Eastern Orthodoxy

[SaintPhotios]

We also have revelation of those truths by the Holy Spirit, but scripture is self-referential and verifies itself, thus our "interpretations" aren't without verification.

That's completely circular. Every Christian sect makes that claim. If all Christian sects claim inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yet disagree, then obviously most (if not all) are wrong. They don't think they're wrong, as you don't think you're wrong. But you have no external indication (or even internal other than some vague "feeling" you might mistake for the Holy Spirit at work) whatsoever that you are the one of all those opposing claims that is actually right. This is precisely why Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Oriental Orthodox have external scales by which they can determine the Holy Spirit. Individual men are fallible... we all agree on that. So there's no way you can discern that in fact that Holy Spirit is leading you towards Calvinism, and that it's not simply Satan disguising himself as the Holy Spirit.

As as I said regarding self-verification... its utterly circular. If something is in need of verification, then by that fact alone it can't be self-verifying... otherwise, verification plays no part in the equation. It's like using a double negative. So either Scriptural interpretation needs to be verified by something external, or Scriptural need does not need to be verfied at all, in which case you must subscribe to doctrinal relativism (not to mention moral relativism) and you must view the whole of Christendom as on level ground with Calvinism. The latter, relativism, is obviously false... that would be heretical by both our standards. So you're still left with the first option which is the need for external verification of Scriptural interpretation -- which none of Protestantism has, including Calvinism.

The man with more authority is the man with more truth.

Exactly! Within the framework of sola scriptura, all men have equal authority... and therefore, there is no difference in validity between your interpretation of Scripture and a Methodist.... because sola scriptura gives no higher authority than the individual, each individual receives equal stake in his claim to truth -- again, moral relativism.

Infallable interpretation isn't any more difficult for the individual than it is for the clergy, providing for adequate study.

Infallible interpretation isn't only difficult for the individual... its impossible for a fallible individual to have infallible interpretation. Infallible by definition leaves no room for even the possibility of error, and that's something individual man cannot accomplish. All the clergy essentially is, according to the Orthodox view, is Christ's representative in the Church. Individual man can always err, but the Church can never err (the gates of hell shall never prevail against it). I think many Protestants draw this unfair comparison between Roman Catholcism and Orthodoxy. But I think your primary problem is with the abuses of the Roman Catholic monarhaic system of clergy. In reality, the Orthodox clergy is set up quite similarly to that of Presbyterianism. There is not Pope-esque figures that act as a monarch-- but rather collegially. The same now as they did when the Protestant accepted Ecumenical Councils were conveined. The difference is that they aren't going out independently. The come from a line of succession that goes back to the Apostles. Augustine, Athanasius, and all of the Church Fathers that Protestants revere held to this. Whereas in the Presbyterian form, independent guys can get together and start their own presbyteries and preside over their own miniature "councils".... But because of their independence in doing that, the fact that they meet together is of no effect, because the foundation still retains its individualistic qualities. And because we believe there is one Body of Christ, and One Church, independence has no role Christ's Body. It is one unified entity. And this is why I think where Rome has gone off and made countless new innovative doctrines over the years, Orthodoxy has remained, doctrinely, exactly the same. I don't mean to go off on another issues. But the issues of authority and interpretation of Scripture are so connected, and then authority and our concepts of the Church are so connect, the topics really couldn't be talked about independently.

Regenerated selves find evident what reprobate minds don't.

This again begs the question of how you know who is regenerate who is not. You think that Orthodox Christians are not because they hold to false doctrines. And you think they hold to false doctrines because they interpret Scripture differently than you do.... and once again it all comes back to what authority determines the proper interpretation and all of the things I've just pointed out.

That's why we reserve the adjective "infallable" for divine personages only.

The Church is infallible because the Church is the Body of Christ. And although the Body of Christ contains fallible people, because the Church is the communion between corruptible man and the Divine, collectively in their operations concerning the Body of Christ there is an infallibility than men in their operation of the Church, as the Body of Christ, can have. But none of this can be viewed independently of our views of the Church and authority.

Authority rests on truth, not on fallible people.

Again, that's just another way of stating that Scripture authenticates Scriptures (Scripture is the authority -- Scripture is truth).... the same circular argument with different terminology.

Isn't that much "self-evident" from scripture?

