11. That of all saints, the Mother of God has a supreme grace, and that the veneration given to icons and relics relates not to the sacred images as such, but to the person whom they represent.(((WARNING!)))

Danger ahead.

Proceed with extreme caution.

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
So you still haven't been baptized yet? Nope, I have been baptized.
Does that mean that you would be lost if you died today? God is the judge of that. (I don't presume I'm unconditionally "eternally secure" just because I prayed the sinner's prayer once upon a time.) graemlins/saint.gif

[mioque]

D28guy
what did you expect? Eastern-Orthodoxy used to be one half of the Catholic Church for a 1000 years.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
"What did I miss?"
"
Presumably the part where the congregation takes part in the Divine.

Or to put it in more secular terms, for some reason tons people seem to think that the Eastern-Orthodox liturgies are the most beautiful and meaningfull set of religious ceremonies on earth. Maybe if I had seen it on TV instead of actually being there.

A lot of incense - by that I mean "a lot" of incense and a lot of liturgical reading - and by that I mean "a lot" of standing and sitting in responsive reading where the reading was so wrote that pretty much the entire group knew the whole thing by heart.

Of course - I am not saying that such a service is not right up your alley... I am just asking if there is some "other" kind of Orthodox service.

I would not of course be asking Mioque about anything Catholic as Mioque is not a Catholic or even an Orthodox source. But nice of you to volunteer.

In Christ,

Bob

[Eric B]

Nope, I have been baptized.
You were baptized into the EOC, but somehow without joining? (I though catchumen was someone going theough ght perocess leading to baptism). Or are you counting your baptism as whatever you were before? (does the EOC recognize that?)

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by mioque:
D28guy
what did you expect? Eastern-Orthodoxy used to be one half of the Catholic Church for a 1000 years. Actualy the Metropolitians
of the Eastern Catholic (AKA: Orthodox) churches
were only about 1/4 of Christendom,
the Roman Catholic Church about 1/4.
The Egyptian Copytic (those south of Egypt
in Africa) and the Nestorian (AKA: East Syrian)
were also each a quarter
of Christendom, back in 1054 when the
Metropolitian Sees excommunicated the
Bishop of Rome and the Pope excommunicated
the Metropolitian Sees.
Unfortunatly, the Protestants get their
history from RCC books :(

I compiled the following from a varity of
book and internet (maybe proto-internet?)
sources without carefully documenting where
i got each portion of information. Sorry...

---------------------------
Thessalonian: "Isn't it odd that before the deformation (reformation)
there was the Catholic Church, the Orthodox (which split
off from the Catholic Church in about 1350) and an odd
come and go sect or three for 1500 years?"

Actually that is revisionist history.

In the year 1001 there were numerous pilgrimages to the
Holy Land from Europe, Africa, and India to
celbrate the start of the second Millinnium.
That year the largest Christian Church was the
East Syrian (Nestorian).
This church, the Catholic Apostolic Church of the East,
had over 250 dioceses across Asia and
12 million adhernets. More saints were commanded by this
chruch than the Bishop of Rome (Pope, the Roman
Catholic CHurch or the
Bishop of Conistanople/Patriarch of Antioch (Orthodox
Catholic Apostolic Church, AKA: Easter Orthodox). By 1051 the
Patriarch of Antioch and the Bishop of Rome excommunicated
the bishops, priests, and members each of the group.

During the next 200 years the Catholic Apostolic Church
of the East was crushed between the Mongols of the
East and the Muslim from the Southwest.

Needless to say, it is NOT in the best interests of
the Papists to have that information be of general knowledge.

(this data is quoted from:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/eastern.htm)

NESTORIANS:

The Nestorians are now only a pitiful remnant of what was once a great Church. Long before the heresy from which they have their name, there was a flourishing Christian community in Chaldea and Mesopotamia. According to their tradition it was founded by Addai and Mari (Addeus and Maris), two of the seventy-two Disciples. The present Nestorians count Mar Mari as the first Bishop of Ctesiphon and predecessor of their patriarch. In any case this community was originally subject to the Patriarch of Antioch. As his vicar, the metropolitan of the twin-cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon (on either side of the Tigris, north-east of Babylon) bore the title of catholicos. One of these metropolitans was present at the Council of Nicaea in 325. The great distance of this Church from Antioch led in early times to a state of semi-independence that prepared the way for the later schism. Already in the fourth century the Patriarch of Antioch waived his right of ordaining the catholicos of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and allowed him to be ordained by his own suffragans. In view of the great importance of the right of ordaining, as a sign of jurisdiction throughout the East, this fact is important. But it does not seem that real independence of Antioch was acknowledged or even claimed till after the schism. In the fifth century the influence of the famous Theodore of Mopsuestia and that of his school of Edessa spread the heresy of Nestorius throughout this extreme Eastern Church. Naturally, the later Nestorians deny that their fathers accepted any new doctrine at that time, and they claim that Nestorius learned from them rather than they from him ("Nestorius eos secutus est, non ipsi Nestorium", Ebed-Jesu of Nisibis, about 1300. Assemani, "Bibli. Orient.", III, 1, 355). There may be truth in this. Theodore and his school had certainly prepared the way for Nestorius. In any case the rejection of the Council of Ephesus (431) by these Christians in Chaldea and Mesopotamia produced a schism between them and the rest of Christendom. When Babaeus, himself a Nestorian, became catholicos, in 498, there were practically no more Catholics in those parts. From Ctesiphon the Faith had spread across the frontier into Persia, even before that city was conquered bythe Persian king (244). The Persian Church, then, always depended on Ctesiphon and shared its heresy. From the fifth century this most remote of the Eastern Churches has been cut off from the rest of Christendom, and till modern times was the most separate and forgotten community of all. Shut out from the Roman Empire (Zeno closed the school of Edessa in 489), but, for a time at least, protected by the Persian kings, the Nestorian Church flourished around Ctesiphon, Nisibis (where the school was reorganized), and throughout Persia. Since the schism the catholicos occasionally assumed the title of patriarch. The Church then spread towards the East and sent missionaries to India and even China. A Nestorian inscription of the year 781 has been found at Singan Fu in China (J. Heller, S.J., "Prolegomena zu einer neuen Ausgabe der nestorianischen Inschrift von Singan Fu", in the "Verhandlungen des VII. internationalen Orientalistencongresses", Vienna, 1886, pp. 37 sp.). Its greatest extent was in the eleventh century, when twenty-five metropolitans obeyed the Nestorian patriarch. But since the end of the fourteenth century it has gradually sunk to a very small sect, first, because of a fierce persecution by the Mongols (Timur Leng), and then through internal disputes and schisms. Two great schisms as to the patriarchal succession in the sixteenth century led to a reunion of part of the Nestorian Church with Rome, forming the Catholic Chaldean Church. At present there are about 150,000 Nestorians living chiefly in highlands west of Lake Urumiah. They speak a modern dialect of Syriac. The patriarchate descends from uncle to nephew, or to younger brothers, in the family of Mama; each patriarch bears the name Simon (Mar Shimun) as a title. Ignoring the Second General Council, and of course strongly opposed to the Third (Ephesus), they only acknowledge the First Nicene (325). They have a Creed of their own, formed from an old Antiochene Creed, which does not contain any trace of the particular heresy from which their Church is named. In deed it is difficult to say how far any Nestorians now are conscious of the particular teaching condemned by the Council of Ephesus, though they still honour Nestorius, Theodore of Mopsuestia, and other undoubted heretics as saints and doctors. The patriarch rules over twelve other bishops (the list in Silbernagl, "Verfassung", p. 267). Their hierarchy consists of the patriarch, metropolitans, bishops, chorepiscopi, archdeacons, priests, deacons, subdeacons, and readers. There are also many monasteries. They use Syriac liturgically written in their own (Nestorian) form of the alphabet. The patriarch, who now generally calls himself "Patriarch of the East", resides at Kochanes, a remote valley of the Kurdish mountains by the Zab, on the frontier between Persia and Turkey. He has an undefined political jurisdiction over his people, though he does not receive a berat from the Sultan. In any ways this most remote Church stands alone; it has kept a number of curious and archaic customs (such as the perpetual abstinence of the patriarch, etc.) that separate it from other Eastern Churches almost as much as from those of the West. Lately the Archbishop of Canterbury's mission to the Nestorians has aroused a certain interest about them in England.

[Marcia]

You guys who are thinking of joining an Orthodox church are not bothered by the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy that I posted on page 1 and that D28 posted in part again on page 2? :confused:

You don't mind kissing icons of saints and thinking you are being linked to them through an image? :confused:

You're okay with no one being saved unless he is baptized? :confused:

Sure, the Orthodox may have beautiful services but is that enough reason to accept these doctrines? Can you go along with all this with no problem?

[Eric B]

Ed, you actually forgot the fifth division; the Jerusalem patriarchate. So they were all fifths.

[Taufgesinnter]

Just a quick note to let you know I'll be replying as best I can this evening. It's very late right now, and this past evening was one of my nights to cook and do dishes before devotions--all of which basically took up the time from getting home from work to now going to bed. So see you all later today, D.V., after I get home and do the dusting!

Regards,
Tauf

[D28guy]

miogue,

"D28guy
what did you expect? Eastern-Orthodoxy used to be one half of the Catholic Church for a 1000 years."That would certainly explain it.

Sadly,

Mike

[D28guy]

Marcia,

You guys who are thinking of joining an Orthodox church are not bothered by the beliefs of Eastern Orthodoxy that I posted on page 1 and that D28 posted in part again on page 2?

You don't mind kissing icons of saints and thinking you are being linked to them through an image?

You're okay with no one being saved unless he is baptized?Its baffling, isnt it?

I havent had as much experience with folks from the orthodox faith as I have with Catholics. But regarding the catholics I am coming closer and closer to the view that its some kind of very subtle type of brainwashing that goes on.

Of course, its not any kind of drastic...and very literal...brainwashing like some hard core cults employ, but the level of complete blindness to plain simple truth that is so clear is nothing less than stunning.

And the blind acceptance of complete absurdities as well as clearly seen idolatries is equally stunning.

Incredibly sad beyond comprehension in both cases, particularly in light of how clearly...crystal clearly...the scriptures exposes the falsehoods and idolatries. But then, to these dear ones it doesnt matter because, in their mind...

"It doesnt matter what the scriptures say! Because our tradition says these things are so, and so...they are so!"

And of course tradition is nothing but...whatever happens to pop up...and they decide they like...through the centuries.

Very VERY sad,

Mike

[mioque]

Ed Edwards
I should have been clearer.
The Copts and the Nestorians seperated from the 'Catholic Church' (Eastern-Orthodoxy + Roman Catholicism) during it's formation period.
I only referred to the denomination from which the RCC and EO sprang not Christendom in general.

BOB
"I am just asking if there is some "other" kind of Orthodox service."
"
NO. Previous attempts to Introduce tiny changes in the liturgy have caused huge strife in EO circles in the past.

"Maybe if I had seen it on TV instead of actually being there."
"I mean "a lot" of standing and sitting"
"
How strange, Eastern-Orthodox churches don't have seating arrangements....

[BobRyan]

11. That of all saints, the Mother of God has a supreme grace, and that the veneration given to icons and relics relates not to the sacred images as such, but to the person whom they representThis is the same claim the pagan make when worshipping the family gods and praying to ancestors.

But other than that icon-worship and praying to the dead - and possibly magic powers to change the souls of infants at baptism via magic mantras, the list did not have some of the other radical statements of heresy like you find within the RCC for Purgatory.

What about extermination of heretics as you find in Lateran IV?

How "Baptists" could be jumping onto that list of errors is mystifying.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Ed - it appears that almost "one half" of all Christians were not of the Roman or Eastern Orthodox flavor in 1000 A.D.

Was this purely a political factioning within Catholicism or were there actual doctrinal differences?

In Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Ed - it appears that almost "one half" of all Christians were not of the Roman or Eastern Orthodox flavor in 1000 A.D.

Was this purely a political factioning within Catholicism or were there actual doctrinal differences?

In Christ,

BobSome of both. The following by necessity is oversimplified, but here goes...

The "Nestorians" (Church of the East, Assyrian Church, etc.) generally followed the lead (at least the terminology) of Nestorius who separated the divine and human in Christ to such an extent as to speak of two hypostases in Christ. His views were condemned by the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in AD 431 since his views seemed to divide Christ into two subjects, and thus two sons. Most of those folks termed "Nestorians" lived outside the frontiers of the Roman empire (as Ed pointed out) and for whatever reason (linguistic, philosophical) adopted the Nestorian way of speaking of Christology. They did so many years after Ephesus since communication was more problematic when crossing from Roman boundaries into the domain of Persia.

The "monophysites" ("one nature") followed the formula of "one incarnate nature of God the Word" used chiefly by Cyril of Alexandria, who thought it was from Athanasius, but the origins of which turned out to be Apollinarian (Apollinarius basically believed the Christ had human flesh but the Word functioned as the soul/mind to the body). Later correspondence between Cyril and John of Antioch (and others) after Ephesus proved that Cyril did not in fact use that formula in an Apollinarian or true "monophysitic" fashion. The worry from the orthodox regarding this formula was, given its Apollinarian origins, it could not adequately guard against diminishing the complete humanity (body/mind/soul) of Christ. In 451 AD, the Chaldedonian definition affirmed the two natures (Divine and Human) in one hypostasis and person, thus affirming the unity of the subject without diminishing either the full divinity or complete humanity of the One Christ, the Word Incarnate. The view of Eutyches, which was very confused and would not affirm that Christ was consubstantial with us men, raised the spectre of Apollinarius and was condemned as heresy. The Patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus, who had already defended Eutyches (for perhaps political reasons) refused to attend the council despite being summoned thrice, and he clung to the "one nature" formula and was condemned as a schismatic. Thus began the separation of the Copts, Armenians, Ethiopians, and (Jacobite) Syrians from the Orthodox church. (Although there remained a minority in Alexandria who remained in communion with the Orthodox Catholic Church, and Syria was divided among Nestorians, monophysite, and Orthodox) Whether members of these jurisdications can actually be called truly "monophysite" in the Apollinarian and Eutychian sense is very doubtful (since they condemn both of these view points). It seems to be more of an issue of "Cyrillian" fundamentalism (or Alexandrian chauvenism) in clinging at all costs to the "one nature" formula that the majority of the church felt inadequate in protecting the true humanity of Christ.

So to sum up the different "christologies"..
Nestorian: two natures, two hypostases, one persona (eg. outward "mask")
Monophysite: one nature, one hypostasis, one persona
Orthodox: two natures, one hypostasis (God the Word), one persona

(Keep in mind that the Trinitarian language affirmed at Constantinople in AD 381 was that God was three hypostases--subsistances/"persons"--and one ousia, or "being")

So "Nestorianism" and "monophysitism" tend towards opposite extremes in speaking of Christ. The former tends to keep the human and divine so separate as to severely weaken the Unity of the Subject, while the latter emphasizes the unity to the point of confusion of the human and divine or towards diminishing the true humanity of Christ. The Orthodox Catholic view made explicit in the Definition of Chalcedon guards against either extreme. So today, while it's certainly arguable whether or not those who fall into either the "Nestorian" or "monophysite" camps actually hold to the extreme versions of the "christologies" that the Church was guarding against at the 3rd and 4th (and 5th and 6th for that matter) ecumenical councils, there still remains division.


(Hope this wasn't too confusing)

[ July 06, 2005, 09:19 AM: Message edited by: Doubting Thomas ]

[Ed Edwards]

The East Syrian Church was vitrualy destroyed
chrushed between the rise of Islam in the Middle
East (what is now Iraq and Iran and Afganastan)
and the Mongol horde (what is now Georgia and
the area east of the Caspian sea.)

[SouthernBoy]

I am thinking about becoming Orthodox because it seems closer to the New Testament Church.

BobRyan,

God demanded sacred images be made. I am not sure why you have a problem with God's command?

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Taufgesinnter

I'm curious...I dont know that much about the Orthodox faith...but do they acknowledge the truth of justification through faith alone, and the truth that it is the scriptures alone that we are to turn to for authoritative truth?

Thanks, and God bless,

Mike Hi, Mike,

In your question, you assume as axioms that justification is through faith alone and that the Scriptures are the only source for authoritative truth. In Latin, sola fide, sola scriptura. The Orthodox would agree with sola gratia, definitely.

The only place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" is used is in the Book of James, where God explicitly tells us that we are not justified by faith alone. Unpacking the first part of your question, I assume the point behind the words is whether the Orthodox believe that they or anyone can earn their justification by works, which, to the best of my knowledge, they do not. As best as I can so far get a handle on the theology involved, the Orthodox hold to something similar to the original English Baptist position (viz., Arminian) of prevenient grace. Or to put Paul (Eph. 2:8-10) and James on the same page, we are being (present indicative) saved (perfect participle) by grace through the means of--not on account of--("through" is in the genitive) faith, and neither the salvation, nor the grace, nor even the faith ("that" disagrees in gender with both grace and faith) comes from us, but is the gift of God; thus, nobody can boast they earned their salvation by anything they did or even that they saved themselves by their faith; we were in fact created in Jesus Christ for the purpose of doing good works, and faith without such works is dead, and saves none.

As for sola scriptura, I was astounded when I discovered that nowhere in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the sole source of truth for the believer. Of course, it cannot be, since the NT books were written individually across half a century, and the NT was not assembled and canonized, along with the LXX, until nearly A.D. 400, but the Church had the apostles (and subsequently the bishops appointed by them) from Day One. Rather, Scripture declares that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth--the same Church Jesus promised would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox agree with Scripture that Scripture is not the only source of authoritative truth, but recognize that the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church is also authoritative.

[Doubting Thomas]

Good answers, Tauf graemlins/thumbs.gif

Beware, however....based on past experience, I predict a certain poster will likely respond that sola Scriptura and justification by faith alone are true since they are both (allegedly) "thundered forth from the Scriptures". :cool:

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by rsr:
Tauf, I'm confused.

"One potential problem was that his wife was an ex-Catholic and Orthodoxy bears some superficial resemblance to Catholicism, mostly in those things that both shared before the Great Schism in 1054."

In what vital areas do the Latin Rite and the Orthodox church disagree (except on papal supremacy, Purgatory and liturgy?) Things that Roman Catholicism developed after the Great Schism included a return to the use of the filioque even after it had been condemned by the eighth council, papal infallibility, papal supremacy as you mentioned as well as purgatory, and also the treasury of merits, works of supererogation, the issuing of indulgences, the Augustinian view of original sin, the immaculate conception of the virgin Mary, mandatory celibacy for all clergy (exceptions being exceedingly rare), naturalistic Westernized sacred art, the definitions of transubstantiation based on Aristotelian metaphysics, the entire humanistic and rationalistic Western mindset developed by the Scholastics that led to the Renaissance, Reformations, and Enlightenment, the idea of the priest as alter Christus, new theories of the atonement and a legalistic view of justification, separation of the grace of confirmation from the mystery of baptism, a divergent concept of matrimony leading to the necessity of granting annulments, looking to God as the basis of anthropology instead of to theology as the basis of man, and some other points that might be minor. Traditionally, the Orthodox view the Catholics and Protestants as having more in common with one another than either group does with the Orthodox.

[Bro. James Reed]

As for sola scriptura, I was astounded when I discovered that nowhere in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the sole source of truth for the believer. In that case, I now canonize the Book of James, the Reed.

You can't be serious about this, can you? :confused:


2 Timothy 3:
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.


Hebrews 1:
1God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


Our first article of faith is:

The scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the inspired written word of God. “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, throughly furnished unto all good works.” They are written to and for the use and benefit of the children of God and are the only rule of faith and practice. In the days of the prophets, God inspired them to write about His holy counsel. In these latter days God has spoken to us by His Son and inspired the Apostles to write about things which God revealed to them.

Without this belief, then we open ourselves to any interpretation and any "new" gospel that could come along.

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men , after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I'll stick with Christ and his Holy Word, rather than with men.

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
Tauf and Southernboy,

Wow...thanks for sharing! That seems to be the path I'm on now. I too have been a lifelong Southern Baptist, but over the past 3 or so years, after studying the Scriptures and early Chruch History, I've concluded that many of my long cherished baptist beliefs are doctrinal novelties, not part of the historical consensus of the Church. Currently, I'm in "denominational limbo" for family reasons, but I would become an Orthodox catechumen tomorrow if I could.
God bless you both on your journey. smile.gif

DT Thank you!

David Bercot provides an account of some doctrinal novelties long cherished by evangelicals in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? You probably already know this, but among the doctrines and practices early Christians would not have recognized (except, in some cases, as being Gnostic) were a Calvinistic view of predestination and free will, the teaching of eternal security/OSAS, justification by faith alone, and water baptism as a symbol of a prior Spirit baptism. Others would include congregational autonomy, the Lord's Supper as a symbolic memorial meal, and sola scriptura.

Have you read any of the accounts of former evangelicals who have become Orthodox without their spouses, and of their spouses later going ahead and joining them?

[Doubting Thomas]

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men , after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

I'll stick with Christ and his Holy Word, rather than with men.The "tradition of men" is one thing. The "tradition of the apostles" (which has the authority of Christ) is quite another....

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

So you see, Christ's authority is present in the Apostolic Tradition whether delivered orally or written.

[Marcia]

Originally posted by SouthernBoy:
I am thinking about becoming Orthodox because it seems closer to the New Testament Church.
Why does it seem closer?


God demanded sacred images be made. I am not sure why you have a problem with God's command? Are you talking about things God had people make for the Ark and the Tabernacle in Exodus? Are you comparing that to images of saints that you kiss and venerate? I don't think anyone kissed images in Exodus. And the things they made were NOT images of dead people!

I don't see the comparison.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:
[
David Bercot provides an account of some doctrinal novelties long cherished by evangelicals in Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? You probably already know this, but among the doctrines and practices early Christians would not have recognized (except, in some cases, as being Gnostic) were a Calvinistic view of predestination and free will, the teaching of eternal security/OSAS, justification by faith alone, and water baptism as a symbol of a prior Spirit baptism. Others would include congregational autonomy, the Lord's Supper as a symbolic memorial meal, and sola scriptura.Quite true.

Have you read any of the accounts of former evangelicals who have become Orthodox without their spouses, and of their spouses later going ahead and joining them? Not that I can recall off the top of my head.

[Doubting Thomas]

And the things they made were NOT images of dead people! These "dead people" to whom you refer are saints who have been glorified by and united to the risen Christ. They are brothers and sisters who have completed the race and are part of the one whole family in heaven and earth (Eph 3:15). They are the "general assembly and church of the firstborn registered in heaven" and the "spirits of just men made perfect" with whom we worship the Holy Trinity. (Heb 12:22-24)

[Eric B]

the definitions of transubstantiation based on Aristotelian metaphysics What's this?
the entire humanistic and rationalistic Western mindset developed by the Scholastics that led to the Renaissance, Reformations, and Enlightenment And these things were not 100% bad. The Church really had the world in darkness for centuries, and these movements balanced it out. We may have many problems now, but I would hate to have lived back then.
a divergent concept of matrimony leading to the necessity of granting annulments How does the Orthodox position differ from the Catholic?
looking to God as the basis of anthropology instead of to theology as the basis of man I don't get this. What's the difference?

[Eric B]

The "tradition of men" is one thing. The "tradition of the apostles" (which has the authority of Christ) is quite another....

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:2

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15

"But we command you, brethren, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thess 3:6

So you see, Christ's authority is present in the Apostolic Tradition whether delivered orally or written. I still don't see how one can use this to justofy every practice your Church has that cannot be found in scripture, or every interpretation of scripture that cannot be supported by other scripture. It's like they withheld completely all of these other teachings and practice, and conveniently enough, it is all of the ones that other Christians have questioned scripturally.
Once again, rabbinnic Judaism has also done this, and they have some silimar quotes from the OT on "Mosaic" oral tradition, and it is on this basis that they reject all of the evidences pointing to Jesus as the Messiah, and this supposedly justifies all of the restrictions thay had added to the sabbath and other laws (not boiling a kid in his mother's milk becomes not eating meat and milk together, etc), which Jesus denounced as "traditions of men".
If you really insist that this apostolic "oral tradition that is entirely omitted from the written text" has the authority of God and is not tradition of men, then you must be consistent and accept this Mosaic "tradition" has the authority of God, and is not tradition of men also, but this would call into question the validity of Christ and the Church altogether. It looks like anybody can use this.

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by rlvaughn and steaver:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Taufgesinnter, I would be interested in your communicating to us specific things about the Orthodox position you found so persuasive, teachings that seemed more scriptural, points that challenged the Anabaptist viewpoint, historical facts that changed your mind, etc. I can't begin to fathom what about Orthodoxy would look like the New Testament church. I don't want to debate about it - just want to understand something about what you're seeing. Thanks. Me too! :D </font>[/QUOTE]First, I took a course on early church history, and the readings of the apostolic fathers and in the Didache were disturbing. I now realize that the idea the apostles' disciples stood around waiting for John to take his last breath, before clapping their hands with glee and shouting, "There! Finally, we can become Roman Catholics," is inutterably naive. So is the thought that these men, personally trained and discipled by the apostles, abandoned everything and went straightway into apostasy within a generation or two. On the contrary, the historical record indicates an amazing conservatism that strove mightily against doctrinal innovations of any kind and to preserve the apostolic traditions intact. That said, at the time of the class, I thought to myself how appallingly Catholic (now, I'd say, Orthodox) those writings all seemed; it floored me how fast they'd apostatized!

Later, I read David Bercot's work on the early Christians, Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up? and could find no evidence to contradict his insistence that the early Christians held to baptismal regeneration; it was not something I could counter historically, but I shored up my opposition based on the interpretation of Scripture that had been taught to me.

I was unsettled by the historical data cited by Peter Gillquist in Becoming Orthodox, that the early church was liturgical, strongly episcopal yet conciliar, and believed in the Real Presence. Various writers were cited, such as Hippolytus and Justin Martyr, and elsewhere I saw personal disciples of the apostles, such as Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch, extensively quoted, in addition to such men as Clement of Rome and Irenaeus. The evidence that the early church continued on (not as a band of true underground Christians escaping from mass apostasy, which completely lacked evidence) was conclusive. The church experienced a short series of fractures--the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East splitting off over Nestorius, Ephesus, and Chalcedon; the Western branch of the Catholic Church breaking away over the filioque and the papacy. The question was, which of the apostolic churches, as they are called, carried on in the apostolic tradition? Roman Catholicism had clearly introduced a number of doctrinal innovations, repeatedly, so it was out. I surveyed the Oriental Orthodox, the Church of the East, and the "Eastern" Orthodox, and admittedly with little better reasons than that the former two branches disagreed with the majority's christology and/or have a different NT canon, I reached a preliminary conclusion that the Orthodox Church was a better match than the other two. The problem was, better was still terrible: Orthodoxy baptized babies, for example, and there was the whole icon thing, their view of Mary, and saints, calling priests Father, plus they believed in going to war and I didn't, and they did not ordain women, which, despite my being quite conservative in other matters, I favored. They accepted the Apocrypha--but I did learn that when the canon of the NT was determined, the OT as found in the LXX was canonized as well. I read explanations about Mary and the saints, and "Father," that were not altogether persuasive. (I was happier to discover that when an Orthodox soldier kills in battle, he's to be excommunicated for three years.)

So I held on hard to most of the biblical interpretations of my own tradition.

After my belief in the absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage broke down under historical scrutiny during an investigation entirely independent from examining the OC, I found out that Orthodoxy permits divorce for biblical reasons, remarriage under the right conditions, and doesn't hide behind annulments.

Thanks to Ralph Woodrow, many of my Chick-inspired objections to things traditionally viewed as Catholic, such as vestments, incense, and christianized pagan holidays, were satisfactorily answered. This paved the way for me to accept liturgy and the church calendar.

A pivotal point came when I read critiques of sola scriptura that I couldn't naysay. Once I no longer had the Bible alone to rely on as my authority, I had to ask whom I could trust, and the answer came, the Church, which Christ promised would be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit, and which Scripture declared the foundation and pillar of the truth. Which Church? I had already decided that the Orthodox, which had full continuity with the early church, best represented the historical development of that same church. (The doctrinal differences between the OC and the Oriental Orthodox and especially the Church of the East are not great, though, and are partially based on misunderstandings; in at least the case of the Church of the East, progress has been made toward reunion with canonical Orthodoxy.)

I was still nagged by the issues of Mary, saints, icons, and "Father," but my main remaining objection was against infant baptism. I saw claims that there was no evidence of any movement against infant baptism in the whole history of the Church before the modern era. I could find no contrary evidence, except that certain persons suggested waiting until close to death for baptism because it would remit a lifetime of sins and give the recipient a better chance of heaven with so little time left to sin. And too, movements in the early 200s to 300s, which took a long tradition of infant baptism for granted, that pushed to delay baptism until three years of age, or to extend it to the same age as Jewish circumcision, rather than immediately after birth. Writers in the third and fourth centuries took infant baptism as a matter of course, or even specifically declared it a tradition handed down from the apostles. Since Scripture was ambiguous enough to be interpreted, using it alone, to support either credobaptism or pedobaptism, I had to face history, and the ancient practice of the Church I was coming to trust as an authority in spiritual and doctrinal matters. Then I read that the earliest existing Christian epitaphs--from the end of the second century--had included matter-of-fact references to children baptized as "believers" as early as a year or two of age, and saw there were clues from the 100s of then-aged prominent individuals in the Church having been baptized in infancy during the first century while the apostles still lived, without hint of controversy or disapproval. All things considered, the historical weight of infant baptism finally broke down my opposition. There was a total lack of supporting historical documentation opposing the baptism of very young children and even newborns, considering it controversial, or even innovative. To suggest that the Church had suppressed or destroyed any such evidence is singularly unimpressive because of the extensive documentation existing about so many different heresies and the arguments pro and con over them, e.g. Sabellianism, Arianism, Manichaeism, Montanism, Docetism, Quartodecimism, etc. So to speak, my last domino fell.

