I never really disputed orthodoxy being a "valid church". Once again, that's looking at a particular institution as "the church".
God may want more from us than what we are, but since you admit that it is people and not an institution or leaders, and that the Church has done things wrong, you cannot point to a particular institution as "the one true Church".
People may not be "copying" the ECF's, but what I meant is that they are being used as the ultimate proof of the assumption the NT was the same as the later Church, but their "agreement" on certain issues does not prove that, any more than the Church's agreement on those things done in the name of Orthodoxy you admit were not perfect.
It's not as much as an inconsistency as you have thought, because then I have just realized it is not true that we "just accept" the canon wholesale, as you have been arguing. We do not accept all of it, so if we question you on the apocrypha, then it is consistent to question [what you are calling] the traditions. That mitigates the question of why we accept any of it (I.e. The NT).
Like every other area, we agree with your institution on some things, but not all, and since we do not credit the compilation of the NT to a particular institution (it only held councils pronouncing it official, and the Apocrypha remained with a question mark over it), we are not bound to agree with the rest of its practices.
My church defined your church's bible
Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by orthodox, Jul 31, 2006.
Page 6 of 16
-
You walk along the street and you see a number of churches and picture them as institutions, with leaders and so forth. But we see the spiritual connection it has to the saints of all ages in all places. Because protestantism has neglected horizontal Christianity, the communion of the church, to focus entirely on vertical Christianity, the connection with God, it had become lob sided. "Me and my bible and Jesus under a tree". You do not aim to commune with believers in all ages, so you commune in a private cliche with individual beliefs and customs.
So again, it is not about the institution, it is about not acknowledging the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages, but rather you want to pick and choose which bits of the faith you like, and which bits you don't.
It doesn't prove it, but neither does whatever agreement there was on the canon prove that they correctly transmitted the tradition of what was apostolic or not. Apostolicity was a criterion in determining the canon and you have to hope that those extra-biblical traditions that the church passed down outside of scripture about the authorship and apostolic approval was accurate.
You see, you are willing to follow the traditions when it is pragmatically necessary to support the foundations of your own extra-biblical sola-scriptura tradition, but you draw the line in an arbitrary place in excluding the extra-biblical traditions of interpretation.
Who gave you the authority to draw the line there? Is your own scepticism the only foundation of your authority?
Hey believe me, I understand. I didn't want to be orthodox either. I fought and struggled against it for years, and came there initially reluctantly.
But you've got an insurmountable problem now. Orthodoxy, which you acknowledge as a valid church, has for thousands of years held to its canon, but now you have come along later and created a different canon, based on who knows what critera. Basically, you have no authority at all, you are free to accept and reject not only any doctrine or interpretation, but any book of the bible also. You have no certain source of truth, only what seems good in your own eyes.
Do you see at all yet why the church is the pillar of the truth?
-
It seems that some believe that God gave us Primary beliefs and Secondary beliefs. They say that we must believe these Primary beliefs in order to be a Christian, but we are at liberty to take or leave the Secondary beliefs.
Where is this idea of Primary and Secondary beliefs contained within the Bible? I can currently find no such thing to exist. Maybe I don't have the right Bible? -
It seems this "consensus" and "communion' all lies in the institution! If the Church is not just one true institution, why come then and tell us we are wrong just because we have our own institutions (which as I keep pointing out, I do not agree with). I walk down the street and see a number of churches, and think it is a shame they have formed these institutions around them, when we are all supposed to have that spiritual connection you speak of. And many of us do, though the institutions often get in the way.
Yet you are coming with yet another institution saying "this one is it", thus dividing that spiritual connection just as much as all the others. And your only proof that this is the only one that holds "the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages" is some relatively obscure references to some of your practices in a group of leaders from one particular age. (and later leaders who followed them, of course) Then, you define "the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages" purely by that, and accuse me of "leaving" that or "picking and choosing what I like". I'm sorry, but we today are just as much apart of the communion of saints as they were, and they are no more necessarily correct than us just because they were earlier. If we can be wrong on some issues (hence the division) then so could they.
There is also the witness of the Holy Spirit, and He did not stop with ECF's so that we have to follow what they agreed on, and He apparently is not infusing everyone with absolute doctrinal correctness or perfect unity, as even you mention not everything in the Church was right.
