Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 478

Thread: Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

  1. #1

    Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

    Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura

    October 4, 2014 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick



    Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, by Anton von Werner, 1877


    One of my ongoing fascinations is what I have come to refer to in my head as “the Evangelical appropriation of tradition.” Charismatics are celebrating Lent. Baptists are talking about the Eucharist. The inscrutable maybe-universalist and now Oprah-darling Rob Bell is even using the phrase the tradition. Maybe this tradition stuff isn’t so bad. I can branch out a little. I can line up some Athanasius next to my MacArthur, and a volume or two of Gregory of Nyssa next to my Bonhoeffer. Osteen still goes somewhere preferable near the bottom. (Who gave me that book, anyway?) Maybe we’ll put Origen down there with him. Both are questionable, right?. Oh, hey, I’ve heard Ratzinger is kind of interesting. And that “wounded healer” Nouwen guy’s onto something. Has anyone heard of someone named “Schmemann”?

    Welcome to the club, the Lutherans and certain Reformed types say. We’ve been waiting for you. Help yourself to some creeds. We hope you’ll stay for some liturgy.

    And we hope you’ve discovered the difference between sola and solo scriptura.

    Solo scriptura, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would probably understand as their basic matrix of church authority—the Bible is above everything. Some might say that the Bible is the only authority in church life, while others might say it is the primary authority in church life, but it’s still over everything. What the Bible says trumps anything some teacher or cleric or council might say. They’ve all been wrong, but the Bible is always right.

    Hold on now, say the sola scriptura adherents. The Church has a place. The tradition has a place. They’re not above the Bible, mind you, but they can inform how we read the Bible. The Church has to interpret the Bible, and the vast resources in Christian history can inform that interpretation. To summarize that position, let me quote a passage from a 2013 essay by Reformed Baptist writer Matthew Barrett (“‘Sola Scriptura’ Radicalized and Abandoned”):

    I wish I could say that all evangelicals today have a crisp, accurate grasp of sola scriptura. I am hopeful that many understand how a Protestant view of Scripture and tradition differs from Rome’s position. However, I am less confident that evangelicals understand the difference between sola and solo scriptura, for in some cases the latter is assumed to be the identity of the former.

    Consequently, some evangelicals, intentionally or unintentionally, have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) who said, “I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system whatever.”

    Ironically, such a view cannot preserve sola scriptura. Sure, tradition is not being elevated to the level of Scripture. But the individual is! As Keith Mathison laments, in this view everything is “evaluated according to the final standard of the individual’s opinion of what is and is not scriptural.” To be sure, such a view lends itself more in the direction of individual autonomy than scriptural accountability.

    So how do we correct such a mistake? First, we must guard ourselves from an individualistic mindset that prides itself on what “I think” rather than listening to the past. In order to do so, we must acknowledge, as Mathison points out, that “Scripture alone” doesn’t mean “me alone.”

    Second, tradition is not a second infallible source of divine revelation alongside Scripture; nevertheless, where it is consistent with Scripture it can and does act as a ministerial authority. The historic creeds and confessions are a case in point. While the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed are not to be considered infallible sources divine revelation, nevertheless, their consistency with Scripture means that the church spoke authoritatively against heresy. Therefore, it should trouble us, to say the least, should we find ourselves disagreeing with orthodox creeds that have stood the test of time. Remember, innovation is often the first indication of heresy. Hence, as Timothy George explains, the reformers sought to tie their “Reformation exegesis to patristic tradition” in order to provide a “counterweight to the charge that the reformers were purveyors of novelty in religion,” though at the end of the day the fathers’ “writings should always be judged by the touchstone of Scripture, a standard the fathers themselves heartily approved.”

    Abandoning solo scriptura does not require us to go to the other extreme, namely, elevating tradition to the level of Scripture. But it does require the humility to realize that we are always standing on the shoulders of those who came before us. For the reformers, the early church fathers were valuable (though not infallible) guides in biblical interpretation. In that light, we would be wise to listen to Luther this Reformation Day: “Now if anyone of the saintly fathers can show that his interpretation is based on Scripture, and if Scripture proves that this is the way it should be interpreted, then the interpretation is right. If this is not the case, I must not believe him” (LW 30:166; WA 14:31).

    I’m overjoyed, of course, that Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists and others should want to read the Church Fathers, sign onto the ancient creeds, and so forth. This is very good news, and I can only believe that it is likely they will thereby move closer to the faith that I hold as an Orthodox Christian.

    At the same time, in reading this, even though it is certainly far more nuanced than the “no creed but the Bible” homespuns one usually finds in a Baptist church, I am nevertheless left with the sense that this “sola” vs. “solo” business is really a distinction without a difference.

    As someone who spent ten years as a theatrical stagehand, and now as a pastor of a not-large parish, whenever I read things like this, my first thought is to logistics—how will this work? What does it mean, practically speaking, to be a “sola scriptura” and not a “solo scriptura” Christian?

    On the ground, even the “solo” types read Bible commentaries, listen to sermons on Sunday, and largely resemble their co-religionists when it comes to theological matters. That means that, even if they deny it de jure, the de facto reality is that they are at least subconsciously submitting themselves to interpretive authorities outside of themselves. There is an interpretive community at work even for the most isolated snake-handler in the hollers of West Virginia. That community probably consists of at least his pastor, probably his parents, other members of his church, his Sunday School teacher, some books and tracts he’s picked up over the years, and maybe the preacher he listens to on the radio on Saturday nights.

    He might believe in “no creed but the Bible,” but he’s still being influenced, whether he knows it or not.

    Yet even with all those influences, he will still feel free to take his pastor aside and let him know about something he read in one of Paul’s epistles that he thinks flatly contradicts what was said in the Sunday sermon. And he may even hold some beliefs that are different from everyone else’s in his church. In fact, nearly everyone there has some ideas that aren’t in synch with everyone else’s. No one really minds, though. They’re held together by a common inheritance of their particular kind of theology and spiritual life.

    Enter the “sola” reformer who will bring these snake-handlers the good news of the “real” Reformation belief about the Bible.

    Here, read this creed, he says. Doesn’t it square with what the Bible says? Isn’t this just the right way of reading the Bible? And how about this Basil fellow from the fourth century? Hasn’t he got some interesting ideas about the Holy Spirit? What do you think about how that lines up with Pentecost in Acts? Seems okay, right?

    He gets a few of these snake-handlers to break off and form the First Reformed Snake-Handling Bible Church of Pinch, West Virginia (yes, it’s a real place), and they’re now reciting the Nicene Creed, doing something that looks a little more liturgical on Sunday, and having Wednesday night Bible studies where names like “Augustine” and “Irenaeus” get floated occasionally.

    That’s not how it looks for most “sola” believers, though, some might say. Okay, but even for the stodgiest and most liturgical of Magisterial Reformation churches, I am going to assert that the basic dynamics are really the same. The only thing that is actually different is that the set of influences on the individual believer now includes more historical documents.

    Is this better than chucking every Bible commentary that’s more than thirty years old and clutching to the death my last copy of The Late, Great Planet Earth?

    Yes, of course.

    Is it a fundamentally different kind of authority in the spiritual life, though?

    No, it is not.

    Supposedly, the difference here is humility, i.e., that the “sola” approach is not individualistic. As Barrett puts it, “we must guard ourselves from an individualistic mindset that prides itself on what ‘I think’ rather than listening to the past. In order to do so, we must acknowledge, as Mathison points out, that ‘Scripture alone’ doesn’t mean ‘me alone.'”

    Great, but what does it mean to “listen” to the past? Does it mean that I have to submit my mind to the interpretations of St. Ignatius of Antioch on the reality of the Eucharist? Or if, when I read John 6, I still come away with Zwinglian memorialism, I decide that Ignatius is wrong and “the Bible” is right? Some would say yes, but isn’t that really just what “I think” versus what Ignatius thinks?

    After all, if tradition is not to be elevated “above” Scripture, then that means that Scripture always trumps tradition, right? But how do I find out what Scripture says? By reading it, right? But what happens if my reading of Scripture doesn’t agree with someone else’s? Why, when I read John 6, is my interpretation correct, while others who read that same passage get it wrong?