According to your system of sola scriptura, you can't be certain that Christ is God. You can be convinced on a personal level, but not certain. Because the Arians in the 3rd and 4th centuries, one of the oldest heresies in Church history, were using the exact same Scriptures as we're using today, and they denied exactly that. They argued that Christ was not truly Divine. In fact, the Arian heresy was so widespread that 97% of the Bishops in the Church during that time were professing Arians. Athanasius, second to Protestants only after Augustine, was deposed from his Patriarchate. So if 97% of the Church can be confused about what Scripture says about something as seemingly obvious as the Divinity of Christ, then that would seem to suggest that Scripture isn't quite as self-evident as Protestants would argue.

Scripture is our infallable authority. Problem solved.

I think my past two posts are fairly detailed about the problems with this position.

Even an infallable authority has to be interpreted by the people it assumes authority over. Some guy having the infallible truth is no guarantee his audience will 'get it'.

Correct... if a number of the laymen do not "get it" then, just as the heresies of the Early Church, a Council is called and the specific heresy is condemned. The Council of Nicaea was called becaused people just didn't get it that Christ was the son of God. The Council of Ephesus was called because people just didn't get it that Christ was in fact one Person.... and so on. Most of the time, people get it. If they don't, it can typically be corrected on the local level. It people show a major trend of "not getting it" on a large enough scale, then that's when they call a Council and the aforementioned confusion is put to rest.

Your human authority is the oppopsite of scapegoating - placing all the responsibility on one pair of shoulders in order to relieve your own sense of vulnerability.

Well, to be technical it's human authority.... but keep in mind that the Church is the Body of Christ even though it contains human members. So yes, I am taking it off of my own shoulders and putting it on Christ's as He guides the Church, and I don't think He'd have it any other way.

Total fantasy trip, that one.

Or a logical fact.... you can't mix fallibilism with infallibilism. They're like oil and water.

Being wrong is never irrelevant or closer to the truth.

I wasn't suggesting that Orthodoxy is wrong... I was stating a hypothetical for the sake of argument. So granted it was a hypothetical, in the case I stated it would be irrelevant.

Actualy, neither of us is "anti-Patristic". What we object to is the unnatural reverence given them simply because of their historical proximity to Jesus & the apostles.

To say, and I quote, "You can keep your 'patristic' literature to yourself" is a blatantly anti-patristic statement. All I did was quote Early Church Fathers on a post a long time ago, and I responded to his anti-patristic statement by pointing out that Calvin utilized them as well. Had I given undue reverence to Church Fathers on that post, then all of this would be relevant. But that wasn't the case.


I realize that was lengthy, but we're talking about two opposing worldviews.... so I guess when we put in perspective, that was really a gross summary. But on any account, I'm not trying to come across as beligerant and simply arguing for the sake of arguing. I truly believe that the fullness of God's promises are contained within the Orthodox Church, as you believe regarding Reformed churches. If I present myself aggressively or pridefully, then I won't accomplish anything, so I'll try to be firm in my position without doing that. All that I ask is that everyone considers this honestly and open to correction. I went from Calvinism, to traditional Roman Catholicism, to Eastern Orthodoxy. So though I'm convinced of the flaws in Calvinism, I've been wrong in the past, so I'll remain open to correction. The point is, if all these issues are approached honestly and openly, then I won't feel like I'm wasting my time, so I would hope that's the case.

 

[Rick Otto]

SaintPhotios;That's completely circular.

So is the dictionary. Circularity doesn't equal invalidity.

Every Christian sect makes that claim. If all Christian sects claim inspiration of the Holy Spirit, yet disagree, then obviously most (if not all) are wrong. They don't think they're wrong, as you don't think you're wrong. But you have no external indication (or even internal other than some vague "feeling" you might mistake for the Holy Spirit at work)

There you go again... completely disregarding the plain truths in scripture that provide precepts for building upon, and stridently reducing our spiritual experience as a "vague feeling". Back away from the incense for awhile. You are high on Catholicism.

This is precisely why Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and Oriental Orthodox have external scales by which they can determine the Holy Spirit.

They aren't at all external. Everything gets interpreted by everybody all the time. It is a fact of life, not a sin or a doctrine.

Individual men are fallible... we all agree on that.

You are being completely disengenuous, in light of your doctrinal exception to that. We don't agree at all.

So there's no way you can discern that in fact that Holy Spirit is leading you towards Calvinism, and that it's not simply Satan disguising himself as the Holy Spirit.

All y'all have the exact same vulnerability, especialy with your self-indulgent propensity for props & regalia, and with your habit of making someone else responsible for what you yourself choose to believe. Creates a loophole the size of Nuremburg.

As as I said regarding self-verification... its utterly circular. If something is in need of verification, then by that fact alone it can't be self-verifying... otherwise, verification plays no part in the equation.

It doesn't need, we need.
Works like a dictionary.