So to answer the other person's question; no, there is no scripture speaking of primary and secondary beliefs, but clearly, faith in Christ is a bit more essential than what age you baptize a baby, and that is where the Spirit is aiming to lead us to unity. But we resist Him with these other doctrines elevated to "essential", and institutions built around them; especially those who come with the "we're the one true group" mentality! THAT is what creates all the disunity.
According to you, we outside of that institution are saved, but only missing out on some "blessing" by not baptizing our babies and praying before icons, so it doesn't make sense to try to push people (even if through verbal persuasion) into what you think is the truth. However, bringing us all under EOC authority does increase its power and cash flow, as well as the proclamation that one is in the true group puff up their own pride. (Oneupmanship). THAT is the number one cause of schism, and this contributes to it just as much as anyone else. If you acknowledge we're saved, this is all fruitless.
The OT canon we accept was the one the majority of the Jews accepted. They may have made some references to the Apocrypha at times (but then Paul quoted pagan poets as well to make a point), but these books have always been in question, and it is not us who just made that up out of nowhere like you are charging. (You should know better than that, if you know the history of it). And once again, we are apart of the Church, so if we disagree, rather than casting us out of "the Church" [universal], maybe you should take into consideration that the books are questionable, and earlier leaders fallible, as you admit they were in other areas. The validity of a Church does not rest on 100% errorlessness, as even you have said.
"Skepticism"? Our object of faith is Christ, not Constantinople. This line of argumentation calls into question faith itself, like agnosticism. (what "certain source" of proof do we have, as the agnostics taunt?) If you want to take it there, none of this matters anyway. "Who gave you the authority"--this shows this argument is all about control, but we are told not to try to be lords over God's heritage, and false leaders such as the one John mentions got around this by denying that those who wouldn't follow them were apart of God's heritage. -
This is not unity! This is not the communion of saints.
If you'd lived in say Corinth in the year AD 50, and decided to abandon the church the apostles set up to go create a competing church, wouldn't that be breaking the spiritual connection? Of course it would be. As 1 John 2:19 says: "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." He doesn't say "they went out from us because they wanted to form a competing church".
And I'm not sure what you mean by "relatively obscure references". The early church has bequeathed to us vast numbers of volumes of writings from people who clearly were in a position to know what the church was teaching. In our little thread here we havn't even scratched the surface of doctrinal issues and writings that exist.
If your predecessors couldn't discover the truth in 1500 years, how can you recover it? They read the same bible you are reading. It's very new agey. There's your truth, my truth, any everybody else's private truth.
I know you don't believe this, but you have to at least admit the possibility that the church could pass down understandings, thus calling into doubt your blanket statement that just because you can be wrong, we can be wrong. If you are mistaken, and the church was capable of passing down apostolic understandings for a hundred years, then you have to admit we could be right. Only blatant bias would say flat out that it could just not be possible to do this. The fact that even protestants agree Orthodoxy has not changed in 1700 years would put pay to the claim it is impossible.
But I guess you don't believe this because you have the anti-supernatural tendances of protestant land. Why you bother praying for your children I don't know.
As for pride, the EOC is always careful to say that it is the Church in all humility that we have received the truth from our forebears. Since you think you have found the truth from the cleverness of your intellect over and above 2000 years of Christianity, who is the proud one?
CONTINUED..... -
..... CONTINUED
-
It seems that you attend the local church in Australia, which must have been founded after 18 century.
Roman Catholic ?
When was it formed ?
"From a child thou has known the Holy Scripture" ( 2 Tim 3:15)
Was Paul talking about the Bible defined by Roman Catholic?
Are you talking about New Testament only?
All the NT Bible were written before the formation of Roman Catholic.
What did the believers read until Roman Catholic was formed after Constantine after the Resurrection of Jesus and the Early Church?
Maybe Roman Catholic canonization was the Monday Quarterback after Super Bowl. -
-
-
Eric B said:"Hey believe me, I understand. I didn't want to be orthodox either. I fought and struggled against it for years, and came there initially reluctantly."Click to expand...
You admit that there were unresolved controversies such as the date of the Resurrection celebration (Easter or Passover). Because we see that that was a conflict, yet you find some references regarding nfant baptism and icons and no such conflict preseved over them, you claim that the former was a dispensible issue, and the latter defined the "communion of saints" or assumed to be "what was taught by the apostles", but now again, you are speaking as if "communion of the saints" means 100% agreement on every issue.Click to expand...