    Is it because I am smart enough, sincere enough, and well-read enough, and they are lacking in one or more of those three categories? Will everyone who is intelligent, honest and well-informed all read the Bible in exactly the same way?
    You see? The problem is still there. Saying Scripture is “above” tradition is really saying “my reading of Scripture is above tradition.” But the problem is still not solved as to why, when I read the Scripture, I get it right, while all those readers functioning in “the tradition” are getting it wrong. Or perhaps some of them are right, while others are wrong. Surely the right ones are smart, sincere and well-read. And the wrong ones… they’re just not.

    Okay, it doesn’t have to be that way. The Church is there to help. The Church will interpret the Bible together. I don’t have to go it alone.

    But what if my church is wrong? What about when my church interprets it in a manner that contradicts the Methodists down the block? Who’s right? Just read the Scripture? But that’s what I’ve been doing!
    What is missing here is ecclesiology.

    Those attempting to derive the perfect method for interpreting the Scripture (or, at least, perfect enough to get all the really essential stuff in order) are missing things the Scripture itself says about the Church and about tradition, too.
    I’ll spare you all the detail, but I’ll at least point out that the Scripture calls the Church “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15) and that we should “stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). And everything that happens in that great mission of the Apostles is finally churchly, finally ecclesial. What they found is not a series of Bible studies and schools of interpretive method, but churches, real Eucharistic communities who continued to function for centuries before the New Testament finally coalesced into what we now have.
    And they kept functioning the same way even after that happened. The idea that the Scripture they’d produced was now “above” the tradition that had produced it would not have made any sense to them. Were they supposed to go back and revise all the things they’d been doing for centuries now that the Bible was around, even though when they put the Bible together, none of it contradicted what they had been doing?

    Keith Mathison (the author of this “sola/solo” distinction) asserts correct interpretation is according to the “rule of faith” (regula fidei) that has been in place for 2,000 years. But where exactly is that to be found? What defines it?
    In the end, the arbiter is still the individual. Mathison reaches towards ecclesiology in his arguments, but falls short when he claims that traditional ecclesiology makes the Church “autonomous” apart from God. God inspires the Scripture but not the Church, it seems. But who will interpret the Scriptures correctly? Who will correct the Church?

    One can say that the Church has authority to interpret Scripture, but which Church? Is it all of them? What about the fact that they don’t all agree? And no, they don’t even all agree on essentials. “Which Church?” is a critical question, and it’s one that isn’t being asked very much in these discussions. Still further, “What is the Church?” is also just as critical, and I fear it’s also gotten lost somewhere. The second question finally leads to the first. If you can figure out what the Church is, then you will realize that not all “churches” are the Church.

    If not all churches are the Church, then that means there’s got to be one that is that One. The Bible talks about only one.

    In the end, the “sola” method is really the same as the “solo” one. It’s still fallible people claiming to read an infallible document and deriving their authority from their reading. That reading is still “above” church and tradition. The only difference between this and the “solo” approach is that the “solos” see it as so far above that they needn’t pay those things much, if any, mind. A “sola” reader might pay far more attention to history, but he is still its master, not its servant. He doesn’t have to put himself in obedience to any of those people.

    So the “sola” reads Athanasius and Origen, while the “solo” reads Swindoll and Lewis, and both are free to put those books all back on the shelf when they think they contradict Scripture. In the end, it’s still the individual by himself, judging all these things for himself. How else could it be otherwise?

    Part of the problem here is that the main lens through which most Protestants view questions of tradition and ecclesiology is marked with their image of Roman Catholicism. It is seen as a top-heavy, controlling magisterium who demand obedience and have an infallible papacy at their center. And that infallible papacy draws his pronouncements from two separate sources, Scripture and Tradition, and we suspect that he’s making up some stuff of his own to stick into the “Tradition” side that will suit him.

    That is a caricature, of course, but even the more honest version is not the way these things work in the Orthodox Church.

    For the Orthodox, we have no single infallible, authoritative interpreter of Scripture. (Protestants rightly protest this, but they finally each make themselves into their own infallible interpreters. Saying “I could be wrong” or “I’m standing on the shoulders of giants” doesn’t really help. You’re still in charge.)

    We also do not regard Holy Tradition as a separate source of authority. Indeed, none of these things are “sources” at all. Rather, the Scriptures are at the center of Tradition and inseparable from it. Holy Tradition produced the Scriptures and is the proper context for their interpretation. For us, Scripture is not “over” Tradition nor “with” it, but rather, Scripture is within Tradition. Far from lessening its authority, this is the Scripture properly enthroned within its natural sphere of influence. A king outside his court is subject to all kinds of dangers, but within it, he is at home and everything is sensitive to him. Holy Tradition is the natural home of Holy Scripture.

    And Holy Tradition is not simply anything one might find lurking somewhere in Christian history. (This, I think, is what Rob Bell means when he speaks of “the tradition”: “Oh, I found this somewhere in an old book.”) Rather, it is the living reality of Christ in His Church, vivifying the Church by the Holy Spirit. No new dogmas are revealed, because everything was revealed in Christ. There is an ongoing revelation, but it is a revelation of the same things, the same God Who wishes to be known by every person. That is why not everything ever said by every Christian writer is really part of Holy Tradition. Some got some things wrong, but it was not individual believers reading their Bibles who knew better and then corrected them. It was the Church, acting according to the apostolic succession given “to bind and to loose,” which sifted out what really represented the tradition and what didn’t.

    Someone’s always got to “bind and loose.” Will it be people who were ordained by those ordained by those ordained by the Apostles (and so on), or will it just be me and my Bible? Or just me and my church community, founded by some fellow who settled here just a few decades back? Do you get the authority to “bind and loose” just by claiming it?
    R.C. Sproul had this to say about his view of Christian tradition:

    Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it. If upon reading a particular passage you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two-thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation. (The Agony of Deceit, p. 34-35)

    But who will make you abandon it? Does anyone have the authority to do that? And what if you disagree about whether those heretics are “universally recognized” or whether an interpretation has really “escaped the notice of every other Christian for two-thousand years”?

    This is finally the problem with Protestants laying claim to elements of Christian tradition while still retaining sola scriptura—it all becomes just “texts,” resources that can be called on or discarded as the individual sees fit for himself. I like it when Basil speaks highly of Scripture but not when Ignatius speaks highly of the bishop. I like it when Athanasius insists on the homoousios but not all that “man becomes god” stuff. I like Chrysostom’s commentaries on Scripture but not Cyprian’s insistence that you cannot have God for your Father without the Church for your mother.

    They still just get to decide for themselves what they will listen to and what they won’t. “Sola” as distinct from “solo” scriptura is really just a better-read version of the same thing.

    I love that some Protestants are getting in touch with Christian history. But they shouldn’t fool themselves into thinking that they’re being faithful to that legacy if they do not pay heed to so much of it. And of course one cannot be faithful to everything in Christian history—there are heretics and dragons lurking there, after all. But if navigating those waters in a craft I designed and built myself is unlikely to bring me to a safe harbor, then getting together with my neighbors to build it after we read some old books together is no guarantee, either.

    My hope is that those who choose to sail those waters will come bumping up to the Ark of Salvation, which is the Church. There are lots of life preservers and rescue teams ready to help.

    But I really am glad some of them are sailing. Really glad. This is very good news.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Solo versus Sola Scriptura: What’s the Diff?

    Posted on October 12, 2014 by robertar


    Father Andrew Stephen Damick recently wrote: Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: “Sola” vs. “Solo” Scriptura. It’s an excellent article and I encourage readers to read the entire article. In this article I have excerpted parts of Father Andrew’s article and used it as a basis my take on what is happening with the recent rediscovery of historic sola scriptura by Evangelicals.


    Hipster Liturgist Source Source 2

    The Latest Evangelical Fad – Tradition is Cool!

    Fr. Andrew describes the high church fad sweeping the Evangelical world:
    Charismatics are celebrating Lent. Baptists are talking about the Eucharist. The inscrutable maybe-universalist and now Oprah-darling Rob Bell is even using the phrase the tradition. Maybe this tradition stuff isn’t so bad. I can branch out a little. I can line up some Athanasius next to my MacArthur, and a volume or two of Gregory of Nyssa next to my Bonhoeffer. Osteen still goes somewhere preferable near the bottom. (Who gave me that book, anyway?) Maybe we’ll put Origen down there with him. Both are questionable, right? Oh, hey, I’ve heard Ratzinger is kind of interesting. And that “wounded healer” Nouwen guy’s onto something. Has anyone heard of someone named “Schmemann”?