It's like using a double negative.

Not at all.

So either Scriptural interpretation needs to be verified by something external,

...that would be me. I am external to it, & I need to verify it.

or Scriptural need does not need to be verfied at all, in which case you must subscribe to doctrinal relativism

I don't bother to verify what I don't need to.
I have verified that scripture agrees with itself.

(not to mention moral relativism) and you must view the whole of Christendom as on level ground with Calvinism.

Well, all are certainly on the level ground of being sinners in need of a Savior. You're just pontificting your idea of philosophical fairness. That is all vanity in the face of justice.

The latter, relativism, is obviously false... that would be heretical by both our standards. So you're still left with the first option which is the need for external verification of Scriptural interpretation -- which none of Protestantism has, including Calvinism.

Youre confused.

Exactly! Within the framework of sola scriptura, all men have equal authority...

Only if they have equal truth, and then they have to hold it in righteousness.

and therefore, there is no difference in validity between your interpretation of Scripture and a Methodist....

They do get a few things right...

because sola scriptura gives no higher authority than the individual, each individual receives equal stake in his claim to truth -- again, moral relativism.

Sola Scriptura doesn't give anyone any authority.
Truth does.

Infallible interpretation isn't only difficult for the individual... its impossible for a fallible individual to have infallible interpretation. Infallible by definition leaves no room for even the possibility of error, and that's something individual man cannot accomplish.

Yet you claim individual popes do exactly that.

All the clergy essentially is, according to the Orthodox view, is Christ's representative in the Church.

I know. I've tried to show them their error.

Individual man can always err, but the Church can never err (the gates of hell shall never prevail against it).

You are over-reaching in your interpretation of that passage.

I think many Protestants draw this unfair comparison between Roman Catholcism and Orthodoxy.

They are often as ignorant about RCs &Os as RCs & Os are about them.

But I think your primary problem is with the abuses of the Roman Catholic monarhaic system of clergy.

Jesus calls it nicolatane.

In reality, the Orthodox clergy is set up quite similarly to that of Presbyterianism. There is not Pope-esque figures that act as a monarch-- but rather collegially. The same now as they did when the Protestant accepted Ecumenical Councils were conveined. The difference is that they aren't going out independently. The come from a line of succession that goes back to the Apostles. Augustine, Athanasius, and all of the Church Fathers that Protestants revere held to this. Whereas in the Presbyterian form, independent guys can get together and start their own presbyteries and preside over their own miniature "councils".... But because of their independence in doing that, the fact that they meet together is of no effect, because the foundation still retains its individualistic qualities.

And yet pedigrees get so polluted, that a pedigree becomes subordinate to the truths it tries to franchise.

And because we believe there is one Body of Christ, and One Church, independence has no role Christ's Body.

Like "The Borg"?
"Assimilate... Resistance is futile"?

It is one unified entity.

At least as facade. So many different rites & traditions!
Plus the renegade & apathy factors within the pews amount to a significant erosion of the unity proclaimed.

And this is why I think where Rome has gone off and made countless new innovative doctrines over the years, Orthodoxy has remained, doctrinely, exactly the same. I don't mean to go off on another issues. But the issues of authority and interpretation of Scripture are so connected, and then authority and our concepts of the Church are so connect, the topics really couldn't be talked about independently.

Agreed.

This again begs the question of how you know who is regenerate who is not. You think that Orthodox Christians are not because they hold to false doctrines.

That is an over-simplification, to the point of not being true, at least in my case, personaly.

And you think they hold to false doctrines because they interpret Scripture differently than you do.... and once again it all comes back to what authority determines the proper interpretation and all of the things I've just pointed out.

Truth is the proper authority in all cases.
It is the only lens that reveals reality without distortion.


The Church is infallible because the Church is the Body of Christ. And although the Body of Christ contains fallible people, because the Church is the communion between corruptible man and the Divine, collectively in their operations concerning the Body of Christ there is an infallibility than men in their operation of the Church, as the Body of Christ, can have. But none of this can be viewed independently of our views of the Church and authority.


Again, that's just another way of stating that Scripture authenticates Scriptures (Scripture is the authority -- Scripture is truth).... the same circular argument with different terminology.


According to your system of sola scriptura, you can't be certain that Christ is God. You can be convinced on a personal level, but not certain. Because the Arians in the 3rd and 4th centuries, one of the oldest heresies in Church history, were using the exact same Scriptures as we're using today, and they denied exactly that. They argued that Christ was not truly Divine. In fact, the Arian heresy was so widespread that 97% of the Bishops in the Church during that time were professing Arians. Athanasius, second to Protestants only after Augustine, was deposed from his Patriarchate. So if 97% of the Church can be confused about what Scripture says about something as seemingly obvious as the Divinity of Christ, then that would seem to suggest that Scripture isn't quite as self-evident as Protestants would argue.