You didn't say yet whether you hold to or don't hold to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.
This is cyclical. We are not anti-supernatural because we don't agree with that one practice, which you have elevated as the definition of the faith.Click to expand...
It is not humble the way you are coming here telling us we are not the Church, only you are.Click to expand...
Actually, I never said "we discovered the truth". We rediscovered some truths, such as breaking out of the universal state Church mold, but not that there was NO truth at all before that, as others might exaggerate.Click to expand...
That's not talking about the Church, ("Moses and the Prophets") that's talking about Jews (who largely did not have the witness of the Spirit).Click to expand...
The Jews today do not use those books.Click to expand...
Because the entire Church today (not just one group) agrees on them and they are no longer in question.Click to expand...
So one's "Christ" is determined by which Church group they are in?Click to expand...
3 John 9. Diotrophes.
Still, you seem to be defining "God's heritage" by being under this one institution, whether it is abotut the leaders or not. That's what Dioptrophes did.Click to expand...
That sounds like the protestant creed to me. -
Sounds like you want to be convinced about becoming a Baptist . . . Why else would you ask these questions on a Baptist Board?
Repent, in a real Baptist Church!, and be Baptized!!! -
The Jews today do not use those books.Click to expand...
Some history is needed:
Temple of Jerusalem destroyed around 70 AD.
Jews were being heavily persecuted.
Jews blamed it on the Christians.
They convened a council at Jamina around 90 AD.
They needed to combat Paul's teachings since he was one of them(Pharisees). They did want his writings to recognized as inspired later.
The Primary reason the books were left out because originals in Hebrew could not be found. But in 1947, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls renders this reason invalid because scrolls of these books were also found. The classifications of the Scrolls are Biblical(Hebrew Canon) and non-bibical(others). Also to note, not one single copy or fragment of the Book of Esther was found.
Back to the issue that Jews don't recognize them as inspired?
Truth #2 Well if you must insist on the Judgement of Jews on what the measure of the OT canon is then you must also insist on their Judgement of what the NT canon contains. And that is ZERO books.
Truth #3 This is when the Christain Jews(Yeshume Jews) were expelled from the synagogues and the distinction was declared between Jews and Christians.
Truth #4 They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:
Officially called the "Shemoneh Esreh" or "Amidah" or "Birkat ha-minim"
"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."
These Jews condemn Christians, but you want to rely on their judgement of Canon, when they can not even rightly discern whom the Messiah is. Does that make sense to you? -
orthodox said:Oh, why did I struggle against joining Orthodoxy? Because I was attached to my own traditions and preconceptions and was unwilling to consider the mind of the Church as wiser than my own personal opinion.Click to expand...
No, the communion of saints is not 100% agreement on every issue, it is agreement on dogmatic issues. And what is dogmatic is not determined by mere agreement. There are lots of things that Orthodoxy everywhere does the same and yet are not dogmatic. As Holy Scripture says, when a difficult issue of dogmatic importance needs to be agreed on, the church meets in council to define it.Click to expand...
Well you seemed to dismiss a blessing as nothing of no consequence. Are you pulling back from that position?Click to expand...
We cannot sacrifice the truth to cater to others' faux understanding of humility.Click to expand...
Same principle. The Spirit is not going to witness to each individual Christian on each individual doctrinal issue when there is a perfectly good church that Christ set up to accomplish that purpose.Click to expand...
The Spirit did all of His witnessing in the beginning, and then subsequently stopped, leaving the Early postapostolic Church as setting the standards, and the institution that grew from their teachings as the sole definition of "the Church".
What has that got to do with the price of fish? Firstly, the Jews are not the people of God any longer. Secondly, the structure of Judaism was turned on its head after the destruction of the temple and can't be used to infer anything that was going on prior to that.Click to expand...Neither were the so-called apocryphal books in question in between, oh say 500AD and 1500AD (at least). But if some group in 1500AD can bring up the old debates, why not bring up the debates about the NT books too?Click to expand...
orthodox said:You didn't say yet whether you hold to or don't hold to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.Click to expand...Is the Mormon or JW Christ the same as your Christ?Click to expand...
The motto of Diotrophes is "it is better to reign in a small church than to serve in a large one".