    Welcome to the club, the Lutherans and certain Reformed types say. We’ve been waiting for you. Help yourself to some creeds. We hope you’ll stay for some liturgy.

    And we hope you’ve discovered the difference between sola and solo scriptura.

    Simple Fundamentalism versus Sophisticated Evangelicalism

    Most Evangelicals grew up on what Keith Mathison calls solo scriptura. They were taught that all that is needed is the Bible – no external authority or assistance is needed for understanding Scripture. (See my review of Keith Mathison’s The Shape of Sola Scripture.) This approach can be traced to Alexander Campbell, an American revivalist who lived in the early 1800s. Out of the frontier revivals came the motto: No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.

    In recent years Evangelicals in growing numbers have begun to discover Church history. They are venturing beyond Evangelicalism’s provincial sub-culture to explore the broad and diverse Christian traditions: historic Protestant Reformation, early Christianity, mysticism, Roman Catholicism, and Orthodoxy. They soon discover that the original Protestant Reformers were not afraid to use creeds or to cite the early church fathers and that the Bible only slogan they grew up on is different from what Luther and Calvin taught. Classical sola scriptura while affirming Scripture as the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice allowed for creeds and the early church fathers. The original Reformers had a far higher view of the church compared to many Evangelicals today who question whether church membership is necessary to Christian discipleship.

    Is Sola Scriptura Enough?

    In recent years Evangelicals have begun to question and criticize solo scriptura. Keith Mathison points out that solo scriptura results in everything being evaluated in accordance with the individual believer’s opinion of what is Scriptural. As a corrective Evangelicals like Mathison have begun to call for a more communal and historically informed approach to Scripture, i.e., sola scriptura.

    Father Andrew notes that to say sola scriptura involves a communal reading of Scripture leads to important questions about the church.

    The Church is there to help. The Church will interpret the Bible together. I don’t have to go it alone.
    But what if my church is wrong? What about when my church interprets it in a manner that contradicts the Methodists down the block? Who’s right? Just read the Scripture? But that’s what I’ve been doing!
    What is missing here is ecclesiology.

    Father Andrew notes:

    One can say that the Church has authority to interpret Scripture, but which Church? Is it all of them? What about the fact that they don’t all agree? And no, they don’t even all agree on essentials. “Which Church?” is a critical question, and it’s one that isn’t being asked very much in these discussions. Still further, “What is the Church?” is also just as critical, and I fear it’s also gotten lost somewhere. The second question finally leads to the first. If you can figure out what the Church is, then you will realize that not all “churches” are the Church.
    If not all churches are the Church, then that means there’s got to be one that is that One. The Bible talks about only one.

    Thus, historic sola scriptura becomes deeply problematic in light of Protestantism’s deep rooted denominationalism. I have called this “Protestantism’s fatal genetic flaw.” (See article.)

    Cause for Rejoicing

    Father Andrew finds Evangelicalism’s recent discovery of church tradition cause for rejoicing.

    I’m overjoyed, of course, that Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists and others should want to read the Church Fathers, sign onto the ancient creeds, and so forth. This is very good news, and I can only believe that it is likely they will thereby move closer to the faith that I hold as an Orthodox Christian.

    We also rejoice with Father Andrew that Evangelicals are discovering the early Church and that they are discovering the Liturgy. Evangelicals are rediscovering their family roots and finding out about the ancient treasures of historic Christianity.

    This has given rise to a curious kind of ecumenicism. Some Evangelicals tell me that they too reject sola scriptura (i.e., they reject solo scriptura) and that they too accept church tradition like the Orthodox. Or they will maintain that classical Protestantism like Orthodoxy allows for creeds, liturgies, and the church fathers. What is being implied here is that high church Evangelicalism is just as much a part of the one Church as the Orthodox. However, on closer inspection there are problems here. It becomes increasingly obvious there is a superficiality to the recent Evangelical rush to embrace church tradition.

    Cherry Picking Church History

    One thing that stands out about the recent Evangelical embrace of early Christianity and church tradition is how decidedly/overwhelmingly Protestant it all is. While contemporary Evangelicals can pride themselves for being well read, and more historically informed than their Fundamentalist cousins — theyboth come from the same Protestant family tree. Father Andrew writes:

    This is finally the problem with Protestants laying claim to elements of Christian tradition while still retaining sola scriptura—it all becomes just “texts,” resources that can be called on or discarded as the individual sees fit for himself. I like it when Basil speaks highly of Scripture but not when Ignatius speaks highly of the bishop. I like it when Athanasius insists on the homoousios but not all that “man becomes god” stuff. I like Chrysostom’s commentaries on Scripture but not Cyprian’s insistence that you cannot have God for your Father without the Church for your mother.

    This kind of individualism has never been part of Orthodoxy. To be Orthodox is to accept Holy Tradition and to live under the authority of the bishops the appointed guardians of Tradition. What we find in the Orthodox Church: the Divine Liturgy, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the early Church Fathers, the Sacraments, the priestly order, the icons, comprise an integrated package known as Holy Tradition. These are all the result of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.

    And Holy Tradition is not simply anything one might find lurking somewhere in Christian history. . . . . Rather, it is the living reality of Christ in His Church, vivifying the Church by the Holy Spirit. No new dogmas are revealed, because everything was revealed in Christ. There is an ongoing revelation, but it is a revelation of the same things, the same God Who wishes to be known by every person.

    This understanding that the Holy Spirit guides the Church is a very crucial point. Father Andrew notes that for Keith Mathison, God inspires Scripture – but God does not necessarily inspire His Church. This despite Christ’s promise in Scripture! (see John 14:26, 16:13) Protestantism’s refusal to believe the Holy Spirit inspires the Church (likely a reaction against Papal authority) resulted in the individualistic interpretation of Scripture: Luther, Calvin, Wesley, one’s pastor, one’s favorite TV preacher or seminary professor giving rise to the current plethora of Protestant denominations.

    What’s the Diff?

    In the end the differences between Fundamentalism’s solo scriptura and high church Evangelicalism’s sola scriptura are inconsequential. It is like the difference between the practical, plainly dressed Fundamentalist who likes Hal Lindsey and Charles Stanley and his upscale hip Evangelical cousin who likes Henri Nouwen, G.K. Chesterton, and Alexander Schmemann. Having descended from the same Protestant family tree they both retain their individualistic autonomy. Even the Reformed Christian who recently discovers the church fathers and believes in the real presence in the Eucharist do so as a matter of individual choice. There is not the slightest ecclesiastical consequence for wholesale rejection of the historic Church’s view of bishop rule, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Liturgy and Eucharist. Each denomination (individual?) can have their own unique view of these things.

    For Protestantschurch is a place of fellowship and mutual encouragement, a temporary rest spot before moving on. Tragically absent in Evangelicalism is the biblical understanding of the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) Orthodoxy affirms it is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. This is something most Evangelicals and Protestants would hesitate to affirm about their particular denomination. Most Evangelicals have no problem with the notion of an invisible Church, but this leaves them with no concrete authoritative Church here on earth to guide them and provide them safe shelter from heresies.



    Children in the Attic

    Father Andrew closes his article with the wonderful image of tiny rowboats, all bumping up against the great Ark of Salvation, the Church. Allow me to suggest an alternative word picture. I am reminded of the scene where a group of children stuck in the house on a rainy day, make their way to the attic. Opening antique trunks they discover old dresses and clothes their ancestors wore years ago in the old country. They put on the old clothes and pretend to reenact life in the old days. The magic of the old days fills the attic for a brief moment on that rainy afternoon, but after awhile they tire of it and go downstairs to resume their “normal” everyday twenty first century life as before. Before you know it, they will find another new fun hobby. But for those of us who believe church history is the fulfillment of Christ’s promise in John 16:13 and who believe that ancient Church of yesterday continues in the Orthodox Church today we bid others to cross the Bosphorus with us. We converted to Orthodoxy not because it’s coolbut because it’s true.