I think my past two posts are fairly detailed about the problems with this position.


Correct... if a number of the laymen do not "get it" then, just as the heresies of the Early Church, a Council is called and the specific heresy is condemned. The Council of Nicaea was called becaused people just didn't get it that Christ was the son of God. The Council of Ephesus was called because people just didn't get it that Christ was in fact one Person.... and so on. Most of the time, people get it. If they don't, it can typically be corrected on the local level. It people show a major trend of "not getting it" on a large enough scale, then that's when they call a Council and the aforementioned confusion is put to rest.


Well, to be technical it's human authority.... but keep in mind that the Church is the Body of Christ even though it contains human members. So yes, I am taking it off of my own shoulders and putting it on Christ's as He guides the Church, and I don't think He'd have it any other way.


Or a logical fact.... you can't mix fallibilism with infallibilism. They're like oil and water.


I wasn't suggesting that Orthodoxy is wrong... I was stating a hypothetical for the sake of argument. So granted it was a hypothetical, in the case I stated it would be irrelevant.


To say, and I quote, "You can keep your 'patristic' literature to yourself" is a blatantly anti-patristic statement. All I did was quote Early Church Fathers on a post a long time ago, and I responded to his anti-patristic statement by pointing out that Calvin utilized them as well. Had I given undue reverence to Church Fathers on that post, then all of this would be relevant. But that wasn't the case.


I realize that was lengthy, but we're talking about two opposing worldviews.... so I guess when we put in perspective, that was really a gross summary. But on any account, I'm not trying to come across as beligerant and simply arguing for the sake of arguing. I truly believe that the fullness of God's promises are contained within the Orthodox Church, as you believe regarding Reformed churches. If I present myself aggressively or pridefully, then I won't accomplish anything, so I'll try to be firm in my position without doing that. All that I ask is that everyone considers this honestly and open to correction. I went from Calvinism, to traditional Roman Catholicism, to Eastern Orthodoxy. So though I'm convinced of the flaws in Calvinism, I've been wrong in the past, so I'll remain open to correction. The point is, if all these issues are approached honestly and openly, then I won't feel like I'm wasting my time, so I would hope that's the case.[/quote]

 

[SaintPhotios]

SaintPhotios;That's completely circular. So is the dictionary. Circularity doesn't equal invalidity.

yes, it does.... circular reasoning is a logical fallacy.

There you go again... completely disregarding the plain truths in scripture that provide precepts for building upon, and stridently reducing our spiritual experience as a "vague feeling". Back away from the incense for awhile. You are high on Catholicism.

that's totally dodging my objection.... that's a very real and practical problem within Protestantism that I have yet to hear a coherent answer for. they cannot answer that question without succumbing to some sort of circular reasoning.

They aren't at all external. Everything gets interpreted by everybody all the time.

yes, the magisterium is quite external.... and whatever interpretation does take place has a very practical and equally solution also founded in the magisterium. interpretation was never the issue...... it's the lack of an external authority by which to ensure interpretation that was the issue.

You are being completely disengenuous, in light of your doctrinal exception to that. We don't agree at all.

We have no doctrinal exception to that.... there is no individual man in any office in Eastern Orthodoxy that claims infallibility... we do not have a Pope, we merely have Bishops that meet collectively.

All y'all have the exact same vulnerability, especialy with your self-indulgent propensity for props & regalia, and with your habit of making someone else responsible for what you yourself choose to believe. Creates a loophole the size of Nuremburg.

You keep saying that, but you're incorrect, and I keep correcting that.... we do not have that vulnerability because that vulnerability is caused by an internal and individual basis for determining doctrine. No individual Orthodox believer interprets Scripture independently of Church teaching, and so no, we do not have that vulnerability at all, because we lack the individualistic basis that is the root cause of that vulnerability.

It doesn't need, we need.
Works like a dictionary.

either way, it's circular reasoning, therefore a logical fallacy, therefore totally invalid. I don't follow your dictionary analogy, because circular reasoning is totally fallacious and invalid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_argument

that would be me. I am external to it, & I need to verify it.