That sounds like the protestant creed to me.Click to expand... -
Inquiring Mind said:Yes this is true. That is the one Truth that Satan want syou to know concerning the Council of Jamina of around 90 AD. But he also wants to keep some truth hidden as well.
Some history is needed:
Temple of Jerusalem destroyed around 70 AD.
Jews were being heavily persecuted.
Jews blamed it on the Christians.
They convened a council at Jamina around 90 AD.
They needed to combat Paul's teachings since he was one of them(Pharisees). They did want his writings to recognized as inspired later.
The Primary reason the books were left out because originals in Hebrew could not be found. But in 1947, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls renders this reason invalid because scrolls of these books were also found. The classifications of the Scrolls are Biblical(Hebrew Canon) and non-bibical(others). Also to note, not one single copy or fragment of the Book of Esther was found.
Back to the issue that Jews don't recognize them as inspired?
Truth #2 Well if you must insist on the Judgement of Jews on what the measure of the OT canon is then you must also insist on their Judgement of what the NT canon contains. And that is ZERO books.
Truth #3 This is when the Christain Jews(Yeshume Jews) were expelled from the synagogues and the distinction was declared between Jews and Christians.
Truth #4 They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:
Officially called the "Shemoneh Esreh" or "Amidah" or "Birkat ha-minim"
"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."
These Jews condemn Christians, but you want to rely on their judgement of Canon, when they can not even rightly discern whom the Messiah is. Does that make sense to you?Click to expand...
If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)
Could I be right that you are really a Catholic or Orthodox, and that that whole "why the local Church" thread was supposed to be spoofing our views? You do seem to otherwise argue like an orthodox. -
El_Guero said:Sounds like you want to be convinced about becoming a Baptist . . . Why else would you ask these questions on a Baptist Board?Click to expand...
-
Eric B said:So you're trying to suggest that the reason the Jews rejected those books was to combat Paul and the Christians? Why would they choose those books, and not all of the other ones that prophesy of Jesus?Click to expand...
If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)Click to expand...
Could I be right that you are really a Catholic or Orthodox, and that that whole "why the local Church" thread was supposed to be spoofing our views? You do seem to otherwise argue like an orthodox.Click to expand... -
If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)
With regard to the Council of Jamina:
You rely on their OT canon.
You don't rely on their NT canon.
You don't rely on their curse against Christians.
You don't rely on their rejection of who the Messiah is.
The choice to accept one and not the others is illogical.
Why do you accept their OT Canon when they deny your NT canon, when they curse you in their daily blessings, when they reject your Jesus as Messiah? Why? -
If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)Click to expand...
Bible Christians use the shorter canon because it matches the present day Jewish canon. They will often quote Romans 3:2, which says, "The Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God." They reason that since God entrusted the Old Testament to the Jews, they should be the ones who determine which books belong in it.
This reasoning presents a couple of problems. Firstly, both Old Testament canons were received from the Jews. Thus neither canon is eliminated by this verse. Secondly, the Jews didn't settle on the Palestinian canon until at least 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. This was well after authority had passed from the Jews to the Church (Acts 4:19). Ironically it was at the Council of Jamnia that the Jews also rejected the New Testament. Logically speaking, anyone who would consider Jamnia as being authoritative would also have to reject the New Testament.
Most Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. When the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) set the canon of the New Testament they also confirmed the Septuagint as the Old Testament. Further evidence of the Septuagint's acceptance by the early Church can be found in the New Testament itself. It quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times. Three hundred of those quotes are from the Septuagint. Surely this amounts to an overwhelming endorsement by the early Church.Click to expand...
Jews that deny the New Testament, Jews that deny the Divinity and Messiahship of Christ, Jews that invoke a daily curse upon us?
or
Those Christians present at these early Councils?
Christian Council or Jewish Council? Which should it rightfully be? -
Who knows? Who cares? The Jews did lots of things against Christians that didn't make sense. The rejected the Septuagint because that is what Christians used. It may be that by this time they had physically lost these books in Hebrew. But the bottom line, why should we care? Various Jewish sects had different canons anyway. Saducees had only the Pentatuch. Who knows what Qumran had. We don't know what tradition the leadership of later Jews inherited.Click to expand...
-
Could I be right that you are really a Catholic or Orthodox, and that that whole "why the local Church" thread was supposed to be spoofing our views? You do seem to otherwise argue like an orthodox.Click to expand...
Page 6 of 16