    Robert Arakaki
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  4. #3
    TER, this part of the article really caught my eye because it's basically the same thing I just said in a recent post about difference between the churches that's also explained in the seven letters to the seven churches in Rev. 2. This is where some churches are indeed stepping stones to greater faith and onto those churches that retain the true Gospel of Christ and the meat eaters of the word as leaders of that church. God seems to be confirming Himself amongst us here. Great post and very timely as well.


    For Protestantschurch is a place of fellowship and mutual encouragement, a temporary rest spot before moving on. Tragically absent in Evangelicalism is the biblical understanding of the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) Orthodoxy affirms it is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. This is something most Evangelicals and Protestants would hesitate to affirm about their particular denomination. Most Evangelicals have no problem with the notion of an invisible Church, but this leaves them with no concrete authoritative Church here on earth to guide them and provide them safe shelter from heresies.

  5. #4
    I am happy to share these excellent blog posts with you Terry. It is not meant as a polemic, but to help some of our Protestant friends understand the Orthodox point of view with regards to Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura (which differ by definition but still have as its ultimate authority the opinions and interpretations of the learner over the Church).

    I think it can give some understanding also why our brother here RJB has made his willful decision to join the Orthodox Church and why so many like him are doing the same. It would be beneficial for some to understand how it is that when someone can check their baggage at the door, humble themselves, study the history of the Christian Church with an open heart and mind, and (most importantly through repentance and prayer!) find that the historic Church which was established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, developed by His beloved God-bearing Saints, and empowered and guided by His Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit has (against all odds!) survived these past 2000 years as Christ promised and continues to witness to the world the gospel of salvation revealed by the Only-Begotten Son of our Father in Heaven, our Savior Jesus Christ.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  6. #5
    5 star thread, thnx. ~hugs~
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    I am happy to share these excellent blog posts with you Terry. It is not meant as a polemic, but to help some of our Protestant friends understand the Orthodox point of view with regards to Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura (which differ by definition but still have as its ultimate authority the opinions and interpretations of the learner over the Church).

    I think it can give some understanding also why our brother here RJB has made his willful decision to join the Orthodox Church and why so many like him are doing the same. It would be beneficial for some to understand how it is that when someone can check their baggage at the door, humble themselves, study the history of the Christian Church with an open heart and mind, and (most importantly through repentance and prayer!) find that the historic Church which was established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, developed by His beloved God-bearing Saints, and empowered and guided by His Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit has (against all odds!) survived these past 2000 years as Christ promised and continues to witness to the world the gospel of salvation revealed by the Only-Begotten Son of our Father in Heaven, our Savior Jesus Christ.
    the church isn't a denomination or a building. It is all Bible Believing Christians around the world.

    If the both the OC and RCC follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different that they are not in communion with each other?
    If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the EOC's reject the inspiration of the Book of Revelation, then later accept it?
    Last edited by Kevin007; 10-12-2014 at 07:55 PM.
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  8. #7
    http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm

    a nice comparison of the RCC vs the EOC and each other saying the other is not the true church and why... interesting reading


    Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox differences based upon tradition:
    Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox churches accuse the other of false doctrines both base upon tradition:

    1. The Catholics reject several of the specific canons of the early ecumenical councils, but the orthodox accept them as inspired.
    2. Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the dates of Christmas and Easter. While the Orthodox church claims council at Nice was inspired, yet is rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the Catholics accept.
    3. The Catholics teach purgatory, yet the Orthodox reject it.
    4. Universal papal jurisdiction was a rather large dogfight in 588-606 AD.
    5. Although the Orthodox reject Papal infallibility, the decisions of the orthodox synods are considered infallible.
    6. The Immaculate Conception is utterly rejected by the Orthodox.
    7. The orthodox baptized by full immersion (thrice), the Catholics sprinkle.
    8. In the Orthodox Church married men can become priests. In the Catholic church men are forbidden to marry. (except for one small part of the world)
    9. The Roman Catholic church introduced instrumental music no earlier than the 7th century and the Orthodox church has never used instrumental music, but like the apostles, sang without instrument.
    10. In Catholic communion, the cup is withheld from the members, while the Orthodox float the "crouton looking" bread cubes in the wine. Catholics believe the bread and wine (transubstantiation) become the literal body of Christ when the priest says, "this is my body". The Orthodox disagrees and says the change takes place at prayer. Catholics use unleavened bread, while Orthodox use leavened bread. Orthodox must keep a ridged schedule of fasts in order to have communion every week, but the most common practice is a minimum of four times a year during the four Orthodox Lents "Christmas, Easter, Peter and Paul, The virgin Mary. Catholics on the other hand, must not eat the hour before, to have communion every day. In the end, Orthodox offer communion weekly and Catholics daily. In practice most Orthodox laity have communion four times year and Catholics weekly. So which of these two traditions is the one the apostles used? All this proves that they have no valid "apostolic tradition", otherwise they would all agree! They differ on the frequency of communion, the fasting requirements and the actual method of partaking.
    11. Transubstantiation is a false doctrine that says the bread and grape juice of the Lord's supper actually molecularly change to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. Of course this old doctrine was formulated before the advent of molecular microscopes which see no change. For Catholics the "Transubstantiation" occurs when the priest says the words, "this is my body". For Orthodox the change occurs when the priest offers the prayer of thanks.
    12. The "Filioque" scandal: Following the Nicene creed, the Orthodox Church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone. Then in 1054 AD the Roman church added to the wording of the Nicene creed "And the Son" or the "Filioque." The Roman church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from BOTH the Father and the Son.
    13. Orthodox keeps the original Nicene Creed, accepted by the Universal Church, East and West, during the first millennium without the addition of "And the Son" or the "Filioque." It accepts, on faith, Christ's words in the Gospel, that the Father is the Unoriginate Source of the Life of the Trinity, with the Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit Proceeding from the Father Alone. We cannot know how the Begetting of the Son and the Proceeding of the Spirit from the same Father is different, only that it is and this distinguishes the two Persons.
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin007 View Post
    the church isn't a denomination or a building. It is all Bible Believing Christians around the world.

    If the both the OC and RCC follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different that they are not in communion with each other?
    If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the EOC's reject the inspiration of the Book of Revelation, then later accept it?
    My friend Kevin, had you actually read the first two posts you would find that nowhere did such a statement as the Church being a denomination or a building ever get mentioned or implied.

    If in fact you did indeed read the first two posts and have this above to be your participation and offering, then you completely missed what the topic of the thread is about. We are discussing the fact that whether one is 'Sola Scriptura' or 'Solo Scriptura', it still boils down to the individual putting their interpretation and opinion above everything else, including the works of the Holy Spirit in the world. If you would like to discuss those charges you made above, then please start a thread and initiate a dialogue about the inconsistencies you see between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. It is a fascinating topic actually, full of history, drama, celebrations, and feasts. A lot of political intrigue as well for those who have an interest in such things. But I assure you, while we are not in eucharistic and full sacramental unity as of now, there is much common truth between these sister Churches and doctrinal consistencies, especially with regard to moral teachings and how one should live. For the first thousand plus years, the two were one and collectively were called the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is not an exaggeration. This was the concrete historical truth. There existed no other Church which could make such a claim and stand up to evidence and deliberation.

    The question of this thread has to do with who or what we consider to be the 'foundation and pillar of truth'? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or the one we have created in our heads (where we decide who was right and who was wrong, and pick and choose whatever we want and call it the truth)?
    Last edited by TER; 10-13-2014 at 12:18 AM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    My friend Kevin, had you actually read the first two posts you would find that nowhere did such a statement as the Church being a denomination or a building ever get mentioned or implied.

    If in fact you did indeed read the first two posts and have this above to be your participation and offering, then you completely missed what the topic of the thread is about. We are discussing the fact that whether one is 'Sola Scriptura' or 'Sola Scriptura', it still boils down to the individual putting their interpretation and opinion above everything else, including the works of the Holy Spirit in the world. If you would like to discuss those charges you made above, then please start a thread and initiate a dialogue about the inconsistencies you see between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church. It is a fascinating topic actually, full of history, drama, celebrations, and feasts. A lot of political intrigue as well for those who have an interest in such things. But I assure you, while we are not in eucharistic and full sacramental unity as of now, there is much common truth between these sister Churches and doctrinal consistencies, especially with regard to moral teachings and how one should live. For the first thousand plus years, the two were one and collectively were called the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. This is not an exaggeration. This was the concrete historical truth. There existed no other Church which could make such a claim and stand up to evidence and deliberation.

