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; 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....Pentecostal...Adventist...Unitarian...Jehovah's witness...Campellite...Oneness..." for "Novatian...(through)....Nestorian" and one can see just how applicable his point is still today.
I'm becoming Orthodox
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Taufgesinnter, Jul 4, 2005.
Page 6 of 9
-
-
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 -
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 -
Why are the denomintations steeped in "tradition" so adverse to these texts?
In Christ,
Bob -
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. -
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. -
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...
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 -
(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.)
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. -
(Tauf; I will get to your objections next).
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".
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.
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.
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. -
Eric B,
-
-
We cannot just jump what some others said over to them, and then assume this "universal consensus". -
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.
-
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 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Tauf, which Patriarchate are you going to come under? Antioch?
Yours in Christ
Matt -
-
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> This context, as well the canonical sciptures and the authentic apostolic interpretation thereof, is the tradition of the Apostles.Click to expand... -
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. -
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
Your assumption however is that they must have gotten off track right at the beginning since they don't agree with you.Click to expand...
Yet this schmistatic group of denominations was foreign to the thought of the NT writers and the other early Christians.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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".Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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?Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...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).Click to expand...
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.Click to expand...
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?Click to expand...
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."Click to expand...
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! -
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]. "Click to expand...
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.
Page 6 of 9