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter

"The only place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" is used is in the Book of James, where God explicitly tells us that we are not justified by faith alone."You must be Catholic. :D

Every time I hear or read that little thing..(it almost sounds like a mantra, why dont you guys change to phraseology every once in a while or something?)..it just goes in one ear and out the other.

Do you guys actually think that little thing is going to convince anyone? When dealing with evangelicals of any stripe, you are dealing with people who generally know the scriptures. Needless to say, the teaching of God found in the book of James beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone like a hand in a glove. What wonderful scriptures God has given us to test all things against.

The reason I asked about the truth of justification through faith alone, and the scriptures alone as our truth standard is because its a great way to "cut to the chase" as they say and get down to the nitty gritty right away.

A denial of those two great and foundational truths has been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now. Rather than wade through reams and reams of all kinds of problematic teachings, I like to just check on those 2 issues right at the start. So much deadly heresy and flow from those 2 foundational errors.

If Satan can get people to deny those 2 truths, its pretty much smooth sailing for him after that, unfortunetly.

Thanks for the help. Its been very beneficial for me.

Sadly,

Mike

[D28guy]

Bro James Reed,

Sadly, it was actually said...

"As for sola scriptura, I was astounded when I discovered that nowhere in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the sole source of truth for the believer."And you said...

In that case, I now canonize the Book of James, the Reed.

You can't be serious about this, can you?Its breathtakingly sad, isnt it? When you see people fully indoctrinated in these type of deadly errors, its tragic of course.

But when you see someone just beginning to travel down this satanic road of deception, its just incredibly sad. Like watching a swimmer innocently taking the 1st cautious steps into a huge body of water that you know is filled with starving sharks.

And when you warn them they dont listen...while you see the sharks bearing down on them!

Very frustrating and sad,

Mike

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by D28guy:
Taufgesinnter

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />"The only place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" is used is in the Book of James, where God explicitly tells us that we are not justified by faith alone."You must be Catholic. :D

Every time I hear or read that little thing..(it almost sounds like a mantra, why dont you guys change to phraseology every once in a while or something?)..it just goes in one ear and out the other.

Do you guys actually think that little thing is going to convince anyone? When dealing with evangelicals of any stripe, you are dealing with people who generally know the scriptures. Needless to say, the teaching of God found in the book of James beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone like a hand in a glove. What wonderful scriptures God has given us to test all things against.

The reason I asked about the truth of justification through faith alone, and the scriptures alone as our truth standard is because its a great way to "cut to the chase" as they say and get down to the nitty gritty right away.

A denial of those two great and foundational truths has been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now. Rather than wade through reams and reams of all kinds of problematic teaching, I like to just check on those 2 issues right at the start.

Thanks for the help. Its been very beneficial for me.

God bless,

Mike </font>[/QUOTE]Mike,

I hope you read my entire post, since I spent a half an hour of my life on it for you. I also hope it wasn't your intent, but most of your post came across as unnecessarily patronizing.

Never been Catholic; attended one guitar Mass I was invited to when out of high school, without really knowing what all was going on, and also, as a conservative evangelical, attended a week-long seminar on fundamentalism to hear what Catholics had to say about it and to ask pointed, Chick-inspired questions.

What I wrote about James was not significantly different than what I've believed as an Arminian evangelical for most of my adult life, but how you can say that the teaching of God in the Book of James (where he says that a man "is not justified by faith alone") "beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone" is certainly baffling. Maybe it's a question of terminology? I cannot really believe that you disagreed with what I wrote on the subject, unless your "in one ear out the other" open-mindedness led you to stop reading that paragraph once you saw an imaginary heresy there. Was there anything on that topic I wrote about that was unorthodox (note the small O) in any way?

There is a great deal of historical ignorance floating around about sola scriptura, however--but the demonstrable fact is that doctrine was not even invented until the Reformation. How then a denial of a great and foundational truth that had never been seen before the early 1500s could have "been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now" is especially perplexing.

[BobRyan]

As for sola scriptura, I was astounded when I discovered that nowhere in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the sole source of truth for the believer. Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:

In that case, I now canonize the Book of James, the Reed.

You can't be serious about this, can you? :confused:


2 Timothy 3:
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.


Point always made whenever the claim is made that 2Tim 3 does not exist.

Point always ignored by those who make that claim.

In Christ,

Bob

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter

"I hope you read my entire post, since I spent a half an hour of my life on it for you. I also hope it wasn't your intent, but most of your post came across as unnecessarily patronizing."I did read your entire post, and I didnt intend on being patronising at all. My 1st comment.."you must be a Catholic".. could be recieved that way, but I thought the smiley face would make it clear. I didnt really know if you were catholic or not.

If you objected to my statement about what you said being "mantra like", I'm sorry...but in dealing with Catholics on discussion boards, in "real life", and watching EWTN, I have heard that completly silly and ridiculous statement a million times, and it is always word for word the same way every time. Or..."mantra" like.

I'm sorry, but thats my experience with it. And what I said after that is very true. I can guarentee you that absolutly no "well grounded in Gods truth" evangelical on the face of the planet earth is going to fall for something so ridiculous as that little phrase.

Its actually comical...and I'm not trying to be isulting or anything else...just telling you the truth.

Here is your entire post...the previous one...that you were wondering if I read, and I'll comment:

"In your question, you assume as axioms that justification is through faith alone and that the Scriptures are the only source for authoritative truth."Of course I do!

BECAUSE THEY ARE.

"In Latin, sola fide, sola scriptura. The Orthodox would agree with sola gratia, definitely."Grace alone is not enough, and its not what the scriptures are proclaiming.

The scriptures do not just proclaim that we are justified by grace alone. We are justified through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

The only place in Scripture where the phrase "faith alone" is used is in the Book of James, where God explicitly tells us that we are not justified by faith alone.The book of James fits with justification through faith alone spectacularly. James teaches that when a person is justified through faith alone, their will inevitably be fruit that is the evidence that the profession of faith in Christ is legitimate and the regeneration has in fact taken place.

Your view on the other hand mangles, butchers, and twists the scriptures horribly. Gods truth causes the scriptures to fit together like a hand in a glove.

"Unpacking the first part of your question, I assume the point behind the words is whether the Orthodox believe that they or anyone can earn their justification by works, which, to the best of my knowledge, they do not.If thats true than they will joyfully proclaim justification through faith alone. If they deny justification throiugh faith alone, than their claim that "nobody can earn their justification by works" is a sham.

I was talking to a Catholic one time, and he said this...

"We must have good works to be justified!".

When I asked how he got around the passages in the scriptures that make so clear that we are justified through faith alone..(and I quoted them)... he said..(I'm not kidding)...

"Oh, its the motivation that makes the difference. We work, but not with the attitude that we obligate God, as if He owes us anything".

(And he expected me to buy that.)

I was ab..so..lute..ly..stunned! I couldnt believe that the Catholic Church had rendered him able to utter such nonsense.

The scriptures know NOTHING of this crazy "works that obligate God (as if He owed us anything)", vs "works that do not obligate God (since He doesnt owe us anything)" nonsense.

The scriptures of God proclaim...

"For it is by grace that you are saved, through faith. And that not of yourself, it is the gift of God. Not of works, lest any man should boast"

Point blank, couldnt be clearer, and its just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.

As best as I can so far get a handle on the theology involved, the Orthodox hold to something similar to the original English Baptist position (viz., Arminian) of prevenient grace. Or to put Paul (Eph. 2:8-10) and James on the same page, we are being (present indicative) saved (perfect participle) by grace through the means of--not on account of--("through" is in the genitive) faith, and neither the salvation, nor the grace, nor even the faith ("that" disagrees in gender with both grace and faith) comes from us, but is the gift of God; thus, nobody can boast they earned their salvation by anything they did or even that they saved themselves by their faith; we were in fact created in Jesus Christ for the purpose of doing good works, and faith without such works is dead, and saves none."But you are speaking of an entirely different thing there. A different subject altogether. The scriptures do indeed speak of our having been saved, (upon entering into a faith alone relationship with Christ) about how we are in the process of being saved, (as our "old man" dies more and more and our "new man" takes precidence more and more) and how we will be saved, (when we finally enter heaven for eternity.)

But any time that I have ever been involved in any kind of discussion with Catholics... or like minded folks as catholics...the specific type of justification being discussed is that which makes us fit for heaven.

The intitial justification..(when regeneration occures)..that the other forms of justification flow from.

And the Catholics have always always always, consistently argued against that clear and foundational truth regarding justification.

The only biblically truthful stand to take against that is that it is a false gospel and those who propagate it are decievers.

As for sola scriptura, I was astounded when I discovered that nowhere in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the sole source of truth for the believer.It most certainly does. God could not be clearer. There are literally hundreds of passages of scripture that make it abundantly clear.

Of course, it cannot be, since the NT books were written individually across half a century, and the NT was not assembled and canonized, along with the LXX, until nearly A.D. 400, but the Church had the apostles (and subsequently the bishops appointed by them) from Day One.Nonsense. Smokesreens.The Jews prior to Christ had all the scriptures that were avaiable at that time, and that is all they were acountable to. The Bereans had all the scriptures that were avaiable at that time and that is all they were acountable to. All the scriptures now known as the "new testament" were inscripturated at approximatly the time the Jewish Temple was destroyed near the end of the 1st century. To all of Gods people at any time in history...

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If Gods scriptures were not sufficent, God would not say the scriptures make us complete and thoroghly equipped, because He would be lying. We would actually be incomplete and partially equipped.

Rather, Scripture declares that the Church is the foundation and pillar of the truth--the same Church Jesus promised would be guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit.The reason we...all born again people,(thats all the church is of course) are the pillar and ground of truth, is because we have, and offer to the world, Jesus Christ(who is the way, the truth, and the life), we present to the world the scriptures, which is the word of God, and is Gods truth in written form, and we are empowered by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Truth.

"The Orthodox agree with Scripture that Scripture is not the only source of authoritative truth, but recognize that the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church is also authoritative."And that is a satanic lie that has its origin the pit of hell.

I'm not trying to be melodramatic or patronising or attempting sensationalism.

I am telling you the truth.

God bless,

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:

Mike,

I hope you read my entire post, since I spent a half an hour of my life on it for you. I also hope it wasn't your intent, but most of your post came across as unnecessarily patronizing.Unfortunately, you might as well get used to it. (However, you seem to value your time more than I do. Perhaps I should learn from you and value my time more and quit wasting it.)

Tauf:Never been Catholic...Tauf, that doesn't matter to D28. If you deny the two "great and foundational" truths of sola Scriptura and justification by faith alone you'll get lumped in with the Catholics...and the Mormons...and the JWs...and Jim Jones...and David Koresh. (Just read some of his posts on other threads). But, as you correctly point out, these two doctrines can hardly be called foundational since they weren't invented until the 16th century.

Tauf:What I wrote about James was not significantly different than what I've believed as an Arminian evangelical for most of my adult life, but how you can say that the teaching of God in the Book of James (where he says that a man "is not justified by faith alone") "beautifully fits with the truth of justification by faith alone" is certainly baffling.I agree...and by D28's logic, Arminian evangelical's must actually be scripture-"mangling" Catholic sympathizers as well. (Never mind the plain meaning of James 2:24 is that: "a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.") :rolleyes:
Tauf:I cannot really believe that you disagreed with what I wrote on the subject, unless your "in one ear out the other" open-mindedness led you to stop reading that paragraph once you saw an imaginary heresy there.That's pretty much it. He even admits as much...

D28:A denial of those two great and foundational truths has been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now. Rather than wade through reams and reams of all kinds of problematic teachings, I like to just check on those 2 issues right at the start. Tauf:Was there anything on that topic I wrote about that was unorthodox (note the small O) in any way?Nope, not at all. It just didn't pass Mike's litmus test of "orthodoxy".

Tauf:There is a great deal of historical ignorance floating around about sola scriptura, however--but the demonstrable fact is that doctrine was not even invented until the Reformation.Exactly. And the same could be said of justification by faith alone.
Tauf:How then a denial of a great and foundational truth that had never been seen before the early 1500s could have "been one of the most common and deadly errors of cults and heretical groups for 2000 years now" is especially perplexing.Very perplexing indeed. Baffling, even. :cool:

What is especially stunning and baffling is that folks accuse those who accept the plain meaning of scriptures such as James 2:24 (which says we are not justified by faith alone) of "mangling" and "butchering" the scriptures. It's stunningly ironic since those same folks are actually the ones who are themselves mangling, butchering, and distorting the scriptures as they try to hammer their 16th century square-pegs into the round Scriptural whole. How sad. :(

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tauf: "The Orthodox agree with Scripture that Scripture is not the only source of authoritative truth, but recognize that the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church is also authoritative."And that is a satanic lie that has its origin the pit of hell.</font>[/QUOTE]If anything is close to being "a satanic lie", it is the doctrine that has done more than any other to divide Christians into the relativistic chaos of myriads of competing denominations each with their mutually contradictory teachings and versions of "Christianity", thus damaging the witness of the Church in the world and counteracting Christ's desire that they all should be one (John 17). That doctrine is sola Scriptura.

It is Tauf that speaks the truth on this matter, not D28guy.

[BobRyan]

This was the thinking of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 as Christ condemned their practices of "teaching for doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN" and of "making VOID the commandments of God by your tradition".

Strange that the same abuses practices BEFORE the Christian church should be practiced IN some of the Christian Churches as DT suggests that it be.

In Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This was the thinking of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 as Christ condemned their practices of "teaching for doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN" and of "making VOID the commandments of God by your tradition".

Strange that the same abuses practices BEFORE the Christian church should be practiced IN some of the Christian Churches as DT suggests that it be.

And yet, Paul commands the Christians in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians to follow the traditions, whether delivered orally or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15). The difference is the source of the "traditions" (Greek, paradosis): one is merely from men; the other is from Christ delivered through the apostles. The former we are to avoid; the latter we are to keep. The latter can never conflict with the commands of God, since the source of apostolic tradition is God.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

If anything is close to being "a satanic lie", it is the doctrine that has done more than any other to divide Christians into the relativistic chaos of myriads of competing denominations each with their mutually contradictory teachings and versions of "Christianity", thus damaging the witness of the Church in the world and counteracting Christ's desire that they all should be one (John 17). That doctrine is sola Scriptura.
DT's statement above forms one of the best examples of a "pure contradiction" to the Word of Christ below - that one could possibly hope to imagine.

How "easily" the Jewish Magesterium could turn around and charge Christ with being "factious and divisive" for pointing out their "many" errors of tradition conflicting with the Word of God!

Mark 7
6 And He said to them, ""Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: " THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7 " BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME, TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'
8 ""Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.''
9 He was also saying to them, ""You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.
10 ""For Moses said, " HONOR YOUR FATHER AND YOUR MOTHER'; and, " HE WHO SPEAKS EVIL OF FATHER OR MOTHER, IS TO BE PUT TO DEATH';
11 but you say, "If a man says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),'
12 you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother;
13 thus invalidating the Word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.''
Notice that Christ said that the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai had gone into error and yet continued to “honor ME with their lips”

1. Christ then pronounces their Worship to be in vain.
2. Christ points to the cause “Teaching as doctrine the commandments of men”/b] – as though man’s wild-ideas are equal to the inspired word!
3. Christ points out the specific damage done by such man-made tradition [b]Neglecting the commandment of God you HOLD to the tradition of men”
4. Christ points to direct conflict between that which is written in God’s Word – regarding His own “commandments” vs “your tradition”.. What is IN the Word vs what is simply the-words-of-men.
5. Christ specifically points to the Fifth Commandment in that UNIT OF TEN – saying that this one is being “effectively” negated by man’s tradition. NOTE that the Jews would not claim they were negating it – but Christ charges that the result is the same.
6. Then the phrase that many “traditionalists” claim is not in God’s Word – “thus Invalidating the WORD of GOD by your TRADITION”. Here God points to HIS WORD as having authority above and beyond “The tradition” of the magesterium of the ONE TRUE nation church started by God at Sinai. Clearly tradition must be tested against the Word to VALIDATE that it is NOT in any way contradictory – to meet Christ’s standard.
7. Finally Christ points out that this is not the ONLY case of Tradition contradicting the “Word of God”. In fact He has already stated that they are “experts at setting aside the commandment of God” in favor of “your tradition”

Yet some today would charge that it is “factious” and “divisive” to argue against their “many traditions” and point out where they contradict the clear Word of God. They claim this act of pointing out their own error is to divide the church and break up the John 17 prayer for unity. Note how easy it would have been for the Jewish Magesterium in the above example to make the same charge against Christ for His act in pointing out “Their error” in that same way!

In fact the members of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 "could have" pointed to the fact that this may well split the faithful possibly even starting an entirely new “sect” called “Christians”!!


It is D28guy that speaks the truth on this matter. Listen to him.


In Christ,

Bob

[ July 07, 2005, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
This was the thinking of the Jewish Magesterium in Mark 7 as Christ condemned their practices of "teaching for doctrines the COMMANDMENTS OF MEN" and of "making VOID the commandments of God by your tradition".

Strange that the same abuses practices BEFORE the Christian church should be practiced IN some of the Christian Churches as DT suggests that it be.

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
And yet, Paul commands the Christians in 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians to follow the traditions, whether delivered orally or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15). The difference is the source of the "traditions" (Greek, paradosis): one is merely from men; the other is from Christ delivered through the apostles.
Wrong.

Both are from the "Magesterium" of the ONE TRUE Church started by God!

Both are launched by Christ and BOTH have their leadership established by God.

THE DIFFERENCE is that the teaching of the Apostles is VALIDATED against the Word of God.

Acts 17:11 "THEY studied the SCRIPTURES DAILY to see IF those things spoken to them by PAUL were SO".

This "sola scriptura" method of VALIDATING the spoken word EVEN when it is from an Apostle is the DIFFERENCE!

Christ's charge against the MAGESTERIUM in Mark 7 is BASED on a SOLA SCRIPTURA argument SHOWING their tradition to be in error.

HE does not simply say "I have all kinds of authority so I simply SAY you are wrong. That should be enough"!

Rather He demonstrated SOLA SCRIPTURA the place where tradition contradicts "The Word of God" and then claims "You do MANY such things as this" even saying "YOU ARE EXPERTS at setting aside God's commands for YOUR tradition".

How devastating to those who would practice those very same errors today!

In Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

BobRyan:
DT's statement above forms one of the best examples of a "pure contradiction" to the Word of Christ below - that one could possibly hope to imagine.It is only seems to be "contradiction" since you've not interacted the other verses (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15; 2 Thess 3:6) I've posted several times now nor have considered that it's the source of the tradition(Gr."paradosis") which determines whether it is authoritative or not. Jesus and Paul both condemn the traditions of men. Paul, however, commands the Christians to keep the traditions that he and the other apostles have delivered to them from Christ, whether orally or by epistle (2 Thess 2:15).

Way to totally ignore my last post, Bob.
graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Doubting Thomas]

BobRyan:
Christ's charge against the MAGESTERIUM in Mark 7 is BASED on a SOLA SCRIPTURA argument SHOWING their tradition to be in error.Actually, you are reading sola Scriptura back into that passage by making the unproven assumption that "commands of God" exactly equals "scripture". Scriptures indeed contain the commands of God, but are not exactly identical to "the commands of God", since Paul has commanded the Christians to hold fast to the traditions whether given orally or by epistle. God can choose to deliver His commands by the means of oral communication if He so desires, and the Scriptures indicate that He has in fact done so. The commands that have been handed down orally and those that have been canonized in the Scriptures of course never conflict, since the source of both is God.

[StefanM]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />BobRyan:
Christ's charge against the MAGESTERIUM in Mark 7 is BASED on a SOLA SCRIPTURA argument SHOWING their tradition to be in error.Actually, you are reading sola Scriptura back into that passage by making the unproven assumption that "commands of God" exactly equals "scripture". Scriptures indeed contain the commands of God, but are not exactly identical to "the commands of God", since Paul has commanded the Christians to hold fast to the traditions whether given orally or by epistle. God can choose to deliver His commands by the means of oral communication if He so desires, and the Scriptures indicate that He has in fact done so. The commands that have been handed down orally and those that have been canonized in the Scriptures of course never conflict, since the source of both is God. </font>[/QUOTE]One question:

Why was the oral tradition of the Pharisees, some of the most devoted adherents of the Jewish faith, invalid?

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BobRyan:
Christ's charge against the MAGESTERIUM in Mark 7 is BASED on a SOLA SCRIPTURA argument SHOWING their tradition to be in error.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT
Actually, you are reading sola Scriptura back into that passage by making the unproven assumption that "commands of God" exactly equals "scripture".
In fact Christ says "The CommandMENT of God" and the "WORD of God" AND then QUOTES from the FIFTH commandment -- there is no possibly way to squirm out of this one.

IF Christ was trying to make the argument about GOOD tradition being nullified by BAD tradition He would have to use some OTHER example than the WORD written ON STONE and in scripture!

THEN He would have to ADD some argument about the basis for "great tradition" vs the less valued "tradition". Certainly if BOTH examples HAD BEEN of tradition INSTEAD of constrasting scripture against tradition then there would have been an long list of "criteria" for knowing "tradition from tradition" in stead of blanket statements AGAINST tradition.

DT said --
Scriptures indeed contain the commands of God, but are not exactly identical to "the commands of God"Fortunately Christ QUOTES the commdMENT in violation and as it turns it - it IS in scripture and it IS part of the Word of God.

This is just too easy!

Eric

The commands that have been handed down orally and those that have been canonized in the Scriptures of course never conflict, since the source of both is God. Obviously that is "Wrong" since the Mark 7 condemnation of tradition SHOWS that tradition to BE in violation of scritpure.

If you are "really" trying to say that the tradition that IS valid (when judged by scripture) will always be IN harmony with scripture - then you have a funny way of saying it.

In Christ,

Bob

[Armando]

I feel that the Bible fully supports Apostolic Tradition as posted already here (2 Tim 2,2 1 Cor 11,2 2 Tes 2,14). Additionally, other than the text already mentioned:

2 Tim 3,8 speaks of the Janes and Mambre resisted Moses. These 2 are the ones the contested Moses with magic. The question here is, how did Paul know their names?

Matt 2,23 "And coming he dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was said by the prophets: That he shall be called a Nazarene" The question is how did Matthew know about this prophecy? Where in the OT can you find this prophesy?

Act 20,35 "...and to remember the word of the Lord Jesus, how he said: It is a more blessed thing to give, rather than to receive." The question is how did Luke know that the Lord said those words?

I believe the answers to these questions have to be be Apostolic Tradition. Any other suggestions?

Armando

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by StefanM:
One question:

Why was the oral tradition of the Pharisees, some of the most devoted adherents of the Jewish faith, invalid? Because the source of the Pharisees' tradition ("paradosis") was men and not from God. Their tradition led them to misinterpret the Scriptures. Christ and His apostles revealed to the Jews the true interpretation of Scriptures. This true interpretation of Scriptures is the heart of the Apostolic Preaching/Tradition. The word "tradition" (Greek,"paradosis") is itself neutral and merely means "that which is delivered or handed down" from one to another. It's the source of the tradition that counts, which is why on one hand Paul can warn against the tradition of men (Colossians 2:8) and on the other command the Christians to hold fast the traditions that he himself (along with the other apostles) delivered to them (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15).

[Doubting Thomas]

BobRyan:
....Obviously that is "Wrong" since the Mark 7 condemnation of tradition SHOWS that tradition to BE in violation of scritpure.Yet again you ignore the other verses I referenced which specifically command Christians to hold fast the traditions--oral or written--delivered to them by Paul. (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). Way to go, Bob!

graemlins/applause.gif

[BobRyan]

Thank you -

The reason for "ignoring it" is that it has nothing to do with the Mark 7 problem of tradition that violates scripture.

Your argument is of the form "yes but although there may be bad tradition - so there might be some good tradition" is beside the point.

My argument above did not say "DO NOT test tradition sola scriptura - just declare all tradition to be in error without even looking at scripture to see if your statement is correct".

Your point above - would only address "That" kind of argument on my part. An argument I did not make.

In Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
Thank you -

The reason for "ignoring it" is that it has nothing to do with the Mark 7 problem of tradition that violates scripture.

Your argument is of the form "yes but although there may be bad tradition - so there might be some good tradition" is beside the point.

My argument above did not say "DO NOT test tradition sola scriptura - just declare all tradition to be in error without even looking at scripture to see if your statement is correct".

Your point above - would only address "That" kind of argument on my part. An argument I did not make.

In Christ,

Bob But Paul doesn't say: "Hold only the oral traditions that you test against Scripture, and discard that which doesn't either match up to your interpretation of the OT, or which isn't explicitly spelled out in the OT". Nor does he say: "Just keep the oral tradition until you have all of mine and the other apostles' writings at your disposal and when the 'canon is closed', then just observe what is written."

Nope, he states that the tradition he has delivered--whether orally or by epistle--is to be kept. Period.

[BobRyan]

Paul does not say "don't check what we say out against scripture according to the APPROVED practice in Berea - just believe whatever you are told".

In fact in 2Cor 11 he argues that he is "AFRAID" that they might go around "just believing whatever they are told" by anyone who claims authority and claims to be an apostle or a successor to an apostle!!

2Cor 11
3 But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, your minds will be led astray from the simplicity and purity of devotion to Christ.
4 For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully.
...
12 But what I am doing I will continue to do, so that I may cut off opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the matter about which they are boasting.
13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workers, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ.
14 No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness, whose end will be according to their deeds.

Paul argues AGAINST the "believe and don't VALIDATE" model that you propose and Paul COMMENDS the "Study scriptures DAILY to SEE IF those things told to you ARE SO" model of Acts 17:11.

How devastating for the "believe whatever an apostle says" model you are proposing.

In Christ,

Bob

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As for sola scriptura, I was astounded when I discovered that nowhere in Scripture does Scripture claim to be the sole source of truth for the believer. Originally posted by Bro. James Reed:

In that case, I now canonize the Book of James, the Reed.

You can't be serious about this, can you? :confused:


2 Timothy 3:
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.


Point always made whenever the claim is made that 2Tim 3 does not exist.

Point always ignored by those who make that claim.

In Christ,

Bob </font>[/QUOTE]2 Timothy 3 does exist, and does not say that Scripture is the sole source of authoritative truth for the believer.

As originally intended by Paul, the verses refer to the Old Testament, the books of which were the only Scriptures Timothy could have learned as a child from his grandmother--probably the Septuagint. That fact, though, does not disprove sola scriptura, anymore than the verses quoted prove sola scriptura.

Regards,
Tauf

[BobRyan]

The claim is that 2Tim 3 "really says"

2 Timothy 3:

17That the man of God may be almost complete - just needing a bunch of tradition to load in with that scriptur to actually BE perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

It is not true.

Paul claims that SCRIPTURE ITSELF is sufficient for that instruction in righteousness! And certainly in Acts 17:11 we see it "sufficient" to validate the teachings of the Apostle.

Paul then "WORRIES" and claims that "HE IS AFRAID" (2Cor 11) that people will fall back into the "blind tradition" mdel of Mark 7 -- just believing whatever anyone claiming to be an apostle tells them to believe.

In Christ,

Bob

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by D28guy:

"I did read your entire post, and I didnt intend on being patronising at all."

I'm glad, and sorry I took it that way--it was mostly the phrase "you guys" and such that led me to take it the wrong way. I appreciate you having taken the time to respond again, and to analyze the entire post by point by point. Thank you. smile.gif

"My 1st comment..'you must be a Catholic'.. could be recieved that way, but I thought the smiley face would make it clear."

I was kind of in-between because of the smiley, but thank you for clarifying.

"If you objected to my statement about what you said being 'mantra like', I'm sorry...but in dealing with Catholics on discussion boards, in 'real life', and watching EWTN, I have heard that completly silly and ridiculous statement a million times, and it is always word for word the same way every time. Or...'mantra' like."

Yes, that was a part of it, as though I were assumed to be spouting a party line rather than thinking for myself--but again, and perhaps especially because you are dealing so often with Roman Catholics, I understand now that there was no sardonic intent.

"The scriptures do not just proclaim that we are justified by grace alone. We are justified through faith in Jesus Christ alone."

I suppose I might have made my point better by noting that the secular Greek philosophical use of the word "faith" was as intellectual assent to a series of truth claims or propositions (often the way our culture uses it today)--and that kind of faith never saves according to Scripture. Rather, the Hebrew understanding of faith as trusting obedience, the way Paul of course used it, would be a faith in Jesus that can save alone. Basically, believing in Someone, as opposed to believing about Someone.

"The book of James fits with justification through faith alone spectacularly. James teaches that when a person is justified through faith alone, their will inevitably be fruit that is the evidence that the profession of faith in Christ is legitimate and the regeneration has in fact taken place.

"Your view on the other hand mangles, butchers, and twists the scriptures horribly. Gods truth causes the scriptures to fit together like a hand in a glove."

How exactly does my view mangle, butcher, and twist Scripture? Did I miss something? I said that authentic faith will produce fruit of good works, but that good works cannot earn salvation. How is my view different than yours?