    The question of this thread has to do with who or what we consider to be the 'foundation and pillar of truth'? The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or the one we have created in our heads (where we decide who was right and who was wrong, and pick and choose whatever we want and call it the truth)?
    which church is that?
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin007 View Post
    which church is that?
    I believe, after prayer and study, that it is the Orthodox Church. From the Saints of the Orthodox Church (which go back to Abraham, Moses and the Prophets and all the New Testament writers) I find the doctrines and wisdom regarding Christ's revelation to mankind which the Christian Church has faithfully carried out (not since I was born), but which can demonstrate historical and apostolic authority and reliability, not only in my head, but in truth.

    Since this is a thread about Solo and Sola Scriptura, would you like to share if you believe in one or both?
    Last edited by TER; 10-12-2014 at 10:10 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    I believe, after prayer and study, that it is the Orthodox Church. From the Saints of the Orthodox Church (which go back to Abraham, Moses and the Prophets and all the New Testament writers) I find the doctrines and wisdom regarding Christ's revelation to mankind which the Christian Church has faithfully carried out (not since I was born), but which can demonstrate historical and apostolic authority and reliability, not only in my head, but in truth.

    Since this is a thread about Solo and Sola Scriptura, would you like to share if you believe in one or both?

    so both your church and the Catholics claim the same thing.....
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Kevin007 View Post
    so both your church and the Catholics claim the same thing.....
    Good night Kevin. Maybe another day you will answer my question above.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  15. #13
    According to the Scriptures

    October 16, 2014 by Nathan Duffy
    link HERE




    In the Nicene Creed, recited by the faithful at every divine liturgy, the Church confesses that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again “according to the Scriptures.” This language is taken directly from St. Paul in 1 Cor. 15:4, and is thereafter a common expression among the apostolic fathers.

    Most of us today–somewhat naturally–take this to mean that Christ was crucified and rose again in accord with the account of those events as recorded in the New Testament documents. But, in reality, this expression was about the continuity of the apostolic kerygma, or proclamation, of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, crucified and risen for our salvation, with the Scriptures–that is, with the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets. 1 How could it have been otherwise in St. Paul and the early fathers’ usage?

    The subject of the continuity of the old covenant with the new, of Israel and the Church, of the God of the Old Testament and Jesus Christ, was a subject of some controversy for the early church. There were some heretics who theorized that Jesus Christ was a completely separate God from the God of the Old Testament, thereby introducing a radical discontinuity between old covenant and new. On the other hand, in Judaizing camps, it was claimed that the Law was still in effect in an unaltered, unfulfilled manner, despite Christ’s incarnation and all His mighty saving acts. The Church, in her wisdom, rejected both radical discontinuity with the Scriptures–that is, the Law, Psalms, and Prophets–and a continuity so absolute that Christ’s work would make no difference. And she did so in accord with Christ’s own words on the matter in Matt. 5:17.

    Likewise, confessing that the apostolic kerygma, the gospel, was “according to the Scriptures” was nothing more than a reiteration of what Christ says in John 5:39: “You search the scriptures [i.e. the Old Testament], because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me.” Christ himself alerts the apostles of the Scriptures–the Law, Psalms, and Prophets–testifying of him, and he does so again on the road to Emmaus, after his resurrection: “and beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself” (Luke 24:27). Thus, the revelation of Christ as the Word of God takes place uniquely in the milieu of the apostolic preaching of the crucifixion and resurrection in engagement with the Scriptures–the Law, Psalms, and Prophets.

    Fr. John Behr, in his text The Way to Nicaea, explicates this point when interpreting a passage by St. Irenaeus of Lyons’ Against Heresies:

    [T]he apostles certainly delivered a new manner of reading the Scriptures, proclaiming Christ “according to the Scriptures,” but, according to Irenaeus, what they handed down, both in public preaching and in writing, remained tied to the Scripture. Rather than standing within this tradition of the apostolic engagement with Scripture, in which Christ is revealed, the Word which is not man’s but God’s, those who distort this canon think that the truth resides in their own interpretations, their own fabrications, and so end up preaching themselves. 2

    It’s only in the apostolic kerygma “according to the Scriptures” that the gospel is constituted and delivered to the world. In other words, it is only within the apostolic tradition that the gospel is rightly proclaimed. This tradition itself has both written and unwritten aspects (cf. 2 Thess 2:15), as the authority of the apostles was not confined to the times they wrote letters to churches, but included their exhortations, laying on of hands, performance of miracles, and live preaching.

    But if the Tradition of the Church is authoritative, doesn’t that diminish the authority of Scripture? No, the two are complimentary and inseparable. It’s precisely this unity of Scripture in Tradition that distinguishes an Orthodox approach to the faith from all others. In opposition to this, those who claim to have access to some tradition of the apostles that can’t be demonstrated from the Scriptures (i.e. the Old Testament) are shown to be heretics. Behr continues:

    Irenaeus’ appeal to tradition is thus fundamentally different to that of his opponents. While they appealed to tradition precisely for that which was not in Scripture, or for principles which would legitimize their interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus, in his appeal to tradition, was not appealing to anything else that was not also in Scripture. Thus Irenaeus can appeal to tradition, to establish his case, and at the same time maintain that Scripture cannot be understood except on the basis of Scripture itself. 3

    The Church’s life and tradition, then, is the space within which Scripture comes into being and is handed down and interpreted rightly—in accordance with the apostolic preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and by the vivifying power of the Holy Spirit.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  16. #14
    When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place. There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context. I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin. The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible. And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer. At least that's what the Bible said. And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is not the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    I believe, after prayer and study, that it is the Orthodox Church.
    So let me see if I understand. After prayer and study you came to your opinion that the Orthodox Church is the true church? I hope you see where I'm going with this.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place. There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context. I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin. The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible. And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer. At least that's what the Bible said. And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is not the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.
    Pope Francis is a clueless liberal.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place. There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context. I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin. The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible. And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer. At least that's what the Bible said. And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is not the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.
    I wish you did read more of the Church Fathers and put more energy in studying the actual history of Christianity from the first century and after my brother, especially on how the baptized men and women in the world have labored from the beginning in order to pass down the traditions handed down by the apostles and those who succeeded them.

    There is no conflict with the Scriptures and the Church. There is interpretation of the Scriptures within the Church. And not the interpretation of one man or one person, but the interpretation as deliberated and defended and clarified through the milieu of the catholic Church. Not in fantasy or in thoughtful imagination, but in concrete reality, in a blessed water of baptism, a spoken confession and creed, a written declaration or canon of Scripture, in true succession of the laying of the hands and anointing of the oil and Holy Spirit. These traditions go back in form and development for 2000 years and lead us to the life of the early Church. This is the concrete working of the Holy Spirit, not having sprung up a hundred years ago, but 2000 years ago, not starting from the day I was born or the day I thought something up or agreed to something else, but what is the historical, liturgical, and sacramentally sealed witness which has been faithfully handed down, through good times and bad, through persecution and state protection, and demonstrating the power of God and the proofs of the Holy Spirit by the lives of the saints. The tradition of the Church is the life of the Church, guided by God Himself in the Holy Spirit.

    We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't. At least, I know that applies to me acknowledging my sinfulness and having really read their writings and studied their lives and the unimaginable circumstances and challenges they faced in order to pass down faithfully the traditions and teachings handed down by the Apostles. I wish to be in communion with those who I know indeed were 'Holy Spirit filled' saints instead of putting so much weight in my own mind's capabilities. Nor do I put my faith in people who taught completely innovative teachings 15, 17, or 19 centuries later, apart from the body of Christians who have worshiped in unity since the beginning. If Christ truly did create a Church on earth empowered by the Holy Spirit, which He promised that the gates of Hell would never overcome, then I want to find THAT Church, which can show itself through history AND through the blessed sacrament to go back to the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost.