You are really really missing the point I think..... Any piece of literature has text, and then there's meaning deduced from interpreting the text. Without the meaning, the text is of no value... its the meaning that we hope to accomplish by reading a text. If a Chinese person were to look at your Bible, for instance, they would see the text get nothing out of it. But if you translate it into Chinese for them, then they would understand the meaning. Afterall, letters are simply symbols that arranged in a certain way convey meaning assuming the proper interpretation.

so here's the point... this is the equation: there is you, Biblical text, Biblical meaning. Now everyone that reads a Bible is physically looking at the same text, its the meaning that differs amongst group. And likewise, it is the meaning in which comes after interpretation. So there's you, the text, and the meaning you derive through interpretation. This whole process occurs internally. As you know, many other Protestant groups go through this EXACT same internal process. And both of you are equally adamant about the fact that the Spirit has guided each of your internal processes. However, neither of you have any proof as to which one of you really did have the Spirit, if either. So, there's no certainty in these seemingly identical internal processes, and the only variable between the two of you prior to the meaning is your interpretation. So when I said Scriptural interpretation must be verified by something external, that means something outside of that uncertain internal process: you, the text, and your interpretation. That simply does not exist in Protestantism... and you didn't seem to object to my line of reasoning in suggesting that one is very necessary.

I don't bother to verify what I don't need to.
I have verified that scripture agrees with itself.

ok, than rather than doctrinal relativism which was the other option... you've now subscribed to doctrinal apathy, and that entails the theological version of "ignorance is bliss" .... and that position simply demands that it is right regardless of what the logical implications of that may be.

Youre confused.

Ehh... I'm confused about a lot of things, but you'll have to be more specific about this.

Only if they have equal truth, and then they have to hold it in righteousness.

you seem to be really confusing the word "authority" in these instances.... I'm using authority in a logical sense... meaning, in sola scriptura, if you and I have equal authority, then your interpretation of scripture is no more valid than mine, and mine is no more valid than yours. And if we happen to disagree, then there is no tie-breaker, because that's how sola scriptura works.

Yet you claim individual popes do exactly that.

No, I don't. Eastern Orthodoxy does not subscribe to the Pope and has not been in Communion with him for close to 1,000 years.

At least as facade. So many different rites & traditions!
Plus the renegade & apathy factors within the pews amount to a significant erosion of the unity proclaimed.

Different rites and traditions have nothing to do with unity.... Each jurisdiction within Orthodoxy is bound by the universal faith. But wherever they aren't bound, they are free to operate within their own customs and practices. It's like Christian missionaries in China.... converts are bound to believe in Christianity, but that doesn't mean they'd be required to started eating cheeseburgers and playing baseball. There's nothing in Christianity that require homogenous culture. And regarding factions in the Church, there is no such thing. Anyone that declares a different faith is no longer Orthodox. It's not a matter of the Church splitting into groups. There will always be only one Church of Christ as long as there is only one Body of Christ. Groups that depart from the Orthodox faith are outside the Church in every sense.

Truth is the proper authority in all cases.
It is the only lens that reveals reality without distortion.

I literally can't count how many times I've made this case... you have that completely backwards. Truth cannot precede authority, because as I've argued, you must have some authority in order to first know what the truth is. (and I'm basing that statement on my preceding arguments)

Again, that's just another way of stating that Scripture authenticates Scriptures (Scripture is the authority -- Scripture is truth).... the same circular argument with different terminology.

No... because I'm making the case fairly clear that the first authority by which we interpret is the Church. So it is the collective Bishops and Fathers of the Church that determine proper interpretation -- which is the polar opposite of what you were saying.

 

[jckstraw72]

bradfordl --- its all good that you truly believe what you believe, but your posts are perhaps the most prideful and uncharitable i have ever seen on this website. a little humility goes a long way, which is something we all need to remember of course.

and councils dont purport to give new revelations.

there were angels on the Ark of the Covenant and on the veil in the tabernacle, as commanded by God.

 

[heymikey80]

and councils dont purport to give new revelations.

Yes; so hearkening back to the revelational literature shouldn't be a seriously hard task. It may be misunderstood by those who aren't given any new revelations from God.

It may be misunderstood by us; it may be misunderstood by the church fathers. It was why Luther said, "unless I can be shown by Scripture ... for councils have erred ...."

And of course the historical context feeds into this. It's just that no history of human beings has ever been bereft of error. So examples here may be laudable and usable; they may also contain error.

there were angels on the Ark of the Covenant and on the veil in the tabernacle, as commanded by God.

Yes. Calvin attributed ceremonies of the Temple to the shadow-rite order of the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Heb 10:1, cf. Jn 4:21,24).