"The scriptures know NOTHING of this crazy 'works that obligate God (as if He owed us anything)', vs 'works that do not obligate God (since He doesnt owe us anything)' nonsense."

I agree.

"But any time that I have ever been involved in any kind of discussion with Catholics... or like minded folks as catholics...the specific type of justification being discussed is that which makes us fit for heaven."

Hmm. No human works can make us fit for heaven.

"All the scriptures now known as the "new testament" were inscripturated at approximatly the time the Jewish Temple was destroyed near the end of the 1st century."

They were not canonized by the Church until late in the fourth century, but I agree that does not mean they were not already Scripture.

"If Gods scriptures were not sufficent, God would not say the scriptures make us complete and thoroghly equipped, because He would be lying. We would actually be incomplete and partially equipped."

Good point.

"The Orthodox agree with Scripture that Scripture is not the only source of authoritative truth, but recognize that the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church is also authoritative.""And that is a satanic lie that has its origin the pit of hell."

The authority of the Holy Spirit within the Church is a what that has its origins where? redface.gif

"I'm not trying to be melodramatic or patronising or attempting sensationalism."

All right. Understood. Thanks again.

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />And the things they made were NOT images of dead people! These "dead people" to whom you refer are saints who have been glorified by and united to the risen Christ. They are brothers and sisters who have completed the race and are part of the one whole family in heaven and earth (Eph 3:15). They are the "general assembly and church of the firstborn registered in heaven" and the "spirits of just men made perfect" with whom we worship the Holy Trinity. (Heb 12:22-24) </font>[/QUOTE]All believers are saints. Dead saints are no more special or powerful than live ones. How can you kiss the image of a dead saint?

It's not that I don't have respect for them - I do! But I would never in a million years "venerate" a saint by kissing an icon, and thinking that that gave me an actual connection to them. A connection through an image! Good Lord, that's an occult view.

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Marcia:
But I would never in a million years "venerate" a saint by kissing an icon, and thinking that that gave me an actual connection to them. IF it were in the middle of the winter where I live you would have a connection if it were ouside. Your mouth would stick to that metal icon.

[Eric B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by StefanM:
One question:

Why was the oral tradition of the Pharisees, some of the most devoted adherents of the Jewish faith, invalid?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the source of the Pharisees' tradition ("paradosis") was men and not from God. Their tradition led them to misinterpret the Scriptures. Christ and His apostles revealed to the Jews the true interpretation of Scriptures. This true interpretation of Scriptures is the heart of the Apostolic Preaching/Tradition. The word "tradition" (Greek,"paradosis") is itself neutral and merely means "that which is delivered or handed down" from one to another. It's the source of the tradition that counts, which is why on one hand Paul can warn against the tradition of men (Colossians 2:8) and on the other command the Christians to hold fast the traditions that he himself (along with the other apostles) delivered to them (1 Cor 11:2; 2 Thess 2:15). But precisely the point; the Jews claimed to get their "traditions" orally from MOSES, (who got them from God), and they have scriptures from the OT they use to back this up; just like your prooftexts above. (I forget which at the moment, but I can look it up when I get the time). And they criticize Christians just as much as you do for neglecting these "traditions" as authoritative. (see the Noahide Lubavitcher site www.noahide.com/compare.htm (http://www.noahide.com/compare.htm) for example). Once example is the one Armando gave above: "2 Tim 3,8 speaks of the Janes and Mambre resisted Moses. These 2 are the ones the contested Moses with magic. The question here is, how did Paul know their names?" Stuff like that, and other things that were known but not written are used to point to this body of "Mosaic oral tradition". And yes, this is what they use to justify their interpretation of the scriptures, and you accuse them of "misinterpreting" just like you criticize us for doing to you. With "tradition" you can teach anything you want to, and there is NO WAY to prove it (Like the Bereans did). We cannot even prove Christ to the Jews, then.

[SouthernBoy]

After reading all of the post I am more convenced that Sola Scripture is NOT Biblical.

Thanks for your input.

[SouthernBoy]

Marcia,

How can you kiss the image of a dead saint?
How could you go to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC? How could you salute a flag? How could you hang pictures on your wall of your love ones (living and dead)?

Would you use your Bible as toilet paper? If not why? If you hold those pages in high regard what difference is that than a sacred image?
Secondly, Icons are just as sacred as Biblical text. In fact, most people pre-modern times got to know Christ through sacred images. Most people could not read or write. What good was a Bible to them? Icons tell the Biblical stories to amazing detail. The Cathedrals in Europe used Stain glass windows (although not as good as Icons). So, if you treat you Bible with respect (special table in the house) then you should show the same respect for Icons.

Why do you burn an American flag if it has touch the ground? Etc...

If you treat secular things with that kind of respect then how much greater should you respect the heros of the Bible.

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter,

You said...

As originally intended by Paul, the verses refer to the Old Testament, the books of which were the only Scriptures Timothy could have learned as a child from his grandmotherNope.

It being the "old testament" is 100% irelavent.

The admonishment to use only the scripture as our authortitative truth standard applies equally to them as it does to us.

In that day the OT was all the scripture that God had given up to that point.

Today, we have Gods completed truth standard. And just the same we have all the scripture that God has given up to this point.

That was then...this is now. And sola scriptura is the same for both times.

Lets stay in the present, shall we.

God bless,

Mike

[D28guy]

Taufgesinnter

Me...

""The scriptures do not just proclaim that we are justified by grace alone. We are justified through faith in Jesus Christ alone."You...

I suppose I might have made my point better by noting that the secular Greek philosophical use of the word "faith" was as intellectual assent to a series of truth claims or propositions (often the way our culture uses it today)--and that kind of faith never saves according to Scripture.I agree. Our faith in Christ is a heart faith. We do of course acknowledge factual claims regarding Christ, but it is a heart faith that embraces and welcomes the indwelling Holy Spirit.

Rather, the Hebrew understanding of faith as trusting obedience,...But we are speaking of the new covenent here. Adding works to faith at this point turns the saving gospel into a false gospel.

Under the new covenant its not..."I embrace you Jesus, and welcome you and trust you, and I cast all sin away and I'll be good and do good works and obey you and never sin again!"

(all those things...sinning less, casting it away, living a new way, serving Christ, etc are good and will come. But they have no part in our justification. They flow from our justification...wich is ours through faith alone.)

Its simply..."I am a wretch and I'm doomed and I embrace you Jesus, and welcome you and trust you, and I desire new life. Thank you!"

"the way Paul of course used it, would be a faith in Jesus that can save alone. Basically, believing in Someone, as opposed to believing about Someone.I'm not argueing against that at all.

Me...

"The book of James fits with justification through faith alone spectacularly. James teaches that when a person is justified through faith alone, their will inevitably be fruit that is the evidence that the profession of faith in Christ is legitimate and the regeneration has in fact taken place.

"Your view on the other hand mangles, butchers, and twists the scriptures horribly. Gods truth causes the scriptures to fit together like a hand in a glove." How exactly does my view mangle, butcher, and twist Scripture? Did I miss something? I said that authentic faith will produce fruit of good works, but that good works cannot earn salvation. How is my view different than yours?Well, to be honest I may have read into some of the things you posted and assumed you to be further down the road of this particular dangerous path than maybe you really are.

If I have done that I apologize.

I may have lumped you in with a couple of others who in a pretty dangerous spot right now. I'll rephrase that...

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox view mangles and butchers and twists the scriptures horribly. And the reason is because their apologists must mangle the scriptures in order to make all of the very clear declarations of justification through faith alone somehow fit with their works justification system.

When you say this...

I said that authentic faith will produce fruit of good works, but that good works cannot earn salvation. How is my view different than yours?Actually that is precisely what I hold to. That is a statement that fits perfectly with the gospel of Jesus Christ.

(and if you are considering the EOC you wont be very happy there if you hold to what you just posted there.) smile.gif

Me...

The scriptures know NOTHING of this crazy 'works that obligate God (as if He owed us anything)', vs 'works that do not obligate God (since He doesnt owe us anything)' nonsense."You...

I agree.Good!

Me...

"But any time that I have ever been involved in any kind of discussion with Catholics... or like minded folks as catholics...the specific type of justification being discussed is that which makes us fit for heaven."You...

Hmm. No human works can make us fit for heaven.Thats for sure.

Me...

All the scriptures now known as the "new testament" were inscripturated at approximatly the time the Jewish Temple was destroyed near the end of the 1st century."You...

They were not canonized by the Church until late in the fourth century, but I agree that does not mean they were not already Scripture.Of course they were already scripture. The cannonization was nothing more than an acknowledgement of what they already were. The were scripture the instant the last penstroke was finished.

Me...

"If Gods scriptures were not sufficent, God would not say the scriptures make us complete and thoroghly equipped, because He would be lying. We would actually be incomplete and partially equipped."You...

Good point.Yes it is a great point that God makes there. There are many in this BB neck of the woods that very much are in need of getting a grip on that point, and many others.

Grace and peace,

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
With "tradition" you can teach anything you want to, and there is NO WAY to prove it (Like the Bereans did). We cannot even prove Christ to the Jews, then.With "sola Scriptura" you can teach anything you want to, and there is no way to prove it as the Scriptures can be made to say pretty much anything, including contradictory doctrines depending on the proof-texts and presuppositions one starts with. Paul combined the new apostolic preaching of the risen Jesus of Nazareth with the new authentic apostolic interpretation of the Messianic passages of the OT. It's this Apostlic message and interpretation--the heart of Apostolic tradition--that was received with gladness by the Bereans, and not surprisingly they found that the OT lined up with Paul's preaching after they fairly considered what he said. However for close-minded followers of various modern day interpretive traditions of men, debates on the meaning of Scripture seem to go nowhere. That's why the controlling interpetive tradition of the Apostolic rule of faith is still needed today.

[BobRyan]

After reading Mark 7 SHOWING tradition to be in conflict with scripture and Acts 17:11 SHOWING sola scriptura methods used and approved EVEN when used by non-Christians - and then 2Cor 11 SHOWING that they are teaching error who CLAIM to be APOSTLES -- I am more convinced than ever that Sola Scriptura is a solid Bible Teaching.

ONLY by substituting the traditions of man in place of scripture - can error be given full control of the church!!

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eric B:
With "tradition" you can teach anything you want to, and there is NO WAY to prove it (Like the Bereans did). We cannot even prove Christ to the Jews, then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DT said --
With "sola Scriptura" you can teach anything you want to, and there is no way to prove it as the Scriptures can be made to say pretty much anything,Wrong.

That is not what we SEE in Acts 17:11 EVEN among NON-Christians!!

Intead of the text saying "They studied the scriptures daily to see IF those things spoken to them by Paul were so - BUT They discovered that scripture is UNRELIABLE and that ANY OLD story can be supported from scripture so they just BELIEVED whatever anyone told them - starting with Paul" --

We see an entirely DIFFERENT point being made in Acts 17:11.

In fact that opposite point that you have made.

IN Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
After reading Mark 7 SHOWING tradition to be in conflict with scripture....Correction--it shows that the "tradition of men" to be in conflict with the commandments of God. It doesn't condemn the tradition of the apostles, given to them from Christ Himself. Indeed it couldn't because the Apostle Paul (a real apostle) commanded the Christians to keep the traditions that he delivered, whether orally or by epistle. You can't seem to grasp that simple distinction. It's the source of the traditions that matters.

[Eric B]

With "sola Scriptura" you can teach anything you want to, and there is no way to prove it as the Scriptures can be made to say pretty much anything, including contradictory doctrines depending on the proof-texts and presuppositions one starts with. That is not true. We think it is, because so many people have interpreted it according to tradition (whether they directly claim it is "apostolic" or not), that now you have thrown your hands up and concluded no one can have a right interpretation of the scriptures(much like the agnostics now). So let's just choose the oldest [extant] of these traditions, and believe by faith that must be the truth. Sorry, but if men can't even get scripture right, how much worse will it be with some hypothesized oral tradition? And you still have not addressed the fact that the Jews use the same exact method of rejecting Jesus. They would say that the "new authentic apostolic interpretation of the Messianic passages of the OT" conflicted the oral tradition handed down from Moses (--just like you deride our "modern day interpretive traditions"!) Which would be more authoritative, if true? Now, how can Christ be proven?
Other points to keep in mind are that these apostles "traditions" were authoritative because they saw the risen Lord. Later leaders did not have that authority, and even if you insist that some knew the apostles, they could still have gotten some things wrong. When you look at the writings of the apostolic fathers, something is clearly different. It no longer has that certain touch of the Holy Spirit. all sorts of new methods of allegory/illustartion come up. (Such as Clement using the pagan fable of the Phoenix to try to illustrate the resurrection, and pseudo-Barnabas' comments on the hyena and weasel. Now imagine trying to argue that with science today!)
On the other hand; I see "quartodecimanism" mentioned before as one of the "heresies" stood against, but it was Polycarp and Polycrates, the sucessors to John, who fought for that, against the bishops of Rome. If you want to go on "apostolic tradition", then the catholic church opposed even this one point of that!

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> With "sola Scriptura" you can teach anything you want to, and there is no way to prove it as the Scriptures can be made to say pretty much anything, including contradictory doctrines depending on the proof-texts and presuppositions one starts with. That is not true. We think it is, because so many people have interpreted it according to tradition...</font>[/QUOTE]Right...like the Baptist tradition, the Lutheran tradition, the Calvinist tradition, the Mennonite tradition, the Campellite tradition, the Weslyan tradition, the Pentacostal tradition, the Unitarian tradition, etc, etc, etc...

Sorry, but if men can't even get scripture right, how much worse will it be with some hypothesized oral tradition?This oral tradition is not "hypothesized". It's really something that Paul commands the Christians to keep. It's by the Holy Spirit guidance in the Church that the Church can get both right.

And you still have not addressed the fact that the Jews use the same exact method of rejecting Jesus.What...are you telling me that Jews used Apostolic tradition to reject Jesus??? :eek:

They would say that the "new authentic apostolic interpretation of the Messianic passages of the OT" conflicted the oral tradition handed down from Moses...True..they would. (Of course, in their case they would be mistaken about the origin of their tradition.)

(--just like you deride our "modern day interpretive traditions"!)(And rightfully so--these modern day interpretive traditions, listed above, have led to increasing schisms and contradictions within Christendom.)

Which would be more authoritative, if true?The Apostolic Tradition, of course, since it has the authority of Christ Himself and the promise of that Spirit would guide them into all truth. The Pharisee's tradition had neither.

Now, how can Christ be proven?Umm...how about by rising from the dead after three days and ascending into heaven? :cool: The Apostles were witnesses to this fact and were commisioned by Christ to spread His gospel in the power of the Spirit.
Other points to keep in mind are that these apostles "traditions" were authoritative because they saw the risen Lord.Exactly, and because Christ breathed His Spirit on them--the same Spirit that resides in the Church and guides her into all truth.

Later leaders did not have that authority..If they maintained the apostolic faith they did.
Hear Paul to Timothy:
"And these things which you heard from me among many faithful witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2) Notice Paul didn't put a time limit on this. He didn't say "these things which you heard from me commit to faithful witnesses, but tell them that once all of us apostles are dead and the canon is closed, just go by what is written, not what you may have committed to them (from me) orally."

Yes, the apostles are indeed the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), but the church that is built on the apostles continues to be the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the fullness of Christ who fills all in all (Eph 1:23).

When you look at the writings of the apostolic fathers, something is clearly different. It no longer has that certain touch of the Holy Spirit.Wow...that's a subjective judgement. What do you mean by that exactly. Is that sort of like the "burning in the bosom"? I never claimed that the apostolic fathers were individually infallible nor that all their writings were free from error (scientific or otherwise). I do suggest that where there is patristic consensus--areas where there was no controversy and where they was substantial agreement over time and space--we ought to seriously consider what they said, especially if our modern day novel interpretations may conflict with theirs.

On the other hand; I see "quartodecimanism" mentioned before as one of the "heresies" stood against, but it was Polycarp and Polycrates, the sucessors to John, who fought for that, against the bishops of Rome.So was it a really a "heresy" (false doctrine) or was it a controversy regarding church praxis and discipline (when to specifically observe the anniversary of Christ's resurrection)? At any rate, regardless of its origin, those who observed Pascha on Sunday--those in Rome, Gaul, Egypt, Palestine, etc--constituted the majority, tracing this custom to Peter and Paul. Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) and Anicetus (bishop of Rome) actually agreed to live and let live on the issue. Later, Irenaus (himself a disciple of Polycarp, yet who kept Pashca on Sunday) rebuked Victor (bishop of Rome) for basically speaking too rashly against the churches in Asia minor. With time, however, the common practice was to observe Pascha on the day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead. In summary, this was a question of discipline and praxis, not theological doctrine or dogma.

[mioque]

BobRyan
"Maybe if I had seen it on TV instead of actually being there."
"I mean "a lot" of standing and sitting"
"
How strange, Eastern-Orthodox churches don't have seating arrangements.... Bob you still haven't told us how you could have personally observed a churchservice with a lot of standing and sitting in a denomination where there are no seats! :D

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by mioque:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

BobRyan
"Maybe if I had seen it on TV instead of actually being there."
"I mean "a lot" of standing and sitting"
"
How strange, Eastern-Orthodox churches don't have seating arrangements.... Bob you still haven't told us how you could have personally observed a churchservice with a lot of standing and sitting in a denomination where there are no seats! :D </font>[/QUOTE]I'm sure it depends on where he went. Many Orthodox Churches in North America bought closed Catholic or Protestant buildings that came ready-equipped with pews and kept them. Others have a handful for the elderly and infirm. I attended a half-Romanian liturgy at an OCA parish where there were pews from nearly the entrance all the way up to the iconstasis; that building was constructed and is populated by, AFAICT, cradle ethnic Orthodox. The OCA parish (Russian origin) where I usually attend, where a high percentage of the members are converts, has a few pews against the back and side walls and still has the expected large open space where adults stand or walk about and children stand or sit on the floor by them. So it does depend on the location.

So far, my friends and I always take a pew, and they usually sit because of back problems unless others in the pews around them suddenly stand up for some reason. Although I typically remain standing longer than they do, I still sit frequently until others around me get up again.

[ July 09, 2005, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: Taufgesinnter ]

[Marcia]

Originally posted by SouthernBoy:
Marcia,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> How can you kiss the image of a dead saint?
How could you go to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC? How could you salute a flag? How could you hang pictures on your wall of your love ones (living and dead)?

Would you use your Bible as toilet paper? If not why? If you hold those pages in high regard what difference is that than a sacred image?
Secondly, Icons are just as sacred as Biblical text. In fact, most people pre-modern times got to know Christ through sacred images. Most people could not read or write. What good was a Bible to them? Icons tell the Biblical stories to amazing detail. The Cathedrals in Europe used Stain glass windows (although not as good as Icons). So, if you treat you Bible with respect (special table in the house) then you should show the same respect for Icons.

Why do you burn an American flag if it has touch the ground? Etc...

If you treat secular things with that kind of respect then how much greater should you respect the heros of the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Respecting something and kissing it, and believing you are actually connecting with someone through an image, are entirely different things.

I had gone and listed about a dozen verses showing that we preach the gospel through the word, not an image, but I lost it when trying to post. I think you know those verses are in the Bible, so I won't try to do it again.

Icons placed in churches must conform to theological beliefs of the Orthodox Church and if they do not they are not admitted into the Church. Religious paintings are not necessarily icons. The icon must tell the story of the life of the saint, if a martyr, they are covered with a red robe indicating the blood that was shed, if St Mary she must be in white or royal blue representing her purity and ever virginity. When depicted with Christ St Mary must be on the right hand side (Christ's right hand side our left) to fulfil the psalmist prophecy about her...'At your right hand stands the queen in gold."
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/9304.htm
I have a problem with seeing Mary as a "queen."

Once anointed the icon can never be removed from the church or veneration by the people. Nor can it be treated as simply a painting, the artist ceases all ownership of it, it is now Christ's. . . Often processions of the icon are made around the church where the faithful can venerate the icon by touching it or kissing it or touching their hands to the icon and then their lips or nothing (whatever they desire to do).
To "venerate" is a lot more than respect in Orthodoxy:

"to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion"

[Marcia]

From the same link as previous post, this person (who is Orthodox) is trying to show how veneration and worship are not the same.
Veneration is like respect, love, deep longing for the saint who is represented, but not the same as one worships God. The worship of God is on a level that no part of creation may receive. The Church and near East have received the bowing down in what is called 'metanoia' in Greek to those who are above us in the Lord (usually hierarchs) to Churches and church altars, to Icons, to relics of saints and when apologising for sin or asking some great favour. But he says veneration shows a "deep longing" for the saint. Are we not supposed to be focused on Christ, not the dead saints? I have no longing for them. I respect them, but longing for them is another level. The subtle elevation of saints so that focus is on them instead of Christ is one of the big problems I have with this.

Also, the above seems to be saying that the Orthodox bow to icons and relics "apologising for sin or asking some great favour." So now you are praying to the saints. When you talk to dead saints and ask for forgiveness (and how can a saint forgive?) or ask for a "favor," you are praying.

And
Icons confirm theosis for us orthodox and we believe God works through them. So God works "through" the icons. They are much more than pictures in Orthodoxy.

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
After reading Mark 7 SHOWING tradition to be in conflict with scripture....Correction--it shows that the "tradition of men" to be in conflict with the commandments of God. It doesn't condemn the tradition of the apostles, given to them from Christ Himself. Indeed it couldn't because the Apostle Paul (a real apostle) commanded the Christians to keep the traditions that he delivered, whether orally or by epistle. You can't seem to grasp that simple distinction. It's the source of the traditions that matters. </font>[/QUOTE]When Paul said this in 2 Thess. 2.15, the canon of scripture was not complete. He wrote this around AD 51 or 52, before many other of his writings for the NT had yet been done. He was writing to the church at Thessolonica, so naturally he would say this. At that time they only had some writings. Other teachings, oral at that time, were later were put into writing.

Don't you think God could get his all his word he wants us to have in writing? Why would he give oral teachings in addition to his word to be passed down outside of the canon? Especially when God himself said scripture is sufficient for what we need as believers.

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
[QUOTE]

BobRyan
"Maybe if I had seen it on TV instead of actually being there."
"I mean "a lot" of standing and sitting"
"
How strange, Eastern-Orthodox churches don't have seating arrangements.... [/qb] Mioque -
Bob you still haven't told us how you could have personally observed a churchservice with a lot of standing and sitting in a denomination where there are no seats! :D I guess it is another case where the facts just don't fit your 'history' Mioque. What can I say?

However since this is not the first time for you - you must be getting used to it! tongue.gif ;) graemlins/laugh.gif

In this case it was a congregation within the Antiochian Archdiocese - not that you would actually know about this service from your "history".

In any case - you have always proven to be good for the lighter note Mioque - thanks again!

[ July 09, 2005, 06:38 PM: Message edited by: BobRyan ]

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
After reading Mark 7 SHOWING tradition to be in conflict with scripture.... Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:

Correction--it shows that the "tradition of men" to be in conflict with the commandments of God.
Indeed.

That would be "tradition" in conflict with God's Word.

And as we see in 2Cor 11 even APOSTLES are shown to be FALSE and having FALSE teaching/tradition/doctrine!!

So "the substance of the PERSON" is not the issue NOR the FACT that they hold high office.

IN Mark 7 it is actual HUMANS as LEADERS in the MAGESTERIUM of the ONE TRUE CHURCH started by God at Sinai!!

No higher church authority existed inside HUMANITY!

And so TODAY we have the same issue.

HUMANS are still at the top - and in leadership though ALL the church claims to servce God - STILL tradition is coming from the HUMANS!!

This does not make all tradition wrong. But it certainly points to the fact that tradition IS KNOWN to be in conflict with scripture!!

EVEN within the ONE TRUE church started by God!

As already pointed out - this does not condemn "ALL TRADITION" but it points to the need to VALIDATE Tradition JUST as Christ did in Mark 7 - against the Word of God!! And when Tradition conflicts with that word - reject it! Condemn it! Declare it to be error!

Easy.

Simple.

Obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

In Gal 1 Paul CONDEMNS the tradition of Apostles and EVEN of ANGELS from HEAVEN - shoud it CONFLICT with the teaching of God's Word!

"If WE (Apostles) or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should come to you teaching a different Gospel LET HIM BE ACCURSED"!! Gal 1.

What a great slam dunk against the error that IF you get connected to the right denomination - you can swallow whatever you are told without checking it out against the Word!!

As if Mark 7 was not enough!

As if Acts 17:11 were not ENOUGH!!

In Christ,

Bob

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Marcia:
[When Paul said this in 2 Thess. 2.15, the canon of scripture was not complete. He wrote this around AD 51 or 52, before many other of his writings for the NT had yet been done. But where in Scripture does Paul say: "Only keep the oral stuff until the canon is closed, then just go by what's written?" Where in fact, in Scripture is there any talk of a written New Testament "canon" at all, let alone one that was eventually going to be "closed"? Yeah, Peter rightfully classifies some of Paul's epistles as "scripture", but that's about it. In fact Paul expects Timothy to commit to others (who will in turn commit to others) what he heard from Paul (2 Tim 2:2) without the caveat
of when the "canon is closed" to only keep what he wrote.
Other teachings, oral at that time, were later were put into writing.But where in Scripture does it say that all oral teachings Paul (or any of the other apostles--many of whom left no writings) gave would ultimately be committed to writing?

Don't you think God could get his all his word he wants us to have in writing?I suppose He could do whatever He wants...even "speak" through the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Why would he give oral teachings in addition to his word to be passed down outside of the canon?Why not? The assumption behind your question is that Chrisianity can somehow be reduced to a written instruction manual. The early Christians saw it, however, as life in Christ. (Keep in mind that the first list of the NT "canon" that exactly matched the 27 books we use today was written in AD 367 by Athanasius. All lists before that left multiple books out--and at times included some we no longer have in the "canon"--except for the Council of Laodicea in 354 which only left out Revelation. So for over 300 years after Pentecost there was no finalized "closed canon" of which to speak.)
Especially when God himself said scripture is sufficient for what we need as believers.Where in Scripture does have God saying that Scripture is "sufficient"?

[Eric B]

This oral tradition is not "hypothesized". It's really something that Paul commands the Christians to keep. It's by the Holy Spirit guidance in the Church that the Church can get both right. What I meant by "hypothesized" was the assumption of what some of these traditions were; that it was anything that cannot be found in scripture, such as candles and icons.
What...are you telling me that Jews used Apostolic tradition to reject Jesus??? The Apostolic Tradition, of course, since it has the authority of Christ Himself and the promise of that Spirit would guide them into all truth. The Pharisee's tradition had neither.
No; it was Mosaic tradition. That would be equally as God-given as any apostolic tradition, and since the Mosaic came first, that would be what any later revelation would be judged by. If the later would be found to contradict their interpretation of the former they naturally would reject it. Remember, not only is scripture subject to man's interpretation; but so is even these "traditions". That's why, once again, if man cannot get the written word right, it will be so much worse with some nebulous nonwritten word.
True..they would. (Of course, in their case they would be mistaken about the origin of their tradition.) And likewise, the RCC/EOC can be mistaken about the origin of theirs.
(And rightfully so--these modern day interpretive traditions, listed above, have led to increasing schisms and contradictions within Christendom.) And it was your Church's traditions that started it. You were able to hold it off with the stranglehold the Church ad for centuries; but the advent of printing killed that for you.
Umm...how about by rising from the dead after three days and ascending into heaven? The Apostles were witnesses to this fact and were commisioned by Christ to spread His gospel in the power of the Spirit. And Moses had his miracles to verify him. Once again, this "tradition" would be authoritative over any later one.
Exactly, and because Christ breathed His Spirit on them--the same Spirit that resides in the Church and guides her into all truth.
If they maintained the apostolic faith they did.
Hear Paul to Timothy:
"And these things which you heard from me among many faithful witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2) Yes, the apostles are indeed the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), but the church that is built on the apostles continues to be the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the fullness of Christ who fills all in all (Eph 1:23).
Unless you deny that the church ever fell into any error, it is obvious that it was quite possible for the church to not follow the Spirit into all truth, and mantain this apostolic faith (see Jude 3,4)
Notice Paul didn't put a time limit on this. He didn't say "these things which you heard from me commit to faithful witnesses, but tell them that once all of us apostles are dead and the canon is closed, just go by what is written, not what you may have committed to them (from me) orally." But where in Scripture does Paul say: "Only keep the oral stuff until the canon is closed, then just go by what's written?" Where in fact, in Scripture is there any talk of a written New Testament "canon" at all, let alone one that was eventually going to be "closed"? But where in Scripture does it say that all oral teachings Paul (or any of the other apostles--many of whom left no writings) gave would ultimately be committed to writing?
Why wouldn't they be? What would detemine what would be included in writing, and what would be left out? A secret code or something? This is based on a continued assumption that these "oral traditions" were a totally DIFFERENT and SEPARATE set of teachings! 1 Cor.11 gives us an example of these teachings. He mentions the oral instruction they received, and then goes on to expound it.
I do suggest that where there is patristic consensus--areas where there was no controversy and where they was substantial agreement over time and space--we ought to seriously consider what they said, especially if our modern day novel interpretations may conflict with theirs. With the exception of John (who was in exile), they wer still nearly century after most of the apostles. A Lot had changed and spread out in that time. Some of the teachings that mark later RCC/EOC cannot readily be found (Fromt he earliest father I have read; I do not see icons and candles). Some are undoubetly misunderstood, just like the scriptures. Like Ignatius' "confess not the bread and wine to be the body and blood". That is ambiguous at best. It could go either way" literal or metaphorical. But of course, fo someone trying to project their practice back to the NT, they are giong to snatch this up as a definite "proof" of their view as we know it today.
So was it a really a "heresy" (false doctrine) or was it a controversy regarding church praxis and discipline (when to specifically observe the anniversary of Christ's resurrection)? At any rate, regardless of its origin, those who observed Pascha on Sunday--those in Rome, Gaul, Egypt, Palestine, etc--constituted the majority, tracing this custom to Peter and Paul. Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) and Anicetus (bishop of Rome) actually agreed to live and let live on the issue. Later, Irenaus (himself a disciple of Polycarp, yet who kept Pashca on Sunday) rebuked Victor (bishop of Rome) for basically speaking too rashly against the churches in Asia minor. With time, however, the common practice was to observe Pascha on the day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead. In summary, this was a question of discipline and praxis, not theological doctrine or dogma. But it's all related. The Rcc/EOC tries to say that ALL of their practices were the "apostolic tradition", yet we see here, that at least some of the spostles did not keep it on Sunday. Yet, because several regions (including Rome and Egypt, usually the primary sources of such changes in the Church) which gained some power, and were able to outnumber others, we see their practice become "universal" in just a century or so. The opposition was relatively small, basically just a footnote in history (that I know about only from studying SDA and other sabbatarian literature), and could easily have been lost. Then, we would have another practice that was "apostolic tradition" and "unanimous among pratristic tradition", and "without controversy". And who could disprove it? This is a prime example of what I have been saying. "Discipline and praxis" vs. "theological doctrine or dogma"? It all changes the same way. And stuff like candles, vestments and icons certainly would fall into the former category. On the other hand, it could be claimed, and has been claimed by the Church often, that the raxis of honoring the day of the week Christ rose is as important as the other liturgies. After all, this was what the Eucharist was about!

