Catholics CAN'T Answer This Question!!!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
You asked me.............
"To WHOM then did Christ give the command to GO, and DISCIPLE ALL THE NATIONS? It sure as straight shootin' was NOT commanded to Bible readers who wanted to be Missionaries! Because Christ gave that Command to the Apostles ALONE - To disciple, to teach, to Baptize - ONLY to the Apostles did He give that command...".

Lets answer a Bible question with a Bible answer.
Darrel. Thank you for those kind words.

I am speaking for myself here and not for all the other Protestant believers who are on this forum, and I hope that you realize that I actually only have one agenda in mind.

That agenda is not religion.
That agenda is not to convert you to the Protestant understanding of the Scriptures.
That agenda is not to anger you or disrespect you in any way.

It IS only to expose you to the truth of God's Word.

John 17:17.............
"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."

John 8:32...............
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The rest is all up to


Mark 16:14-15.............
"Later He appeared to the eleven as they sat at the table; and He rebuked their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they did not believe those who had seen Him after He had risen. AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, go ye into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.

Matthew 28:16-19.........
"Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, to the mountain which Jesus had appointed for them. When they saw Him, they worshiped Him; but some doubted.
And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."

Lets VERIFY that THEM means the Disciples. Hebrews 2:1-4..............
"Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?"

Those in Hebrews are the ELEVEN seen in Matthew and Mark and THEY were the disciples who became the Apostles when Jesus died. 'TO US WHO HEARD HIM".

THEY had the sign gifts. THEY HEARD Jesus which means THEY SAW Him which is a requirement of being an Apostle and which means that there CAN NOT BE AN APOSTLE TODAY, unless of course that man is about 2000 years old.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Major1
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Darrel. Thank you for those kind words.

I am speaking for myself here and not for all the other Protestant believers who are on this forum, and I hope that you realize that I actually only have one agenda in mind.

That agenda is not religion.
That agenda is not to convert you to the Protestant understanding of the Scriptures.
That agenda is not to anger you or disrespect you in any way.

It IS only to expose you to the truth of God's Word.

John 17:17.............
"Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth."

John 8:32...............
"And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

The rest is all up to Him.

I believe you and I believed that from your other posts .I am not here to convert anyone just posing a counter argument for the Catholic Church . Make people think . If someone doesn't have a true relationship with Christ , they have nothing . Christ is the way , the truth and the light . My counter argument is always open to others counter argument . I find this fun . I mean no ill will , so let us debate .
 
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I must speak to your assumption that the Apostles suggested Apostolic succession.

That is not true my friend. There is NO Bible Scriptures that suggest that there would be an Apostolic succession.

Now if your foundation is cracked, the roof will leak and I am telling you there are absolutely NO mention in the Bible of succession of the apostles.

Every single person on this web site knows what you are trying to say and that The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority.

You are promoting what you have been told that The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

We all know that. Again, most here that are debating with you are x-Catholics for a reason.

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.”
I know that it is important for you to prove that and believe that but there is just NOTHING to prove what you want to believe.

Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray as seen in Gal. 2:11-14. Yes, the apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the book of Acts records the apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles).

Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right.
Is apostolic succession biblical?

Paul is rebuking Peter is not related to doctrine but to the conduct of Peter ( Peter did not change the views he himself set forth at the Council of Jerusalem Acts 15:10)In Antioch he with drew from the table of the Gentiles because he fared giving offense to the Jewish converts . Paul had a perfect right to call him on it appealing to Peters own teaching . In History some Catholic saints called out Popes on their behavior . Peter was being a hypocrite

In regards to Apostolic Succession the early Church Bishops ( "overseers" ) believed it and was evidenced in their letters . They ( some ) were around at the beginning and afew were ordained ( laying on of hands ) by the very Apostles themselves. They passed this teaching to other early Bishops . I trust their witness because they were there .

Onto the papacy

I screwed up my second last last post to you . Pay no attention
 
Upvote 0

Darrel Slugoski

Active Member
Supporter
Dec 24, 2017
167
49
57
Edmonton
✟35,915.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I think that was a compliment. Then you said........
"you can turn interpretation issues oveer to private interpretation..."

But you see, that has always been the problem. That is what lead to schism of Reformation.
Is the Church right or is the Bible right.

The "RCC Church" is made up of MEN. MEN ARE SINNERS! So when we say the "Church is the AUTHORITY" and it gives proper interpretation, what we are really saying is that "SINFUL MAN gives the correct interpretation.

I my friend am just an old fashioned country boy from the Promised land of N.A. You referred to me as a "dog" which I take as a compliment, but you actually do not know how apropos that is for me.

Picture yourself driving down an old dusty road in the South. You look over to an old house and there on the porch is a bull dog chewing on a ham bone......That is me. The point is, do you think that that bulldog will ever let go of that bone? Do you think anyone can walk up onto that porch and take that bone away?

My old fashioned learning came from old men who taught us that the Bible is God's word. God said what He wanted to say and had men write it down for us to learn from.

That Word in history revealed to people in history, means that each passage has an historical context, a particular author, audience, purpose and occasion. On the other hand, since the Bible is also the word of God, its contents are also eternally relevant for us today.

May I say to you that I came to the conclusion a very long time ago on this subject of Bible interpretation that No-one is ever completely unbiased. MOST ALL people approach Scriptures with a pre-conceived agenda looking for a way to validate that agenda in the Scriptures. Then if they do not find what they want, they MAKE the Scriptures say what they want them to say.