    This is why I am an Orthodox Christian. Not because I am great, or because I am something, but because I know how badly fallible and sinful I am, and even though I can just as easily trust in myself above all and claim to be 'learning from the Holy Spirit' , I know by the way I live and the sins I do that I am only fooling myself to believe such a thing.
    Last edited by TER; 10-17-2014 at 02:30 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place. There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context. I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin. The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible. And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer. At least that's what the Bible said. And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is not the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.
    The pope is not Orthodox (the perspective from which the article's author is writing). It is the duty of the Roman Catholic laity to correct him. IDK why it doesn't seem to happen much, but that's how it is. I've not done much reading WRT how the RCC handles these things.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  22. #19
    The Bible and the Spirit of Democracy

    Fr. Stephen Freeman
    link
    HERE




    My first introduction to ancient writings was in my Classical Greek classes my freshman year of college. Most of those were tortuous exercises filled with the rules of a foreign grammar. My friends laughed at how hard and long I labored in those studies. With time, however, the work began to yield pleasure as the language became a familiar friend. The same experience followed in my sophomore year as I added Latin to my studies. For most of my college years I thought that my future was a doctorate in Classics and a life as an academic. Those academic thoughts followed me to seminary where I continued to read in the Fathers. Every serious attempt at mastery opened new worlds to me. Tracking down a single problematic passage and making sense of it would easily entail an afternoon in the library and a likely trail through a number of books. It was hard.

    What I gained from all of that was some cursory knowledge of a few topics – but a much deeper feel and respect for the true labor of scholarship and the actual price of knowledge and mastery.

    Parallel to these studies was my beginning work in Holy Scripture. But an obvious conclusion marked that undertaking. Old books are old books. It doesn’t matter what their content may be, they have that much in common. It made no sense to me to treat the Scriptures in a manner that was essentially different than I treated Plato or Thucydides. I did not dismiss the inspiration of the Scriptures, but they remained “old books,” no matter what.

    As such, it seemed obvious to me that reading them in their original languages was essential to their understanding. I added Hebrew to my languages while in seminary. Latin and Greek belong to the same great family of languages as English, German, Russian, etc. – the family known as Indo-European. These languages have their own feel and many things that distinguish them, but they share a great deal in common. This is not true of Hebrew. Hebrew is a Semitic language and is nothing like anything in the Indo-European family. It has its own feel – one that cannot be had in translation – and even more impossible if that translation is into a language that belongs to a completely different family.

    This same set of learnings applies to the reading of the Fathers. St. Isaac of Syria, for example, belongs to a culture that was Semitic, though influenced by the Hellenistic culture of the Byzantine Greeks. And I could begin here to add layers of complexity. In short order any reasonable person would throw up their hands and say, “Then who can understand?” The honest answer would be, “Few.”

    And it is here that our modern world comes crashing to a halt. For there is no more deeply held assumption within our modern mythology than the equality of all. It is the bedrock foundation of the Spirit of Democracy that defines the modern period.

    Democracy (and Modernity) can be said to have started with the Protestant Reformation. The principle of Sola Scriptura was essentially a revolution in the concept of spiritual authority. If the Bible is the only authority, and every man can read his Bible, then every man is his own authority. None of the original Reformers intended such a radical revision of the Church, but its internal logic was irrepressible. And it spread from the Church to the culture at large. In Germany it sparked the Peasants’ Revolt, forcing Martin Luther to reluctantly support the bloody repression that was among the darkest moments of the period (100,000 peasants were slaughtered).

    The revolutions that are synonymous with the modern period are all rooted in the same instincts. Some, like the Puritan-led Civil War in England, were specifically religious. Others, like America and France were more specifically political. But all had their roots in the spiritual democracy of the Reformation (and Sola Scriptura).

    There is clearly something true about spiritual equality. No one is superior to another before God. But this equality before God (as He loves the evil as well as the good) does not extend to the whole of our lives. We have different gifts and varying abilities. These same inequalities ascend even to the throne of God: “To whom much is given, much will be required.”

    The Scriptures may be read by all, but they will not be understood by all. The arrogance of the democratic spirit, however, leads many astray and makes them prey to the manifold charlatans who make them think that they do understand. This also has its supporting democratic fallacy that our lives (and salvation) are the product of a rational response to the universally available information of the Scriptures. The Bible states the facts – I understand them – I do them. Ergo salvation. Today, the children of Sola Scriptura have largely reduced the Bible to a set of slogans: John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8, etc. They are quoted like the popularized scraps of the Constitution that litter the minds of the American public.

    The same spirit of democracy is alive and well within modern Orthodoxy, it should be noted. “The Fathers say,” is found as often on the lips of many Orthodox as frequently as “the Bible says” on the lips of Protestants. And it is equally absurd on the lips of almost all.

    The Second Epistle of Peter says this of the writings of St. Paul:

    … [in all his epistles, Paul speaks] of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable peopletwist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2Pe 3:16)

    But in our modern, democratic world, everyone who reads this passage thinks it is speaking about someone other than them!

    The Scriptures are difficult to understand, simply on the most straightforward level. What often passes for understanding is nothing of the sort. To actually hear the Scriptures without the filters of cultural abuse and twisting they have endured over the centuries (and especially in the modern period) is a great spiritual feat, a miracle.

    This feat is even greater when it comes to reading the Fathers – for there the layers become even denser, the required contextual knowledge yet more complex.

    The scholarly reading of Scripture and the Fathers is inherently non-egalitarian. All are not equal. All will not have equal understanding. But neither is it truly and solely intellectual. For spiritual meaning is also spiritually discerned. And it is here that many make shipwreck of their understanding. For the arrogance of our times convinces many that “at least with themselves” the ability to spiritually discern will be present. Or, more commonly, they will champion this reader or that and choose sides like the crowds of a football match. Theological debate often resembles the conversation of sports clubs.

    At the end of all of this it is easy to wonder how anyone can read and interpret anything.

    The answer again is truly “very few” can. What makes such a statement so disturbing in our present world is the assumption borne of the modern, democratic spirit that only by reading and interpreting can we be truly saved. This, of course, is necessitated by the spiritual/political faith of modernity.

    And it is not true. Most people cannot rightly read and interpret and they have never been able to. They are as much prey to spiritual demagogues as they are to political ones. In today’s world, those demagogues are the masters of consumerism. We “consume” the “message” of Scripture, just as we consume the nostrums of our political leaders. And the spiritual world is today at least as dysfunctional as the political (and for the same reasons).

    But our salvation does not depend on our intellect nor on a book rightly read. There have probably been large stretches of time in which virtually no one living had the scholarly ability to treat texts correctly, to say little of the spiritual maturity required. God has not left us bereft.

    The necessity of Tradition is revealed in the very heart of this. Salvation is not found in the pursuit of understanding – it is found in the pursuit of God. That journey is the life lived within the practices of the Church. The Church itself is the interpretation of Scripture – it is what theology looks like. It is why everything within the New Testament is pointed towards the forming and shaping of the Church – not the forming and shaping of a theological argument. Salvation is lived.

    The continuity of the Church’s life is Holy Tradition. It is the living remembrance promised by Christ:

    “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (Joh 14:26)

    It is why the “remembrance” of the sacrifice of Christ is a meal that is eaten rather than an idea that is entertained.
    The Church has been sustained through the centuries – particularly through the most difficult centuries – by this unbroken continuity of life – particularly as found in the liturgies and practices of the faithful. Interestingly, less harm has been suffered when the intellectual life of the Church was suppressed (as under the Soviets) than when the liturgical life of the Church was suppressed or overthrown (as in the modern Reformation and Post-Reformation period).

    The saying, “Lex orandi, lex credendi,” (the law of praying is the law of believing) has always been true. How the Church prays will always (always!) shape what the Church believes. Those who pray like consumers will believe like consumers. Those who pray in the arrogance of their democratic mythology will believe in the same manner.

    The day of my ordination to the Orthodox priesthood, I was being driven across town by a group of priests. I was full of thoughts and questions, nervously chatting away. A gruff hierodeacon (from Byelorus) in the car rebuked me sternly, “You don’t need to think! You need to pray!”