[Taufgesinnter]

quote:
True..they would. (Of course, in their case they would be mistaken about the origin of their tradition.) And likewise, the RCC/EOC can be mistaken about the origin of theirs.Lumping Catholics and Orthodox together--keeping in mind, again, that the Orthodox recognize that Catholics and Protestants have more in common with one another than either group does with Orthodoxy--as "RCC/EOC" is like lumping Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists together, since both shared origins for awhile before one veered off sharply from the other.

quote:
(And rightfully so--these modern day interpretive traditions, listed above, have led to increasing schisms and contradictions within Christendom.)
And it was your Church's traditions that started it. You were able to hold it off with the stranglehold the Church ad for centuries; but the advent of printing killed that for you.Whose Church again is meant by "your Church's traditions"? Because the advent of printing did nothing bad for Orthodoxy. It did break the hold Catholicism had on Western Europe, but the Church that this thread is about suffered no particular ill effects that I know of from Gutenberg's genius. Orthodoxy never had a Reformation, and never needed one, never having developed a pope who acted as supreme ruler, nor an Augustinian view of original sin that led to a doctrine of purgatory, and to a teaching of works of supererogation deposited in a treasury of merit leading to indulgences to obtain release from purgatory, nor the withholding the cup of the Eucharist from the laity, nor mandatory priestly celibacy, and it maintained its liturgies and Scripture readings in the language of the people wherever it went.

Rather than inventing or decreeing a plethora of teachings, dogmas, and doctrines during the late Middle Ages as Catholicism did necessitating a Reformation, Orthodoxy was the same before 1054 in those areas as it was after 1054, and is not appreciably different today than it was in 1054. The RCC, OTOH, has had Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and so on, even just since the Reformation, besides all the additions and accretions in the five centuries between then and the Great Schism.

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

You asked Marcia,

"Where in Scripture does have God saying that Scripture is "sufficient"?"If Marcia is who I think she is, she has a ministry far beyond mine and can answer more fully, but here is just the "tip" of the proverbial "iceberg"...

"All scripture is given by inspirtation of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If the scriptures were not completly sufficient, God would not say they make us complete and thoroughly equipped, because it would make God a liar. He would have to say that they make us "partially complete" and "partially equipped".

Let the "scripture twisting" now begin...

Sadly.

Mike

[mioque]

Bob&Tauf
Greatly surprised by both your answers, untill I found the following.

PEWS: As someone once said, “the very word itself has an unpleasing ring to it.” In the opinion of many, they are the bane of Orthodox ritual in this country. Pews regimentalize and restrict the Orthodox Christian's expressions of piety; they physically alienate/isolate individuals from each other (parents from children, the “back-pew-ers” from the “front-pewers”); they allow for “reserved seating” which is passed on from generation to generation (woe-betide the new member of a parish who sits in the “chair of doom”!)’ Anyway, the short of it is, they should not be in an Orthodox church – something clearly stated in both the first and sixth Ecumenical Councils and in the Apostolic Constitutions. The Orthodox Church ritual allows for movement of expression, not only of the clergy but of the laity: the lighting of candles, the gathering around the priest during the sermon, the veneration of icons and yes, the sitting down of the elderly, the infirm and the little ones in chairs placed around the edges and back of the church. Pews are a “westernization” that has infiltrated many Orthodox churches in this country; they are rarely seen in the countries of origin of many of these parishes.
http://www.uocofusa.org/reflections/questions/seek_pews.shtml

I have visited a handful of Eastern-and Oriental-Orthodox services in my life, never saw a single chair or pew there.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
]What I meant by "hypothesized" was the assumption of what some of these traditions were; that it was anything that cannot be found in scripture, such as candles and icons. You mean things like pews, organs, pianos, and stained glassed windows as well? (Have you never attended a candlelight Christmas eve service?)

And it was your Church's traditions that started it. You were able to hold it off with the stranglehold the Church ad for centuries; but the advent of printing killed that for you.So now we have the proliferation of competing and contradictory traditions. Yeah, that's a big improvement.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Umm...how about by rising from the dead after three days and ascending into heaven? The Apostles were witnesses to this fact and were commisioned by Christ to spread His gospel in the power of the Spirit. And Moses had his miracles to verify him. Once again, this "tradition" would be authoritative over any later one. </font>[/QUOTE]You're honestly going to compare the miracles of the Old Covenant with Christ rising from the dead, fulfilling the Old Covenant, and sending His Spirit whom He promised to the Apostles to guide them into all truth?

Unless you deny that the church ever fell into any error, it is obvious that it was quite possible for the church to not follow the Spirit into all truth, and mantain this apostolic faith (see Jude 3,4)Actually, I do deny that the entire visible Church fell into error.
]Why wouldn't they be? What would detemine what would be included in writing, and what would be left out? A secret code or something? What would be included would be whatever Paul felt (under the Spirit's guidance) needed to be addressed to the particular communities he to which he was writing. You're still going on the assumption that Paul's epistles (and the New Testament in general) were meant to function as an exhaustive catechism, church manual, or systemtic theology book. You seem to be reducing Christianity to a written instruction manual rather than a life to be lived. Remember the churches were functioning without any written NT writing for several decades, and the limits of the NT canon weren't even "finalized" until the end of the 4th century.

Fromt he earliest father I have read; I do not see icons and candlesI don't see pews, pianos, or stained glass windows either. (However primitive icons have actually been discovered on the catacomb walls and in some synagogues. I guess the fact that these weren't yet specificallly mentioned was that there was no apparent problem with them)
Some are undoubetly misunderstood, just like the scriptures. Like Ignatius' "confess not the bread and wine to be the body and blood". That is ambiguous at best. It could go either way" literal or metaphorical.It's only ambiguous for those who desparately don't want to admit the belief in the real presence from the beginning. :cool:
But of course, fo someone trying to project their practice back to the NT, they are giong to snatch this up as a definite "proof" of their view as we know it today.And those who deny the real presence, will with futility claim "ambiguity". All the Protestant church historians I read can admit this was no mere symbolic language--either here in Ignatius or in the other fathers.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Taufgesinnter:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Eric B: And it was your Church's traditions that started it. You were able to hold it off with the stranglehold the Church ad for centuries; but the advent of printing killed that for you.Whose Church again is meant by "your Church's traditions"? Because the advent of printing did nothing bad for Orthodoxy. It did break the hold Catholicism had on Western Europe, but the Church that this thread is about suffered no particular ill effects that I know of from Gutenberg's genius. Orthodoxy never had a Reformation, and never needed one, never having developed a pope who acted as supreme ruler, nor an Augustinian view of original sin that led to a doctrine of purgatory, and to a teaching of works of supererogation deposited in a treasury of merit leading to indulgences to obtain release from purgatory, nor the withholding the cup of the Eucharist from the laity, nor mandatory priestly celibacy, and it maintained its liturgies and Scripture readings in the language of the people wherever it went.

Rather than inventing or decreeing a plethora of teachings, dogmas, and doctrines during the late Middle Ages as Catholicism did necessitating a Reformation, Orthodoxy was the same before 1054 in those areas as it was after 1054, and is not appreciably different today than it was in 1054. The RCC, OTOH, has had Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and so on, even just since the Reformation, besides all the additions and accretions in the five centuries between then and the Great Schism. </font>[/QUOTE]Tauf,
Excellent post! graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Doubting Thomas]

But it's all related. The Rcc/EOC tries to say that ALL of their practices were the "apostolic tradition", yet we see here, that at least some of the spostles did not keep it on Sunday.But it was never about what just one apostle may have said or did (or was claimed to have said or did). It is the agreement of the apostolic body as a whole. Some early leaders in the church thought circumcision was necessary, but the apostles and elders as a whole determined otherwise. Similarly the church thought it good to come to a universal agreement about when to annually celebrate Paschal. With time they reached such an agreement.

However, I don't see why this is big deal since it took even longer for the church to come to a consensus on what the limits of the New Testament "canon" were. Before AD 367 there was no list that had exactly the same 27 books that we have today. We can thank the Church's Tradition--the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the Church--for the finally agreed upon 27 book NT that we have today.

[Doubting Thomas]

ERIC B:
Like Ignatius' "confess not the bread and wine to be the body and blood". That is ambiguous at best. It could go either way" literal or metaphorical.From JND Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (pp.197-198):

"Ignatius roundly declares [Smyn.6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised.' The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom.7,3]. Clearly he intends for this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis [Smyrn. 6f] of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. Because the eucharist brings Christians into union with their Lord, it is the great bond between them [Eph 13,1; Philad 4]. and since it mediates communion with Christ, it is the medicine of immortality, and antidote against death which enables us to live with the Lord forever [Eph 20:2]." (bolding is mine)

So apparently this eminent church historian (and he is just one example among many others) doesn't see this alleged "ambiguity" that you describe. Kelly is quite confident that Ignatius meant this to be taken realistically, not "metaphorically". It would seem, based on the plain statements of Ignatius, that this "ambiguity" is only in your imagination.

I'll throw another in for good measure, this time from noted Yale church historian, Jaroslav Pelikan in THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION, a book he wrote while still Protestant:

"Yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of His presence in the church. In some early Christian writers that presuppostion was expressed in strikingly realistic language. Ignatius called the the Eucharist 'the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,' asserting the reality of the Christ's presence in the Eucharist against the docetists, who regarded his flesh as a phantom both in the incarnation and in the Eucharist." (p.168)
(again, emphasis mine)

Hmm...."strikingly realistic language"...no "ambiguity" here either.

Notice he said this was presupposed by the early Christians to be a "special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of His presence in the Church". This illustrates the Orthodox view beautifully (again see Fr. Schmemann's FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD)

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
complete[/b] and thoroughly equipped, because it would make God a liar. He would have to say that they make us "partially complete" and "partially equipped".

And yet nowhere in Scripture does it say that is is "sufficient".

However, I actually believe that Scripture is materially sufficient, just not formally sufficient. In other words, Scripture has all the "stuff" necessary for doctrine to be derived (whether implicitly or explicitly) but without the guidance of the Apostolic Tradition and Rule of faith, the "stuff" can be miscontrued and distorted to say anything, even given meanings opposite of what was ultimately intended.

For instance, it took the revelation of Christ and the preaching of the apostles to not only give the true interpretation of the Old Testament but also the specific details of the New Covenant. Those who refused to acknowledge the apostles as Christ's ministers of the New Covenant remained blind to the true meaning of the Old and to the fact of the arrival of the New.

Also, in the early fifth century, not too long after the NT canon was "finalized", we have these statements from Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory, showing how the material sufficiency of Scripture is not enough to ensure sound doctrine:


"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; [i]so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

Just substitute: "Bapist...Lutheran...Methodist...Calvinist....Pente costal...Adventist...Unitarian...Jehovah's witness...Campellite...Oneness..." for "Novatian...(through)....Nestorian" and one can see just how applicable his point is still today.

[BobRyan]

2 Tim 3
14 You, however, continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them,
15 and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
17 so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work
The scripture "ARE ABLE" and they result in the man of God "BEING ADQEQUATE" and indeed "SUFFICIENTLY" equipped for every good work!

A key point to deny if one wants to escape the accountability of scripture in exaulting the man made traditions of the Orthodox and Catholic faiths.

Wouldn't it be better to leave the practices of the dark ages and embrace the text of scripture instead?

In Christ,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by mioque:
I have visited a handful of Eastern-and Oriental-Orthodox services in my life, never saw a single chair or pew there. I have not seen Pews - but they had folding chairs and an open section in the center.

I have to admit that if I had to stand through that entire service it would have been even more of an "endurance" proposition than it was.

I was very happy to see how that group worshipped and it was impressive that their entire 50 minute responsive reading section was so often repeated that everyone knew it by wrote.

I just prefer to have my mind more engaged in the service with a variety of songs, scripture, message, etc I tend not to think of worship attendance/participation as something to be "endured" or "achieved".

But that is just me.

In Chrit,

Bob

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
In Gal 1 Paul CONDEMNS the tradition of Apostles and EVEN of ANGELS from HEAVEN - shoud it CONFLICT with the teaching of God's Word!

"If WE (Apostles) or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should come to you teaching a different Gospel LET HIM BE ACCURSED"!! Gal 1.

What a great slam dunk against the error that IF you get connected to the right denomination - you can swallow whatever you are told without checking it out against the Word!!

As if Mark 7 was not enough!

As if Acts 17:11 were not ENOUGH!!

In this argument above it appears that these scriptures ALONE are "sufficient" to debunk the "swallow tradition if the one giving it claims to be an Apostles of some flavor".

Why are the denomintations steeped in "tradition" so adverse to these texts?

In Christ,

Bob

[mioque]

BobRyan
In Coptic Christianity it is not considered unusual to take crutches and walkingsticks to church to ease the burden of having to stand through the whole thing.

[Marcia]

Doubting Thomas, all your arguments are arguments in your last post to me are from silence. The passage that states scripture is sufficient for the man of God was posted by another poster -- 2 Tim. 3.16, 17.

To believe that there are teachings outside the Bible that have equal validity to the Bible, or even are superior, is to believe that God left out stuff in his word he wants us to know. Why give us a canon of scripture that is incomplete? This seems to go against God's character, imo.

Extrabiblical teachings lead lead to belief in things like the assumption of Mary into heaven.

[D28guy]

Doubting Thomas,

You asked for a scripture that makes clear that the scriptures are "sufficient"

I picked one of the multitudes, posted it, and commented thusly...

"All scripture is given by inspirtation of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If the scriptures were not completly sufficient, God would not say they make us complete and thoroughly equipped, because it would make God a liar. He would have to say that they make us "partially complete" and "partially equipped".Which you quoted and then said...

"And yet nowhere in Scripture does it say that is is "sufficient"."Unbelievable.

Its responses of precisely that nature, that are so stunningly ridiculous, that causes so many of us who understand the truth regarding these matters to wonder whether some type of brainwashing is actually taking place in the highly liturgical, extra-biblical, tradition encrusted and idolatry laden groups such as the Catholic Church.(and others like it)

It just boggles the mind.

Its such an exceedingly sad thing to watch this taking place in what I am assuming is an otherwise very good mind.

Very sadly,

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Marcia:
[QB] Doubting Thomas, all your arguments are arguments in your last post to me are from silence. The passage that states scripture is sufficient for the man of God was posted by another poster -- 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. Nowhere in those verses does it say that Scripture is "sufficient". "Profitable"?, yes. "Sufficient"?, silence.
(Also if you note in my last post, I'm perfectly happy to admit a material sufficiency of scripture, not the formal sufficiency for reasons I already outlined. See especially the comments of Vincent of Lerins.)

Why give us a canon of scripture that is incomplete? This seems to go against God's character, imo.The canon of scripture is not "incomplete". It is what it is. The impetus to even form, or delineated, a NT "canon" was in response to heretics like Marcion, who wanted to excise much of it (leaving only edited versions of Luke and the Pauline epistles), or others who wanted to justify their gnostic teachings in spurious writings ("gospels", "acts", and "epistles") falsely attributed to real apostles. Thus the canon as finalized contained the authentic apostolic writings--nothing more (spurious gospels/acts), nothing less (Marcion's truncated "canon"). This finalization of the canon did nothing to obviate the need for interpreting the canonical Scriptures with the equally canonical Apostolic rule of faith in the living, worshipping context of the Apostolic Church.

Extrabiblical teachings lead lead to belief in things like the assumption of Mary into heaven. Or give us an idea of what happened to the apostles in history that wasn't recorded in the book of Acts. (Such historical happenings are thus, technically, "extrabiblical"). Or how early Christians in fact worshipped when such wasn't always specifically spelled out in the epistles (though hinted at) because these were not exhaustive church manuals. Just because such wasn't exhaustively recorded in Scripture doesn't make such any less historical and true. To deny this is to not only deny the historical nature of Christianity and the Church, but is also to deny the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The NT wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written the context of already existing and worshipping Churches and was to be interpreted within this context. This context, as well the canonical sciptures and the authentic apostolic interpretation thereof, is the tradition of the Apostles.

[Eric B]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Eric B:
]What I meant by "hypothesized" was the assumption of what some of these traditions were; that it was anything that cannot be found in scripture, such as candles and icons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You mean things like pews, organs, pianos, and stained glassed windows as well? (Have you never attended a candlelight Christmas eve service?)
Nobody's arguing that these things are "apostolic tradition" equal with the written Word.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And it was your Church's traditions that started it. You were able to hold it off with the stranglehold the Church ad for centuries; but the advent of printing killed that for you.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now we have the proliferation of competing and contradictory traditions. Yeah, that's a big improvement.Yeah, an unfortunate side effect, but I'd rather have the freedom we have now, then be back 1000 years ago, when the Church would burn people at the stake for saying that the earth was round or not in the center of the earth, and all the other abuses common!
(Tauf; I will get to your objections next).

You're honestly going to compare the miracles of the Old Covenant with Christ rising from the dead, fulfilling the Old Covenant, and sending His Spirit whom He promised to the Apostles to guide them into all truth?
No I wouldn't. But then I do not follow "Mosaic oral tradition" either. But to a Jew, who places that on an equal level with the written word; it doesn't matter what miracles one performs. (People in demonic religions could perform miracles too). But this should show you how dangerous claims of "oral tradition" can be. It blinds you to the truth.
Actually, I do deny that the entire visible Church fell into error. Then with all your talk of our schism, you have to explain the rift between the East and West. Are you saying that only the East is the church? And also, there iare differing perceptions of what a "church" is. You, as well as many others are focused on an ORGANIZATION; and since we have so many organizations, we are so "divided". What you are calling the "visible church" is what we call the "invisible" church, which you also criticize. The "entire Church" is a visible body of individuals and an invisible organization. That's how we break it down. All the individuals and little organizations may not agree on everything, but on the essentials of Christ and His death, resurrection and salvation, they basically agree. All that other stuff you mention, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism, etc. are not as essential as you think, though they seem like it, and some act like they are. Because there is such disagreement on it, most "agree to disagree". And your Church takes sides on it as well. (hyper-Arminianism going into Pelagianism, for example, with the Church gradually changing positions from an Augustinian influence), so you are apart of the game, and cannot sit back and look at us and all our dissension. We cannot control people's minds and beliefs, so trying to have an all powerful organization or magesterium dictate what is truth is no soulution, when they are just as much apart of the problem.
What would be included would be whatever Paul felt (under the Spirit's guidance) needed to be addressed to the particular communities he to which he was writing. You're still going on the assumption that Paul's epistles (and the New Testament in general) were meant to function as an exhaustive catechism, church manual, or systemtic theology book. You seem to be reducing Christianity to a written instruction manual rather than a life to be lived. Remember the churches were functioning without any written NT writing for several decades, and the limits of the NT canon weren't even "finalized" until the end of the 4th century. But issues like those kinds of liturgy would definitely develop problems, mispractice, etc., and would come up in the epistles. The way you're making it sound, is if these were some secret practices that were deliberately left out and committed to oral transmission exclusively, (as if to hide). Basically, you can speculate on these practices, and who can prove or disprove any of it? IT looks to me like just a way to pass off any unbiblical teaching without scriptural authority; just like the Jews and their Mosaic traditions with all of its additions to the Law.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fromt he earliest father I have read; I do not see icons and candles
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't see pews, pianos, or stained glass windows either. (However primitive icons have actually been discovered on the catacomb walls and in some synagogues. I guess the fact that these weren't yet specificallly mentioned was that there was no apparent problem with them)
That doesn't say who or even exactly when this was from. In synagoges even? Any image was strictly forbidden by the Jews, so these were obviously paganized groups who had compromised. (There were various groups of both Jews and Christians and even hybrids of both, who had all sorts of beliefs and practices. This monolithic "Tradition" is not as solid and free from schism as you think!) There is no proof such things were ever authorized either orally or written by the spostles.
It's only ambiguous for those who desparately don't want to admit the belief in the real presence from the beginning.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course, fo someone trying to project their practice back to the NT, they are giong to snatch this up as a definite "proof" of their view as we know it today.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And those who deny the real presence, will with futility claim "ambiguity". All the Protestant church historians I read can admit this was no mere symbolic language--either here in Ignatius or in the other fathers.

From JND Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (pp.197-198):

"Ignatius roundly declares [Smyn.6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised.' The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom.7,3]. Clearly he intends for this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis [Smyrn. 6f] of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. Because the eucharist brings Christians into union with their Lord, it is the great bond between them [Eph 13,1; Philad 4]. and since it mediates communion with Christ, it is the medicine of immortality, and antidote against death which enables us to live with the Lord forever [Eph 20:2]." (bolding is mine)

So apparently this eminent church historian (and he is just one example among many others) doesn't see this alleged "ambiguity" that you describe. Kelly is quite confident that Ignatius meant this to be taken realistically, not "metaphorically". It would seem, based on the plain statements of Ignatius, that this "ambiguity" is only in your imagination.

I'll throw another in for good measure, this time from noted Yale church historian, Jaroslav Pelikan in THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION, a book he wrote while still Protestant:

"Yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of His presence in the church. In some early Christian writers that presuppostion was expressed in strikingly realistic language. Ignatius called the the Eucharist 'the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,' asserting the reality of the Christ's presence in the Eucharist against the docetists, who regarded his flesh as a phantom both in the incarnation and in the Eucharist." (p.168)
(again, emphasis mine)

Hmm...."strikingly realistic language"...no "ambiguity" here either.

Notice he said this was presupposed by the early Christians to be a "special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of His presence in the Church". This illustrates the Orthodox view beautifully (again see Fr. Schmemann's FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD) So later people; including some Proestants, agreed with this interpretation. Now; I have to bring up one of DHK's old type points: Is Jesus literall a lamb or a tree with branches? Are we as the Church literally a woman?
People basically made up some new type of "spiritual presence" even though the only spiritual presence shown in scripture is the Holy Spirit that indwells us, especially "whenever two or three are gathered in My name". THAT is what the "spiritual presence" of Comunion is! But the Church of the post-apostolic era had to go amd make a new idol out of material substance, as it did in many other areas. I'm surprised they didn't make those other things lteral as well and chuck it all up to some "spiritual mystery".
But it was never about what just one apostle may have said or did (or was claimed to have said or did). It is the agreement of the apostolic body as a whole. Some early leaders in the church thought circumcision was necessary, but the apostles and elders as a whole determined otherwise. Similarly the church thought it good to come to a universal agreement about when to annually celebrate Paschal. With time they reached such an agreement. So you assume because some early fathers said things people interpret as real presence and baptismal regeneration that ALl of the early Christians, and therefore all of the apostles agreed on these things. We see in the issue of quartodecimanism, that a majority believed in Sunday, but there were some, closely connected to the last surviving apostle who kept the Hebrew practice. (And actually, the link of Polycarp to John is much stronger than the link of Rome and other places to Peter and Paul, because that was only a claim, or basically a legend, after those apostles hed been dead for decades already.)
So you admit that was just some thing only one apostle did, and not an "apostolic tradition", and that it was the later Church that determined what the "true" practice was, in contradiction to what at least one apostle did. But once again, if the small body of evidence for quartodecimanism had been lost or even overlooked, you would be saying that Easter Sunday was another one of those "universal" practices "agreed by the apostolic body as a whole". But this should should show you how practices did change, no matter how close to the apostles they were.
However, I don't see why this is big deal since it took even longer for the church to come to a consensus on what the limits of the New Testament "canon" were. Before AD 367 there was no list that had exactly the same 27 books that we have today. We can thank the Church's Tradition--the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the Church--for the finally agreed upon 27 book NT that we have today. I believe the Spirit gave a special leading in the Church for determining the canon. (over the centuries; not saying that the Spirit directly directed the councils). That does not mean the entire Church always completely followed the Spirit in all areas. Else, then how could there be all the schoisms today? The Spirit guided the church until 1054, or the 1500's, and then stepped back and let everyone do as they pleased. Or do we just blame the almighty Enlightenment (just as the Fundamentalists and many of the other "schisms" you criticize do!), which apparently overpowered the Holy Spirit after all those centuries and allowed the one church to lose its sole power?
No, mean always went about their own way, and where one body tried to control everone (but still had errors of its own; some grievous ones at that), it got to the point where the world got tired of that and opted for religious freedom instead. So everyine then could indulge in whatever they thought was the truth, and form an organization around it. And here we are today. Still does not mean the former way was right.
Also, in the early fifth century, not too long after the NT canon was "finalized", we have these statements from Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory, showing how the material sufficiency of Scripture is not enough to ensure sound doctrine:


"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

Just substitute: "Bapist...Lutheran...Methodist...Calvinist....Pente costal...Adventist...Unitarian...Jehovah's witness...Campellite...Oneness..." for "Novatian...(through)....Nestorian" and one can see just how applicable his point is still today. But you forget that if all these other groups are wrong, then you are just taking one group and exalting it over the others because of seniority: it is the oldest organization But it is just as human as all the others, and just as prone to misinterpreting not only the written word, but even its "oral tradition". Once again, if a written word is so easy to misinterpret, then how much more will somehting that is not even written? In fact, in light of the doctrines such as baptism and Communion; we see that these "oral traditions" are nothing more than just more interpretation of that some written word everyone else supposedly gets wrong.
No matter what you say, it all comes down to which body of fallen men you will choose to trust in. The only things yours has over the others is that it was older.

[SouthernBoy]

Eric B,

So you assume because some early fathers said things people interpret as real presence and baptismal regeneration that ALl of the early Christians, and therefore all of the apostles agreed on these things. A better question is name ONE person who did NOT agree with them? Just ONE would be fine.

[Eric B]

Lumping Catholics and Orthodox together--keeping in mind, again, that the Orthodox recognize that Catholics and Protestants have more in common with one another than either group does with Orthodoxy--as "RCC/EOC" is like lumping Baptists and Seventh-Day Adventists together, since both shared origins for awhile before one veered off sharply from the other.

Whose Church again is meant by "your Church's traditions"? Because the advent of printing did nothing bad for Orthodoxy. It did break the hold Catholicism had on Western Europe, but the Church that this thread is about suffered no particular ill effects that I know of from Gutenberg's genius. Orthodoxy never had a Reformation, and never needed one, never having developed a pope who acted as supreme ruler, nor an Augustinian view of original sin that led to a doctrine of purgatory, and to a teaching of works of supererogation deposited in a treasury of merit leading to indulgences to obtain release from purgatory, nor the withholding the cup of the Eucharist from the laity, nor mandatory priestly celibacy, and it maintained its liturgies and Scripture readings in the language of the people wherever it went.

Rather than inventing or decreeing a plethora of teachings, dogmas, and doctrines during the late Middle Ages as Catholicism did necessitating a Reformation, Orthodoxy was the same before 1054 in those areas as it was after 1054, and is not appreciably different today than it was in 1054. The RCC, OTOH, has had Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and so on, even just since the Reformation, besides all the additions and accretions in the five centuries between then and the Great Schism.
Orthodoxy was not as bad as Roman Catholicism, plus did not hold the power it had; so it was spared all the accretions and stuff and the dissension that the RCC faced. It still agreed with many of the RCC's positions, and particularly the chief oned being discussed here. You all keep talking about "one true Church", but the RCC makes the same claim, based ont he same claim of "apostolic tradition" over the same doctrines/practices, and also for the ones that you disagree with them over (which they can lump you in with "all the factions and divisions" like Protestantism that stem from rejecting tradition). And you all do lump Baptists and SDA's into the same pot together with every other "Protestant" group, as a bunch of rationalistic schismatics who refuse to submit to the "true Church"! After all, aren't these discussions basically "Protestantism vs. Catholicity"?

