Reasons why you are very unwise to trust your church’s doctrines

[prodromos]

I'm curious to know what false doctrines you believe the EOC has taught?

Still waiting for the OP to weigh in on this question.

 

[prodromos]

Extraordinary, how to you justify your claims that we should not trust the Church when Matthew 18 tells us the Church has authority to correct us?

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."​

 

[OzSpen]

Ignatius,

I object strongly to what you did here. I stated:

You provided too many examples in your response regarding icons, communicating with the dead, angels, etc. that are not compatible with Scripture. I would not be pursuing any EOC action.
​

So what did you do? You distorted and contorted this with your interpretation of what I DID NOT state:

"You provided too many examples...regarding icons...etc...that are not compatible with [my interpretation of Scripture, which is informed from Evangelical Protestant traditions about Scripture, its interpretation and applicaiotns, and presuppositions about what the Church is and where it is found, and based on a hermeneutical method of Critical Realism, which largely dates to the 20th Century and is mostly the product of Evangelical Protestant theologians]."
​

That is your imposition on what I stated. It is eisegesis of my writings.

Your foray into Critical Realism is a red herring logical fallacy. It doesn't relate to the topic of the thread. If you have difficulty with a critical realist epistemology, please start a separate thread to address your concerns.

My authority for determining the boundaries of doctrine is Scripture. I do not find these doctrines in Scripture that you affirmed that the EOC teaches:

• praying to the dead;
• prayer to angels;
  
• icons as a "meeting point" between the temporal and the eternal;
• prayer for the dead;
• The grace of God being active in the relics of the saints;
• salvation is to be found in the EOC;
• The presence of God himself is made real to us in the sacraments.
• growth toward God continues after death;
• I believe that the EOC has the fullness of Christian truth and worship, and that it is where all Christians should be;
• I hold baptism to be necessary but not sufficient [for salvation];

I think that we'll need to agree that the teachings of our various denominations are incompatible with each other.

Oz

Oz,

You've once again hit on the key difference between us. And it was the key difference for me also, when I first encountered Orthodoxy.

It isn't what you're saying, but rather what you are not saying. If I can fill in as best I can, based on our past interactions...

"You provided too many examples...regarding icons...etc...that are not compatible with [my interpretation of Scripture, which is informed from Evangelical Protestant traditions about Scripture, its interpretation and applicaiotns, and presuppositions about what the Church is and where it is found, and based on a hermeneutical method of Critical Realism, which largely dates to the 20th Century and is mostly the product of Evangelical Protestant theologians]."

Without mincing words, your hermeneutic (and the philosophy behind it) is a TRADITION. So I have to ask, on what basis is your tradition--or that of McGrath or Wright or other "critical realists"--to be preferred over the much older and much broader orthodox/catholic tradition?

The fact that the answers I gave above, don't measure up to your understanding of Scripture, could mean that I (and a huge portion of Christians going back to the early Church Fathers on most of those topics) are all wrong. Or, it could mean that your tradition of protestant hermeneutics and critical realism fails to measure up to the tradition of the Church.

Just something for consideration. But really, I'd like to hear your answer on why your tradition of interpreting Scripture, is better than Orthodoxy's. Where is Critical Realism found in Scripture?

 

[OzSpen]

That pretty much sums up what my initial response was when I was first exposed to Eastern Orthodoxy. But it was a response born out of ignorance and from being steeped in the Protestant Evangelical tradition. Once I began to research the history and what the actual beliefs of Orthodoxy were (not the false picture I had formed out of my lack of understanding) I found they were not just compatible with Scripture but were completely complementary.

Please show me where in Scripture these EOC doctrines are taught:

• praying to the dead;
• prayer to angels;
  
• icons as a "meeting point" between the temporal and the eternal;
• prayer for the dead;
• The grace of God being active in the relics of the saints;
• growth toward God continues after death;
• I believe that the EOC has the fullness of Christian truth and worship, and that it is where all Christians should be;
• Baptism is necessary for salvation.
  

In your understanding, is salvation to be found only in the EOC?