    It’s still true more often than not.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    The pope is not Orthodox (the perspective from which the article's author is writing). It is the duty of the Roman Catholic laity to correct him. IDK why it doesn't seem to happen much, but that's how it is. I've not done much reading WRT how the RCC handles these things.
    Right. But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox. But that's tangential to my point. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church". (One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.) In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO. So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new. As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that. But in the dark ages that meant death. Have you ever heard of Jan Huss? He was a reformer that preceded Luther. (Luther really was not the first reformer.) His argument with the RCC? He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord. (Paul himself said "Follow me as I follow Christ"). For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake. So was his friend Jerome. Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope. Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  24. #21
    TER how about joining Deb and others in going through the Bible? Seriously? I know myself that I have a lot more Bible study I need to do. Have you exhausted everything it is that you could possibly learned from the earliest church fathers, namely the apostles? If so, good for you.

    As for your statement that "We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't." my response is this. The earliest church fathers longed for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.

    1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

    Christians are not supposed to be "Ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth." I don't think I have "arrived" so that I am "wiser than all Christians before me". I don't know why whenever this conversation comes up that's the type of response I get. But I don't believe God is so limited in 2014 that He cannot explain His truth to His children without them having to rely on 2nd hand information. The writings in the Bible are first hand accounts of God's working through creation to the establishment of the Christian church. Writings after that are helpful for history. I like reading Josephus and he wasn't even Christian! But he is helpful for understanding history.

    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    I wish you did read more of the Church Fathers and put more energy in studying the actual history of Christianity from the first century and after my brother, especially on how the baptized men and women in the world have labored from the beginning in order to pass down the traditions handed down by the apostles and those who succeeded them.

    There is no conflict with the Scriptures and the Church. There is interpretation of the Scriptures within the Church. And not the interpretation of one man or one person, but the interpretation as deliberated and defended and clarified through the milieu of the catholic Church. Not in fantasy or in thoughtful imagination, but in concrete reality, in a blessed water of baptism, a spoken confession and creed, a written declaration or canon of Scripture, in true succession of the laying of the hands and anointing of the oil and Holy Spirit. These traditions go back in form and development for 2000 years and lead us to the life of the early Church. This is the concrete working of the Holy Spirit, not having sprung up a hundred years ago, but 2000 years ago, not starting from the day I was born or the day I thought something up or agreed to something else, but what is the historical, liturgical, and sacramentally sealed witness which has been faithfully handed down, through good times and bad, through persecution and state protection, and demonstrating the power of God and the proofs of the Holy Spirit by the lives of the saints. The tradition of the Church is the life of the Church, guided by God Himself in the Holy Spirit.

    We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't. At least, I know that applies to me acknowledging my sinfulness and having really read their writings and studied their lives and the unimaginable circumstances and challenges they faced in order to pass down faithfully the traditions and teachings handed down by the Apostles. I wish to be in communion with those who I know indeed were 'Holy Spirit filled' saints instead of putting so much weight in my own mind's capabilities. Nor do I put my faith in people who taught completely innovative teachings 15, 17, or 19 centuries later, apart from the body of Christians who have worshiped in unity since the beginning. If Christ truly did create a Church on earth empowered by the Holy Spirit, which He promised that the gates of Hell would never overcome, then I want to find THAT Church, which can show itself through history AND through the blessed sacrament to go back to the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost.

    This is why I am an Orthodox Christian. Not because I am great, or because I am something, but because I know how badly fallible and sinful I am, and even though I can just as easily trust in myself above all and claim to be 'learning from the Holy Spirit' , I know by the way I live and the sins I do that I am only fooling myself to believe such a thing.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Right. But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox. But that's tangential to my point. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church". (One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.) In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO. So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new. As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that. But in the dark ages that meant death. Have you ever heard of Jan Huss? He was a reformer that preceded Luther. (Luther really was not the first reformer.) His argument with the RCC? He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord. (Paul himself said "Follow me as I follow Christ"). For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake. So was his friend Jerome. Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope. Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.
    Hmmm...strange...I've never seen that. As to "which Orthodox Church", the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Church(a type of Oriental Church) are schismatic. The Churches in communion with each other-comprising the One, Holy, Catholic (orthodox use this word in its original sense-"universal") and Apostolic Church are those in Russia, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Right. But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox. But that's tangential to my point
    Have you heard any Orthodox Christian defend the Pope with regards to this current Synod in Rome? I haven't. When the Roman Catholic Pope says something which the Orthodox Church proclaims as well, then there is agreement. When he doesn't, then there is disagreement. In your experience, there may seem more agreements and defending of the other, but that is because there are signs the two great Churches are coming closer and overcoming obstacles. Trust me, there were times when because of Papal policies there was little camaraderie, such as in the Fourth Crusade. But the truth is that there is in fact much that are similar, most importantly, a common history. The goal is now to strengthen these bonds, re-establish those ancient ties, and forgive one another so that they might share together as one Body as they did for a thousand years starting from the days of the early Church.

    Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church".
    How I wish you did not assume, but also came to know!

    (One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.)
    The EO and OO have been in schism since the 4th century because of a misunderstanding of Christologic terminology. In fact, in recent interfaith conferences, it is clear that they share (depending on the terminology one uses) the exact same orthodox faith. But even still, with the span of 1700 years later, they still have the same saints of the infant Church, still have the same sacraments, still worship liturgically in almost exactly the same way, still confess the same orthodox belief of 99% of teachings. Pretty interesting, right? If you don't find that interesting or telling, then I am sorry you do not. To me, it only further confirms to me that if I want to find the true understanding of the life in Christ, in praxis and worship, I should look to the past and to the beginnings.

    In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO. So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new.
    That is not true. There was much dialogue in the 17th century between the Lutherans and the Orthodox Church.

    As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that. But in the dark ages that meant death. Have you ever heard of Jan Huss? He was a reformer that preceded Luther. (Luther really was not the first reformer.) His argument with the RCC? He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord. (Paul himself said "Follow me as I follow Christ"). For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake. So was his friend Jerome. Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope. Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.
    It is unfortunate what happened to Jan Huss. But that was in the dark ages of Papal imperialism and a symptom of larger problems because of such Papal abuse.
    Last edited by TER; 10-17-2014 at 06:16 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    TER how about joining Deb and others in going through the Bible? Seriously? I know myself that I have a lot more Bible study I need to do. Have you exhausted everything it is that you could possibly learned from the earliest church fathers, namely the apostles? If so, good for you.
    I think that Deb's thread is a great idea. In fact, I have thought about putting the quotes of the Church Fathers who have commented about those particular verses. Their wisdom is much greater than mine. But I have not had the time because of personal reasons. I do admire those who are contributing to it and wish them well in it.
    As for your statement that "We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't." my response is this. The earliest church fathers longed for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.
    Jmdrake, honest question: Have you read any complete works of the Church Fathers? What is your knowledge about the lives of the saints, what they wrote, and what they taught and confessed to be the apostolic truths? I think we must be honest if we are going to say what 'they longed for us' that we have actually read them to make such a guess. But, nevertheless, in this point, you are right! They did indeed long for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them. They also longed that we humble ourselves, that we don't confess heresy nor depend on our own thoughts, interpretations, and opinions which go against the orthodox teachings handed down by the saints before them (that is, the Church), so that we might enter into unity of faith and worship as one Body of Christ.

    Christians are not supposed to be "Ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth." I don't think I have "arrived" so that I am "wiser than all Christians before me". I don't know why whenever this conversation comes up that's the type of response I get. But I don't believe God is so limited in 2014 that He cannot explain His truth to His children without them having to rely on 2nd hand information. The writings in the Bible are first hand accounts of God's working through creation to the establishment of the Christian church. Writings after that are helpful for history. I like reading Josephus and he wasn't even Christian! But he is helpful for understanding history.
    My friend, believe as you wish. I am not trying to convert you (well, maybe a little, but that is because I wish to join in full communion with you in Christ). If the Spirit has not led you to diligently read the history of the early Church and meditate and study on the writings of the early Church Fathers to find the truths of the apostolic faith (to learn what has actually been handed down continuously since the very beginning), than who am I to lead you to anything (?) since those stated things would be the first things I think (IMO) an honest seeker would do.