 

[jckstraw72]

It may be misunderstood by us; it may be misunderstood by the church fathers. It was why Luther said, "unless I can be shown by Scripture ... for councils have erred ...."

i was under the impression that Luther accepted the 7 Councils ... is this not true?

Yes. Calvin attributed ceremonies of the Temple to the shadow-rite order of the Mosaic Covenant (cf. Heb 10:1, cf. Jn 4:21,24).

i was pointing that out bc bradfordl seems to have missed it.

 

[Rick Otto]

Even error itself is demonized beyond rational consideration.
We leaRN by trial & error most of the time, HS or no HS.
Many errors are as, or more self-evident than some scriptural basics.

 

[SaintPhotios]

Well... I think I've outlined in previous posts why it isn't a valid charge against Eastern Orthodoxy. If you disagree with something in my reasoning about why it doesn't apply to EO that I haven't already answered adequately, then expand on that. But just saying it applies to us too is a baseless claim.

As I think I have proven countless times so far, you're falsely presupposing that you have the means by which to know what is Biblically sound and what isn't. So you're arguing the wrong issue. And it's obvious by your statement, with all due respect, that you don't have the slightest idea about Orthodoxy's theology of images. So we can leave it at that..... because we're not debating images anyway.

Again.... every argument you make is skipping ahead and assuming that you know what's Biblical, or that you have some way of knowing that what we teach is not Biblical. Please read the past few posts.

Again..... if you'll look at the past few posts, you'll realize you're not arguing the relevant point.

And beyond that bradfor, we haven't said too much about it so far, but you seriously need to grow up. throwing out petty little punchlines like "babbling bozos in byzantine bonnets" in virtually every post is revealing a very childish tendency on your part. You're an adult, and everyone could discuss this with no hard feelings if you would act your age.

 

[Rick Otto]

Aliteration is cheap fun.
Try not takin' him so seriously and have a little fun with 'im.

And you do have to, or at least, you should be able to admit that statury & iconography are "acquired tastes", not positively exampled in scripture, yes?

 

[heymikey80]

Well... I think I've outlined in previous posts why it isn't a valid charge against Eastern Orthodoxy.

Um, I think Westminster outlined some of the issues that would bring this out if we were to use less provocative words.

You're saying the Orthodox don't have their own particular interpretations; but later you say words communicate meaning. Yet words do so incompletely, and imperfectly.

As the volume of interpretational words hits Orthodox listeners, what happens? Does some uniform, unique interpretation strike them all at once? I would say no, it doesn't. I've already cited a number of cases on Soteriology threads where quite a variety of views are embraced among the Orthodox. Essentially the Orthodox individual is not Orthodox in theology.

So I'm unsure why this would be an encouragement. Is it that Orthodoxy is not the central issue to the Orthodox? I'm unsure.

Over the course of history different councils have come to differing conclusions. The use of "homoousios" as heretical in one century, followed by the use of "homoousios" as orthodox in the next, lays the first claim to that history being -- at best subtle, at worst defying reliability. And ah, that's in the ecumenical councils. Like we've said, we think councils err. We may embrace much of the ecumenical councils; it doesn't mean we think they haven't erred.

Calvinists concentrate on the fact that persons come to Christ, not churches. Persons rely on Christ. Priests can't believe for persons. Churches can't believe for persons. We make every effort to take out the artificial barriers to that belief. Jesus made plain that often religion itself is a barrier to that belief (cf. Mt 23, Mk 7, Jn 6ff). As belief needs some knowledge -- what's critical about that knowledge needs to be communicated, "broken through walls" to the individual so he himself may believe.

To say authorities don't exist in Protestantism is to ignore the obvious. We have authorities. They're authorities by their knowledge and learning, their talent and expertise, who have reached such positions by their credibility, not by their succession. They exist.

Do Protestant authorities err? Yes, they err. There, it's no different from the Orthodox authorities.

Authority without accuracy really yields little better than the Protestant model, and actually may yield worse. If there are authorities in knowledge and learning and talent and expertise, and those authorities are better than authorities in clerical politics and succession, then the Protestant model may yield a better magisterium.

 

[Rick Otto]

Well said.
Pedigree is not necessarily a guarantee of credibility.
Until we achieve telepathy, we must interpret each other's speech.

 

[Ignatios]

As the volume of interpretational words hits Orthodox listeners, what happens? Does some uniform, unique interpretation strike them all at once? I would say no, it doesn't. I've already cited a number of cases on Soteriology threads where quite a variety of views are embraced among the Orthodox. Essentially the Orthodox individual is not Orthodox in theology.