Oz

 

[prodromos]

My authority for determining the boundaries of doctrine is Scripture.

Your interpretation of Scripture is shaped by the particular tradition you are steeped in, which is evangelical Protestantism, which is itself a relatively young tradition.

 

[prodromos]

Please show me where in Scripture these EOC doctrines are taught:

• praying to the dead;
• prayer to angels;
  
• icons as a "meeting point" between the temporal and the eternal;
• prayer for the dead;
• The grace of God being active in the relics of the saints;
• growth toward God continues after death;
• I believe that the EOC has the fullness of Christian truth and worship, and that it is where all Christians should be;
• Baptism is necessary for salvation.
  

In your understanding, is salvation to be found only in the EOC?


Oz

I'll have to get back to this later. Starting work now . Hope you enjoyed the long weekend.

 

[OzSpen]

Your interpretation of Scripture is shaped by the particular tradition you are steeped in, which is evangelical Protestantism, which is itself a relatively young tradition.

Yes, evangelical Protestantism is my tradition, but it can be demonstrated that the teachings of Protestantism have the parameters of Scripture and can be found in the early church fathers.

Protestant teaching revived what was in Scripture and affirmed what the early church fathers taught. It is not a new teaching, as much as you want to relegate evangelical Protestantism to a 'young tradition'. The tradition may be more recent, but the teaching is as ancient as Scripture.

Since I'm in full-time study mode at the computer, I can take a wee bit of time at the moment to get me away from deconstructing deconstructionism.

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'll have to get back to this later. Starting work now . Hope you enjoyed the long weekend.

Long weekends when one is a student makes no difference. Study must go on. But it was a marvellous time yesterday to do the shopping in the malls as there were not many folks there.

 

[extraordinary]

Extraordinary, how to you justify your claims that we should not trust the Church
when Matthew 18 tells us the Church has authority to correct us?

"If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector."​

Mary, mother of God, help me! lol
Your minor example has nothing to do with important doctrines,
or sacraments, or praying to Mary and the saints, etc. etc.
.

 

[Ignatius21]

Mary, mother of God, help me! lol Your minor example has nothing to do with important doctrines, or sacraments, or praying to Mary and the saints, etc. etc. .

If you don't mind my asking, on what basis do you place the authority of the church into the category of "minor example?" And not "important doctrines?"

 

[heymikey80]

If you don't mind my asking, on what basis do you place the authority of the church into the category of "minor example?" And not "important doctrines?"

It is kind of a double whammy though. I have always considered my views awash in a sea of information, with billions of Christians in a 1-sided conversation with us now, from the past.

They werent perfect.

But how wild & crazy to think I would be perfect, with billions before holding to doctrines that dont seem real, today.

I guess I have to say thats as far as I can take authority, or maybe I should say, authoritativeness. I think that is more what a church theology has built, and on human terms deserves: the right to be heard.

 

[prodromos]

Yes, evangelical Protestantism is my tradition, but it can be demonstrated that the teachings of Protestantism have the parameters of Scripture and can be found in the early church fathers.

Protestant teaching revived what was in Scripture and affirmed what the early church fathers taught. It is not a new teaching, as much as you want to relegate evangelical Protestantism to a 'young tradition'. The tradition may be more recent, but the teaching is as ancient as Scripture.

I believe you would have to be very selective in your reading of the Early Church Fathers to come to the above conclusion. Unfortunately there has been developed a culture of proof texting from the ECF's born largely out of Catholic apologetics. Not many people read the Fathers to learn what they believed and taught but merely search for what they can use to support their arguments.

Since I'm in full-time study mode at the computer, I can take a wee bit of time at the moment to get me away from deconstructing deconstructionism.

You have me at a disadvantage. I can only post on the forums while on the train to and from work. Once at home I have very little time available for such pursuits. My family is my priority.