[Eric B]

A better question is name ONE person who did NOT agree with them? Just ONE would be fine. How about someone who didn't mention them? I would have to go look through all of them, but I'm sure some did not go into these things (unless their writings were the so-called "instruction manuals" on liturgy and other details that the NT were not supposed to be).
We cannot just jump what some others said over to them, and then assume this "universal consensus".

[Marcia]

Posted by Doubting Thomas
Or give us an idea of what happened to the apostles in history that wasn't recorded in the book of Acts. (Such historical happenings are thus, technically, "extrabiblical"). Or how early Christians in fact worshipped when such wasn't always specifically spelled out in the epistles (though hinted at) because these were not exhaustive church manuals. Just because such wasn't exhaustively recorded in Scripture doesn't make such any less historical and true. I am not exactly sure what you are saying here, but you seem to be saying that things that happened outside recorded scripture are true, too. Yes, but being true does not put it on a par with scripture. God's word is way beyond just some recorded facts and instructions. God's word is alive (Heb. 4.12) and convicts us - it has the power of salvation in it.

Recorded acts of history or church worship, etc., outside of scripture can be useful and helpful, but those are not mandates nor can we be sure they are always the best things to model on or do because they are not given to us by God in his word.

To deny this is to not only deny the historical nature of Christianity and the Church, but is also to deny the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The NT wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written the context of already existing and worshipping Churches and was to be interpreted within this context. The NT was written in the context of the very early church that was still being planted. It was not developed yet but in embryo stage, and I suppose will continue to develop until Jesus comes back. I am not sure what your point with this is.

This context, as well the canonical sciptures and the authentic apostolic interpretation thereof, is the tradition of the Apostles.
What interpretation and by whom? Are you talking about interpretation of scripture after the completed canon? Where is the authority for that?

[chadman]

Hey, I met ArchBishop Dmitri years ago I think at St. Seraphim in Dallas. I went with a Russian friend. We went to lunch and everthing.

Look Bob, I am Baptist myself, and I'll tell you, the service was absolutely beautiful. What I saw was more Scripture reading and worship and symbolism than I have seen in any of the churches I attend in the Baptist world. Sounds like you had an attitude and missed the real worship they were having. Unless you are smug enough to think only those of your way of thinking can really 'comprehend' or have Jesus. Give it up bro, there will be more than us Baptists in heaven....really sorry to break the news to you, you heard it from me first.

Now regarding the differences between Orthodox and RCC, to a Baptist, not much difference, almost the same theology, same interpretations, same sotierology. The differences between the two such as the filioque and papal authority and the uses of icons are so minor to an Evangelical that we could hardly seperate the two or see how they are really different.

As far as becoming Orthodox, brother, just follow Jesus there and believe in your heart with all sincerity that it is Jesus you are following. You will find him there.

[Matt Black]

Tauf, which Patriarchate are you going to come under? Antioch?

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
[quote]Nobody's arguing that these things are "apostolic tradition" equal with the written Word. And yet you see no problem using them in worship. You seem to implicitly understand the NT was not meant to be an exhaustive church manual. The early church had no notion of this as well, especially given the fact that canon wasn't even finalized until the late 4th century. Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commanded that the traditions be kept, whether delivered orally or written. He didn't indicate that the oral was only to be kept until some sort of NT canon was to be formed (especially since Paul never even mentioned a NT canon.) Paul's assumption was that they could in fact keep the oral traditions as well as the written. Your assumption however is that they must have gotten off track right at the beginning since they don't agree with you.

What you are calling the "visible church" is what we call the "invisible" church, which you also criticize. The "entire Church" is a visible body of individuals and an invisible organization. That's how we break it down. All the individuals and little organizations may not agree on everything, but on the essentials of Christ and His death, resurrection and salvation, they basically agree.Yet this schmistatic group of denominations was foreign to the thought of the NT writers and the other early Christians. Also the assumption that everyone agrees on the "essentials" is not necessarily shared by those outside your denomination. Others would include things in the "essentials" that you call "nonessential", and there is no way to know whose "essentials" are the right ones (no more or less) without begging the question in favor of your own minimal list based on your particular doctrinal stance.

Basically, you can speculate on these practices, and who can prove or disprove any of it? IT looks to me like just a way to pass off any unbiblical teaching without scriptural authority; just like the Jews and their Mosaic traditions with all of its additions to the Law.The difference is the Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church into all truth. Just because you don't know what was part of the oral tradition (outside of what was also written down) doesn't mean the early church didn't know. Instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt when they substantially agree, and with no historical record of controversy in these areas, you prefer to theorize about gradually encroaching errors (since they disagree with you) and make the baseless charge of "paganism".


So later people; including some Proestants, agreed with this interpretation. Now; I have to bring up one of DHK's old type points: Is Jesus literall a lamb or a tree with branches? Are we as the Church literally a woman?But no one in the history of the church took these as literal observances. The Eucharist and belief about the Real Presence are there (without dispute except from docetists) from the beginning and was the central aspect of Christian worship.

People basically made up some new type of "spiritual presence" even though the only spiritual presence shown in scripture is the Holy Spirit that indwells us, especially "whenever two or three are gathered in My name". THAT is what the "spiritual presence" of Comunion is! But the Church of the post-apostolic era had to go amd make a new idol out of material substance, as it did in many other areas.But you're begging the question assuming they made it up (disagreeing with church historians by the way) and charging them with "idolatry" because they didn't share your Zwinglian views on the Eucharist. With no record of historical controversy (like there was over the various gnostic and other heretical errors), one can more easily charge Zwingli and his followers of making stuff up (1500 years later) about the Eucharist.

Regarding folks being gathered in Christ's name, the Arians gathered in Christ name? Were they part of the Church? The Mormons (more than two or three) are gathered "in Christ's name" today. Are they part of the church? If not, who are you to tell them otherwise based on the definition you just gave?

So you assume because some early fathers said things people interpret as real presence and baptismal regeneration that ALl of the early Christians, and therefore all of the apostles agreed on these things.Again without any historical record of controversy, and no dissenting voices (except among gnostics) on these two issues, then, yes, the historical answer was that this was what the church believed without dispute on these two areas. You go to great lengths pointing out the controversy surrounding the celebration of Pascha, and there is indeed historical evidence for this. Yet nowhere do we find orthodox christian writers condemning the real presence or the baptismal regeneration. On the contrary, all who mentioned baptism and the eucharist subscribed to these beliefs (or at least gave no hint of controversy as these two doctrines are stated very early).

I believe the Spirit gave a special leading in the Church for determining the canon. (over the centuries; not saying that the Spirit directly directed the councils). That does not mean the entire Church always completely followed the Spirit in all areas.So this is special pleading. Yet, the church didn't come to a consensus on the canon until the end of the 4th century, while there was no record of dispute regarding the real presence or baptismal regeneration during the whole time up that point. Yet you assume that Spirit could not have guided the church to this consistent agreement of these two doctrines, an agreement which predated by far the finalization of the NT canon.

Else, then how could there be all the schoisms today? The Spirit guided the church until 1054, or the 1500's, and then stepped back and let everyone do as they pleased.The Spirit's guidance did not prevent schismatics and heretics from breaking off from the Church during the first millenium of its history (of which there is historical record). Why do you suppose things changed during the second?

But you forget that if all these other groups are wrong, then you are just taking one group and exalting it over the others because of seniority: it is the oldest organization But it is just as human as all the others...You forget that just as Scriptures are of both divine and human authorship, so is the church that Christ founded a divine-human organism, "the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23) and not just a merely human "organization."

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Marcia:
God's word is way beyond just some recorded facts and instructions. God's word is alive (Heb. 4.12) and convicts us - it has the power of salvation in it.Yet you commit the fallacy of assuming that only what is written down qualifies as "God's word". Yet Paul commended the Thessalonians for receiving his oral preaching (which they "heard")as what it in fact was--the word of God (1 Thess 2:13). Christ Himself is the Word of God in the ultimate sense, yet not everything He ever said or did was written down as John attests (John 21:25).


The NT was written in the context of the very early church that was still being planted. It was not developed yet but in embryo stage, and I suppose will continue to develop until Jesus comes back. I am not sure what your point with this is.My point was that the various writings of the NT were never meant to be exhaustive church manuals or systematic catechisms but were written at various times for very specific purposed with a specific audience in mind.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This context, as well the canonical sciptures and the authentic apostolic interpretation thereof, is the tradition of the Apostles.
What interpretation and by whom? Are you talking about interpretation of scripture after the completed canon? Where is the authority for that? </font>[/QUOTE]In the church founded by Christ, the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Tim 3:15).

[mioque]

Eric B
"Orthodoxy was not as bad as Roman Catholicism"
"
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism at least share the same notion of Salvation and Original Sin even if they differ on the practical applications of Grace.
Eastern-Orthodoxy went a completely different direction on all of that.

You might want to reread the following.

"Eastern Orthodoxy's assertion that humanity's ultimate goal is theosis, or participation in the Divine life, has informed and shaped their doctrine of the Fall. Their understanding of original sin differs from that of Western theologians in that Adam and Eve are not responsible, through their sin, for universal guilt, but for universal mortality. Adam's personal sin did not bring condemnation upon all people, it brought death upon all people. The experience of mortality leads otherwise guiltless individuals to sinful acts [12], but the Orthodox maintain that each person's sin is the result of his or her own choice and not the choice of Adam [13].

Given this idea that humanity's basic problem is mortality, the Orthodox view of redemption is much broader than that of the Western church. Western theological tradition emphasizes the judicial aspect of salvation, asserting that in salvation, God is primarily concerned with the remission of sin [14]. The Orthodox view is that the gospel is not primarily the solution to man's problem with personal sin. It is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the beginning of theosis. A residual benefit of beginning the process of deification is the remission of sins. Baptism is the means by which the believer enters into this new life. John Meyendorff summarizes the idea of redemption in Eastern Orthodox theology well. He says,


Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life; sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates the humanity and restores it to its "natural" state, rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt--these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel [15]. "
http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/orthdox3.html



"plus did not hold the power it had"
"
Riiight....
Before Islam stomped on it. The Head of Eastern-Orthodoxy was the Byzantine emperor who was both the worldly and the religious leader of the empire.

[Eric B]

And yet you see no problem using them in worship. You seem to implicitly understand the NT was not meant to be an exhaustive church manual. The early church had no notion of this as well, especially given the fact that canon wasn't even finalized until the late 4th century. These things we have added do not distort the gospel or syncretize religion, as deep mystic ritual with icons and other things do. Of course, some aise issues like the Campbelliests with instruments, using the same logic as you regardng the early fathers. (showing that your line of argumentation is just as much apart of the game of sectarianism). To me, those things are non-essential, (I can take them or leave them, and I agree somewhat with the EOC's point on pews) and I don't accuse people who do not use them of not following the apostolic tradition.
Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commanded that the traditions be kept, whether delivered orally or written. He didn't indicate that the oral was only to be kept until some sort of NT canon was to be formed (especially since Paul never even mentioned a NT canon.) Paul's assumption was that they could in fact keep the oral traditions as well as the written. And you are still asuming that these "oral" traditions were a totally different set of teachings isolated from everything else.
Your assumption however is that they must have gotten off track right at the beginning since they don't agree with you. The NT warns us of error creeping in right as they wrote.
Yet this schmistatic group of denominations was foreign to the thought of the NT writers and the other early Christians. It's the concept of organizations and magisteriums that were foreigh to the scripture. Whether the Church sets up one of these institutions or a multitude of them is nto the point. The solution is not just to choose one over the others becase it is the oldest, or whatever.
Also the assumption that everyone agrees on the "essentials" is not necessarily shared by those outside your denomination. Others would include things in the "essentials" that you call "nonessential", and there is no way to know whose "essentials" are the right ones (no more or less) without begging the question in favor of your own minimal list based on your particular doctrinal stance. That's why I basically limited the criterion to "Christ and His death, resurrection and salvation". If other men want to rise up and make these other issues (which I criticize in my writings as "one-upmanship, anyway), then that's on them. (that's what started the problem int he first place. There is nothign I can do about them. Once again, joining your group that also adds its own list of other "essentials" will not help the situation.
The difference is the Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church into all truth. Just because you don't know what was part of the oral tradition (outside of what was also written down) doesn't mean the early church didn't know. Instead of giving them the benefit of the doubt when they substantially agree, and with no historical record of controversy in these areas, you prefer to theorize about gradually encroaching errors (since they disagree with you) and make the baseless charge of "paganism".
No, you're side is the one who starts speculating on the oral tradition, and projecting them back to the NT because you see some of your ideas were believed by some early fathers. (and even they could be misinterpreted) "give them the benefit of the doubt"? That is really giving you the benefit of the doubt. That is not how we build doctrine and practice. That is not what the Bereans did. They could see the apostles doctrine substatiated, even if they may not have seen it in a different light before. There was no speculation, but then, we'll just give then the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it. That's how people are tricked into error, not how they find truth.
And if you appeal to the Holy Spirit, then once again, there has to be some cuoff period where the Church was led into all truth, and then when it stopped and fractuured into all the denominations. Being that man were men all along, and most would not follow the Spirit's guidance, we cannot blame just the docetists or enlightenment, as if they were all powerful influences that quelched the Spirit. The Spirit is gentle and lets men go their way, and they would begin to fall away right away.
But no one in the history of the church took these as literal observances. The Eucharist and belief about the Real Presence are there (without dispute except from docetists) from the beginning and was the central aspect of Christian worship. No, those are later interpretations of both the NT and the early writings. And remember, the Jews mistook christ's words about His flesh and blood the same way, and were offended. So something like that was a deep truth that could easily be misunderstood by those not led by the Spirit. Still, I bring that up, because the rationale you are using would lead one to take those other things literally.
But you're begging the question assuming they made it up (disagreeing with church historians by the way) and charging them with "idolatry" because they didn't share your Zwinglian views on the Eucharist. With no record of historical controversy (like there was over the various gnostic and other heretical errors), one can more easily charge Zwingli and his followers of making stuff up (1500 years later) about the Eucharist. Once again; there is only one spiritual presence of Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit. What you are suggesting would necessitate a fourth person of the Godhead. (Just like the "parousia" of the preterists). Or you can try to say that the Holy Spirit inhabits bread and wine. But that is also foreign to the scriptures. The Holy Spirit inhabits US as we sit and partake of the elements.
Your final court of appeal is always what the church believed and saw no controversy with. But these still are just men, who believed other wrong things (Antisemitism was on the rise, and explains the rejection of the semiapostolic Passover Communion), and quashed things a majority (often centered in almighty Rome) disagreed with. Once again, minus the scant evidence we have for the quartodeciman debate, we would think that was no controversy as well.
Please pardon us if we do not want to place so much faith in men. Once again, you acknowledge men went astray, and on a wide scale, and it had to begin somwhere.
Regarding folks being gathered in Christ's name, the Arians gathered in Christ name? Were they part of the Church? The Mormons (more than two or three) are gathered "in Christ's name" today. Are they part of the church? If not, who are you to tell them otherwise based on the definition you just gave?
They change who Christ is. With all of the different doctrines of all of the different denominations, they stll share the ortodox concept of Christ. Groups like those are not considered "denominations", but cults. Are you accusing all of the denominations of worshipping a false Christ?
Again without any historical record of controversy, and no dissenting voices (except among gnostics) on these two issues, then, yes, the historical answer was that this was what the church believed without dispute on these two areas.That's the post-apostolic Church. We cannot project this back to the NT. Power bases were forming that quickly quashed and buried dispute. And once again, the doctrine was very prone to misunderstanding. You go to great lengths pointing out the controversy surrounding the celebration of Pascha, and there is indeed historical evidence for this. Yet nowhere do we find orthodox christian writers condemning the real presence or the baptismal regeneration. On the contrary, all who mentioned baptism and the eucharist subscribed to these beliefs (or at least gave no hint of controversy as these two doctrines are stated very early).
All those who mentioned it. Giving you your benefit of the doubt that this is not being misunderstood, you cannot project this on all those who didn't mention it (including NT writers). Those trying to bring in new understandings of things gained a lot of influence, and more fervently used writings (which we see warned about by Paul), and eventually buried those that did not agree. It is known by historians that a lot was lost in the period between Peter and Paul and the earliest fathers, by which time the church was very different. People even wonder where the writings of some of the apostles helpers are.
So this is special pleading. Yet, the church didn't come to a consensus on the canon until the end of the 4th century, while there was no record of dispute regarding the real presence or baptismal regeneration during the whole time up that point. Yet you assume that Spirit could not have guided the church to this consistent agreement of these two doctrines, an agreement which predated by far the finalization of the NT canon. Once again, you're looking at a council where it was "officially decided" as the "consensus" of the "canon". While there may have been some question about some books; had a general idea of which books were genuine. And then if you insist that other books were recognized before that, then some of these interpretations of doctrines could be coming form these other sources, rather than those sources coming from apostolic tradition.
The Spirit's guidance did not prevent schismatics and heretics from breaking off from the Church during the first millenium of its history (of which there is historical record). Why do you suppose things changed during the second? They didn't change. The difference was that the Roman Church had gotten so corrupt (with its indulgences and other abuses) that people en-masse began leaving, and the advent of printing led to the widespread publication of the scriptures (which had been kept away from the laity. I wonder if the Eastern Church did this as well), so now, people began forming new organizations. Originally, Luther and others did not intend this, but aimed to reform the Catholic church. But Rome was set in her ways and expelled the Reformers. Riught there is anpother reason Rome was just as much to blame for all the schisms. Theyc ouldn;t admit error, and then herself separated those who could no longer go long with it.
All along, since the first Milennium, the Spirit was not being followed, for things to get this bad in the first place. So that 1000 years, when you had this all powerful organization, and its sister int he East, were not as homogenous as you make it sound like; only controlled by the institution. But hat institution was composed of men, and they did and taught many things wrong, and appealing to apostolic tradition is no justification. So that is not what we are to go back to.
You forget that just as Scriptures are of both divine and human authorship, so is the church that Christ founded a divine-human organism, "the fullness of Him who fills all in all" (Eph 1:23) and not just a merely human "organization." But once again, if your application of this were true, then no part of the Church would have ever gone into error. The leaders' humanity would be overridden in spite of thesmselves, and any abues we saw are just right, regardless. And then all the schisms remain unexplained. Either they were a result of the enlightenment overpowering the Spirit, or the Spirit stepped away and allowed men to do what they want. But if it's that, then this could have occurred much earlier than the Reformation period.
Or perhaps the problem is once again looking at the Church as the visible "organization", and thus identifying that organization as the "divine-human organism". The organism is the invisible body of those who trust in christ as their Lord, regardless of the organization they are nominally afiliated with. Together, they make up the visible Church. But we must not confuse this with an organization formed around it. This is what you consistently focus on, to be comparing your "one true Church" with "all the schmistatic denominations". Those are orgnizations you are looking at. They are all based on control; whether one magisterium controls all, or people break away from it, but then maintain their own circle of control. Forget the organizations for a moment, and you will see the real divine-human organism!

[Eric B]

Roman Catholicism and Protestantism at least share the same notion of Salvation and Original Sin even if they differ on the practical applications of Grace.
Eastern-Orthodoxy went a completely different direction on all of that.

You might want to reread the following.

"Eastern Orthodoxy's assertion that humanity's ultimate goal is theosis, or participation in the Divine life, has informed and shaped their doctrine of the Fall. Their understanding of original sin differs from that of Western theologians in that Adam and Eve are not responsible, through their sin, for universal guilt, but for universal mortality. Adam's personal sin did not bring condemnation upon all people, it brought death upon all people. The experience of mortality leads otherwise guiltless individuals to sinful acts [12], but the Orthodox maintain that each person's sin is the result of his or her own choice and not the choice of Adam [13].

Given this idea that humanity's basic problem is mortality, the Orthodox view of redemption is much broader than that of the Western church. Western theological tradition emphasizes the judicial aspect of salvation, asserting that in salvation, God is primarily concerned with the remission of sin [14]. The Orthodox view is that the gospel is not primarily the solution to man's problem with personal sin. It is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the beginning of theosis. A residual benefit of beginning the process of deification is the remission of sins. Baptism is the means by which the believer enters into this new life. John Meyendorff summarizes the idea of redemption in Eastern Orthodox theology well. He says,


Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life; sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates the humanity and restores it to its "natural" state, rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt--these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel [15]. " It seems the Fall affected both man's physical ife (leading to mortality) as well as his spiritual life (spiritual death). Notice Adam ran and hid from God after sinning. This was an effect that passed down. This new sin nature is what led Cain to murder Abel, not some reaction to the fact that they were no longer physically immortal. Denial of this point is the same error as both Judaism and Islam, which feel that man is basically good, and the goal is to get him to follow more laws, and when we see men do evil, something is really wrong with them, and they should be eliminated (hece Islamist terrorism. Judaism is more passive having lost their power, but we can see it in the zeal of the leaders in Jesus' time when they had the power, plus the separationism of some groups today).
And not only is our sin nature not to be denied, but even after sanctification, we are still not perfect, and thus not completely restoed to our "original" state.
We still sin, and we still die physically. I hope the Orthodox do not walk around thinking they are literally perfect.
But sin has to be [legally] remitted to recieve the power of God unto sanctification. It is not just some fringe benefit.

[Marcia]

Originally posted by Doubting Thomas:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Marcia:
God's word is way beyond just some recorded facts and instructions. God's word is alive (Heb. 4.12) and convicts us - it has the power of salvation in it.Yet you commit the fallacy of assuming that only what is written down qualifies as "God's word". Yet Paul commended the Thessalonians for receiving his oral preaching (which they "heard")as what it in fact was--the word of God (1 Thess 2:13). Christ Himself is the Word of God in the ultimate sense, yet not everything He ever said or did was written down as John attests (John 21:25).
</font>[/QUOTE]Marcia&gt;&gt;I do not think it's a fallacy to call the Bible God's only "word." Jesus is not the "Word" in the sense of the Bible being the "Word." Jesus is "Logos" -- a different type of "word" entirely.
And everything we objectively know about Jesus is in God's written word. I already pointed out earlier that references to the oral teachings were before the canon was complete -- there is no evidence that these oral teachings were set apart from God's word and not recorded in God's word. We have no reason to assume that. And this is the irony -- you only know about the "oral traditions" from God's word.

My point was that the various writings of the NT were never meant to be exhaustive church manuals or systematic catechisms but were written at various times for very specific purposed with a specific audience in mind.
Marcia&gt;&gt;But they are all a part of the written word of God. You haven't presented any evidence to show that we are to accept anything outside of the Bible as authoritative. I already pointed out the problem with your citing of Paul's statement -- and this is about the only thing you seem to have.


This context, as well the canonical sciptures and the authentic apostolic interpretation thereof, is the tradition of the Apostles.
What interpretation and by whom? Are you talking about interpretation of scripture after the completed canon? Where is the authority for that? [/QUOTE]In the church founded by Christ, the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Tim 3:15). [/QUOTE]

But the authority of the church is based on God's word. So it goes back to God's word.

[mioque]

Eric B
I agree with you, that's not the issue.
&lt;Simplification coming up&gt;
Getting closer to the original pre-fall state (even if only for amoment during liturgy) is the quest of the Eastern Christian, being forgiven for being affected by the Original Sin is the hope of the Western Christian.
It's Origenes vs. Augustinus.
and it means that in a very real sense the theological gap between baptist and Roman Catholic is smaller, than the gap between baptist and Eastern Orthodox believer.

[SouthernBoy]

Eric B,

Just Name ONE person who held the Baptist belief in this time frame. All I need is ONE name.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Marcia&gt;&gt;I do not think it's a fallacy to call the Bible God's only "word." Jesus is not the "Word" in the sense of the Bible being the "Word." Christ is the Word in the ultimate sense. He is the one who fulfills and gives true meaning to the OT scriptures, and He is the one who commissioned the apostles and founded His church which is the community in which the NT was written, received, interpreted, and "finalized". Christ is the ultimate authority, not a bare text.

And everything we objectively know about Jesus is in God's written word.Not so, for if weren't for the Church He founded (before the NT was even written) which has maintained the objective, true teaching about Christ, the the NT (as indeed the OT) could indeed be entirely subjected to the various subjective interpretations of false teachers who preach false "christs". In fact, false christs distorted the scriptures from the beginning and it was the Church which met the heretics head on with the true meaning of Scripture.

I already pointed out earlier that references to the oral teachings were before the canon was complete -- there is no evidence that these oral teachings were set apart from God's word and not recorded in God's word.Nor is their evidence that the oral teachings would be entirely contained in Scripture. Paul considered both his oral teachings and his written epistles to be "the word of God", and He gave no indication in Scripture that all of the former would one day be reduced to the latter, or that the written contains all of the former.


And this is the irony -- you only know about the "oral traditions" from God's word.The real irony is that we only know what the canon of Scripture is because the Church determined by the guidance of the Spirit which books were authentically apostolic (and thus "God's word") based on their consistency with the Apostolic Tradition deposited in the Church itself.

To be sure, the canon of authentic writings and the true Apostolic tradition cannot conflict because they share the same source--the apostles--and ultimate authority--Christ Himself. However, it's a different matter to conclude that the NT writings must exhaustively contain all that was delivered orally. That has not been proven, nor can it be.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> My point was that the various writings of the NT were never meant to be exhaustive church manuals or systematic catechisms but were written at various times for very specific purposed with a specific audience in mind.
Marcia&gt;&gt;But they are all a part of the written word of God. You haven't presented any evidence to show that we are to accept anything outside of the Bible as authoritative.</font>[/QUOTE]Nor have you prevented evidence--from the Bible or otherwise--that the Christian faith was to be reduced to a book; or that what Paul delivered orally was exactly the same (and not more or less) as what he penned in this epistles; or that he planned on this oral teachings to be held only until all his epistles were complete; or that he (or any other NT writer) had any concept of a NT canon at all.

Nor have you accounted for the fact that the church survived for almost four centuries without even knowing exactly what constituted the NT canon; or that the impetus to even form a NT canon was in response to heretics such as Marcion (who wanted to limit the "canon" to certain Pauline epistles and Luke) or other gnostics (who claimed their authority for their doctrines on spurious gospels/acts/epistles); or that it was the Apostolic rule of faith by which the church was able to reject the spurious writings and determine which books were authentically apostolic; or that early Christians considered the oral gospel (tradition) and the four authentic written gospels were equally authoritative and as both teaching the same Christ over against the false teachings (written or oral) of the heretics; or that the early Christians thought the apostolic rule of faith maintained in the apostolic churches was indispensible in correctly interpreting Scriptures against the distorted misinterpretations of the heretics.

Nor have you accounted for the fact that Christ meant for the Church itself to be authoritative (Matt 18:18; 1 Tim 3:15; John 20:23)

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This context, as well the canonical sciptures and the authentic apostolic interpretation thereof, is the tradition of the Apostles.
What interpretation and by whom? Are you talking about interpretation of scripture after the completed canon? Where is the authority for that? </font>[/QUOTE]The interpretation of the Church based on the Apostolic tradition and rule of faith. The authority is given to the Church by Christ Himself, several decades before any NT writings were even given.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In the church founded by Christ, the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Tim 3:15). But the authority of the church is based on God's word. So it goes back to God's word.
</font>[/QUOTE]Yes the Authority is based on the Word of God Incarnate--Jesus Christ Himself, who commissioned His apostles, breathed out His Spirit on them and founded His Church decades before the first NT epistle was even written. Chronologically, the Church preceded the NT and produced the NT (through the pens of the apostles--the "foundation of the church"[Eph 2:20]) and provided the context for the reception of the NT and thus it's interpretation. It was the Church that finalized the canon as well in the late 4th century--determining which books were authentically apostolic and which weren't. The NT didn't just drop out of the sky nor was it written in a vacuum. When one tries to take it out of its context--as both the word of God and book of the Church to be interpreted by the traditional teaching handed down from the apostles--then that one is subject to the strong possibility of being led into error.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by SouthernBoy:
Eric B,

Just Name ONE person who held the Baptist belief in this time frame. All I need is ONE name. That's what I'd like to see as well.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
These things we have added do not distort the gospel or syncretize religion, as deep mystic ritual with icons and other things do. But these things do not in fact distort the gospel. They just distort your version of the gospel. The icons have always been a legitimate and beautiful expression of the reality of the Incarnation--God with us--and of Christ in His Saints.

And you are still asuming that these "oral" traditions were a totally different set of teachings isolated from everything else.And you're still assuming that the written was an exhaustive compilation of the oral.
The NT warns us of error creeping in right as they wrote.But not that this error would infect and otherthrow the entire church. These heretics (gnostics/judaizers/etc) did indeed arise but the were countered by the orthodox fathers.

No, you're side is the one who starts speculating on the oral tradition, and projecting them back to the NT because you see some of your ideas were believed by some early fathersAnd your side is to one which has to come up with some imaginary Christians (whom history doesn't record) who existed during that time and who shared the Baptist view on things only because your interpretation of the Bible demands that they must have existed.

No, those are later interpretations of both the NT and the early writings. And remember, the Jews mistook christ's words about His flesh and blood the same way, and were offended. The Jews were offended because they knew how literal Christ was in His descriptions. His flesh is indeed true food and His blood true drink, and Christ said one had to eat His flesh (the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world) and drink His blood to have eternal life. However, if those Jews would have stuck around like the faithful disciples, they would have learned with them how Christ's body and blood was to be given to them to eat and drink--in the forms of bread and wine, which as Paul stated (1 Cor 10:16) is the communion of Christ's Body and Blood.