This isn't a substantive argument against the Orthodox Church. Despite any variety among laypeople or even the Fathers of the Church, the consensus is the Orthodox Faith, not individual interpretations. Since the clergy are ideally the representatives of that consensual Tradition of the Holy Spirit, you would do well to ask them about Orthodox soteriology instead of random laypeople. I've been a member of several Reformed Protestant congregations that had all kinds of wacky members, and as much as I recognize the existence of an innovative and schismatic impulse in Protestantism, I don't recognize all these people being representative of the main bodies of the Reformed tradition, nor do I relegate their personal diversity to the corpus of Reformed Protestant beliefs. There's also something wrong when almost every single thing I happen to read from all over the Orthodox world happens to be ecumenically consistent, but your expansive sampling on an internet forum isn't.

Over the course of history different councils have come to differing conclusions. The use of "homoousios" as heretical in one century, followed by the use of "homoousios" as orthodox in the next, lays the first claim to that history being -- at best subtle, at worst defying reliability. And ah, that's in the ecumenical councils. Like we've said, we think councils err. We may embrace much of the ecumenical councils; it doesn't mean we think they haven't erred.

Strangely, this isn't the explanation offered in anything I've ever read concerning the commonality of terms between any heretical sect and the Orthodox. When two different people use the same term to connote different meanings, then we don't equate them. If that were so, then when you talk about there being three persons in the Trinity, you'd be a Sabellian. If you alternatively said there are three hypostases in the Trinity, you'd be a Neo-Platonist. The definitions of words change.

Calvinists concentrate on the fact that persons come to Christ, not churches. Persons rely on Christ. Priests can't believe for persons. Churches can't believe for persons. We make every effort to take out the artificial barriers to that belief. Jesus made plain that often religion itself is a barrier to that belief (cf. Mt 23, Mk 7, Jn 6ff). As belief needs some knowledge -- what's critical about that knowledge needs to be communicated, "broken through walls" to the individual so he himself may believe.

If you mean to insinuate that the Orthodox Faith is in opposition to any one of these statements, then you would be incorrect.

To say authorities don't exist in Protestantism is to ignore the obvious. We have authorities. They're authorities by their knowledge and learning, their talent and expertise, who have reached such positions by their credibility, not by their succession. They exist. Do Protestant authorities err? Yes, they err. There, it's no different from the Orthodox authorities. Authority without accuracy really yields little better than the Protestant model, and actually may yield worse. If there are authorities in knowledge and learning and talent and expertise, and those authorities are better than authorities in clerical politics and succession, then the Protestant model may yield a better magisterium.

Your authorities are not binding because you don't recognize them as truly ordained by God when they disagree with what you believe. Despite the inconsistent application of authority to elders within Protestantism, it hasn't prevented the Protestant faiths from shattering at an average rate of 50 schisms a year for the past 500 years.
Furthermore, the Orthodox priestly authorities ideally reach their position by their credibility. Holy Orders conferred upon a person both bear witness to their credibility and designate that the Holy Spirit has enabled them to lead the faithful as those who are more mature in the faith. Nearly all of the higher positions within the Church are filled by monastics. Not a single Orthodox Christian, of any position in the Church, has any authority to practice that which is outside of Holy Tradition. So yes, any Orthodox authority may err, but the consensus of Christ's Body, which is filled with the Holy Spirit, cannot. If God the Son's Body can completely fall into heresy, then the salvation of the Gospel will have passed away from the world. What you propose instead is not bestowal of authority based on credibility, but the submission to a philosophy of rationalism which produces nearly as many "biblical" interpretations of the "bible alone" as there are individual imaginations. This is why the Enlightenment was the direct consequence of Protestantism.

 

[heymikey80]

This isn't a substantive argument against the Orthodox Church. Despite any variety among laypeople or even the Fathers of the Church, the consensus is the Orthodox Faith, not individual interpretations. Since the clergy are ideally the representatives of that consensual Tradition of the Holy Spirit, you would do well to ask them about Orthodox soteriology instead of random laypeople.

Are individuals saved, or the church tradition?

If it's not relevant to the salvation of the person receiving it, how can it be a substantive argument for the Orthodox Church?

 

[heymikey80]

Strangely, this isn't the explanation offered in anything I've ever read concerning the commonality of terms between any heretical sect and the Orthodox. When two different people use the same term to connote different meanings, then we don't equate them. If that were so, then when you talk about there being three persons in the Trinity, you'd be a Sabellian. If you alternatively said there are three hypostases in the Trinity, you'd be a Neo-Platonist. The definitions of words change.