That IMHO is the reason we see so much bickering and arguing over things that seem to be clear to some and not so clear to others.

IMO the best interpretation of Scripture is to allow Scripture to interpret themselves.

Therefore, the goal of interpretation is not to come up with the most unique interpretation which by the way are usually wrong, but to discover the original intended meaning of a passage the way the original audience understood it. The task of discovering the original intended meaning is called exegesis and I am sure you already know that.

The key to doing good exegesis is reading the text very carefully, paying close attention to the details it describes, and asking the text the right questions. This is critical to finding the correct interpretation. Bad interpretation results directly from bad exegesis.

The Church started with 12 sinners who didn't stop sinning or stopped teaching because of it . Historical context can be read in light of what the Early Church Fathers have said . These documents, letters can be read today. they have a lot to say about how the content in the gospel should be understood .
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
PeaceByJesus said:

No,m i said Rome, but since you stated that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading" which also was Rome's attitude, then as said, "what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since [under the premise]they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and 'NOT for their reading.'"

You still seem a little thick here, because, you see, the Laity, and indeed very often the clergy, were, in the early Ekklesia, ILLITERATE...
May I repeat: ILLITERATE...
So that the Sacred Art of the Church is a veritable Bible is images of form and color depicting its personages and events, and those of the Holy Ones of God who became pillars of the Church... These are the Iconagraphy of the Church... Likewise, the reading of the Holy Texts in the Services of the Church, gave to those who could not read or write, the Holy Images carved by the words and descriptions of events recorded in words by the Church at God's behest... So that the illiterate can attain to God's Word, eg to Jesus Christ... .
.
And in this context, you come along and accuse us of discouraging people from having their own Bibles and reading them... I mean, that is disingenuous, my Brother... I mean, God did not originate His Gospel with the Literatti of the Greek intellectual Intelligentia in the Agora of Athens, but came to simple fishermen in a country ruled by evil leadership... So please refrain from charging the Orthodox Faith with depriving people of their own Bibles and reading them... That charge is the exact opposite of the Truth.
You mean first of all that density is indicated in thinking that the context I referred to was the very early church, and secondly that i did not acknowledge the that "the degree of availability and literacy was a hindrance to private reading of Scripture," and that I was referring to the Orthodox:

For I said,

Or course, we know Rome later on much hindered personal reading of Scripture,
which is what we nowhere see in Scripture itself, and while the degree of availability and literacy was a hindrance to private reading of Scripture, what you need to show is that this reading was on purpose and even prevented by the NT church, since they held as you hold, that Scripture was intended for public reading to the laity, and "NOT for their reading."


Moreover, I also showed you that, "the degree of availability and literacy" notwithstanding, yet contrary the uncritical statement that "the Laity were in the early Ekklesia, ILLITERATE," apparently "thick" Chrysostom did not think this was so universal:

The Scriptures were not given us for this only, that we might have them in books, but that we might engrave them on our hearts...And this I say, not to prevent you from procuring Bibles, on the contrary, I exhort and earnestly pray that you do this..." "keep the Bible in your hands; for in it you shall see the lists, and the long races, and his grasps, and the skill of the righteous one. For by beholding these things you shall learn also how to wrestle so yourself, and shall escape clear of devils..." - CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 32 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15). Roman Catholics admit that this reading was not restricted in the first centuries, in spite of its abuse by Gnostics and other heretics. On the contrary, the reading of Scripture was urged (Justin Martyr, xliv, ANF, i, 177-178; Jerome, Adv. libros Rufini, i, 9, NPNF, 2d ser., iii, 487); and Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius, kept copies of Scripture to furnish to those who desired them. Chrysostom attached considerable importance to the reading of Scripture on the part of the laity and denounced the error that it was to be permitted only to monks and priests....— New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia

Furthermore, comprehension also requires us to understand that it is your assertion that Scripture was not intended for reading by laity, versus hearing it, and which is contrary to such testimony as above.

Also, as regards literacy in the early church, even if only 10 to 15 percent of the population was "literate" based upon the criteria of being able to not only read but to write, yet this percent can have a powerful impact. And there is evidence of significant literacy in the contentious debate over just how literate people were in the ancient near east around the time of Christ.

...by the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 AD, the abundant graffiti preserved on the walls show that many townsfolk of quite humble origins were able to read and write. The Roman army could function only on the basis of a widespread literacy which would enable its administrative work to carry on. So we should suppose that most free people of any means would secure for their children at least a basic competence in reading, writing and, in all probability, numeracy...Pliny's literate slaves were far from unique, as witnessed by the advice of a writer on farming; that slaves in a position of responsibility on a farm should be able to read, write, and handle accounts (Varro, Rerum rusticarum 1.17.4). Slaves with such accomplishments must have been available. And we have the undeniable fact that many schoolteachers were slaves or freedmen.

So literacy in the first century AD, though not universal, stretched far down the social scale, and we must therefore assume that schooling of some form was part of the childhood experience of many inhabitants of the Empire. As in Jewish society, the original ideal of the Romans was that each child should be taught what they needed to know and understand by their parents, and the place of the father as his son's instructor was highly valued by conservatively-minded Romans...

By the first century BC, both Romans and Jews were experiencing the strong attractions of an alternative form of education: the Greek model. It took education out of the home and placed it in a new institution, the school. - W.A. Strange, Children in the Early Church: Children in the Ancient World, p. 25


In addition, the page i linked to provided details that the hindrance of personal access to the Bible in the vernacular came later. Also, comprehension and reasoning requires us to understand that hindrance of personal Bible reading can be accomplished by not endeavoring to enable the laity to read, as well as not providing the Scriptures in their tongue, in addition to requiring special permission and giving to just a few, mainly out of fear it would otherwise do more harm than good.

The preface to the Douay–Rheims Bible states,

Which translation we do not for all that publish, upon erroneous opinion of necessity, that the Holy Scriptures should always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought, or were ordained by God, to be read impartially by all...to have them turned into vulgar tongues, than to be kept and studied only in the Ecclesiastical learned languages...

In our own country...[was] no vulgar translation commonly used or employed by the multitude, yet they were extant in English even before the troubles that Wycliffe and his followers raised in our Church.. . - Preface to the Douai-Rheims New Testament Translation of 1582

In contrast, the Puritans placed such a priority on Bible literacy that they passed a law (The Old Deluder Act of 1647) requiring townships of fifty households to school children to write and read. And while the printing press had been invented, Bibles were not abundant and they schooled proficient students to read Latin.
Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to write a Holy Book...
He came instead to establish a Holy People.
..
Once again, per usually, your argument is that of a false dichotomy, an either/or assertion that is not false, since the Lord establishing a holy people does not mean He did not come to write (by His Spirit moving men) a Holy Book, which in fact He did. For the reality is that without the written word there would be no NT church, and since as before, God has men provide and preserve His word thru writing - this manifestly being His chosen means of long term reliable authoritative preservation - then thus consistent with this principle the Lord instructed His Spirit to inspired men to write the words He promised to give to His Spirit. (John 16:12-15)
The Holy Ones of God are not worldly people...
Yes they do walk on the earth, but they are not OF the earth...
So you say of your holy ones, but as with the preaching of the apostles, noble truth-loving souls subject such to testing by Scripture, by which - directly or indirectly - the Lord and His church showed that He was the Christ, in word and in power.
Look to how Ananias, who Baptized Saul into Christ's Body, and healed Saul's blindness, and gave to Saul the Holy Spirit, spoke with Christ as with a familiar Friend... THAT relationship with God is the Norm for those who are One with God in the Marriage of the Lamb in this life here and now on earth...
You false dichotomy strikes again. It is not that either Scripture is the means by which one is converted or that it is by a supernatural encounter, but that these work together. Paul understood from the Scriptures that the God of his fathers provided supernatural encounters to some of them, and of why types they were (not that of mere circus shows), and how he should respond, and of the significance of washing with water. He would not have been long duped by some angel Moroni and the use of seer stones.

And being grounded in the Scriptures, he was able to bring others into a supernatural relationship with Christ by faith, without such rare overt supernatural manifestation, though unlike perfunctory professions in ritual baptisms, true regeneration is a supernatural event with effecting profound basic changes in heart and life. Thanks be to God.

Some are persuaded more by by overt supernatural testimony, (Rm. 15:19) yet miracles themselves are not the basis for what Truth is, but are attestive accompaniments to the Truth. (Mk. 16:16)
You can call that Gnosticism as a way of not dealing with the Biblical texts that show this relationship clearly, but that will not erase them from the Bible..
.
When you make subjective supernatural dreams and visions etc. "direct Revelation from God" as you describe it, the basis, the standard for Truth, so that "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," and set faith in Scripture in contrast to faith in God ("You can put your faith in Scripture... I place mine in God...) and Scripture as only being "a means and help to encounter God," and not also the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, as is it abundantly shown to be, then you are close to Gnosticism.
The Ancient Faith of Christ has been discipling this relationship of Union with God from the beginnings... And the Gnostics found no home with us, because they scorned the narrow and straited path of repentance that attains to that Union...
Arsenios
When the assured word of God, the Scriptures, are not your supreme standard but subjective esoteric "direct Revelation from God" is, then in essence you are much one of the many strands of Gnosticism, with enough Scriptural Truth to keep you from going as far off the rails as they did.

Nothing more more needs to be said. This has taken too much time already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
FWIW, this may be the most mysterious of the arguments/insults that get directed at Protestants. At least it seems so to me, since it is clear that whether one adheres to Sola Scriptura or to Tradition, either nobody is subscribing to the idea of "private interpretation" or else both sides are doing so.
Major1 agrees with you...

So here is the difference:

That which has been believe at all times by all is Holy Tradition...

And this within the Communion of the Apostolic Churches that are the Body of Christ...

For the first thousand years, amidst every controversy, however long and drawn out, it was never a matter of proving the other guy wrong by quoting Bible passages, but of asking this: What have we received and preserved unaltered from the beginnings... And this is where the Latin doctrine of "Development of Doctrine" rears its head, because they think that doctrines develop and enrich the Faith, whereas the Orthodox understand dogma as an articulation of what the Church has always believed regarding some new heretical teaching... Theology gets no better for the Orthodox, but the Church, out of necessity, formulates a doctrine so as to protect the Faith of Christ from alteration by human innovation...

Private interpretation of revelation is specifically forbidden both by the Canons and by the Bible... So the only alternative to private interpretation is Ekklesiastical interpretation... And within the Apostolic Church, a Prophet is subject to the Prophets, etc... So that if the interepretation is to be proven right, it must accord with the writings of the Church from the beginnings... Because it is the Church that is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth... And if not the Church, then the man must privately interpret the meaning of Scripture, and those who do so all disagree to some extent or another, and they all cite the Holy Spirit as their private interpreter...

Latin Rome, when She tried to impose Her interpretation on all the other Christian Communions that form the One Communion that IS the Church, in that action became a private interpreter of Doctrine, for She did not subject Herself to the rest of the Apostolic Churches, but declared Her self-understood superiority over them and their duty to bow down to Rome as the Supreme Authority...

And it was against this authoritarian Church that the Reformation rebelled... Declaring the Bible superior to the Church, even though they only knew the Apostatic Latin Church as the Church... The gross authoritarian excesses of the Latin Church were thus reigned in by Protestant rebellion in an attempted Reformation that itself failed...

Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Communion of Churches, with all their administrative and other messinesses, lived on in the unity of the Faith in Communion with one another... But not with Latin Rome... But by having the Bible as their "authority", the Reformation made themselves their authority, as is reflected in the 16th century contact between Patriarch Jeremia II of Constantinople and the Lutherans who sought to engage him against the Papal authority, and ended up arguing Scripture and their own interpretation of it...

Here is from his response to them:

We received the letters which your love sent us and the booklet which contains the articles of your faith. We accept your love, and in compliance with your request we shall endeavor to clear the issues in which we agree and those in which we disagree. The expression of love is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets [cf. Rom 13:10]. Indeed, it is fulfilled, we may say, not only by mere words, but proven by the very facts themselves and by deeds. Even as the most precious stones that need no words of praise, yet they are looked upon with admiration because of their own intrinsic worth by those who know their value. You have displayed such a love, most wise German men, bereft of pride in those matters which you have communicated to us.

In responding, then, we shall say nothing originating of ourselves, but (what is pertinent) from the holy seven Ecumenical Synods with which, as you write, you acquiesce and you accept. We shall further speak in accordance with the opinion of the divine teachers and exegetes of the divinely inspired Scripture, whom the catholic Church of Christ has received in common accord, for their words and miracles illuminated the universe like another sun [cf. Mt 13:43]. Because the Holy Spirit breathed on them and spoke through them. Indeed, their statements shall remain unshaken forever because they are founded on the Word of the Lord.

The EOC adds nothing in its converse... It merely re-presents what has been affirmed by the whole Church through time...


Enough for now...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
I think that was a compliment.

Indeed so!

Then you said........
"Or, you can turn interpretation issues over to private interpretation..."

Indeed so - ekklesiastic or private, those are the alternatives... And because Latin Rome is not in Communion with us for the last thousand years, the next question becomes: "Which Christian Communion? The Latins, or the EOC? Or some other? The Bible is not flesh and blood, you see, so when it is interrogated, it cannot speak, but the Churches can and do and have, and there is a good concensus across time on most issues in the Bible, and on those where there is not, then the interpretations are relegated to pious opinions...

But you see, that has always been the problem. That is what lead to schism of Reformation.
Is the Church right or is the Bible right.

The Church of the Reformation was the Apostatic Latin Church of the West in Rome... It was not the EOC... We of the East have never had a Reformation like the authoritarian Church of the Latins did...

The "RCC Church" is made up of MEN. MEN ARE SINNERS! So when we say the "Church is the AUTHORITY" and it gives proper interpretation, what we are really saying is that "SINFUL MAN gives the correct interpretation.

The Eastern Church has as many sinners as any, but the Church is the Body of Christ, and is not made up of men, but of Christ... We confess: "And I BELIEVE IN one, holy, catholic and Apostolic EKKLESIA..." Christ is the Head of His Own Body... Latin Rome went off the rails of Communion with the East in Her Own authoritarian self-importance and thereby illegitimately birthed the Reformation...

I my friend am just an old fashioned country boy from the Promised land of N.A. You referred to me as a "dog" which I take as a compliment, but you actually do not know how apropos that is for me.

I totally get that!

Picture yourself driving down an old dusty road in the South. You look over to an old house and there on the porch is a bull dog chewing on a ham bone......That is me. The point is, do you think that that bulldog will ever let go of that bone? Do you think anyone can walk up onto that porch and take that bone away?

Better not!

My old fashioned learning came from old men who taught us that the Bible is God's word. God said what He wanted to say and had men write it down for us to learn from.

Well, may God continue to bless you... The Orthodox understand God's Word as Jesus Christ, and the Church as the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Bible as the Holy and God-inspired writings of His Body, Whose Head Christ IS...

That Word in history revealed to people in history, means that each passage has an historical context, a particular author, audience, purpose and occasion. On the other hand, since the Bible is also the word of God, its contents are also eternally relevant for us today.

Yes...

May I say to you that I came to the conclusion a very long time ago on this subject of Bible interpretation that No-one is ever completely unbiased. MOST ALL people approach Scriptures with a pre-conceived agenda looking for a way to validate that agenda in the Scriptures. Then if they do not find what they want, they MAKE the Scriptures say what they want them to say.

Truer truth has never been uttered!

That IMHO is the reason we see so much bickering and arguing over things that seem to be clear to some and not so clear to others.

Yup...

IMO the best interpretation of Scripture is to allow Scripture to interpret themselves.

I have watched those who do so use ONLY Bible quotes back and forth arguing with each other without offering so much as even one word of their own - It is an amazing thing to watch the Bible arguing with itself at the hands of two Bible believers who believe in letting the Bible interpret itself...

Therefore, the goal of interpretation is not to come up with the most unique interpretation which by the way are usually wrong, but to discover the original intended meaning of a passage the way the original audience understood it. The task of discovering the original intended meaning is called exegesis and I am sure you already know that.

This is why the Bible is best interpreted by the worshipping community that wrote it and preserved it and worships with it from those beginnings... You will notice that theological innovation is not a feature of this Patristic and concensual approach... If you cannot find, say, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the first thousand years of Christianity, then it can be safely discarded... The same goes with Sola Scriptura...

The key to doing good exegesis is reading the text very carefully, paying close attention to the details it describes, and asking the text the right questions. This is critical to finding the correct interpretation. Bad interpretation results directly from bad exegesis.

Exegetical interpretation forms the basis for layered multiple meanings of virtually every Biblical text...
Especially the Prophets and the Psalms... If you are going to restrict your understanding of the Bible to the material meanings alone of the Bible [exegesis], you will not find access to the reason why God caused it to be written...

Arsenios
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Chrysostom did not think this was so universal:

I agree with Chrysostom - We have always provided texts in the local language, and when there is only an oral language we give them a written one - Viz The Kyrillic Alphabet and that of the Aleuts in Alaska... And many others... The Latins erred in their Latin only for clergy only etc...

So I don't get your rant... Sorry...

It is indisputable that in Apostolic times the Old Testament was commonly read by Jews (John 5:47; Acts 8:28; 17:2,11; 3Tim. 3:15).

It was read publically in Services, in Greek LXX, for all to understand...
By hearing... Not by all reading... Don't know why this is giving you so much difficulty...


It is your assertion that Scripture was not intended for reading by laity, versus hearing it, and which is contrary to such testimony as above.

In a pre-literate culture, texts are read aloud publically...

Also, as regards literacy in the early church, even if only 10 to 15 percent of the population was "literate" based upon the criteria of being able to not only read but to write, yet this percent can have a powerful impact. And there is evidence of significant literacy in the contentious debate over just how literate people were in the ancient near east around the time of Christ.

Ho-hum...

Look, here is how it works in pre-literate cultures, where some have literary skills - These skills are still the possession and tools of a pre-literate mind, and so when a text out of the Bible is read aloud, it is REMEMBERED... And when they get home, if they so desire, they write down what they heard, OK? They were too existentially marginal to be able to AFFORD their own Bible... But we find a LOT of little texts on small fragments... 'Paper' alone was prohibitively costly...

The Lord establishing a holy people does not mean He did not come to write (by His Spirit moving men) a Holy Book, which in fact He did.

The Book is written for the sake of the Holy People, not vice versa... Hardly a false dichotomy, yes?

For the reality is that without the written word there would be no NT church, and since as before, God has men provide and preserve His word thru writing - this manifestly being His chosen means of long term reliable authoritative preservation - then thus consistent with this principle the Lord instructed His Spirit to inspired men to write the words He promised to give to His Spirit. (John 16:12-15)

The New Testament was written by Christ's Church...
They wrote it FOR the Church...
It was read IN the Church...
For the HEARING of the Church.

Paul even instructed that his letters be READ [not distributed by Cc's] IN the Churches...
This is not hard...

It is not that either Scripture is the means by which one is converted or that it is by a supernatural encounter, but that these work together.

What Scriptures did Paul preach from? He preached Christ crucified in works of power in fear and trembling, becoming all things for all men that he might save some... Paul did manage to convert some Jews... Others not so much... He used their own OT texts...

Paul understood from the Scriptures that the God of his fathers provided supernatural encounters to some of them, and of why types they were (not that of mere circus shows), and how he should respond, and of the significance of washing with water. He would not have been long duped by some angel Moroni and the use of seer stones.

Nor did Paul preach from visions... But what he discipled was for his disciples to know God as he did, and as Ananias who Baptized and restored his vision did, and as Christians generally did in those first centuries of the faith... And THIS preparation was the preaching of the Cross, that we follow Christ crucified in denial of self and in calling upon the Name of the Lord...

True regeneration is a supernatural event with effecting profound basic changes in heart and life. Thanks be to God.

Private? Personal? A private miracle with God?

When you make subjective supernatural dreams and visions etc. "direct Revelation from God" as you describe it, the basis, the standard for Truth, so that "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation,"

I don't do this, but you seem to do so in your own private miraculous personal "True Regeneration" narrative...

and set faith in Scripture in contrast to faith in God ("You can put your faith in Scripture... I place mine in God...)

That is true...

and Scripture as only being "a means and help to encounter God," and not also the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, as is it abundantly shown to be...

Your marriage is with the Book of God...

Ours is with God...

That is how we GAVE the Book TO you, you see...

then you are close to Gnosticism.

A very underwhelming accusation...

When the assured word of God, the Scriptures,

Yes, we DID establish the Canonicity of Scripture, so it IS assured...

are not your supreme standard but subjective esoteric "direct Revelation from God" is...

That straw man is YOUR bugaboo, not ours... We agree with the Bible we wrote that the Prophet is subject to the Prophets, remember?

Nothing more more needs to be said.

One little series of questions on the issue of the Truth:

Is the Truth a Person in your understanding?
Do you KNOW the Truth?
Did Adam KNOW Eve?
Why is Eternal Life KNOWING the One True God?
Do you need to KNOW God to HAVE Life Eternal?