Once again; there is only one spiritual presence of Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit.That's what you keep asserting. However, the Church was united in believing in Christ's special divine-human presence in the Eucharist for the first 1500 years of Christianity

What you are suggesting would necessitate a fourth person of the Godhead. That's a baseless accusation and absurd. When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary the Incarnation of the (already existing) Second Person of the Trinity was effected. Likewise, the Holy Spirit makes the bread and wine the true Body and Blood of Christ, the same Christ who is at the right hand of the Father.
Your final court of appeal is always what the church believed and saw no controversy with. But these still are just men..No the Church is not "just men". The Church is the Body of Christ, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. The Church is not disconnected from its Head, even though individuals and groups of men can fall away from this divine-human Body. The Church is no more "just men" than the writers of the NT were writing as "just men". One cannot separate the true Scriptures from the true Church, although indiviudals and groups of men can separate from both.

They change who Christ is. With all of the different doctrines of all of the different denominations, they stll share the ortodox concept of Christ. Groups like those are not considered "denominations", but cults. Are you accusing all of the denominations of worshipping a false Christ?But the Arians thought they were teaching the Christ of the Bible. In fact they marshalled many proof-texts in their favor. The orthodox and Arians tossed Scriptures back and forth at each other, but in the end it was the unbroken Apostolic Tradition that decided the day since the Church had always worshipped Christ as God in its prayers and hymns.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Again without any historical record of controversy, and no dissenting voices (except among gnostics) on these two issues, then, yes, the historical answer was that this was what the church believed without dispute on these two areas.That's the post-apostolic Church. We cannot project this back to the NT. </font>[/QUOTE]It's the same Church.

Power bases were forming that quickly quashed and buried dispute. Uh, oh..."Dan Brown" alert.... Conspiracy theorists of the world, unite!!! :eek:

(Of course, this is the same line of argumentation that suggests that the orthodox Christians imposed their version of Christianity on those poor defenseless gnostics in their quest for "control".)

[Eric B]

But these things do not in fact distort the gospel. They just distort your version of the gospel. The icons have always been a legitimate and beautiful expression of the reality of the Incarnation--God with us--and of Christ in His Saints. That's what you keep asserting. However, the Church was united in believing in Christ's special divine-human presence in the Eucharist for the first 1500 years of Christianity This parallels what I've just said on the other thread. So how do you prove that yours is that "legitimate and beautiful expression of the reality of the Incarnation"? Because you find a couple of these ideas, or at least statements that you interpret that way, in the early fathers, then claim they must have gotten these practices from an "oral tradition handed down" from the apostles, but when we question this, it is proven because "They have always been" taken that way "for 1500 years int he Church". This is cyclical. You make your church the authority for proving that your church is the true one! Anybody can make their ideas "the truth" that way!
And you're still assuming that the written was an exhaustive compilation of the oral. Nor have you prevented evidence--from the Bible or otherwise--that the Christian faith was to be reduced to a book; or that what Paul delivered orally was exactly the same (and not more or less) as what he penned in this epistles; or that he planned on this oral teachings to be held only until all his epistles were complete; or that he (or any other NT writer) had any concept of a NT canon at all.
And you're still assuming that a whole body of teachings were 100% left out. All of the issues would come up, and be addressed orally, or in writing. Which medium was used was determined by where the apostle was at a given time when the issue would come up. But he addresses the people with the same issues.
It's not about being "Reduced to a book", or "the exact words" being used. The apostles were not hiding anything. We see basically the same types of issues in all of the epistles (matters of morality, worship, theology, some personal issues). Nothing as significant and apparrently essential as what you are pushing for was omitted.
But not that this error would infect and otherthrow the entire church. These heretics (gnostics/judaizers/etc) did indeed arise but the were countered by the orthodox fathers. Joh's last epistles gives us an idea of what started happening later on. "I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loves to have the preeminence among them, receives us
not. Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he does, babbling against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and forbids them that would, and casts them out of the church. The gnostics "drew away disciples after themselves". This new crop of false leaders tried to take over from within. And even the gnostics doctrines did gain some influence. You seem to believe it is impossible for someone to oppose something he has already been influenced by in some subtle ways. We see this all over again today, as Christians today may oppose pop-entertainment, Pop-psychology, etc. while trying to Christianize some of the gimmicks and concepts they copy from the world, and while some may have a noble intention, they do cross the line often.
And your side is to one which has to come up with some imaginary Christians (whom history doesn't record) who existed during that time and who shared the Baptist view on things only because your interpretation of the Bible demands that they must have existed.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SouthernBoy:
Eric B,

Just Name ONE person who held the Baptist belief in this time frame. All I need is ONE name.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's what I'd like to see as well. I'm not pushing for some "Baptist practice", though I believe it is closer to the truth. A lot of doctrines and practices were not really as defined as they came to be later on. So people had all sorts of ideas, and when one crossed the line of heresy and become big and threatening, the Church stepped in with first, its apologies, then then its councils to to define the truth. But they themselves were not always completely correct. So when they tthemselves got big and even mope corrupt, then off, the splinters start coming. In all of this time, the Word of God was there, with the basic message of salvation. Whether thge majority of men twist it and go off into error or not, the truth was always there.
The Jews were offended because they knew how literal Christ was in His descriptions. His flesh is indeed true food and His blood true drink, and Christ said one had to eat His flesh (the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world) and drink His blood to have eternal life. However, if those Jews would have stuck around like the faithful disciples, they would have learned with them how Christ's body and blood was to be given to them to eat and drink--in the forms of bread and wine, which as Paul stated (1 Cor 10:16) is the communion of Christ's Body and Blood. "How literal He was in His descriptions"? All of those parables He gave; ained specifically at them, to hide the meaning from them.
If they had stuck around, they would have leared that His Kingdom was not food and drink, and the physical rule they wanted, and yes, how His flesh and blood was to be given to them-- through the Spirit, with them as the members! Once again, it is all about the members of the Body, not external things.
That's a baseless accusation and absurd. When the Holy Spirit came upon Mary the Incarnation of the (already existing) Second Person of the Trinity was effected. Likewise, the Holy Spirit makes the bread and wine the true Body and Blood of Christ, the same Christ who is at the right hand of the Father. So then, it's the other answer I mentioned: the Holy Spirit inhabits bread and wine. Once again; the Holy Spirit inhabiting inanimate objects is foreign to the scriptures. The Holy Spirit inhabits US as we partake of the elements.
No the Church is not "just men". The Church is the Body of Christ, the fullness of Him who fills all in all. The Church is not disconnected from its Head, even though individuals and groups of men can fall away from this divine-human Body. The Church is no more "just men" than the writers of the NT were writing as "just men". One cannot separate the true Scriptures from the true Church, although indiviudals and groups of men can separate from both. But that's what we call the "invisible Church", not a particular organization men build (supposedly) around it. Else, everything this institution has done becomes sanctified, and "error" is defined only as departing from what the Church teaches. (which has chaned over the centuries anyway). How could "Christ" bring in the Dark Ages? (which you cannot blame only on the Western Church, as it began befoe the split). We must separate what men do in "the Church". from what God does through the Church. Else, God just become a mascot to justify whatever men want to do. (Crusades, colonialism, Slavery, brutality of conquered people, etc).
But the Arians thought they were teaching the Christ of the Bible. In fact they marshalled many proof-texts in their favor. The orthodox and Arians tossed Scriptures back and forth at each other, but in the end it was the unbroken Apostolic Tradition that decided the day since the Church had always worshipped Christ as God in its prayers and hymns. No; it was political power that determined it, with the Arians almost winning at first! (As I said on the other thread, the Arians could take such references, and contrue them in light of their doctrine that He was "a god", who did do the Creating).
The solution to this is not the throw the Word out, or supplement it with "tradition". The hymns and prayers could be chcked against the scriptures, and seen to be true. This has nothing to do with doctrines and practices that supposedly were entirely omitted from the scriptures. If that was the case, then the Arians could have used whatever power they gained to make it look like their doctrine was the apostolic tradition!
It's the same Church. So what is the "Same Church" today? Rome was one patriarchate, and Constantinople was another. Both can trace themselves, and both can claim to have maintained the truth, while the other rejects "apostolic tradition". If you define "church" as simply a visible group of people in a particular locale, then yes. (e.g. "Church of Rome"). But this is a spiritual body, remember, and the members had since changed over that century or so. So no members in one age can get over and prove their ideas to be right based on the faithfulness of members in an earlier age. Once again, that leads to cultural Christianity.
Uh, oh..."Dan Brown" alert.... Conspiracy theorists of the world, unite!!!

(Of course, this is the same line of argumentation that suggests that the orthodox Christians imposed their version of Christianity on those poor defenseless gnostics in their quest for "control".) Do you deny that the Church ever used its power to try to crush whatever it thought was heresy? The error ofthe gnostics or anyone else was no excuse for this, just like in the witch burnings some Protestants were known for. Christ warns us, "Nay; lest while all of you gather up the tares, all of you root up also the wheat with them". (Matt.13:30)
The real irony is that we only know what the canon of Scripture is because the Church determined by the guidance of the Spirit which books were authentically apostolic (and thus "God's word") based on their consistency with the Apostolic Tradition deposited in the Church itself.

To be sure, the canon of authentic writings and the true Apostolic tradition cannot conflict because they share the same source--the apostles--and ultimate authority--Christ Himself. However, it's a different matter to conclude that the NT writings must exhaustively contain all that was delivered orally. That has not been proven, nor can it be.If the canon was based ONLY on an "apostolic tradition", then some of those spurious books, which more clearly detail the later "catholic" doctrines and practices would have been included - basically, whatever agreed with the traditions!. The early Fathers, would have been considered the heirs to te apostles, and included. I'm sure there are many who wanted these things in there, and this is proof that the Holy Spirit enacted some restraint on them. That is not the same as the Holy Spirit perpetually engraining doctrinal errorlessness on the Church, so whatever the institution teaches must be the truth whether it is scriptural or not, oh, and as for which of all the competing bodies is the one, we'll just choose the oldest to be safe.
I often wish the Spirit had done that, but that was apparently not how God wanted to work in this dispensation. So He gives us the written Word, and lets men and institutions go and do as they please with it, twist it, add to it, ignore it completely, etc. but with the promise of a day of answering after this life. (Rom.14:10, 2 Cor.5:10)
But for the meantime, He did restrain men from adding the wrong books into the final Bible, and with Revelation as the natural seal of the scripture.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> But not that this error would infect and otherthrow the entire church. These heretics (gnostics/judaizers/etc) did indeed arise but the were countered by the orthodox fathers. ---------------------------------------------
....You seem to believe it is impossible for someone to oppose something he has already been influenced by in some subtle ways.</font>But not to the extent that it would infect the entire church or completely overthow the truthfulness of any apostolic doctrines.

[Doubting Thomas]

Eric: I'm not pushing for some "Baptist practice", though I believe it is closer to the truth.Yet many other sola Scriptura advocates disagree with you--who is right?

A lot of doctrines and practices were not really as defined as they came to be later on. So people had all sorts of ideas, and when one crossed the line of heresy and become big and threatening, the Church stepped in with first, its apologies, then then its councils to to define the truth. But they themselves were not always completely correct.So what you're once again left with as the standard of determing what the Church got right and what they got wrong is your own personal interpretation.

[Eric B]

But not to the extent that it would infect the entire church or completely overthow the truthfulness of any apostolic doctrines. So what you're once again left with as the standard of determing what the Church got right and what they got wrong is your own personal interpretation. The Church conflicted itself in many areas. Once again, Augustinianism came in fashin at one point, with Pelagianism condemned, and then eventually, a Pelagian view of salvation became the norm again (even though Augustine's position was never officially renounced, except only when it came from the Reformers).
Yet many other sola Scriptura advocates disagree with you--who is right? I cannot answer for all these others who disagree with me, or the fact that it ends up becomeing. Once again, it is not about an organization with perfect adherance to a list of doctrines. (In contrast to you accusing us of "reducing it to a book"). As long as they believe in salvation through Christ alone; I have to accept them as being apart of the Church universal.

[Doubting Thomas]

"How literal He was in His descriptions"? Actually He was getting quite literal in His discourse recorded in John 6. In fact, He went from using the Greek word, "phago" (simply, "to eat") to using "trogo" (to crunch/chew/eat) in v. 54. He was becoming more literal (not less), and the Jews (who had been following Him up until this time) understood Him so. He specifically indicated that the flesh they were to eat was the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world. He said His flesh was food indeed and His blood was drink indeed.

Once again, it is all about the members of the Body, not external things.But the bread and wine aren't "external". They are the very communion of the Body and Blood of Christ within the Church. Paul identified these specific elements (1 Cor 10:16) as being the communion of the Body and the Blood of Christ. He also stated it is because of partaking of this one bread (the same bread broken in communion in v.16) that the Christians are one body (1 Cor 10:17). Christians have consistently understood Him thus, without hint of controversy, for 1500 years.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
The Church conflicted itself in many areas. Once again, Augustinianism came in fashin at one point, with Pelagianism condemned, and then eventually, a Pelagian view of salvation became the norm again (even though Augustine's position was never officially renounced, except only when it came from the Reformers).Yet Augustinianism was ignored in the East, and Pelagianism was specifically condemned in the East. The extreme unmodified Augustinianism was never the consensus of the Church in the West, and certainly not in the East.

[Eric B]

Actually He was getting quite literal in His discourse recorded in John 6. In fact, He went from using the Greek word, "phago" (simply, "to eat") to using "trogo" (to crunch/chew/eat) in v. 54. He was becoming more literal (not less), and the Jews (who had been following Him up until this time) understood Him so. He specifically indicated that the flesh they were to eat was the same flesh He was giving for the life of the world. He said His flesh was food indeed and His blood was drink indeed. And that can still be not literal. It isn' literal when you like every other church take some cracker or wafer and pour some wine made by men, and it physically is still flour and grape product. (Do we have to get into "scientific testing" now as we did a couple of weeks ago?). Yu can say it is "spiritually' changed, but then that is not literally in a physical sense, being that this is physical matter that is the focus.
But the bread and wine aren't "external". They are the very communion of the Body and Blood of Christ within the Church. Paul identified these specific elements (1 Cor 10:16) as being the communion of the Body and the Blood of Christ. He also stated it is because of partaking of this one bread (the same bread broken in communion in v.16) that the Christians are one body (1 Cor 10:17). Christians have consistently understood Him thus, without hint of controversy, for 1500 years. the Body of Christ, is, by the Spirit, the people. Coming to eat communion (note, the word communion; that's about people gathering, not a metaphysical trick that supposedly could be done by one person) is gathering as a body. The fact that the Church took it another way for all those centuries (event hough they may have nominally claimed what I have just said) is perhaps why you have the rabid nominalism DHK spoke of. When we make a physical item the focus, it always winds up becoming the end-all, and thus, and idol.
Yet Augustinianism was ignored in the East, and Pelagianism was specifically condemned in the East. The extreme unmodified Augustinianism was never the consensus of the Church in the West, and certainly not in the East. Part of Pelagianism", is the doctrine that we can save ourselves by opur works. Inasmuch as the East believed in baptismal regeneration, and other things, it was aprt of it, though they rejected it in name. When a person rose up and took this to its natural conclusion and built a particular statement that was heretical, then Augustine went the opposite way. The fact that there wasn't consensus is my point. It still supposedly was the "one true church". You say, "well, it returned to the truth, so God never let the entire Church fall from the entire truth", but then to someone in a Western Church who had no contact with the East (or whatever part of the West did not hold to it), and lived before Augustinianism fell out of favor, this was what the "one true Church" universally taught. Going by "Church authority" only without the written word, he would have no way to challenge it.

[Marcia]

Posted by Doubting Thomas

Christ is the Word in the ultimate sense. He is the one who fulfills and gives true meaning to the OT scriptures, and He is the one who commissioned the apostles and founded His church which is the community in which the NT was written, received, interpreted, and "finalized". Christ is the ultimate authority, not a bare text.
Christ and the Bible are not one and the same. They are two different entities. God's word is the standard and measuring stick for doctrine for us to use and live by. This is a category fallacy and false dichotomy that you are making -- trying to say it's one over the other. Yes, Christ is the ultimate authority but that does not lessen to any extent the authority of God's word. We use Christ as the authority through God's word.

false christs distorted the scriptures from the beginning and it was the Church which met the heretics head on with the true meaning of Scripture.
The church only was able to do this by using the doctrine from God's word. Otherwise, they could have done nothing. How do we know false teachings? By measuring them against God's word. Any Christian is able to do this.

Nor is their evidence that the oral teachings would be entirely contained in Scripture. Paul considered both his oral teachings and his written epistles to be "the word of God", and He gave no indication in Scripture that all of the former would one day be reduced to the latter, or that the written contains all of the former.
Nor did he give indication to the contrary. Absent any evidence that there are oral traditions floating out there that are as authoritative as God's word, we should stick to God's word. This issue is one of the crucial differences between Orthodox/Catholic beliefs and non-Orthodox/Catholic beliefs.

The real irony is that we only know what the canon of Scripture is because the Church determined by the guidance of the Spirit which books were authentically apostolic (and thus "God's word") based on their consistency with the Apostolic Tradition deposited in the Church itself.
The church (body of believers) discovered God's word - they didn't determine it. I had a whole course on this from a very thick book and there is no time to go into it, but I understand very well how the canon came about. Most of the canon was being circulated around the churches by 150 AD. I realize there were questions about some of the books and there were other writings - but that was another time period. The canon was discovered. It is closed. I have 66 books in my Bible -- no more writings out there are going to be in the Bible. I need no one giving me revelations from God outside scripture.

The authority of the church is derived from scripture. You cite scripture again to make your point - it always goes back to scripture. This does not mean the church can give authoritative teachings outside scripture -- it is authoritative insofar as it is derived from the doctrines in scripture. And what is the church? It is the body of believers!

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
When we make a physical item the focus, it always winds up becoming the end-all, and thus, and idol.Other than being an overstatement, this assertion betrays an underlying gnosticism with its radically sharp duality between the physical and spiritual and the denigration of the former. And this is somewhat ironic, since you, who has been quite confident that the Church got off-track on this key issue from the beginning and that they were (somehow) influenced by the gnostics they opposed, are actually the one who is closer to the gnostic thought in your view of the baptism and the Eucharist. Therefore the charge of the real presence doctrine being "idolatry" would have either fallen on deaf ears or countered with the charge of "gnostic heresy!" by those in the early church. They knew their God had taken on matter in the Man Jesus Christ for their salvation, both spiritual and physical (in view of the future resurrection of the body). It was only natural for them to receive from the apostles of Christs this visible means of physical-spiritual communion with the divine-humanity of Christ Himself.


And that can still be not literal. It isn' literal when you like every other church take some cracker or wafer and pour some wine made by men, and it physically is still flour and grape product. (Do we have to get into "scientific testing" now as we did a couple of weeks ago?).I don't remember getting into this specific area with you a few weeks ago, but I have no problem acknowledging that the bread and wine would be revealed to be bread and wine by empirical testing. Of course, had Jesus of Nazereth been subjected to empirical testing He would have been revealed to be a man and not God. However, Christians walk by faith and not by sight. Since the fact is that Christ is God and Man, there is no problem for Him to communicate His divine-humanity in the forms of bread and wine.
Yu can say it is "spiritually' changed, but then that is not literally in a physical sense, being that this is physical matter that is the focus.In the Eucharist, we literally eat (physically) the bread and wine which is the literal communion (spiritually and ultimately physically as well, in view of the resurrection of the body) with the Body and Blood of Christ which is thus literal (spiritual/physical) "food indeed" and drink indeed".

Of course, Christ wasn't ultimately speaking in the crassly carnal cannibalistic sense that the Jews may have thought. He said His words were "spirit"...but this doesn't mean that His words were "symbol and metaphor" (ie God and angels are "spirit" but they certainly aren't mere metaphor or symbol). He was quite clear that there was to be a literal eating and that His flesh and blood--the same He was giving for the life of the world--were literally food an drink. Had the Jews stuck around they would have learned that Christ was literally communicating the divine-humanity of His flesh and blood in the forms of bread and wine that the disciples were to literally eat and drink.
the Body of Christ, is, by the Spirit, the people. Coming to eat communion (note, the word communion; that's about people gathering, not a metaphysical trick that supposedly could be done by one person) is gathering as a body.The Greek word for "communion" here also has the primary meaning "participation in". Keeping that in mind, if Paul meant what you think, he would have said WTTE: "this gathering to eat of the bread, is it not the communion of believers?... and this gathering to drink of the cup, is it not also the communion of believers".

But of course Paul is not saying that, but rather:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16). You err in limiting the expression "body of Christ" to the gathering of believers, especially when Christ Himself said of the bread: "Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you." (1 Cor 11:24) So you are ignoring the context since Paul calls the bread the communion of Christ's Body in 10:16 and he recalls Christ saying the same thing--that the bread was His body--in 11:24. Therefore, clearly Paul and Jesus both meant more than communion just being the mere fact of a Christian gathering.


Part of Pelagianism", is the doctrine that we can save ourselves by opur works. Inasmuch as the East believed in baptismal regeneration, and other things, it was aprt of it, though they rejected it in name.This is a red herring, since the belief that God regenerates men in the waters of Baptism has nothing to do with the Pelagian idea that grace is not necessary.

[chadman]

Quoted by Southern boy

Eric B,

Just Name ONE person who held the Baptist belief in this time frame. All I need is ONE name.
Southern, dude, you know there isn't any, and I would hope my Baptist brothers don't really think our Baptist position was represented during that history or much anytime before, except just before the Apostles died. I have read plenty of history, and the newly revealed truth of the Gospel (Evangelical position) was not revealed, or rather, truly understood until AFTER the Reformation. I am sure many were saved and didn't know how express in those terms back then.

[Marcia]

Posted by Doubting Thomas:
...when Christ Himself said of the bread: "Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you." (1 Cor 11:24) Well, I promised myself I was going to get off this thread, as I have other things I need to do, but here I am. :rolleyes:

Paul is quoting what Christ said in Matt. 26. When Christ said this, he was obviously still alive. He was not talking about his body literally here. It seems clearly symbolic.

There is no reason to read a literal meaning in 1 Cor. 10, especially considering the context, which is Paul rebuking the Corinthian believers for taking the fellowship of communion lightly, and therefore, taking Christ's atonement lightly.

10:14 So then, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. 10:15 I am speaking to thoughtful people. Consider what I say. 10:16 Is not the cup of blessing that we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ? Is not the bread that we break a sharing in the body of Christ? 10:17 Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all share the one bread. 10:18 Look at the people of Israel.12 Are not those who eat the sacrifices partners in the altar? 10:19 Am I saying that idols or food sacrificed to them amount to anything? 10:20 No, I mean that what the pagans sacrifice13 is to demons and not to God. I do not want you to be partners with demons. 10:21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot take part in the table of the Lord and the table of demons. 10:22 Or are we trying to provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we really stronger than he is?14
A contrast is made between the believers' communion and idol worship, and communion with demons. Unless it is possible to eat and drink the bodies and blood of demons, then there is no reason to think that the communion of bread and wine for believers is literal. The contrast holds because both are symbolic.

[Eric B]

Great Point!
Other than being an overstatement, this assertion betrays an underlying gnosticism with its radically sharp duality between the physical and spiritual and the denigration of the former. And this is somewhat ironic, since you, who has been quite confident that the Church got off-track on this key issue from the beginning and that they were (somehow) influenced by the gnostics they opposed, are actually the one who is closer to the gnostic thought in your view of the baptism and the Eucharist. Therefore the charge of the real presence doctrine being "idolatry" would have either fallen on deaf ears or countered with the charge of "gnostic heresy!" by those in the early church. Actually; I didn't say that the belief in real presence was itself "idolatry"; but that such a focus on physical items tends to lead to idolatry.
And the gnostics specialized in mysticism. In fact, I am not shunning physical things like they are, but on the other hand, your concept is the type of thing they would employ as very part of their denial of the physical--they had to pretend that Christ and everything else associated with him was spirit, and only "looked" physical!
They knew their God had taken on matter in the Man Jesus Christ for their salvation, both spiritual and physical (in view of the future resurrection of the body). It was only natural for them to receive from the apostles of Christs this visible means of physical-spiritual communion with the divine-humanity of Christ Himself. I don't remember getting into this specific area with you a few weeks ago, but I have no problem acknowledging that the bread and wine would be revealed to be bread and wine by empirical testing. Of course, had Jesus of Nazereth been subjected to empirical testing He would have been revealed to be a man and not God. However, Christians walk by faith and not by sight. Since the fact is that Christ is God and Man, there is no problem for Him to communicate His divine-humanity in the forms of bread and wine. You greatly overgeneralize the incarnation. Just because God could "take on matter" in the Man Jesus Christ, that is a far cry from taking on matter AGAIN, as bread and wine. One is a living man, the other inanimate food. One is the reality; the other representation (and if you deny at least "representation" of Christ, then you are making it altogether a separate "christ", equal with the one who was man). God's Spirit is never said to reside in such matter; and no, not the Cross, nor the blood spilled ont he ground either.
Appealing to "faith not sight" is a common tactic of the very Protestants you deride, in other areas. Anytime something is quetioned that cannot be substantiated, that's what is thrown out. Our "faith, not sight" is in the divine, died-and-rose-again Christ directly, not in any other supernatural claim people come up with.
Also, it was another person who was arguing about "empirical testing". I was participating int he thread, but did not comment on that point.
In the Eucharist, we literally eat (physically) the bread and wine which is the literal communion (spiritually and ultimately physically as well, in view of the resurrection of the body) with the Body and Blood of Christ which is thus literal (spiritual/physical) "food indeed" and drink indeed".

Of course, Christ wasn't ultimately speaking in the crassly carnal cannibalistic sense that the Jews may have thought. He said His words were "spirit"...but this doesn't mean that His words were "symbol and metaphor" (ie God and angels are "spirit" but they certainly aren't mere metaphor or symbol). He was quite clear that there was to be a literal eating and that His flesh and blood--the same He was giving for the life of the world--were literally food an drink. Had the Jews stuck around they would have learned that Christ was literally communicating the divine-humanity of His flesh and blood in the forms of bread and wine that the disciples were to literally eat and drink. Now you make it sound like there is some parallel "spirit bread and wine" next to the physical elements. But Spirit is not confined to physical space. If we are eating invisible spiritual flesh and blood, then you might as well say that the bread and wine and "eating" are symbols of the invisible reality. (This I could basically go along with. At least it is not the RCC view, which seems to insist on some real "change". ). The Incarnation is similar, but not an exact comparison. There was no divine "spirit Jesus" next to the visible man. The humanity and deity were combined in one Person, and the humanity of course was seen in the physical world in the body.
The Greek word for "communion" here also has the primary meaning "participation in". Keeping that in mind, if Paul meant what you think, he would have said WTTE: "this gathering to eat of the bread, is it not the communion of believers?... and this gathering to drink of the cup, is it not also the communion of believers".

But of course Paul is not saying that, but rather:
"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" (1 Cor 10:16). You err in limiting the expression "body of Christ" to the gathering of believers, especially when Christ Himself said of the bread: "Take, eat, this is my body which is broken for you." (1 Cor 11:24) So you are ignoring the context since Paul calls the bread the communion of Christ's Body in 10:16 and he recalls Christ saying the same thing--that the bread was His body--in 11:24. Therefore, clearly Paul and Jesus both meant more than communion just being the mere fact of a Christian gathering.
No, but the people themselves were the body! I guess eating was so important, because you are taking something into your body--into yourself, and sharing the same substance, so it points to oneness. Once again, eating together is a significant event even in the world.
This is a red herring, since the belief that God regenerates men in the waters of Baptism has nothing to do with the Pelagian idea that grace is not necessary. The problem arises because "grace" is in practice redefined as some mere "provision" (As one of the Campbellists here calls it) for us to do the deed to save ourselves.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Marcia:
Christ and the Bible are not one and the same. They are two different entities.I never said they were the same. :cool:

God's word is the standard and measuring stick for doctrine for us to use and live by. And "God the Word", Jesus Christ, a Living Person, is the standard which the Scriptures are truly interpreted. He is the One who fulfilled the OT and thus truly interpreted it around Himself. He is the One whom the apostles encountered and who gave them the authority to "bind and loose". He is the One they first preached about, and then later wrote about. It was the apostles teaching handed down in the Church about the true Christ which became the primary way the Christians would tell which writings were truly apostolic and which were spurious. However, those who taught a false "christ" came away from the same Scriptures with radically different conclusions. Which leads us too...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> false christs distorted the scriptures from the beginning and it was the Church which met the heretics head on with the true meaning of Scripture.
The church only was able to do this by using the doctrine from God's word. Otherwise, they could have done nothing. How do we know false teachings? By measuring them against God's word. </font>[/QUOTE]But heretics like the Arians thought that they were measuring their doctrine by the Scriptures. The Arians would toss Scriptural texts back and forth with the orthodox yet arrive at different conclusions about what they meant. Therefore, again, it is good to review the comments of Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century:

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."


Nor did he give indication to the contrary. Absent any evidence that there are oral traditions floating out there that are as authoritative as God's word, we should stick to God's word. You make the mistake of limiting "God's word" to only that which is written, something that the Scriptures itself doesn't do. Paul mentioned that the Thessalonians acknowledged the words they heard from Paul to be the "word of God" (1 Thess 2:13).

The church (body of believers) discovered God's word - they didn't determine it.This is a false dichotomy. The same church which discovered which writings were authentically apostolic (initially with varying degrees of success) also determined the limits of the canon by excluding the spurious (heretical) works and by leaving out writings which, although not proven to be written by apostles, were otherwise consistent in their contents with orthodoxy.

I had a whole course on this from a very thick book and there is no time to go into it, but I understand very well how the canon came about.I've read a few thick books on this matter as well. It's clear, however, that your undertanding and mine aren't the same. :cool:

Most of the canon was being circulated around the churches by 150 AD. Yet not all books were circulated initially to the same geographcial extent. This is why certain books--partcularly James, Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation--were not at first universally accepted, since by the time they began to circulate outside their original limited areas of reception, many other spurious books claiming apostolic authorship were also floating around. This the one of the main reasons why there were doubts about the apostolic authorship of these books for so long. With the aid of the Apostolic Tradition in the churches they finally--at the end of the 4th century--came to a universal (more or less) consensus regarding the authenticity and thus the canonicity of these works.

The authority of the church is derived from scripture. You cite scripture again to make your point - it always goes back to scripture. This is an anachronistic argument. Christ actually gave the authority to the apostles and through them to the church decades before His words were written down in the NT writings. And the churches were established and acknowledged this apostolic authority decades before the first NT writing was penned. So logically and chronologically, it is the Scriptures that derive their authority from Christ through His Church.

This does not mean the church can give authoritative teachings outside scripture -- it is authoritative insofar as it is derived from the doctrines in scriptureYet as I pointed out above, the Church could and did do just that before the NT was ever written. This included specific details of the New Covenant which were not "derived" from the Old.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Actually; I didn't say that the belief in real presence was itself "idolatry"(Whew!) That's a relief! :D

And the gnostics specialized in mysticism. But certainly not all "mysticism" is "gnostic". OTOH, the gnostics' emphasis on a spiritual saving "knowledge" divorced from matter seems to be more at home in strands of contemporary Protestantism while being radically at odds with orthodox theology.

You greatly overgeneralize the incarnation. Just because God could "take on matter" in the Man Jesus Christ, that is a far cry from taking on matter AGAIN, as bread and wine. Not at all. God became Incarnate one time. However, Christ, who took on the material form of man for our salvation can certainly communicate to us His Incarnate divine-humanity in the material forms of bread and wine in such an intimate way that they become in a real sense His very Body and Blood.

Now you make it sound like there is some parallel "spirit bread and wine" next to the physical elements. Nope (see above)

If we are eating invisible spiritual flesh and blood, then you might as well say that the bread and wine and "eating" are symbols of the invisible reality. Ahh...you might be on to something here... :cool:
(As it seems like you are at least coming closer to using "symbol" in the way the early Christians did--as a visible sign which actually makes present (or conveys) the invisible reality signified.) However, there is a visible "eating" involved.

No, but the people themselves were the body!You keep asserting that but I showed in those verses in 1 Cor 10 & 11 that Christ and Paul refer to the bread itself as the "body" and "the communion of (participation in) the body" respectively as well. This doesn't take away from the fact that the Church is the Body of Christ as well. In fact, Paul says that by partaking of that one bread the many become one Body (1 Cor 10:27); in otherwords, he sees a real connection between the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ and the Church being the Body of Christ as well.

Now for Marcia:
Paul is quoting what Christ said in Matt. 26. When Christ said this, he was obviously still alive. He was not talking about his body literally here. It seems clearly symbolic.Yet many of the fathers (including Augustine) made comments to the effect that Christ was holding Himself in His hands when He said this, so in wasn't obvious to all (including to some very bright minds) that this was "clearly symbolic".

At any rate, the early Christians were able to recognize the intimate connection between: (1) the literal manner of Christ's discourse in regards to eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6 with (2)His declaration that the bread and wine was His body and blood at Lord Supper and with (3)Paul's literal declaration to the Corinthians that the bread and cup were the participation in the body and blood of Christ. I'm amazed that so many here can't see it...but I guess they're just being good Baptists. :cool:

There is no reason to read a literal meaning in 1 Cor. 10, especially considering the context, which is Paul rebuking the Corinthian believers for taking the fellowship of communion lightly, and therefore, taking Christ's atonement lightly.They were doing more than just that. Paul said that if one were to eat and drink unworthily that he'd be "guilty of the body and blood of the Lord"(1 Cor 11:27) and would "eat and drink damnation to himself" (v.29). Doesn't sound like Paul had a mere symbol in mind here. That's why he commanded the Corinthians to examine themselves before partaking. (v.28)


A contrast is made between the believers' communion and idol worship, and communion with demons. Unless it is possible to eat and drink the bodies and blood of demons, then there is no reason to think that the communion of bread and wine for believers is literal. But of course demons are immaterial, while Christ actually has physical body and blood. Therefore one can't make a completely equivalent comparison. (The contrast is that the Eucharist was the Christian altar, as compared to things sacrificed at the altar of demons). However, v. 16 the the bread and cup are the participation in the Body and Blood of Christ. This has been the consistent understanding of the Church until the time of the Reformation when Zwingli and his followers reduced the bread and wine to mere symbols with no connection whatsoever to the reality they signify.

[Marcia]

DT&lt;
I don't have near the time to respond to each point you address me on in the long, long post above and partly in the closest post above.

Arius and other heretics misused the scripture. The diety of Christ is clearly taught in scripture and just because heretics try to prove their doctrines from scripture does not mean the Bible is not sufficient as a way to measure false doctrine. We will always have heretics until Christ comes again and Christ and Paul and Peter warned about them in the Bible.

Somehow Christians are able to stay in unity on the essentials because of the Bible's teachings. I speak in Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Bible, non-denominational, Presbyterian, etc. churches with no problem. I am one with all other believers in Christ. It is the HS who unites us, not men. So no matter the failings of men or our differences, all believers are able to still be part of the one true church.

As far as the bread and wine being the body and blood, I'm sorry but I do not think you prove your point. Paul's statement in 1 Cor. 11.27 is about disrespecting the atonement of Christ by the way they were celebrating the communion meal.
I do not see anything there that indicates it is literally the body and blood of Christ, but rather a reference to the atonement and sacrifice of Christ.

If Christ's death was sufficient on the cross, there is no need for his body to be broken again and again, nor need for his blood to be continually spilled.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified. Heb. 10.11-14

[Kiffen]

It should be pointed out that both Luther and Calvin believed in a real presence in communion.

Luther believed that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ BUT the elements were not changed as Roman Catholicism taught.

Calvin believed that when one partook of the Lord's Supper by Faith in remembrance of Him that one spiritually fed upon Christ in their hearts and minds. This was the view held by early Presbyterians, Anglicans and Baptists (AND THE CORRECT VIEW IN MY OPINION).

Zwinglian theology holds that it is a mere memorial of Christ death BUT this seems to be the opposite error of the Roman Catholic view since Paul is clear in 1 Cor. 10 that a real communion with Christ takes place in communion.

The Eastern Orthodox view of the real presence is never defined by them since they believe there is no need. I think their view is somewhere between Luther's and Rome.

[D28guy]

Marcia,

"Somehow Christians are able to stay in unity on the essentials because of the Bible's teachings. I speak in Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Bible, non-denominational, Presbyterian, etc. churches with no problem. I am one with all other believers in Christ. It is the HS who unites us, not men. So no matter the failings of men or our differences, all believers are able to still be part of the one true church."It is a never ending source of complete amazment to me regarding how folks in the "Orthodox" and Catholic groups can be so utterly blind to something that is so obvious.

I can just hear in advance the response...

"Why, how can their be unity with 30,000 competing denominations all disagreeing with each other, and all coming up with new doctrines???"

graemlins/laugh.gif

And Mike says...

"Beam me up, Scotty!" :D

God bless,

Mike

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Marcia:

Arius and other heretics misused the scripture. The diety of Christ is clearly taught in scripture and just because heretics try to prove their doctrines from scripture does not mean the Bible is not sufficient as a way to measure false doctrine.But Arius and his followers (and other heretics for that matter) maintained it was the orthodox who were misusing Scripture as the scriptures clearly taught that Christ was created and inferior to the Father. They each had their own proof texts to support their ideas as well as explanations for the problem passages for their beliefs. (see again the comments by Vincent of Lerins).

We will always have heretics until Christ comes again and Christ and Paul and Peter warned about them in the Bible.True, but how does one tell who are the heretics based on "sola Scriptura" without begging the question of interpretation?

Somehow Christians are able to stay in unity on the essentials because of the Bible's teachings. I speak in Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Bible, non-denominational, Presbyterian, etc. churches with no problem. "Somehow"...but then that all depends on what you think the "essentials" are since some of those groups may not agree. (Unless you mean that the "essentials" are those areas in which they happen to believe with your list of what's essential, derived from a certain soteriological framework--ie, the baptist one) For instance Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist and would consider such beliefs "essential" while obviously you do not.

It is the HS who unites us, not men. So no matter the failings of men or our differences, all believers are able to still be part of the one true church.Yet the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired mutually contradictory doctrines (including some involving some key areas) which have precluded different denominations from truly worshipping together. That is, unless certain members of the different denominations have seen fit to relativize the truth except in the case of some amorphous group of minimalistic essentials.

The Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church (which is the fulness of Him who fills all in all) into all truth--not to scatter bits and pieces of the truth into separate denominations in hopes that we'd all piece it back together like a jig-saw puzzle.


I do not see anything there that indicates it is literally the body and blood of Christ, but rather a reference to the atonement and sacrifice of Christ.It indicates both since the fact that the bread and wine are the literal communion of the real body and blood of Christ is what makes present the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

If Christ's death was sufficient on the cross, there is no need for his body to be broken again and again, nor need for his blood to be continually spilled. Christ's body is not "broken again and again" nor is His "blood continually spilled". He was indeed sacrificed once for all, but in the Eucharist Christians participate in that one sacrifice since the bread is the communion of His body and the wine is the communion of His blood.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Kiffen:
It should be pointed out that both Luther and Calvin believed in a real presence in communion.

Luther believed that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ BUT the elements were not changed as Roman Catholicism taught.

Calvin believed that when one partook of the Lord's Supper by Faith in remembrance of Him that one spiritually fed upon Christ in their hearts and minds. This was the view held by early Presbyterians, Anglicans and Baptists (AND THE CORRECT VIEW IN MY OPINION).

Zwinglian theology holds that it is a mere memorial of Christ death BUT this seems to be the opposite error of the Roman Catholic view since Paul is clear in 1 Cor. 10 that a real communion with Christ takes place in communion.

The Eastern Orthodox view of the real presence is never defined by them since they believe there is no need. I think their view is somewhere between Luther's and Rome. Good post. It goes to show that the Zwinglian view, although widely prevalent in today's neo-Evangelicalism, is, in the historical scheme of things, the doctrinal novelty.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by D28guy:
And Mike says...

"Beam me up, Scotty!"

Indeed. graemlins/thumbs.gif

[Eric B]

But certainly not all "mysticism" is "gnostic". OTOH, the gnostics' emphasis on a spiritual saving "knowledge" divorced from matter seems to be more at home in strands of contemporary Protestantism while being radically at odds with orthodox theology. I do not deny that Protestantism has been influenced by gnostic ideas as well. I have pointed some of them out in other discussions. Gnosticism was a very varied system of thought, and different forms of it have come into Christianity of all stripes. Unfortunately,people are better at pointing out its manifestations on other groups, than in their own.
Not at all. God became Incarnate one time. However, Christ, who took on the material form of man for our salvation can certainly communicate to us His Incarnate divine-humanity in the material forms of bread and wine in such an intimate way that they become in a real sense His very Body and Blood. Christ's body is not "broken again and again" nor is His "blood continually spilled". He was indeed sacrificed once for all, but in the Eucharist Christians participate in that one sacrifice since the bread is the communion of His body and the wine is the communion of His blood. But you're just presuming some new form of incarnation without any substantiation except for "tradition". Anyone can do that with any teaching.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we are eating invisible spiritual flesh and blood, then you might as well say that the bread and wine and "eating" are symbols of the invisible reality.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ahh...you might be on to something here...
(As it seems like you are at least coming closer to using "symbol" in the way the early Christians did--as a visible sign which actually makes present (or conveys) the invisible reality signified.) However, there is a visible "eating" involved. Well, it looks like it's you that may be onto something. :cool: Still, you are rather vague about this "invisible reality". You denied that there was some parallel "spirit" bread & wine floating next to or in the physical elements, and the above response was supposed to answer that, but it was to that same point you said I was onto something.
You keep asserting that but I showed in those verses in 1 Cor 10 & 11 that Christ and Paul refer to the bread itself as the "body" and "the communion of (participation in) the body" respectively as well. This doesn't take away from the fact that the Church is the Body of Christ as well. In fact, Paul says that by partaking of that one bread the many become one Body (1 Cor 10:27); in otherwords, he sees a real connection between the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Christ and the Church being the Body of Christ as well. Yet many of the fathers (including Augustine) made comments to the effect that Christ was holding Himself in His hands when He said this, so in wasn't obvious to all (including to some very bright minds) that this was "clearly symbolic".

At any rate, the early Christians were able to recognize the intimate connection between: (1) the literal manner of Christ's discourse in regards to eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John 6 with (2)His declaration that the bread and wine was His body and blood at Lord Supper and with (3)Paul's literal declaration to the Corinthians that the bread and cup were the participation in the body and blood of Christ. Once again; I believe this is so because as I said above: I guess eating was so important, because you are taking something into your body--into yourself, and sharing the same substance, so it points to oneness. Once again, eating together is a significant event even in the world.
And "God the Word", Jesus Christ, a Living Person, is the standard which the Scriptures are truly interpreted. He is the One who fulfilled the OT and thus truly interpreted it around Himself. He is the One whom the apostles encountered and who gave them the authority to "bind and loose". He is the One they first preached about, and then later wrote about. It was the apostles teaching handed down in the Church about the true Christ which became the primary way the Christians would tell which writings were truly apostolic and which were spurious. However, those who taught a false "christ" came away from the same Scriptures with radically different conclusions. Which leads us too...

But heretics like the Arians thought that they were measuring their doctrine by the Scriptures. The Arians would toss Scriptural texts back and forth with the orthodox yet arrive at different conclusions about what they meant. Therefore, again, it is good to review the comments of Vincent of Lerins in the 5th century:

"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation."

You make the mistake of limiting "God's word" to only that which is written, something that the Scriptures itself doesn't do. Paul mentioned that the Thessalonians acknowledged the words they heard from Paul to be the "word of God" (1 Thess 2:13).

This is a false dichotomy. The same church which discovered which writings were authentically apostolic (initially with varying degrees of success) also determined the limits of the canon by excluding the spurious (heretical) works and by leaving out writings which, although not proven to be written by apostles, were otherwise consistent in their contents with orthodoxy.

Yet not all books were circulated initially to the same geographcial extent. This is why certain books--partcularly James, Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation--were not at first universally accepted, since by the time they began to circulate outside their original limited areas of reception, many other spurious books claiming apostolic authorship were also floating around. This the one of the main reasons why there were doubts about the apostolic authorship of these books for so long. With the aid of the Apostolic Tradition in the churches they finally--at the end of the 4th century--came to a universal (more or less) consensus regarding the authenticity and thus the canonicity of these works.

This is an anachronistic argument. Christ actually gave the authority to the apostles and through them to the church decades before His words were written down in the NT writings. And the churches were established and acknowledged this apostolic authority decades before the first NT writing was penned. So logically and chronologically, it is the Scriptures that derive their authority from Christ through His Church.
Still, as I said somewhere before, if it were purely "apostolic tradition" that determined the canon; there were many writings (attributed to NT figures, and some postapostolic) that had the catholic doctrines, that did not deny any other truth. All of these would have been included if those were truly apostolic traditions, and that was the only criterion for inclusion. But the fact that those doctrines were consistently omitted fromn the books chosen shows otherwise. The books were most likely compared with each other. Some were unanimously accepted early on, and ones in question could be judged by them. That is precisely why the books promoting "Catholic" doctrines were all left out, even though those 4th century "catholics" wanted so much to include them! Once again, that is sure evidence that God worked through them in spite of themselves!
Yet as I pointed out above, the Church could and did do just that before the NT was ever written. This included specific details of the New Covenant which were not "derived" from the Old. Once again; that's not really true. Their "details" still maintained scriptural principle. Even "true circumcision" being a spiritual one could be found in OT passages! There was no total innovation. Else, the Bereans would not be able to verify anything form the scriptures.
But of course demons are immaterial, while Christ actually has physical body and blood. Therefore one can't make a completely equivalent comparison. But demons apparently could take on some visible manifestation as well. It is they who manifest themselves in various ways and in various things, while Christ came once as a man, and has gone back up to the Father, and sent the Holy Spirit to reside in us.

[Eric B]

It should be pointed out that both Luther and Calvin believed in a real presence in communion.

Luther believed that the Eucharist was the body and blood of Christ BUT the elements were not changed as Roman Catholicism taught.

Calvin believed that when one partook of the Lord's Supper by Faith in remembrance of Him that one spiritually fed upon Christ in their hearts and minds. This was the view held by early Presbyterians, Anglicans and Baptists (AND THE CORRECT VIEW IN MY OPINION).

Zwinglian theology holds that it is a mere memorial of Christ death BUT this seems to be the opposite error of the Roman Catholic view since Paul is clear in 1 Cor. 10 that a real communion with Christ takes place in communion.

The Eastern Orthodox view of the real presence is never defined by them since they believe there is no need. I think their view is somewhere between Luther's and Rome. Luther's view sounds pretty much like the ORthodox view, at least as DT is presenting it.
On the other hand, Calvin's view I could basically agree with: We feed spiritually on Christ in the heart and mind, not some "literal" (physical) feeding on real "flesh and blood" (which to me sounds like, and thus necessitated Rome's view of a "change". Else, if it was not "changed"; then was it always flesh and blood even as it was manufactured and before?). I would think this is what Zwingli tried to express as "symbol", though I do not know how much he disputed with Calvin on that. Still; I think many more of the much derided so-called "Zwinglian" Protestants here would at least somewhat agree with Calvin.

Somehow"...but then that all depends on what you think the "essentials" are since some of those groups may not agree. (Unless you mean that the "essentials" are those areas in which they happen to believe with your list of what's essential, derived from a certain soteriological framework--ie, the baptist one) For instance Lutherans believe in baptismal regeneration and the real presence in the Eucharist and would consider such beliefs "essential" while obviously you do not.

Yet the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired mutually contradictory doctrines (including some involving some key areas) which have precluded different denominations from truly worshipping together. That is, unless certain members of the different denominations have seen fit to relativize the truth except in the case of some amorphous group of minimalistic essentials.

The Holy Spirit was promised to guide the Church (which is the fulness of Him who fills all in all) into all truth--not to scatter bits and pieces of the truth into separate denominations in hopes that we'd all piece it back together like a jig-saw puzzle.Nobody's suggesting that, as if God did it that way deliberately. The truth became scattered as men went off with their own teachings. Many aim to piece it back together, but then they can be wrong on thigs as wel. Still, you are looking at organizations built around these erroneous [extra] "essentials", rather that looking at a body of believers in Christ (regardless of what people add to the simplicity of Christ; and focusing on Christ alone is thekey yo unity,m and not "minimalistic", as if "the truth" is defined by a long list of doctrines, such as a catechism. Now who's "reducing" the faith to a book? tongue.gif ).

[Marcia]

Posted by Doubting Thomas
But Arius and his followers (and other heretics for that matter) maintained it was the orthodox who were misusing Scripture as the scriptures clearly taught that Christ was created and inferior to the Father. They each had their own proof texts to support their ideas as well as explanations for the problem passages for their beliefs. (see again the comments by Vincent of Lerins).

. . .how does one tell who are the heretics based on "sola Scriptura" without begging the question of interpretation?
Christians have maintained historic, orthodox faith for 2,000 years. If we couldn't tell heresy by the Bible, then that makes the bible a pretty useless book. Sure, false teachers have proof-texts but they either take those texts out of context or twist them or read a meaning that is not there. It is not that hard to see. It might be subtle, but you can ferret it out.

As a new believer with only a little Bible knowledge, I knew the JW's and Mormons were wrong in their theology. I knew universalism was wrong. I had discussions with people with no help, just using the Bible. Part of this was using the Bible and part of it was the HS witnessing in my spirit as to the truth. But it's in conjunction with God's word.

Heb. 4.12 tells us that God's word has power - it judges us in our spirit and hearts, convicts of sin, and convicts us of the truth. It is not just a guidebook that can mean anything. I reject the deconstruction of language. Words mean something.

Differences among believers do not mean we are not in unity by the HS. There is one Spirit and one truth.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
But you're just presuming some new form of incarnation without any substantiation except for "tradition". Anyone can do that with any teaching.Not at all. I repeat that Christ became Incarnate once, but He who took on the material form of man (which He still has) can certainly communicate His divine-humanity to us in the material forms of bread and wine in such an intimate way that become His very body and blood. Such would not be out of the question for the God who communicated to Moses from a burning bush.

Well, it looks like it's you that may be onto something. Still, you are rather vague about this "invisible reality".The invisible reality is the body of Christ that was broken for us and the blood of Christ that was spilled for us. I don't see what's so "vague" about that.
You denied that there was some parallel "spirit" bread & wine floating next to or in the physical elements, and the above response was supposed to answer that, but it was to that same point you said I was onto something. The body was broken and the blood was spilled at Calvary. It isn't "floating" anywhere. However, by eating the bread and drinking the wine we make present the one sacrafice of Christ and have genuine communion with His real body and blood so that His flesh is food indeed and His blood drink indeed.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Yet as I pointed out above, the Church could and did do just that before the NT was ever written. This included specific details of the New Covenant which were not "derived" from the Old. Once again; that's not really true. Their "details" still maintained scriptural principle. Even "true circumcision" being a spiritual one could be found in OT passages! There was no total innovation.</font>[/QUOTE]But the details weren't specifically spelled out in the OT. The institutions of the eucharist and baptism perhaps were hinted out but not spelled out in detail, particularly in relationship to the New Covenant. In fact, the OT doesn't even specifically say the Messiah was going to be named "Jesus". It took the apostolic preaching and teaching to reveal this. I remind you that the New Covenant wasn't fully revealed until Christ and the apostles (see Eph 3:3-6).

Else, the Bereans would not be able to verify anything form the scriptures.The main thing that Bereans were able to verify from Scripture was Paul's claim that the Scriptures taught the Messiah must suffer and rise again. This was the focus of what he was preaching in the Acts 17. Since he was reasoning from the Scriptures (v.2-3) a certain teaching, it only made since to verify that the specific teaching was indeed found in the Scriptures (v.11). Beyond that, it is a leap of logic to assume that everything else that Paul ever taught about was found directly in Scriptures and would thus have to be verified by them.

But demons apparently could take on some visible manifestation as well.But none became Incarnate and none are the God-man who can communicate His divine-humanity to us in the forms of bread and wine.

...while Christ came once as a man, and has gone back up to the Father, and sent the Holy Spirit to reside in us.Yet we still have communion with Christ--His divinity and humanity--in the Eucharist.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This is a false dichotomy. The same church which discovered which writings were authentically apostolic (initially with varying degrees of success) also determined the limits of the canon by excluding the spurious (heretical) works and by leaving out writings which, although not proven to be written by apostles, were otherwise consistent in their contents with orthodoxy.

Yet not all books were circulated initially to the same geographcial extent. This is why certain books--partcularly James, Hebrews, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation--were not at first universally accepted, since by the time they began to circulate outside their original limited areas of reception, many other spurious books claiming apostolic authorship were also floating around. This the one of the main reasons why there were doubts about the apostolic authorship of these books for so long. With the aid of the Apostolic Tradition in the churches they finally--at the end of the 4th century--came to a universal (more or less) consensus regarding the authenticity and thus the canonicity of these works.
Still, as I said somewhere before, if it were purely "apostolic tradition" that determined the canon; there were many writings (attributed to NT figures, and some postapostolic) that had the catholic doctrines, that did not deny any other truth. All of these would have been included if those were truly apostolic traditions, and that was the only criterion for inclusion. </font>[/QUOTE]But I never said that it was "purely" apostolic tradition that determined canonicity, nor that it was the "only" criterion. Notice above that I had mentioned that genuine apostolic authorship was also a main criterion. If they kept the canon open and included everything consistent with apostolic tradition--though not proved to be authored by the apostles themselves--then our Bibles would be much too big to carry to Bible study. :D

At any rate, as I've said before, it was the circulation of spurious works falsely claiming apostolic authorship (and Marcion wanting to limit true apostolic writings to those of Paul) that even led to the idea of a NT canon in the first place.

[Eric B]

Not at all. I repeat that Christ became Incarnate once, but He who took on the material form of man (which He still has) can certainly communicate His divine-humanity to us in the material forms of bread and wine in such an intimate way that become His very body and blood. Such would not be out of the question for the God who communicated to Moses from a burning bush.
God spoke in an audible voice from the burning bush. That was a theophany. To convey invisible, inaudible realities, God does not need to "inhabit" anything, except us through the Spirit.
The invisible reality is the body of Christ that was broken for us and the blood of Christ that was spilled for us. I don't see what's so "vague" about that.

The body was broken and the blood was spilled at Calvary. It isn't "floating" anywhere. What's vague is exactly what this has to do with the bread and wine. You compare it to the incarnation, but say it's not another incarnation. You say it doesn't "change", you say the spirit doesn't "float" besides or in it, and and now you compare it to the burning bush.
However, by eating the bread and drinking the wine we make present the one sacrafice of Christ and have genuine communion with His real body and blood so that His flesh is food indeed and His blood drink indeed. Yet we still have communion with Christ--His divinity and humanity--in the Eucharist. See, this is another example of the vagueness I'm talking about. What do you mean "make present"? That could mean one of two things. Either a "change"; like the RCC, or it would be something closer to what we call "symbolic". Christ is present in us (communion), and His sacrifice "shown" as we eat the bread and wine representing His flesh and blood. You're not being very clear on exactly how the bread and wine figure into the "presence".
But the details weren't specifically spelled out in the OT. The institutions of the eucharist and baptism perhaps were hinted out but not spelled out in detail, particularly in relationship to the New Covenant. Uh, the Eucharist was originally the Passover seder. That's what was so significant when Jesus instituted the Supper. Baptism reflected the passing through the Red Sea, and came to be used by the Jews for that reason before the apostles. It's not like the apostles introduced these totally foreign new practices that nobody had heard of before.
In fact, the OT doesn't even specifically say the Messiah was going to be named "Jesus". It took the apostolic preaching and teaching to reveal this. I remind you that the New Covenant wasn't fully revealed until Christ and the apostles (see Eph 3:3-6).
His actual given name was not what was so important. The Jews understood that thiose names used int he OTT were titles for the Messiah's mission. His actual name is a historic reality that was first given by the angel, not something the apostles made up off the top of their heads, or Jesus revealed to them secretly and were then omitted from all the writings.
The main thing that Bereans were able to verify from Scripture was Paul's claim that the Scriptures taught the Messiah must suffer and rise again. This was the focus of what he was preaching in the Acts 17. Since he was reasoning from the Scriptures (v.2-3) a certain teaching, it only made since to verify that the specific teaching was indeed found in the Scriptures (v.11). Beyond that, it is a leap of logic to assume that everything else that Paul ever taught about was found directly in Scriptures and would thus have to be verified by them. It had to at least be based on the scriptures (if at least prophetically/symbolically), and not some new novelty, and the examples you have been giving do not fit that category.
But none became Incarnate and none are the God-man who can communicate His divine-humanity to us in the forms of bread and wine.
But if this is not another incarnation, then why keep making the Incarnation the proof that God could do this?
But I never said that it was "purely" apostolic tradition that determined canonicity, nor that it was the "only" criterion. Notice above that I had mentioned that genuine apostolic authorship was also a main criterion. If they kept the canon open and included everything consistent with apostolic tradition--though not proved to be authored by the apostles themselves--then our Bibles would be much too big to carry to Bible study.

At any rate, as I've said before, it was the circulation of spurious works falsely claiming apostolic authorship (and Marcion wanting to limit true apostolic writings to those of Paul) that even led to the idea of a NT canon in the first place. But you do seem to be suggesting it would have been impossible to weed the false books out without the tradition. Even if it was both tradition and comparing books, still, many of those other books would have still passed, because not all of them taught things considered false by the Church of that period.

[Doubting Thomas]

But if this is not another incarnation, then why keep making the Incarnation the proof that God could do this?Because you seem make a big deal of the fact that God doesn't use material means to communicate with His people. I showed several examples to the contrary, including the quintessential example of the Incarnation, in which God the Word permanently became Man while remaining God. Christ ordained the material forms of bread and wine as the means of communion with His Incarnate body and blood which He gave for us on Calvary. I'm not sure how many other ways I can repeat this. In the Eucharist, the one sacrifice of Christ is made present in such a way that the bread and wine changes from being just common bread and wine to having both and earthly and a heavenly reality (as Irenaeus put it) as the bread and wine becomes His body and blood.

It had to at least be based on the scriptures (if at least prophetically/symbolically), and not some new novelty, and the examples you have been giving do not fit that category.Even if that's the case, no one knew the specific details of fulfillments of these types (since they were vague) until this was revealed to them by the Apostles.

You point out, for instance, that the bread and wine was used in the Passover seder, but those two elements assumed the central focus in Christian worship because Christ revealed that this was to be the means of communion with His body and blood, a fact not mentioned in the OT.

His actual given name was not what was so important. Sure it was, because it was the name of the one who finally fulfilled the Old Covenant.