 

[Ignatius21]

Ignatius,

I object strongly to what you did here. I stated:

You provided too many examples in your response regarding icons, communicating with the dead, angels, etc. that are not compatible with Scripture. I would not be pursuing any EOC action.
​

So what did you do? You distorted and contorted this with your interpretation of what I DID NOT state:

"You provided too many examples...regarding icons...etc...that are not compatible with [my interpretation of Scripture, which is informed from Evangelical Protestant traditions about Scripture, its interpretation and applicaiotns, and presuppositions about what the Church is and where it is found, and based on a hermeneutical method of Critical Realism, which largely dates to the 20th Century and is mostly the product of Evangelical Protestant theologians]."
​

That is your imposition on what I stated. It is eisegesis of my writings.

But is it wrong?

Your foray into Critical Realism is a red herring logical fallacy.

I'm not sure that it is. You have asked me, and other Orthodox, to "show you where in Scripture, such-and-such is taught," with a bullet-point list of particular doctrines. You then have stated that our beliefs are "not compatible with Scripture."

Surely you must admit that when you say this, you mean that they are not compatible with Scripture as you interpret it, do you not? You are making an objective claim when what is really being said, is subjective. It is true that you have not mentioned a particular method, i.e. "critical realism" in this thread, but you have brought it up before. So perhaps I've crossed a line in pulling in material from elsewhere. But my point stands.

Do you acknowledge that when you objectively state that my views are "not compatible with Scripture," that seemingly simple statement really is just the tip of a very subjective iceberg containing all manner of presuppositions on your part?

It doesn't relate to the topic of the thread.

Neither does the entire rabbit trail we've been on, about whether the EOC is specifically "the one true Church" or which of our doctrines are, or are not, compatible with Scripture. The thread was begun with a flat statement that pits "Scripture and the Holy Spirit" against "the Church" as though the two are entirely incompatible.

If you have difficulty with a critical realist epistemology, please start a separate thread to address your concerns.

Perhaps we both should start a separate thread...since this one has nothing to do with whether specific EOC doctrines are compatible with Scripture as interpreted according to any particular method. I'm just adding a new tunnel to your bunny trail

My authority for determining the boundaries of doctrine is Scripture. I do not find these doctrines in Scripture that you affirmed that the EOC teaches:

• praying to the dead;
• prayer to angels;
  
• icons as a "meeting point" between the temporal and the eternal;
• prayer for the dead;
• The grace of God being active in the relics of the saints;
• salvation is to be found in the EOC;
• The presence of God himself is made real to us in the sacraments.
• growth toward God continues after death;
• I believe that the EOC has the fullness of Christian truth and worship, and that it is where all Christians should be;
• I hold baptism to be necessary but not sufficient [for salvation];

You've circled right back to your own presuppositions, again.

Are you not asking me to defend my Church's teachings, within the framework and according to the presuppositions that your tradition uses when defining and interpreting Scripture?

I think that we'll need to agree that the teachings of our various denominations are incompatible with each other.

I think it's more accurate to say that our traditions are incompatible with each other. That's what's really at the root. Each and every denomination is formed by people who hold to common presuppositions and understandings. I keep finding that each and every Protestant denomination claims, as you have:

"My authority for determining the boundaries of doctrine is Scripture."

And yet, what defines even the boundaries of Scripture for you (as for all of us), is in fact, tradition. Whether or not you wish to call it such. This is no red herring. This is the very root of the issue.

Do you disagree?

 

[extraordinary]

If you don't mind my asking, on what basis do you place the authority of the church
into the category of "minor example?" And not "important doctrines?"

We're talking about how to correct a brother who is habitually sinning.
Is dis even a doctrine, or is it just an obvious way of handling the situation?
.

 

[extraordinary]

.
Jesus talks a lot to the churches about the necessity for believers to be overcomers.

One of the things they need to overcome is the false doctrines of the churches!

And the OP gives reasons for there being so many!
.

 

[Bro in Christ]

.
Jesus talks a lot to the churches about the necessity for believers to be overcomers.

One of the things they need to overcome is the false doctrines of the churches!

And the OP gives reasons for there being so many!
.

1 Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?


this is the definition of an overcomer... grace from God to us.