    Josephus was a scholar and a great historian. Why not read the writings of the Christian saints as well? St. Ignatius has been revered for 2000 years because of his Christian witness to the true faith. He would be a good place to start to understand what it meant to be in the Church and in obedience to God from the beginning until now. May God bless you in your journey.
    Last edited by TER; 10-17-2014 at 06:50 PM.
    +
    'These things I command you, that you love one another.' - Jesus Christ



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    apparently both the RCC and EOC claim they are the authority and one true church
    Ephesians 2:8-9-

    8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Hmmm...strange...I've never seen that.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5672272

    As to "which Orthodox Church", the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Church(a type of Oriental Church) are schismatic. The Churches in communion with each other-comprising the One, Holy, Catholic (orthodox use this word in its original sense-"universal") and Apostolic Church are those in Russia, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia.
    Right. And that's my point. The Ethiopian Orthodox church is just as old as any other church. But it's not in communion with the RCC or the "Orthodox" church. So why should I or anyone else accept what your church teaches as being "scripture"? All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone after the apostles. But there is enough already in the scripture that everybody accepts for someone to understand how to be saved without arguing over the other stuff.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Have you heard any Orthodox Christian defend the Pope with regards to this current Synod in Rome? I haven't.
    Yep. Right on this forum. The idea that the Pope was really saying "Love the sinner hate the sin." And actually I don't know of the Pope himself said or is in agreement with that so I was careful not to say "the Pope". (I don't know enough about RCC politics to know if a synod can issue a statement like that without the Pope's personal seal of approval.) And I seem to recall EO Christians that were reinterpreting the Pope's words on "unbridled capitalism" as somehow being "against crony capitalism" when that's not what he said. The liberty movement opposes crony capitalism but not free market (unbridled) capitalism. By that was a while back.

    When the Roman Catholic Pope says something which the Orthodox Church proclaims as well, then there is agreement. When he doesn't, then there is disagreement. In your experience, there may seem more agreements and defending of the other, but that is because there are signs the two great Churches are coming closer and overcoming obstacles. Trust me, there were times when because of Papal policies there was little camaraderie, such as in the Fourth Crusade. But the truth is that there is in fact much that are similar, most importantly, a common history. The goal is now to strengthen these bonds, re-establish those ancient ties, and forgive one another so that they might share together as one Body as they did for a thousand years starting from the days of the early Church.
    I'm just commenting on what I saw.

    How I wish you did not assume, but also came to know!
    Sorry but there are too many things that I know to be true that the Orthodox church believes to be false and too many things that I know to be false that the Orthodox church believes to be true for me to be a member.

    The EO and OO have been in schism since the 4th century because of a misunderstanding of Christologic terminology. In fact, in recent interfaith conferences, it is clear that they share (depending on the terminology one uses) the exact same orthodox faith. But even still, with the span of 1700 years later, they still have the same saints of the infant Church, still have the same sacraments, still worship liturgically in almost exactly the same way, still confess the same orthodox belief of 99% of teachings. Pretty interesting, right? If you don't find that interesting or telling, then I am sorry you do not. To me, it only further confirms to me that if I want to find the true understanding of the life in Christ, in praxis and worship, I should look to the past and to the beginnings.
    Right. They've got a lot of things in common. All Christians have a lot of things in common. You've even got stuff in common with Kevin and you even had stuff in common with Sola_Fide. That's kind of my point. If churches as old as the Greek Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox church (I have to stop using abbreviations like EO because that could apply to both) have different views, then accepting church tradition is not some guarantee of church unity. People have different understandings of the traditions. I know the Ethiopian church accepts Enoch as an inspired book for example.

    That is not true. There was much dialogue in the 17th century between the Lutherans and the Orthodox Church.
    You realize that the 17th century was 100 years after Luther? For my statement to "not be true" there had to have been a viable Orthodox presence where Luther lived during his lifetime. If you have evidence of that please provide and I'll stand corrected. I just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything myself.

    It is unfortunate what happened to Jan Huss. But that was in the dark ages of Papal imperialism and a symptom of larger problems because of such Papal abuse.
    True. But it didn't get that way over night. And I submit that part of the reason it got that way is because people didn't have a simple common standard that they could go to and say "This is wrong." The writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament give people a common digestible standard where people can say "This is wrong." Huss was right because accepted scripture qualifies "follow me" with "as I follow Christ." Who knows. In the annals of someone's tradition somewhere centuries later there was "tradition" that backed up what the popes were doing. In fact that's a certainty because they were laying down their own "tradition." Protestantism did not start from pride or arrogance but from a genuine recognition that what was happening was wrong.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by TER View Post
    Jmdrake, honest question: Have you read any complete works of the Church Fathers? What is your knowledge about the lives of the saints, what they wrote, and what they taught and confessed to be the apostolic truths? I think we must be honest if we are going to say what 'they longed for us' that we have actually read them to make such a guess. But, nevertheless, in this point, you are right! They did indeed long for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them. They also longed that we humble ourselves, that we don't confess heresy nor depend on our own thoughts, interpretations, and opinions which go against the orthodox teachings handed down by the saints before them (that is, the Church), so that we might enter into unity of faith and worship as one Body of Christ.
    I think you missed what I was saying. The earliest church fathers were the apostles themselves. Paul said "I would that all men prophesy". I quoted John to you where he said "You have no need of a teacher because the Holy Spirit is your teacher." Paul praised the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessolinicans because they not only received his words with joy but "Studied the scriptures to see if these things were true." In Acts when congregations were found not to be full of the Holy Spirit, the apostles send emissaries to them to lay hands on them so that they would be filled with the Holy Spirit. Now I've read some work by what you are calling "church fathers". I don't think I've read a "completed work". But if they disagree with the original church fathers (the apostles) in wanting all believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit....well that's a problem.

    My friend, believe as you wish. I am not trying to convert you (well, maybe a little, but that is because I wish to join in full communion with you in Christ). If the Spirit has not led you to diligently read the history of the early Church and meditate and study on the writings of the early Church Fathers to find the truths of the apostolic faith (to learn what has actually been handed down continuously since the very beginning), than who am I to lead you to anything (?) since those stated things would be the first things I think (IMO) an honest seeker would do.

    Josephus was a scholar and a great historian. Why not read the writings of the Christian saints as well? St. Ignatius has been revered for 2000 years because of his Christian witness to the true faith. He would be a good place to start to understand what it meant to be in the Church and in obedience to God from the beginning until now. May God bless you in your journey.
    Ummmm......was what I said really that unclear? I'm fine with reading church history written from anyone. In fact the PM I sent you recently contained church history. My question to you was were the historical quotes accurate, but you instead commented on the doctrinal conclusions. That's all well and good. I can do my own research. My point about Josephus is that he is a good reference for historical understanding. That's the same way I would look at St. Ignatius. That's not to say that Ignatius wasn't inspired. He very well could have been. But there are people who could have been inspired and have gotten something dreadfully wrong. Joan of Arc for instance. (I'll post a thread on that soon.) Anyway, I've got to get ready for church. Have a blessed day!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5672272



    Right. And that's my point. The Ethiopian Orthodox church is just as old as any other church. But it's not in communion with the RCC or the "Orthodox" church. So why should I or anyone else accept what your church teaches as being "scripture"? All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture. That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone after the apostles. But there is enough already in the scripture that everybody accepts for someone to understand how to be saved without arguing over the other stuff.
    You accept the apocrypha as authoritative? Interesting. Most of the heterodox world doesn't. ~hugs~
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    You accept the apocrypha as authoritative? Interesting. Most of the heterodox world doesn't. ~hugs~
    You think that's what the man said? Really?

    So you not only accept the apocrypha yourself, but you think TER and 'every other Christian' does too?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    We believe our lying eyes...

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-02-2015, 09:29 PM
  2. The First Century Jews and Sola Scriptura
    By TER in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 02-23-2015, 10:34 PM
  3. Sola Scriptura is True
    By Kevin007 in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-20-2014, 07:42 PM
  4. Aging Protestants, Deep Sighs, and Holy Tradition
    By TER in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-14-2014, 08:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •