Do we speak of the Bible this way?

http://orthodoxcanada.org/qa_archives/question7.html

http://ohtasteandsee.blogspot.com/2009/08/eastern-errancy-answered.html?m=1

Two different views in these articles

It says Archbishop Lazar

I don't know much about him except that he was a metropolitan of the OCA in the past. He retired before I became a Orthodox.

~Anastasia~ said:

Yes ... I'm just wondering if there is more than one. I don't want to go into it really.

The comments on the second one are showing this is quite a controversial question?

Click to expand...

Ah ok, yea I tend to skip out on the conversations with scandals or people who misrepresent Orthodoxy. I agree about not going into it, though I would like to know if it is not accurate Orthodox teaching.

And yea, it does seem controversial. Maybe our resident seminarians could explain what they are being taught at the seminaries about this?

All4Christ said:

It says Archbishop Lazar

Click to expand...

From what I have heard, he should be taken most cautiously.

Lukaris said:

From what I have heard, he should be taken most cautiously.

Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me know! It's very easy with the Internet to get "Orthodox" sources that are possibly not fully "orthodox". Probably would be wise for me to stick to Ancient Faith or sites like that.

Archbishop Lazar Puhalo has a tendency to say things which are entirely wrong. The OCA really should prohibit him from speaking or publishing at all.

All4Christ said:

I don't know much about him except that he was a metropolitan of the OCA in the past. He retired before I became a Orthodox.

Click to expand...

That is not quite true. Here's the deal: he was with some schismatic groups and wanted to "come in from the cold", so the OCA accepted him as a retired archbishop.

~Anastasia~ said:

Anyway - I apologize. I should not have mentioned him at all but I like to know my sources.

Can anyone help with the original question?

Click to expand...

I do not see why you need to apologize; I think we just wanted to share a note of caution re Fr. Lazar.

~Anastasia~ said:

I honestly don't know, so I'm asking. It has come up ...

Would the Orthodox refer to the Bible as "the inerrant Word of God"? ... minus the capital "W" perhaps?

And for my own information, if the answer is "no" I'd like to understand the thinking behind it? Thank you so much!

Click to expand...

Usually the only other term I hear within Orthodoxy other than the Bible is the "Holy Scriptures." I guess such a term as "inerrant Word of God" is ok if used within the understanding of Holy Tradition. It might be that this term has been used too frequently when associated with conflicting and non Orthodox theology that it is virtually nonexistent in Orthodox faith expression.

I think the Church prefers to always think of the Bible and the Church to guard us against misinterpretation of the Holy Scriptures. Bishop Kallistos (nee Timothy) Ware writes, "The Christian Church is a scriptural church....The Bible is the supreme expression of God's revelation to the human race, and Christians must always be "People of the Book." But if Christians are People of the Book, the Bible is the Book of the People; it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Scripture and Tradition)." From: The Orthodox Church, Chapter 10: Holy Tradition: The Source of the Orthodox Faith.

I do think that Biblical teaching to the laity has suffered for generations though from various, complex reasons (like communist revolutions, Islamic oppression etc.) or simple negligence.

I think the Lord Jesus Christ provides the overall framework of the Old Testament pointing to Him within the Gospels.

For ex. the golden rule is defined as the law and the prophets in Matthew 7:12 in the summation of verses from Matthew 7:1-12. Later, He preaches that on the 2 great commands hang all of law and the prophets in summation in Matthew 22:40 from verses Matthew 22:36-40. The risen Lord testified that all things written of Him in the law, prophets, & Psalms must be fulfilled in Luke 24:44-45. Obviously He is to be found in His scripture which is obvious in a place like Isaiah 53 (for ex. ) but difficult to comprehend in certain other areas. I think reading an early church writing like the Didache (ca. 90-100 AD) and comparing it with a basic prayer book can give us a feel for the church side of holy tradition. This derives basically from the Biblical framework preached & established by the Lord Himself to the apostles.

I just wanted to add that the article from Bishop Lazar seemed basically sound but I have witnessed legitimate and serious concerns re his theology elsewhere. I could not look up the other article though.