 

[OzSpen]

Ignatius,

2 Tim 3:16-17 states: 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (ESV).

To which Scripture is Paul referring that is 'profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness'?

He is not telling us which tradition is 'profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness'.

To which Scripture is Paul telling us to go for teaching?

But is it wrong?'


I'm not sure that it is. You have asked me, and other Orthodox, to "show you where in Scripture, such-and-such is taught," with a bullet-point list of particular doctrines. You then have stated that our beliefs are "not compatible with Scripture."

Surely you must admit that when you say this, you mean that they are not compatible with Scripture as you interpret it, do you not? You are making an objective claim when what is really being said, is subjective. It is true that you have not mentioned a particular method, i.e. "critical realism" in this thread, but you have brought it up before. So perhaps I've crossed a line in pulling in material from elsewhere. But my point stands.

Do you acknowledge that when you objectively state that my views are "not compatible with Scripture," that seemingly simple statement really is just the tip of a very subjective iceberg containing all manner of presuppositions on your part?



Neither does the entire rabbit trail we've been on, about whether the EOC is specifically "the one true Church" or which of our doctrines are, or are not, compatible with Scripture. The thread was begun with a flat statement that pits "Scripture and the Holy Spirit" against "the Church" as though the two are entirely incompatible.



Perhaps we both should start a separate thread...since this one has nothing to do with whether specific EOC doctrines are compatible with Scripture as interpreted according to any particular method. I'm just adding a new tunnel to your bunny trail



You've circled right back to your own presuppositions, again.

Are you not asking me to defend my Church's teachings, within the framework and according to the presuppositions that your tradition uses when defining and interpreting Scripture?



I think it's more accurate to say that our traditions are incompatible with each other. That's what's really at the root. Each and every denomination is formed by people who hold to common presuppositions and understandings. I keep finding that each and every Protestant denomination claims, as you have:

"My authority for determining the boundaries of doctrine is Scripture."

And yet, what defines even the boundaries of Scripture for you (as for all of us), is in fact, tradition. Whether or not you wish to call it such. This is no red herring. This is the very root of the issue.

Do you disagree?

 

[Ignatius21]

Ignatius,

2 Tim 3:16-17 states: 'All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work' (ESV).

To which Scripture is Paul referring that is 'profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness'?

He is not telling us which tradition is 'profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness'.

To which Scripture is Paul telling us to go for teaching?

In context, he's referring to the Jewish scriptures with which Timothy had been taught from childhood. I'm not entirely sure just which books Timothy would have considered canonical, but I believe there's a good chance that the LXX including what came to be called "deuterocanonical books" were part of that corpus. We can't be 100% sure of the exact bounds of the canon of Scripture at the time this epistle was written. Clearly, Timothy was meant to infer from his own situation, just which Scriptures were being referred to.

If we take Paul's words in a categorical sense, that is, "All writings that are within the category of God-breathed Scripture," it's broad enough to include the entire canon of both the Old Testament (no definitive canon of which was formally adopted until the time of the Reformation) and the New Testament (the canon of which wasn't formally and universally accepted until about the 4th century).

Still, at the time this was written, I believe the best explanation is that Paul was referring to the Jewish (OT) scriptures, which were able to prepare him to receive and understand the Gospel of Jesus Christ by faith.

Notice what else he says in his letters, though. He tells Timothy of the kinds of people can be entrusted with the message that he (Paul) is passing on to them.

"21 Therefore, if anyone cleanses himself from what is dishonorable, he will be a vessel for honorable use, set apart as holy, useful to the master of the house, ready for every good work. 22 So flee youthful passions and pursue righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call on the Lord from a pure heart." (2 Tim 2)

"14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus."

This would seem to be his grandmother and mother, mentioned in Ch.1. The scriptures are sufficient, but they must be properly learned and understood. This is the task of teachers.

And, the entire context of both epistles to Timothy is basically Paul's instructions for how to identify and appoint faithful elders and deacons who can shepherd the churches and carry on the teaching and service begun by the apostles (in this case, at least, it's Paul himself).

