My church defined your church's bible

I congratulate you for recognizing that Orthodoxy hasn't changed since well before Constantine's era. But now I must ask you to prove that it has ever changed.

It's not a matter of Orthodoxy "claiming credit" for scripture, it is a matter of claiming that the Orthodox church is one holy catholic and apostolic church which the Holy Spirit has led into all truth. We say this in all humility, and yet with all earnestness. Since it is the orthodox church which... as a matter of historical fact... the holy spirit has led into truth concerning the canon, then it is to us you must refer when observing the canon.

I'm not sure what "doing whatever it wanted" is supposed to refer to, or how this is supposed to have led to the confusion. But never-the-less, the confusion DID arise - we agree on that. And to this day, it is the resolution of that confusion BY THE ORTHODOX CHURCH, which is considered infallible, even by baptists.

Uh huh. Firstly, why do you trust these authors? Wasn't the church "doing whatever it wanted" according to you, as soon as the apostles died? Unless you believe the Holy Spirit was leading the orthodox church into all truth after the apostles died, then you have no firm basis for trusting these authors.

Secondly, the baptist church wouldn't trust the doctrines expoused by these authors, since they are clearly not protestants, they are orthodox in their doctrines. If you don't trust their doctrines, why trust their canon?

Thirdly, not many authors have survived prior to the year 150. Not many at all. You're not getting a very good sample.

Fourthly, whilst citations may give you some kind of an idea of what was scripture up to the year 150, it will not settle many issues. It will not settle Revelation, or 2 Peter. It won't settle John 8:1-11, or Mark 16.

I would ask you to prove that. Show me what is scripture and ALL of what is scripture without referring to the church after the year 150.

 

So many errors in such a short posting....

Constantine has never been head of the christian church. Please document ANYBODY in the church ever saying such nonsense.

Since no orthodox church has, or ever has, contained statutes of pagan gods, all I can say is "more nonsense". Please document.

Since unleavened bread (aka "wafers") were not used in the West until the 8th century (and have NEVER been used in orthodoxy, clearly this is baloney. Orthodoxy uses loaves of regular bread.

I don't know what reign of terror you are talking about with regards the Roman catholics, but remember I am orthodox. I don't have to defend what the Roman catholics were doing.

Huh? Just because the western church split off from the one holy and apostolic orthodox church, has nothing to do with the fact that ours was the church that the holy spirit led into all truth concerning the canon. The problem of the Roman bishop splitting off is an irrevelancy to that discussion.

Huh? Where's the documentation for that? Peter and Paul set up the Roman church in the 1st century.

They were discussed and debated IN THE ORTHODOX CHURCH. And it is the decisions OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH which you now accept today.

How do you feel that your faith is based on so many factual errors and undocumented claims?

 

I missed this the first time.

ARE YOU KIDDING ME that incense is a pagan tradition??

Malachi 1:11 "For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations," says the LORD of hosts."

Here we have the last book of the OT _prophesying_ that among the NATIONS (not just the Jews) that in "every place" incense will be offered in the name of God.

My question is why baptists are disobeying scripture yet again?

 

Care to prove that?

You think we got the correct canon without the Holy Spirit's help? How?

Hey cool, that was what I claimed.

And what allegedly did Orthodoxy add? Care to document it?

Oh ok, so maybe they got it wrong. That means maybe you have it wrong. Basically, you have no infallible rule of faith because it all relies on a fallible decision about what the canon is.

Which all assumes that Orthodoxy got it right, which you have no basis for saying either way.

So the scraps and incomplete evidence from pre-150 authors, whose identity and standing in the church in unprovable, is the basis for your infallible rule of faith. Sounds dodgy.

Care to prove that?

You "evaluate evidence" to decide the canon. You've really got nothing to complain about if somebody at church "evaluates evidence" and decides that Jude or 2 Peter or Hebrews or whatever is not in the canon do you?

So scripture is wrong, and the church is not to be led into all truth (Jn 16:13).