Arsenios

By the Book, one knows ABOUT God...
By God, we can KNOW God...
In Thy Light shall we SEE Light...
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Major1 agrees with you...

So here is the difference:

That which has been believe at all times by all is Holy Tradition...
I know what Holy Tradition is.

For the first thousand years, amidst every controversy, however long and drawn out, it was never a matter of proving the other guy wrong by quoting Bible passages, but of asking this: What have we received and preserved unaltered from the beginnings... And this is where the Latin doctrine of "Development of Doctrine" rears its head, because they think that doctrines develop and enrich the Faith, whereas the Orthodox understand dogma as an articulation of what the Church has always believed regarding some new heretical teaching... Theology gets no better for the Orthodox, but the Church, out of necessity, formulates a doctrine so as to protect the Faith of Christ from alteration by human innovation...
That's the theory. No one can show that it actually functions that way, particularly with regard to the doctrines that have been added and then attributed to Holy Tradition.

Private interpretation of revelation is specifically forbidden both by the Canons and by the Bible... So the only alternative to private interpretation is Ekklesiastical interpretation...
But if we focus on the individual--and that's what "private" interpretation does--he still makes a personal choice of what to believe. Ergo, there is no difference.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
I know what Holy Tradition is.

Good - So you know that it is not cleanly drawn like legal statutes...

That's the theory. No one can show that it actually functions that way, particularly with regard to the doctrines that have been added and then attributed to Holy Tradition.

I think you followed the discussion of Patriarch Jerome II, in his correspondence with the Lutherans in the 1600s, where he began his reply to them that the Church shall say nothing originating of ourselves (who serve in the Church)...And the Luthereans were all about ignoring Holy Tradition and drawing vast new conclusions based on their reading of Holy Writ...

But if we focus on the individual--and that's what "private" interpretation does--he still makes a personal choice of what to believe. Ergo, there is no difference.

IF....

The willful denial of self will is the key to discipleship, and is entirely volitional...
Yet the commandment to the Apostles was to DISCIPLE all the Nations, teaching them TO BE DOING ALL that Christ had commanded them, and Baptizing them... Nothing about having each individual decide for themselves what correct doctrines each will accept based on their personal and private reading of a Bible they could not afford...

I mean, isn't that idea simply nuts on its face??

The Gospel is a COMMAND: REPENT and be BAPTIZED, for the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now...

The simple can DO this, and they need the Body of Christ to disciple them in the way that it is to be done, as did Christ disciple His disciples that they should disciple others, as He commanded them to do for all the Nations...

What is so hard about that?

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But if we focus on the individual--and that's what "private" interpretation does--he still makes a personal choice of what to believe. Ergo, there is no difference.

Arsenios said:
Arsenios said:
The willful denial of self will is the key to discipleship, and is entirely volitional...
Yet the commandment to the Apostles was to DISCIPLE all the Nations, teaching them TO BE DOING ALL that Christ had commanded them, and Baptizing them... Nothing about having each individual decide for themselves what correct doctrines each will accept based on their personal and private reading of a Bible they could not afford...The Gospel is a COMMAND: REPENT and be BAPTIZED, for the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now...

What is so hard about that?

You're serving up a false argument. First, 'Private Interpretation' is nothing I've invented. You introduced it into this discussion (as Catholics do at every opportunity). I merely commented on how it's a false charge. And it applies--if it actually does--to the theology of Catholics no less than of Protestants. Second, you're now using your own interpretation of Scripture to make your argument
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
You're serving up a false argument. First, 'Private Interpretation' is nothing I've invented. You introduced it into this discussion (as Catholics do at every opportunity). I merely commented on how it's a false charge. And it applies--if it actually does--to the theology of Catholics no less than of Protestants. Second, you're now using your own interpretation of Scripture to make your argument

Sigh...

OK...

Thank-you...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I agree with Chrysostom - We have always provided texts in the local language, and when there is only an oral language we give them a written one - Viz The Kyrillic Alphabet and that of the Aleuts in Alaska... And many others... The Latins erred in their Latin only for clergy only etc...

So I don't get your rant... Sorry...
Then you don't "get" what you said. Which is that rather than possessing the Scriptures for personal reading as Chrysostom encouraged, you said the Laity in the early Ekklesia, and often even the clergy, were ILLITERATE... "May I repeat: ILLITERATE..." and that "these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study." "God intended His words to be...read aloud to the faithful for their hearing. NOT for their reading... Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading."

But rather than your typical either/or assertions, the inspired writings were intended for both, as has been shown despite your assertions to the contrary.


It was read publically in Services, in Greek LXX, for all to understand...
By hearing... Not by all reading... Don't know why this is giving you so much difficulty...
So now its "Not by all reading," versus "Not by reading," while the point is that the Scriptures were the supreme standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, enlightening the eyes, converting the sou, making wise the simple, obtaining great rewards for the obedient, etc., as abundantly shown, and thus should be personally studied by lovers of Truth as such.

It is your assertion that Scripture was not intended for reading by laity, versus hearing it, and which is contrary to such testimony as above.
In a pre-literate culture, texts are read aloud publically...

Which simply does not mean Scripture was not also intended for reading by laity any more than the many signs/inscriptions in a pre-literate culture were, and this term does not mean all were illiterate.