As early as Ignatius of Antioch, we see a letter written to the church in Ephesus likely only a few generations after Timothy himself had been a bishop...admonishing his readers to continue in submission to their bishops, elders and deacons.

Clearly, the sufficiency of the Scriptures is not at odds with the authority of the Church's ordained ministry. It is the task of the entire Church, led by those ordained to that ministry through the laying on of hands, to safeguard the entire tradition received from the Apostles, within which the Scriptures can be properly understood and lived out.

I believe you've also sidestepped my entire line of questioning to you.

 

[extraordinary]

1 Jn 5:
4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
this is the definition of an overcomer... grace from God to us.

Perhaps you missed the several times when I explained:
Jesus's idea of overcoming is mucho differente than John's!

This is what Jesus requires re: overcoming ...

Revelation 3:
21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne,
as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.
22 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

Now you can ask yourself, "What exactly did Jesus overcome?"
.

 

[prodromos]

Choose this day whom you will believe: Scripture and the Holy Spirit, or your church.

False dichotomy. The Church (the true Church) is the pillar and ground of truth. The Church is Christ's body and cannot fail. One is either grafted on to the vine, or seperated from it.

Reasons why the churches historically have taught false doctrines

Since you speak of churches in plural, you are obviously not speaking of the Church. Scripture speaks the same way of God, and gods.

• Satan is “the god/ruler of this age/world” (2 Cor 4:4, John 12:31)
“the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world” (Revelation 12:9)
“the whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19)
“there is no truth in him ... he is a liar” (John 8:44) … So it was very easy
for him to deceive the large church organizations (EOC, RCC, and Protestant)!

It is even easier for Satan to deceive small church organisations like house churches.
I'm still waiting for you to present the 'false' doctrines of the EOC

• Many church leaders have been fleshly-minded instead of spiritually-minded,
so they were easily led by Satan to deviate from God’s New Testament pattern.

• Many leaders have been primarily interested in your praise and your tithes.
There have always been leaders who are only “hired hands” (John 10:11-13),
and who do not put the welfare of Christ’s church first.
Not everyone who appears to be holy and righteous really are so.
Jesus gave many warnings about being deceived by false teachers!

• Satan did not want the churches to continue to have the spiritual power of
NT times … which was a powerful confirmation of the truth of the gospel,
and which produced many deliverances and healings of all kinds.

• Many leaders did not want to acknowledge that God had anointed others
with powerful spiritual gifts when they had not been! They might look quite
spiritually inferior and might risk losing their power, prestige, and their jobs!

• Many leaders wanted to be in control instead of having God be in control.
And they did not want those whom God chose to have any spiritual authority.

• Increasingly, leaders have taught only popular and non-threatening doctrines.

### All of the above have resulted in a historically weak and powerless church!

• Yes, the time has come when people will not endure sound doctrine; they wish
to turn their ears away from the truth and be turned aside to fables (2 Tim 4:3-4).
Warning: If you believe lies, they will take dominion over you!
We are seeing the great apostacy prior to the coming of the antichrist (2 Thes 2:3).

This is why doctrine can only be determined through the consensus of the Church. Individual church leaders can and do fail, sometimes spectacularly, but the Church as a body cannot fail.

Examples of false doctrines taught in many churches
-- man is not born with an inherited sin nature
-- once saved always saved
-- cessationism (i.e. the 9 spiritual power gifts and the Spirit baptism have ceased)
-- pre-tribulation rapture (Jesus gives the true sequence of events in Matthew 24)

None of which are taught by the EOC.

A suggestion: Start a house church with like-minded serious believers who
desire to be totally free to search out spiritual truths without opposition.
This will help you break away from long-held biases and false doctrines.

And allow you the freedom to create new false doctrines, although in reality you would likely just be resurrecting old heresies long defeated by the Church.

The bottom line
Trust Scripture and the Holy Spirit (but not your church) for your salvation!

Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, states that salvation is to be found in the Church. The real question should be, how do you recognise the Church.