And Iranaeus, (c. 170 AD) quoted Shepherd of Hermas as scripture. Oh, but this is 20 years outside of your highly arbitrary 150 AD cut off date, right?

Boy, if every passage without reference before 150 gets the chop, you're going to have a very thin bible.

I think you'd find a lot of Christians disagreeing with you, even at your own church about whether this is scripture (whether or not it is original), certainly you will not find agreement among baptists.

And you've got no basis for complaining about somebody else's evaluation about this passage or other passages claimed by the Jesus seminar to be late, or whole books for that matter. You've got no basis for agreeing on the subject of infallible revelation.

Indeed it's probably an insertion later than the rest of John. But that doesn't even begin to answer the question of whether it is scripture or not. Can you prove to me it is or is not scripture? What are you going to do at church if somebody cites it to you as an authority, are you going to say "Sorry, that isn't scripture for me?"

 

A fairly good job. Wow. For all you know, they missed out a half a dozen now-lost gospels, and put in who-knows how much heretical lies.

What is air baptism? The Orthodox church baptizes by immersion.

Mary was alive when the NT was written, and the saints talked to her. We still do. We havn't changed, why have you???

Non sequitur - we don't pray to images.

Please document that the church has changed its practice. Twice in Acts whole families are baptised into the church. The church follows this example.

The church started off as a monarchy with the apostles as the monarchy, and the church hasn't changed. Plus I can cite Ignatius in 98AD who says there was a monarchial bishopric, which handily gets in under your 150AD cut off date.

Huh? This is in scripture, Mt 28.

Faith is better when based on reason.

Well before there was a canon, before even there was scripture, there was the church. Scripture does not properly function without the church. I wouldn't "have" people doubt the scripture without the church, I just point out the obvious that the infallibility of the bible relies on the infallibility of the church's perceiving what scripture is.

All 1 Clement says is that there were presbyters in Corinth. That doesn't mean there was no bishop over them. In the city I live in there are multiple presbyters, and the bishop over us is in a different city. 1 Clement doesn't prove your case.

On the other hand, Ignatius, which dates from the exact same period is very clear that there ARE monarchial bishops. So I'm afraid you failed on that one.

So you're complaining that Orthodoxy baptises by immersion?

So tell me about the "evidence" that Jude is scripture. That would be instructive.

The difference is that western catholicism keeps changing the truth, and that can be documented. So far you have failed to document Orthodoxy changing the truth.

Mere existence is good enough? You could really pad out your bible with extra material that way.

That makes it impossible there'll be any unity in the church since everybody has a right to their own canon.

You complain that I have FAITH in the church, and yet you have faith in yourself that YOU have perceived the right canon. I'd rather have faith in the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Christ built, than in myself.

Regardless of whether it was originally interspersed in the text of John, please prove that John 7:52-8:12 was not "breathed out by God".

 

Huh? The bible says to hold to the traditions. I obey the bible and hold to the traditions. Whether the traditions are a separate body or the same body is something for the theologians to contemplate along with their belly button. For me, I just obey the bible. Paul's admonition is very clear - hold to the tradition WHETHER given by word of mouth OR written. He didn't say "Hold only to the written, because everything has been written". That is the exact opposite of what he did in fact say.

v.8ff is just that - an EXAMPLE. Paul never limits the verse to the written traditions, he specifically includes oral tradition. What gives you the right to ride rough-shod over scripture?

Paul is very specific that we have to hold to the traditions WHETHER by word of mouth OR written. According to you he talks nonsense because everything is written. That is illogical and contrary to what he actually said.

Uh huh, and leaders in the church are servants. Is it not so with the leaders in your church? What are you talking about?

A state organization? What wierd tangent are you off on now?

 

And the significance is what? I await the proof that this was something new. Being as it is an unusual situation, you will have a hard time proving that.

Not true! For someone accusing the Holy Catholic Apostolic Church of not following the bible, you don't know as much as you ought!

"Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! Bless the Lord, all his hosts, his ministers that do his will!" (Ps. 103:20-21).

"Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord from the heavens, praise him in the heights! Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host!" (Ps. 148:1-2).

It is not "worship-like veneration". Do you have photographs of your family? If you were away from home, would you pull out the photos and pray for them?

Icons date from the very earliest days of the church, and were considered normal just like a photograph is considered normal today. Would you complain if someone put a group photograph of your church on the noticeboard?

Utilizing images is scriptural. There are numerous instances within the scriptures that describe the manufacture and utilization of images within the context of religious use (The angels on the Ark of the Covenant, the silver snake Moses puts in a tree, etc). What is important to note is that none of these are worshiped as God.

Let me ask you: Why do you prohibit what scripture allows and promotes?

"Likely" believers?? The fact is that you don't know what age they were and what level of child-like faith they may have been exercising, and you don't know if anywhere in scripture a child was baptized.

Now you say that believers were baptized, but will you baptize a believing three year old child? Suffer the little children to come to me? If the New Testament didn't intend to baptize children, there would logically have to be some general guidance about what age you CAN baptize somebody. If believing is the criteria, I don't see many baptists baptizing three year olds who believe.

The fact is, scripture doesn't address this issue, thus resulting in a divided protestant world. Your fellow Presbyterian, Lutheran, Anglican protestants who claim to hold to sola scriptura, think you are wrong. This is why you need Holy Tradition, because obviously you have failed to resolve it with scripture.

Anyway, I await you to show us the firm proof from the early church that this practice was changed.

Uh yeah, and we don't have one bishop either. Your point is what?

Is three dippings prohibited? Is it bad? In Acts everybody was baptising in the name of Jesus, yet in Mt 28 Jesus commands baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Spirit. Is this minor variation a big deal? Does it invalidate the baptism in your eyes? If not, what is the complaint?

The old testament ecclesia existed before the old testament. The new testament ecclesia existed before the new testament. How did the church know what to do prior to the NT being written? Didn't they hold to the oral traditions of the apostles? Who said they should stop?

But we do follow it.

But you are reliant on us to tell you which books are authored by God.

For whatever reason, bishops of Rome, right from the beginning have often-times written with a kind of "royal we" to indicate that he speaks for the Roman church. Here is a letter from Pope Leo speaking in terms of "we":

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.i.html

And yet nobody in their wildest dreams would dispute that the monarchial episcopate didn't exist in pope Leo's time. So why is it evidence for Clement's time? It's not.

Whatever the reason Ignatius doesn't specifically refer to the Roman bishop, it is certainly NOT because he doesn't believe there is one, because he says in Chapter III of his Epistle to the Ephesians, that bishops are settled "EVERYWHERE, to the UTMOST BOUNDS of the earth". Trying to make Ignatius contradict himself is not a valid argumentation.

If you have a problem with the Didache, what relevance is that to this discussion?

But Christianity was NEVER based only on scripture, or at least not until the protestants came along. Paul says to hold to the oral traditions, and that commandment has never been recinded. You don't find the early church fathers debating about whether child baptism is ok or not, because Holy Tradition was unambiguous. Protestants have come up with a theological novelty.

Let me ask you, would you have been Orthodox had you lived a thousand years ago in Byzantium?

I'm not asking you to rethink faith in scripture, I'm asking you to consider that you are reliant on Holy Tradition and face up to it, instead of avoiding it.

 

Sounds like you are bailing out on me.

What is "religious" adoration? You adore your family right? You talk to them?

I know you don't, the question is why. Even aften I've shown you in scripture the saints talking to angelic creatures.

Scripture assumes that the saints are involved in Christian's prayer life. In Rev 5:8 the saints offer Christian's prayers to God. The question is, why do you deny the saint's involvement when it is laid out in scripture?