And there is evidence of significant literacy in the contentious debate over just how literate people were in the ancient near east around the time of Christ.
Ho-hum... Look, here is how it works in pre-literate cultures, where some have literary skills - These skills are still the possession and tools of a pre-literate mind, and so when a text out of the Bible is read aloud, it is REMEMBERED... And when they get home, if they so desire, they write down what they heard, OK? They were too existentially marginal to be able to AFFORD their own Bible... But we find a LOT of little texts on small fragments... 'Paper' alone was prohibitively costly...
Which actually testifies to the importance and esteem of both Scripture and the written word, versus "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," as if it was either one or the other, to for the former, as the established Divine revelation, is the judge of the latter.
The Book is written for the sake of the Holy People, not vice versa... Hardly a false dichotomy, yes?
That Scripture was only written for the sake of the Holy People, but not for Holy People to write such for unbelievers to be converted thereby, is not true, for it also was. (John 20:31)

And saying "Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to write a Holy Book... He came instead to establish a Holy People" is a false dichotomy, and is akin to saying Christ did not come into His creation as a Creature in order to preach to the whole world...He came instead to establish a Holy People." For rather than being mutually exclusionary, they both go together in the plan of God.

God choose a people to reveal Himself to the world, both by preaching and writing His word.
The New Testament was written by Christ's Church...
They wrote it FOR the Church...
It was read IN the Church...
For the HEARING of the Church.
Paul even instructed that his letters be READ [not distributed by Cc's] IN the Churches...
This is not hard...
No, this is not hard...
  • The NT is based on and abundantly references the prior written Scriptures.
  • Which being the word of God was to be preached in and to the world. (Jeremiah 22:29)
  • For the world to hear, whereby lost souls were converted by the Truth of the Scriptures, "which are able to make thee wise unto salvation which is in Christ Jesus."
  • And which oral preaching was subject to testing by the written word as the established authoritative word of God.
  • We know what true direct revelation was by it having been recorded as inspired written revelation which is the supreme standard by which Truth claims are tested.
  • If the reading of Scripture was commanded and exhorted, then personal reading should follow, as able and available.
What Scriptures did Paul preach from? He preached Christ crucified in works of power in fear and trembling, becoming all things for all men that he might save some... Paul did manage to convert some Jews... Others not so much... He used their own OT texts...
Exactly, versus only being for believers, and the texts were God's own.
Nor did Paul preach from visions...
As shown, he did preach the gospel which "I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12) But which was tested and established upon Scripture, and "Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures." (Romans 1:2)
But what he discipled was for his disciples to know God as he did,
Writing, "And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." (2 Timothy 3:15)
and as Ananias who Baptized and restored his vision did,
Being a devout Jews of the Scriptures.
and as Christians generally did in those first centuries of the faith... And THIS preparation was the preaching of the Cross, that we follow Christ crucified in denial of self and in calling upon the Name of the Lord...
Indeed, and with no conflict with my positions, versus "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation," as if it was either one or the other, to for the former, as the established Divine revelation, is the judge of the latter.
True regeneration is a supernatural event with effecting profound basic changes in heart and life. Thanks be to God.
Private? Personal? A private miracle with God?
Thank God. Yet the validity of which is subject to testing by the assured written word of God, thus there is not conflict.

When you make subjective supernatural dreams and visions etc. "direct Revelation from God" as you describe it, the basis, the standard for Truth, so that "what is needed is not written verifiction, but direct revelation,"
I don't do this, but you seem to do so in your own private miraculous personal "True Regeneration" narrative...
Wrong, and a flailing failing argument.
and set faith in Scripture in contrast to faith in God ("You can put your faith in Scripture... I place mine in God...)
That is true...
Thus you put faith in false dichotomies, while you also said you believe in the church, but do not say that of Scripture. But as explained, to believe in God is to believe what He said and inspired, and to believe the latter is to believe the former.

Conversely, "He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (John 12:48)
You need to give this up.
Your marriage is with the Book of God...
Ours is with God...
Same fallacy. You simply cannot separate God from His word, even while exalting direct revelation.
That is how we GAVE the Book TO you, you see...
Another fallacy, that the NT church which began with common souls having entered into a Scripture-based covenant with the God of Scripture, with its very existence being a fulfillment of Scripture and its preaching reflecting its basis thereof, is somehow not married to the revelation of God.
A very underwhelming accusation...
A warranted one in essence based upon certain statements.
Yes, we DID establish the Canonicity of Scripture, so it IS assured...
Another fallacy, that the instruments and stewards of express Divine revelation are the assuredly correct authorities on what is of God. Instead, both men and writings of God were established as being so long before there was a church which presumed it was essential for this.

are not your supreme standard but subjective esoteric "direct Revelation from God" is...
That straw man is YOUR bugaboo, not ours... We agree with the Bible we wrote that the Prophet is subject to the Prophets, remember?
Not when the standard for your Prophets is their own "direct Revelation from God," or wherever their traditions came from which distinctives are not what is manifest in the only wholly inspired record of what the NT church believed.