His actual name is a historic reality that was first given by the angel, not something the apostles made up off the top of their heads or Jesus revealed to them secretly and were then omitted from all the writings.But once again you're assuming that just because the Apostles may not have ultimately written a certain detail down (or put a teaching in a specific way in writing) that they must have just "made it up off the top of their heads". You have failed to prove this, especially given the fact that not even everything that Jesus said and did was written down in the four gospels. (John 21:25). You have yet to demonstrate that the NT writings were meant to be an exhaustive compendium of everything that was ever taught by Christ to the Apostles and by them to the Church.

But you do seem to be suggesting it would have been impossible to weed the false books out without the tradition. Even if it was both tradition and comparing books, still, many of those other books would have still passed, because not all of them taught things considered false by the Church of that period. Many of those other books wouldn't have "passed" since they weren't authored by actual apostles. You assume that the canon was meant to be an all-inclusive encyclopedia of every Christian writing, whether or not it was written by an apostle as long as a writing mirrored (generally) apostolic tradition. However, it seems the Church's goal in setting limits to the NT canon was more modest--including those writings and only those writings which were authentically written by apostles or their very close associates (in the cases of Luke, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews)--no more (ie the spurious works of the gnostics claiming authorship; or even generally orthodox works not written by apostles) and no less (ie Marcion).

[Eric B]

Because you seem make a big deal of the fact that God doesn't use material means to communicate with His people. I showed several examples to the contrary, including the quintessential example of the Incarnation, in which God the Word permanently became Man while remaining God. Christ ordained the material forms of bread and wine as the means of communion with His Incarnate body and blood which He gave for us on Calvary. I'm not sure how many other ways I can repeat this. But that's what I mean when I say that you're overgeneralizing those things. I did not need all those lessons on how God could be manifest physically (which is why I thought you were using those a examples of "real presence". In studying God's dealings with the world, we see that all of those physical manifestations ceased with the final manifestation of the Logos as Christ. Now, we are in the dispensation of the Spirit, where God reveals Himself to us through the Spirit in us. I neverargued that God couldn't be manifest visibly. He just does not choose to do it now, because the New Testament (after Christ) is about the Spirit, and the Old Covenant was "fleshy", and more physical/visible oriented (the whole lesson is that that did not solve man's problem of sin). Now, you may try to liken this to gnosticism, but the problem with that ideology, is not a distinction between spirit and flesh at altogether, but that they go to an opposite extreme and overgeneralize it to making matter evil. Nothing I have said suggests any such thing. You have only arrived at that conclusion by overgeneralizing any distinction between physical and spiritual with any supremacy of the spiritual. It's not that matter is evil, but that God is a spirit, and to come into the truest contact with Him must be in the spiritual realm. What you are describing now is a spiritual reality, but you are still trying to attach some physical element as crucial to it, and using the past "physical manifestations" as examples, but they are not examples; only types. (Even the incarnation can be viewed as such in a way. God is now "incarnate" in us; still "physically manifest", but no longer external. It's people in the world who insist on visible signs of God (beyond the design in Creation), and don't realize that this never gave men more faith.
In the Eucharist, the one sacrifice of Christ is made present in such a way that the bread and wine changes from being just common bread and wine to having both and earthly and a heavenly reality (as Irenaeus put it) as the bread and wine becomes His body and blood.
So now it does "change". That's what the RCC says, and now, the only difference seems to be that they say it is only flesh and blood, and you say it is both. Once again; if it is both; then the physical side of it can be said to be a symbol of the spiritual. Else; it appears that a separate "spiritual version" is "floating" beside it or residing in it, or whatever, which you deny.
Even if that's the case, no one knew the specific details of fulfillments of these types (since they were vague) until this was revealed to them by the Apostles.

You point out, for instance, that the bread and wine was used in the Passover seder, but those two elements assumed the central focus in Christian worship because Christ revealed that this was to be the means of communion with His body and blood, a fact not mentioned in the OT.
Ypu keep talking "specific details", but I am not denying that the apostles could spell out the details of things not written in the OT. What we're discussing is whle new spins on concepts that you claim was included with this apostolic teaching, but consistantly left out of their writings. You cannot compare the Spirit-inspired apostles of Christ (most of whom directly saw Him, and were discipled by Him while on earth) interpreting the OT and teaching it orally and in writing; with postapostolic "fathers" interpreting the NT, and adding spins to it under the guise of this same "oral tradition" by which the apostles interpreted the OT. "apostolic sucession" did not carry with it "doctrinal inerrancy".
(And actually, there is a theory that the bread and wine was only used as an example in that instance because it was the Passover seder, and Christ was describing any meal the Church would have. This is evidenced by the fact that people cold not be "gluttonous" with little crackers and tiny vials. And Paul reitereated it because he was quoting Christ).
But once again you're assuming that just because the Apostles may not have ultimately written a certain detail down (or put a teaching in a specific way in writing) that they must have just "made it up off the top of their heads". You have failed to prove this, especially given the fact that not even everything that Jesus said and did was written down in the four gospels. (John 21:25). You have yet to demonstrate that the NT writings were meant to be an exhaustive compendium of everything that was ever taught by Christ to the Apostles and by them to the Church.
You're still assuming that there was some sort of separation of teachings, with one group included inthe writings, and the other left out; and that if we don't believe that, then we are making the NT "an exhaustive compendium of everything that was ever taught by Christ to the Apostles and by them to the Church". It is not an exhaustive compendium, but the same principles carry through. Just compare the gospels. Some include something left out by the others, and sometimes this is the same teaching put in other words. Sometime it maybe some particular act, but it still fits the principles seen elsewhere. So if we did not have one of the gospels we are familiar with, we would still have all the truths taught by it. Likewise, we have no reason to expect the rest of these "teachings not written" to be much different than anything we do read about.
Many of those other books wouldn't have "passed" since they weren't authored by actual apostles. You assume that the canon was meant to be an all-inclusive encyclopedia of every Christian writing, whether or not it was written by an apostle as long as a writing mirrored (generally) apostolic tradition. However, it seems the Church's goal in setting limits to the NT canon was more modest--including those writings and only those writings which were authentically written by apostles or their very close associates (in the cases of Luke, Mark, Acts, and Hebrews)--no more (ie the spurious works of the gnostics claiming authorship; or even generally orthodox works not written by apostles) and no less (ie Marcion). You were claiming that "tradition" (i.e. teachings and practices) was the way that they knew a book was genuinely authored by an apostle in the first place. I assumed nothing of any "exhaustive encyclopedia of all Christian writings". But even if they only tried to limit it down to apostolic writings, if their teachings included "catholic" teachings, they they may have been taken as genuinely authored. Else, once again, this other body of teachings must have been deliberately excluded.

[Doubting Thomas]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Now, we are in the dispensation of the Spirit, where God reveals Himself to us through the Spirit in us. I neverargued that God couldn't be manifest visibly. He just does not choose to do it now, because the New Testament (after Christ) is about the Spirit, and the Old Covenant was "fleshy", and more physical/visible oriented (the whole lesson is that that did not solve man's problem of sin). Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you theoretically leave open the possibility that God can manifest himself visibly, but on the other hand you are quite confident that "He just does not choose to do it now" based on your assumptions about the differences the Old and New Covenants, assumptions which continue to have more in common with gnosticism than historic Christianity. The truth is that the New Covenant is based supremely on the fact that God became visible for our salvation--He became a visible man (like us), taking on a physical nature, and lived a visible, physical life, died a visible, physical death (which affected our spiritual and physical salvation) and visibly arose again. This was not to dispense with the visible/physical by any means, but was rather to redeem it. Therefore, to suggest that we are not to use visible means to attest to this truth or that God "doesn't choose" to use visible means to convey His Incarnational reality to us, but that rather the visible/physical was done away with (once Christ ascended) and is still (by the mere fact of it being visible/physical) irredeemably "fleshy", falls back into quasi-gnosticism.

Historic Christianity has affirmed both the Spirit coming upon the Church at Pentecost and indwelling believers and also the Christians communion with the Incarnate Christ in the Eucharist. It has also affirmed that Christ came to redeem the entire person--body and soul. It isn't "either/or".

So now it does "change". That's what the RCC says, and now, the only difference seems to be that they say it is only flesh and blood, and you say it is both. Once again; if it is both; then the physical side of it can be said to be a symbol of the spiritual. Else; it appears that a separate "spiritual version" is "floating" beside it or residing in it, or whatever, which you deny. But the invisible (to us) reality is not "floating" at all; it's anchored in history in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. That's why one can call the bread and the wine "symbols", but only in the sense that the ancients used that word to mean a visible sign which actually makes present the invisible reality, or by which it is effected.

In regards, to specifics (or "mechanics") of the "change", the Orthodox Church has been content to leave it as a mystery rather than trying to define it in Aristotelian philosphical categories.
Likewise, we have no reason to expect the rest of these "teachings not written" to be much different than anything we do read about.Of course there's nothing contradictory between what wasn't written and what was, but that then brings up the problem of the interpretation of what was actually written.

For instance, let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that Paul had said some other things in more detail about the Real Presence, perhaps not worded exactly the same as in 1 Corinthians yet consistent with what he meant in that passage. Now suppose that these different nuances--including the idea of "change"--were later written down by different orthodox church fathers. If then, a Lutheran or Anglican (or Orthodox or Catholic) look back and see these writings and compare them with what Paul wrote in Scripture, they would see complimentary ways of saying the same truth. However, if a Zwinglian were to do the comparison then he'd see contradiction, and would say: "Nope...look here--this church father says the elements "change", a word that Paul didn't specifically write in Corinthians. We know that Paul must have meant this merely metaphorically, so this must be where everyone got off track." However, the Zwinglian would be wrong in his assessment. The tradition would actually be agreeing with the scriptural "principle" but this fact would be denied by the Zwinglian, but affirmed by those who maintain the historical belief in the real presence.

OTOH, suppose for the sake of argument that Paul meant for the Eucharist to be interpreted in the Zwinglian sense and clarified this belief in statements outside of Scripture, perhaps in anticipation of future misunderstandings. One would expect that somewhere among the orthodox Christians that this view would be defended as the correct one, especially when other otherwise orthodox Christians started taking it too literally. Given the controversies on several other issues that brought out spirited defenses from the orthodox believers in the face of heresy one would think that there would be a statement somewhere to the fact that: "This Real Presence doctrine is a heresy! Don't you know this is the "dispensation of the Spirit" and that such emphasis on visible and physical things is just a fleshy vestige of the Old Covenant? Physical and visible things avail for nothing!" Yet not only do we not see any such repudiation of the Real Presence from orthodox Christians, but the place in which we do encounter beliefs such as these are in the teachings of the gnostic heretics. (Of course--one may argue that such defenses may have existed before vanishing without a trace, but then folks like the Mormons could also in such a manner argue from silence.)

So starting with different presuppositions about how the written Scriptures are interpreted, one comes to different conclusions of whether the patristic consensus is in agreement with the scriptural "principle" or whether they are in opposition. The fact is that there is no historical evidence for that these Zwinglian presuppositions existed among the otherwise orthodox christians until...Zwingli.

[Eric B]

Now you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. On the one hand, you theoretically leave open the possibility that God can manifest himself visibly, but on the other hand you are quite confident that "He just does not choose to do it now" based on your assumptions about the differences the Old and New Covenants, assumptions which continue to have more in common with gnosticism than historic Christianity. The truth is that the New Covenant is based supremely on the fact that God became visible for our salvation--He became a visible man (like us), taking on a physical nature, and lived a visible, physical life, died a visible, physical death (which affected our spiritual and physical salvation) and visibly arose again. This was not to dispense with the visible/physical by any means, but was rather to redeem it. Therefore, to suggest that we are not to use visible means to attest to this truth or that God "doesn't choose" to use visible means to convey His Incarnational reality to us, but that rather the visible/physical was done away with (once Christ ascended) and is still (by the mere fact of it being visible/physical) irredeemably "fleshy", falls back into quasi-gnosticism. That's not true. It is not a total shunning of physical matter as if evil. As I have always said, just like in areas such as sexuality (which "catholic" churches led the way in making evil, based on gnostic influence, showing it was not free of such, though I don't know if the East was always as bad as the [Augustinian] West), the sin lies not in physical matter, but in man's soul. (Quite a reversal of the gnostic belief!) He tends to idolize physical things. God gave Israel a bunch of physical things in their worship, and we see where that went. So in this age; God focuses on the spirit. That is all that is really needed right now; not necessarily all that is "good".
Historic Christianity has affirmed both the Spirit coming upon the Church at Pentecost and indwelling believers and also the Christians communion with the Incarnate Christ in the Eucharist. It has also affirmed that Christ came to redeem the entire person--body and soul. It isn't "either/or". I am speaking of worship now. This has nothing to do with our bodies.
God redeems our bodies through sanctification, though not completely, because we still have the sin nature. Complete redemption of the physical realm will be in the future kingdom, which the gnostics would deny (in fact, the whole idea of spirits floating up to Heaven without the body is from them!)
But the invisible (to us) reality is not "floating" at all; it's anchored in history in Christ's once-for-all sacrifice. That's why one can call the bread and the wine "symbols", but only in the sense that the ancients used that word to mean a visible sign which actually makes present the invisible reality, or by which it is effected. I'm not sure how different the ancient meaning of "symbol" is from our resent understanding. You say "anchored in history", but that still does not tell us the relationship of the spiritual reality to the physical items.
In regards, to specifics (or "mechanics") of the "change", the Orthodox Church has been content to leave it as a mystery rather than trying to define it in Aristotelian philosphical categories. OK, but then keep in mind that "mystery" was one of the chief tactics of the gnostics. "Miracle, mystery and authority" is being recognized by some now as the long time tactic of corrupt religion to indoctrinate and control people. Just like the precise nature of the Trinity and Calvinistic arguments, we try to fully explain spiritual realities, beyond what the scripture says, and only when further questions arise THEN do we appeal to "mystery". But this comes from already going too far into the unexplainable.
Of course there's nothing contradictory between what wasn't written and what was, but that then brings up the problem of the interpretation of what was actually written.

For instance, let's suppose (for the sake of argument) that Paul had said some other things in more detail about the Real Presence, perhaps not worded exactly the same as in 1 Corinthians yet consistent with what he meant in that passage. Now suppose that these different nuances--including the idea of "change"--were later written down by different orthodox church fathers. If then, a Lutheran or Anglican (or Orthodox or Catholic) look back and see these writings and compare them with what Paul wrote in Scripture, they would see complimentary ways of saying the same truth. However, if a Zwinglian were to do the comparison then he'd see contradiction, and would say: "Nope...look here--this church father says the elements "change", a word that Paul didn't specifically write in Corinthians. We know that Paul must have meant this merely metaphorically, so this must be where everyone got off track." However, the Zwinglian would be wrong in his assessment. The tradition would actually be agreeing with the scriptural "principle" but this fact would be denied by the Zwinglian, but affirmed by those who maintain the historical belief in the real presence.

OTOH, suppose for the sake of argument that Paul meant for the Eucharist to be interpreted in the Zwinglian sense and clarified this belief in statements outside of Scripture, perhaps in anticipation of future misunderstandings. One would expect that somewhere among the orthodox Christians that this view would be defended as the correct one, especially when other otherwise orthodox Christians started taking it too literally. Given the controversies on several other issues that brought out spirited defenses from the orthodox believers in the face of heresy one would think that there would be a statement somewhere to the fact that: "This Real Presence doctrine is a heresy! Don't you know this is the "dispensation of the Spirit" and that such emphasis on visible and physical things is just a fleshy vestige of the Old Covenant? Physical and visible things avail for nothing!" Yet not only do we not see any such repudiation of the Real Presence from orthodox Christians, but the place in which we do encounter beliefs such as these are in the teachings of the gnostic heretics. (Of course--one may argue that such defenses may have existed before vanishing without a trace, but then folks like the Mormons could also in such a manner argue from silence.)

So starting with different presuppositions about how the written Scriptures are interpreted, one comes to different conclusions of whether the patristic consensus is in agreement with the scriptural "principle" or whether they are in opposition. The fact is that there is no historical evidence for that these Zwinglian presuppositions existed among the otherwise orthodox christians until...Zwingli. You reject the idea that the change could creep in too gradually to raise such objections, but we se in the use of "symbol", that it is sometimes unclear what is meant. So if it sounds orthodox, people will accept it, until it crosses a line, but by then it may be toolate. This is like the frog in the pot. So "real presence" then becomes "transubstatiation", and at that point, the East digress to an earlier, simpler expression (and I'm sure they tolerated it for awhile before thre split), and later the Lutherans; and then Zwingli tries to take it back further to a SS expression.
Once again; I would say it was men and their "traditions" that started all the splintering in the first place, because then we got into the mindset that "the scriptures don't really have to explicitly say it", so everyone wanted their idea of the "apostolic tradition" passed off as the truth. The "Ont Church" supressed the splintering with its power for centuries, but couldn't keep it down forever.

Anyway, we should not speculate too much on these "other teachings", and assume they included "more detail" that was left out. God has preserved for us the most important details of the basic faith, and we can try to appeal to "apostolic tradition", and question whether that would "end" with a written canon, and then go on to link it to "patristic consensus"; but on the flipside, we can ask whoever said that the tradition was for those, beyond the period of time when the writings were not widely published? You can ask one question like that, and we can ask another, and it is all speculation. You are asking us to have faith, basically in what these "fathers" said. Setting aside whether we are even interpreting them completely right, they were still not pure in apostolic teaching. Antisemitis is another area where they took scriptural teachings and stretched them into unscriptural extremes. There were a lot of criticisms of the Jews int he NT, but the fathers took it beyond that, to where the tables were turned, and they were nowlooked at as the "dogs" (like they looked at gentiles in the NT).
And false groups may try to use the claim that opposition was buried, but that does not mean that there could not have been some opposition buried. None of us were there back then. We can only know by what was preserved for us. There are three sources preserved for us: Canonized scripture, patristic tradition, and spurious works. The first agreeable true. The latter agreeably false,as it sometimes blatantly contradicts the first. The second one
based on interpretations of the first, that may or may not be true, and we cannot know for sure. Only the first is without question to us. So instead of asking us to have faith in these men and their traditions (interpretations) and their "mysteries"; why not just go back to the God-breathed source that we all agree is from God, and have faith that God preserved all of His necessary truths in them? You cound't go wrong that way. even if people continue to ptiwst it to multiple interpretations (which they could do even more with an "oral tradition" anyway).

[Matt Black]

How do you know that Zwingli took "it back further to a SS expression"? ISTM that, far from returning to a Scriptural description of the sacraments, Zwingli erred in attempting to interpret the Latin 'sacramentum', which in itself originally meant a military oath or pedge of allegiance and was therefore a poor translation of the Greek &mu;&upsilon;&sigma;&tau;&eta;&rho;&iota;&omicron;&nu; , as being merely symbolic, based on its original Latin sense rather than the above original Greek word; in so doing, he broke with the continuity of the Church's understanding of the term which streched back to the ECFs and Apostles (Ignatius and John in particular).

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Eric B]

"Musterion" means simply "secret". In its 27 uses, it is never used for "some teaching we can't comprehend" (the closest to that would be the "mystery" of "God...manifest in the flesh" (1 Tim.3:16), but even that is more about the revelation of Christ, than the metaphysical question of Him being human and divine), but instead, in most cases, the "secret" was in the process of being revealed, or already revealed (and remaining hidden from those blinded).
So Zwingli's understanding was closer to the true meaning of the word, and thus the Apostles who used the word. It was a later church with an agenda of control that changed the meaning of the word, so that no one could challenge their teachings.

BTW, Matt, are you a Baptist who is converting to the EOC or some other "catholic" group too?

[Matt Black]

I currently go to a Baptist church but have become aware over the last 6 months or so of the deficiencies of that tradition, particularly ecclesiologically and generally theologically (trawl through the last 6 months on this forum for a flavour). Whilst I would perhaps baulk at the EOC or Catholic Church, I would I think feel more at home in, how can I put it, a more Magisterial rather than Radical Reformation tradition, such as Anglicanism. I'm still contemplating my future though ATM and asking for the Lord's guidance - would appreciate your prayers.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[TexasSky]

I think this whole thread says a LOT about the changes in the Baptist Church.

The vast majority of new Mormons and new Anglicans are former Baptists.

Those I speak to give the following reasons:

1) Baptists don't care about people anymore, and ignore Christ.
2) Baptists give lipservice to the commandments, while pointing fingers at other denominations, but then "accept" the same things the other denominations accept. (Classes for the divorced, classes for homosexuals, etc.)

[Matt Black]

Not my reasons; as I said, have a look at some of my postings in this forum over the last 6 months to get a feel. My main reasons:-

1. Sola scriptura, congregational autonomy and soul liberty (all sides of the same coin) don't work; rather they produce a collection of mutually contradictory epistemologies. A more consensual and dialogical approach to interpretation of Scripture is therefore needed.

2. I yearn for an authentic encounter with God and find that not only lacking in my Baptist church, but actively discouraged; for example, we are always at great pains to stress the Real Absence (as opposed to the Real Presence) at communion.

Yours in Christ

Matt

[TexasSky]

Matt,

I think the reasons I listed fit with your second reason. ;)

[D28guy]

Matt,

You specified Baptists. I am not baptist.(but have been a part of 2 Baptist fellowships during my christian life.)

I'll comment using "evangelicalism" as the contrast.

"Not my reasons; as I said, have a look at some of my postings in this forum over the last 6 months to get a feel. My main reasons:-

1. Sola scriptura, congregational autonomy and soul liberty (all sides of the same coin) don't work;"Needless to say, they work beautifully...if compared against other ways.

Sola Scriptura:

I cant think of any group that denies sola scriptura and claims that they are Gods truth interpreter for the "lay" people that isnt light years beyond evangelicalism regarding error, false teaching, idolatry, and heresy.

Here are some groups who deny sola scriptura and say that their organisation is Gods truth interpreter...

Jehovas Witnesses

David Koresh

Mormons

Jim Jones

Catholic Church

Christian Science

Clearly that position doesnt work. Exrememly bad things are inevitable when Gods truth standard is rejected and the leadership of a large church body are not held accountable to the scriptures by those in the church.

Problems that come up in evangelicalism is not the fault of sola scriptura, they are because we are all flawed people. Sola Scriptura keeps the problems from multiplying exponentially unchecked as if evidenced in the Catholic Church. What a hidious and blasphemous overflow of error and idolatry in that group, and others who reject Gods scriptures as the truth standard.

Congregational autonomy:

That is Gods method of choice. A localised hierarchy is all we find in the scriptures. Their is no biblical support for any kind of monsterous world wide behemoth of hierarchial oppression and control.

Soul liberty

Gods idea of course, not ours.


"rather they produce a collection of mutually contradictory epistemologies."But they are all proclaiming the true gospel and are in unity as the one body of Christ. I fellowship just fine with evangelicals, charismatics, pentecostals, non-charismatics, baptists, etc."

Regarding differences on non-foundational things, the scriptures tell us to expect it, and to allow it to occur.

I yearn for an authentic encounter with God and find that not only lacking in my Baptist church, but actively discouraged; for example, we are always at great pains to stress the Real Absence (as opposed to the Real Presence) at communion.The reason is because born again people have the Lord Jesus Christ alive inside of them...not alive inside of a cracker. The "real presence" teaching is an example of the idolatry I mentioned earlier in this post.

Grace and peace,

Mike

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I currently go to a Baptist church but have become aware over the last 6 months or so of the deficiencies of that tradition, particularly ecclesiologically and generally theologically (trawl through the last 6 months on this forum for a flavour). Whilst I would perhaps baulk at the EOC or Catholic Church, I would I think feel more at home in, how can I put it, a more Magisterial rather than Radical Reformation tradition, such as Anglicanism. I'm still contemplating my future though ATM and asking for the Lord's guidance - would appreciate your prayers.

Yours in Christ

Matt Praying for you Brother Matt.

I could pray
better if you would remind me what 'EOC'
and 'ATM' means. Here in the states 'ATM'
means 'automated teller machine' smile.gif

[Matt Black]

It does here, too! But in 'netspeak' it means "at the moment". EOC=Eastern Orthodox Church.

I appreciate your prayers, Ed

Yours in Christ

Matt

[Matt Black]

HERE'S AN ARTICLE (http://www.e-n.org.uk/1997-08/88-Why-evangelicals-join-the-Orthodox-churches.htm) written from an evangelical POV* as to why some evangelicals become Orthodox

Yours in Christ

Matt

*Note to Ed: = Point of View ;)

[Gold Dragon]

Taufgesinnter, may God reveal Himself to you ever more richly as you enter this new chapter in your journey of faith that many evangelicals have also begun.

I choose to remain Baptist even while agreeing with you about many of your greivances. Doctrine and tradition are important defining parts of our identity in Christ, but they do not fully encompass.

[D28guy]

Matt Black,

from your link...

"Thirdly, we need to take a long hard look at our worship. Recent emphasis on mutual ministry has benefited many churches, but there is more to worship than 'doing our thing', having a good sing or listening to a good sermon. Sometimes our services risk being more like what one convert called 'the Labour Club on concert night' than a foretaste of the gathering depicted in Hebrews 12.22-24, and we too rarely experience that sense of the transcendence of God which lies at the heart of Orthodox worship. As one convert wrote: 'It is the constant theme of most of those who come to the Orthodox Church and her services that what drew them was not understanding, fashion or acceptance of much they felt was strange. It was their conviction that they had profoundly met with God in the worship.'As one who is probably more pentecostal/charismatic then maybe many on BaptistBoard, I can certainly appreciate the idea of profoundly "encountering" God in a worship service.

(or during a normal day at home for that matter)

Probably the vast majority of time, I have heart that is very much biased and inclined towards that kind of thing.

However, the christian faith is more than just "warm and fuzzies" during worship. Thats not to mean that warm and fuzzies arent legitimate. They can very well be VERY legitimate. But the christian faith is also a faith of objective emperical truth claims.

In my experience with Orthodox...and its admittedly less than with Roman Catholics...I have noticed two things that are very very vigorously denied...

1) Gods truth of justification through faith alone.

2) And Gods truth that it is the scriptures alone that are our truth standard to test all things against.

And one thing thing that is very very vigorously promoted...

A completly idolatrous attitude towards the sinner saved by grace Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Because of errors of such foundational magnitude the only sensible attitude to have towards the Orthodox is to warn against it.

God bless,

Mike

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
Taufgesinnter, may God reveal Himself to you ever more richly as you enter this new chapter in your journey of faith that many evangelicals have also begun.

I choose to remain Baptist even while agreeing with you about many of your greivances. Doctrine and tradition are important defining parts of our identity in Christ, but they do not fully encompass. Thank you so much! smile.gif

[Born Again Catholic]

Taufgesinnter

I have tremendous respect for the Orthodox Churches and wish you well on your journey. Their spirituality and liturgy have so much to be admired.

I haven't read the entire thread so i may have missed it but have you decided which Orthodox Church you will join and did you ever consider any of the 21 orthodox rites in union with the See of Rome. I know they are sort of the black sheep of the Orthodox family but was curious which Orthodox Church you were going to join and why that one verses another Orthodox Church.

God Bless you

[Born Again Catholic]

Taufgesinnter

Here is a to the Byzantine Catholic Church Forum if you are interested.

http://www.byzcath.org/bboard/ultimatebb.php

[ July 29, 2005, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: Born Again Catholic ]

[Taufgesinnter]

Originally posted by Born Again Catholic:
Taufgesinnter

I have tremendous respect for the Orthodox Churches and wish you well on your journey. Their spirituality and liturgy have so much to be admired.

I haven't read the entire thread so i may have missed it but have you decided which Orthodox Church you will join and did you ever consider any of the 21 orthodox rites in union with the See of Rome. I know they are sort of the black sheep of the Orthodox family but was curious which Orthodox Church you were going to join and why that one verses another Orthodox Church.

God Bless you Thank you! That was very kind. smile.gif

Because all of the canonical Orthodox jurisdictions are part of the same Church in full communion, and AFAIK, normally use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostum, the common lectionary, the same calendar, and hold the same beliefs, the main considerations of where to join would be language, ethnicity and inclusiveness, and location.

Since my initial studies, I've been partial to the Church of Antioch, which received nearly 2000 members of the Evangelical Orthodox Church in 1987. I was especially impressed by the welcome given them by Metropolitan Philip. Also, Antioch switched over to English quite some time ago. I'm further impressed that 78% of the Antiochian seminary students are converts, as are about half their priests, and over half their bishops. They've roughly doubled the number of parishes in the U.S. and Canada in the last 20 years, and they're one of the few jurisdictions with a Western Rite.

All of that said, however, my friends and I initially attended an Orthodox Church in America parish because that's the parish of the priest my best friend made his original appointment with. The priest is an ex-Protestant, and 2/3 of the members are from non-Orthodox backgrounds. We were warmly received and have begun forming relationships there. Overall, something like 25% of OCA members nationally are of non-Orthodox backgrounds, usually evangelical, and I forget the clergy figure (20%? and growing). Plus, the OCA was one of the first to switch to English, and recently admitted the last, roughly 500 members of the Evangelical Orthodox Church. Finally, the local OCA parish is handicapped-accessible, whereas the local Antiochian parish is not, which had to be the deciding factor in our case.

Whenever I move away from this area, I don't expect the jurisdiction of my next parish to matter as much as other factors like those above, but I would plan to visit and investigate mainly Antiochian and OCA parishes anyway.

Thanks again!