There is no verse that says only to baptize those old enough, according to some very arbitrary definition of "old enough". The only "pattern" found in scripture, is the baptism of whole households found in two cases in Acts as well as 1 Cor 1:16. There is no record of half a household getting baptized. You are denying Mt 19:14 which says that the kingdom of heaven belongs to little children. Answer me plainly - do you baptize little children, yes or no? If not, why do you disobey scripture?

There is no need for me to prove that scripture does not speak to this issue, because the empirical evidence is clear. The sola scriptura camp cannot agree, and the majority of the sola scriptura protestants are in the baby baptizing Anglican, presbyterian and Lutheran camp.

Again you show your lack of knowledge about the Church.

"the Orthodox Church itself can and does recognize baptism by infusion as valid in cases of emergency;" http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/Orth-Cath_Agreed.aspx

Just like the Didache says.

Basically, you have got your own set of traditions now which you have become attached to. The trouble is, they are not the apostolic traditions.

Hey, I know how it feels. I was a baptist for ten years. Once I would have been putting forward the same arguments as you are now. I suggest you do more investigation of the Orthodox church, because you could afford to know a lot more.-

 

I'm not seeing a lot of interaction here with what the bible actually says:

2 Thessalonians 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.

It specifically says to hold BOTH kinds of traditions, written and oral. Can you explain to me why I have to justify the wisdom of following both kinds of tradition, when scripture says to do it? If scripture says not to commit adultery, do you reject it until someone proves why that is a good teaching? Scripture ought to be enough authority for you.

I can give you some suggestions why we are to hold to the oral tradition - because that way the church can hold to the interpretation of scripture which is the common understanding of the church, and not be tossed around by every wind of doctrine, but grow up in Christ from whom the whole body is building itself up. (Eph 4:14-16).

What we see in the current age is new churches springing up disputing every interpretation that was agreed upon in the church for its first 1500 years. The church didn't suddenly discover scripture in the 16th century. The early church fathers were smart folks, and they agreed on many many issues that were never ever disputed till the reformation. And even the things that the reformers would never have questioned, have been questioned again later by new churches springing up. So we've got churches again disputing the deity of Christ, the humanity of Christ, when you should be baptized, at what age you can take communion, what communion is, what books are canonical, what will happen in the end times, the physical resurrection and on and on. In short, every doctrine of the Christian religion.

I think if you think a little bit harder you will see the reason for holding to the traditions - it provides unity in the church.

You talk about "my church", but for a thousand years it wasn't your church vs my church it was THE Church.

Tradition also provides the means for testing tradition. That which is catholic (universal) and has antiquity in the teaching of the church fathers. See St. Vincent of Lerins, in his fifth century treatise entitled The Commonitory. (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/church.aspx)

For example, nobody in the early church ever disputed infant baptism. It was a practice of the universal church. You may claim it wasn't because scripture doesn't specifically state the ages of various families baptised and so on. And you will argue that case, and the rest of the church will argue from the Jewish practice of including those of all ages in initiation rites. But there is no doubt as far as Tradition is concerned.

It's not a matter of it being "inefficient", it is a matter of recognizing that scripture has been taken out of its home. Paul wrote to the Corinthians and told them to hold to what he wrote AND to what he told them. The church was unified for over a thousand years. Then some people came along and decided to take scripture out of the church it came from and interpret it outside of its home and now every doctrine known to man is up for grabs.

As far as Rome is concerned, it is up to you to decide if the catholic faith as found in the early church fathers granted Rome the powers that it now claims. Still, the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy are fairly limited compared to the differences now evident. I do not believe you will be able to find even the smallest difference between 4th century practice and current practice in Orthodoxy. You will find I think some differences to Roman Catholicism over the centuries, which are more or less apparent. As for what you call the "Eastern factions", there is actually very little at all disputed by the other non-Orthodox eastern churches, and indications are that there may well be full unity soon.

The West has elevated the papacy above tradition. We think tradition itself makes that obvious by examining the early teachings of the church.