Therein lies the problem. The anathemas make declarations about people saying words. If words don't conclude anathemas, then the councils aren't saying the same things at different times. It can't be the one faith.

Or are you saying the councils are solely relevant until another council succeeds them? There wouldn't be agreement over the ecumenical councils, then.

 

[heymikey80]

Your authorities are not binding because you don't recognize them as truly ordained by God when they disagree with what you believe.

True. No one is Lord of human conscience but God. Human spiritual authorities are limited by the authority God confers on them.

That doesn't mean their authority is absent. It means their authority isn't comprehensive.

In the present day I haven't seen the Orthodox do much else, either. In point of fact the exercise of authority is not very obvious among the Orthodox.

Despite the inconsistent application of authority to elders within Protestantism, it hasn't prevented the Protestant faiths from shattering at an average rate of 50 schisms a year for the past 500 years.

Were I to trace the spiritual paths of the Orthodox laity, do you think I wouldn't find them walking outside of Orthodoxy into more than 50 churches a year?

Is Protestant openness somehow more damning than Orthodox privacy?

Furthermore, the Orthodox priestly authorities ideally reach their position by their credibility.

Ironic. Credibility to whom ...?

 

[heymikey80]

If you mean to insinuate that the Orthodox Faith is in opposition to any one of these statements, then you would be incorrect.

So if someone expressed the sentiment (here) that they felt icons were barriers to faith, you could find him an iconoclastic church within Orthodoxy? Or would you determine that icons are necessary, and not artificial, notwithstanding the lack of information from the Apostles in this matter?

 

[bradfordl]

1Jn 4:12-13 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us. (13) By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit.

Scripture tells us that the way we know we abide in Him is because He has given us His Spirit, not councils, traditions, or proclamations of bishops, etc.

1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

The regenerate mind is given understanding, not councils or bishops. And that is followed by this:

1Jn 5:21 Little children, keep yourselves from idols.

Just one book of the NT, only a couple of chapters, and it is enough to show us from whence cometh the spirit that reigns in the EO apostasy.

You may not like my little alliteration pertaining to your bishops, but the fact is that these false teachers have foisted lies upon the membership of EO for centuries, and are nothing more than false shepherds, wolves in sheep's clothing, and worthy of nothing more than open rebuke and shame.

And you may chaffe at my undiplomatic words towards you EO proseletyzers casting you spiders' webs over here in SR towards my brethren, but the scriptures tell me that to be civil with you is to join with you in your hateful endeavor. I will not. Your ilk belong to this category:

Php 3:2 Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision.

Here's a few verses pertinent to idolaters for you to ruminate upon:

1Co 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. (11) And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

1Co 10:7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Rev 22:15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

It is precisely because of the fact that you give greater credence to the words of men than those of God that you are susceptible to being snared into this satanic lie. The byzantine bonnet gives no man the authority to overrule scripture.

SP, you seem upset that no follower of Christ will swallow your incessant claim that you have proven that idolatry is acceptable by scripture. That's just too bad for you, sir, because in spite of constant repitition, you have not proven such, and are only heaping further condemnation upon your own head with your blasphemies. The images you speak of in the tabernacle were decorative, not "venerated". If any Hebrew were to speak to or perform acts of obiesance before those decorations they'd either have been stoned or at least cast out as loonies. An image is not only a 3 dimensional representation, and the assertion that 2 dimensions is OK is hilarious. These decorations were never representations of God Himself like those you EO idolaters bow the knee to with your false images of Christ.

Your arguments are specious and fallacious, and worse, blasphemous attempts to draw away the elect from the truth. They are easily disproven by scripture. There is no point to engage with you over them, because blind eyes simply cannot see. The only thing left to do is shake the dust off my sandals at you and leave you to your darkness.

If it offends you to be treated as an idolater by Christians, then either repent of your idolatry or stay away from Christians. Simple enough solutions to your problem. Pick one.

 

[Philothei]

Idolaters are the consumerists, movie goers, movie makers and all idol maker industry, etc.... not the ones who venerate in cotrition Christ, who as a man came to earth to save us... from this generation that is idolater.... Beware you pharisses and you scribes....for the time is near where all of this will be revealed and the Truth will be revealed of your evil acts.....

 

[heymikey80]

Do the Orthodox think the Mosaic Covenant was iconoclastic? Was than an aberration of Judaism, or was it consistent with the Commandments, or what status did iconoclasm have in Mosaic Judaism?

 

[bradfordl]

St. Philothei of Athens intercede for us.

The barkings of an idolatrous dog. There is One Intercessor, and this pantheonomy blasphemes His Office.