One little series of questions on the issue of the Truth: Is the Truth a Person in your understanding?
It is a person who cannot be separated from His own words, which we have as Scripture. T
Do you KNOW the Truth?
Yes, as a person of 100% Truth/Light, and as revealed by His via His words. The resurrection is also personified as a person, (John 11:24) yet this has a necessary manifestation.
Did Adam KNOW Eve?
To some degree, and not as much as he must have wished he had.
Why is Eternal Life KNOWING the One True God?
Because to know Him who is eternal and is life is to know eternal life. Likewise to whom Him who is the Truth is to know His word which is Truth, (Jn. 17:17) and to know the latter is to know the former.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)
Do you need to KNOW God to HAVE Life Eternal?
Indeed, and by receiving His word one comes to know the God of revelation.
By the Book, one knows ABOUT God...
By God, we can KNOW God...
In Thy Light shall we SEE Light..

Which means that by the Light of His word and receiving it, one will not simply know ABOUT God but will KNOW God. And feeding upon, and being nourished and built up by it, and by walking in that light one will receive more light.

Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. (John 8:31-32)

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified. (Acts 20:32)

And if hearing the word is needful and commanded, and which preaching is tested by, thus personal reading is to be encouraged.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

PeaceByJesus

Unworthy servant for the Worthy Lord + Savior
Feb 20, 2013
2,775
2,095
USA
Visit site
✟83,561.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Major1 agrees with you...
So here is the difference:
That which has been believe at all times by all is Holy Tradition...
And this within the Communion of the Apostolic Churches that are the Body of Christ...

For the first thousand years, amidst every controversy, however long and drawn out, it was never a matter of proving the other guy wrong by quoting Bible passages, but of asking this: What have we received and preserved unaltered from the beginnings...
Which is how traditions of men were passed on, which would have failed the test of "searched the Scriptures daily whether these things were so."
And this is where the Latin doctrine of "Development of Doctrine" rears its head, because they think that doctrines develop and enrich the Faith,
Its not restricted to them, as EOs pass on doctrines that developed as they were thought to enrich the Faith, prayer to created beings in Heaven being just one that I cited before.
Private interpretation of revelation is specifically forbidden both by the Canons and by the Bible.
Where in the Bible is private interpretation of Scripture specifically forbidden, that of belief being based upon the weight of evidential warrant from it, versus implicit faith in what the church says? I asked this before and received not answer.
.. So the only alternative to private interpretation is Ekklesiastical interpretation... And within the Apostolic Church, a Prophet is subject to the Prophets, etc... So that if the interepretation is to be proven right, it must accord with the writings of the Church from the beginnings..
Agreed, with the only wholly inspired and substantive record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and the gospels) being the Scriptures.

If you make later church teaching interpretive of wholly inspired Scripture, or if you disallow the laity from validly engaging in this test and restrict it to the "Prophets" as meaning the leadership, then you ascribe to them ensured unquestioned veracity as a group, which is what Rome developed.
Because it is the Church that is the Ground and the Pillar of the Truth...
Meaning specifically what, based upon the few Greek words in that text? (1 Timothy 3:15)
And if not the Church, then the man must privately interpret the meaning of Scripture, and those who do so all disagree to some extent or another, and they all cite the Holy Spirit as their private interpreter...
Which is another of your specious false dilemmas, for the freedom and responsibility of the believer to examine the evidential warrant church for a Truth claim - which Catholics actually engage in even when disputing whether something is in accord with the writings of the Church from the beginnings, except their determinitive souls is not the Scriptures - is not opposed to the judicial governmental authority of the church to decide matters of dispute. Having authority does not require or mean they cannot err.

The "either/or" situation seems to be that you either believe that dissent by the laity to those who sit in valid authority can never be correct, or they may be, but which does not necessarily negate the authority of their office.
Latin Rome, when She tried to impose Her interpretation on all the other Christian Communions that form the One Communion that IS the Church, in that action became a private interpreter of Doctrine, for She did not subject Herself to the rest of the Apostolic Churches, but declared Her self-understood superiority over them and their duty to bow down to Rome as the Supreme Authority...
And the "feeling" is mutual.
And it was against this authoritarian Church that the Reformation rebelled... Declaring the Bible superior to the Church, even though they only knew the Apostatic Latin Church as the Church... The gross authoritarian excesses of the Latin Church were thus reigned in by Protestant rebellion in an attempted Reformation that itself failed...
The Reformation far from perfect and complete, and both failed to go far enough (leaving some Catholic distinctives, including the use of the sword of men by the church) as well as going too far (in division and against a central magisterium), but it was necessary.
Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Communion of Churches, with all their administrative and other messinesses, lived on in the unity of the Faith in Communion with one another...
A unity of significant messinesses (which technical Rome attacks) it seems with differences even as to purgatory and the canon of Scripture.
But not with Latin Rome... But by having the Bible as their "authority", the Reformation made themselves their authority, as is reflected in the 16th century contact between Patriarch Jeremia II of Constantinople and the Lutherans who sought to engage him against the Papal authority, and ended up arguing Scripture and their own interpretation of it...
As said the Reformation far from perfect and complete, and both failed to go far enough as well as going too far.

Now after 5+ hours, how did i get provoked to get back in this thread?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Now after 5+ hours, how did i get provoked to get back in this thread?

Just a mere moment of weakness, my man!

Reminds me of the cartoon of the young man posting furiously with bloodshot eyes at 3AM explaining himself to his mother: "Sorry Mom, but someone said something wrong on the internet!" :)

The Reformation is soon to celebrate its 500th year...
By their fruits shall ye know them...
Europe is functionally atheist, with virtually all her Churches empty on Sundays...
The US is going "Spiritual" but not "Religious" , and her churches are being turned into art galleries and restaurants, or just closing up as the octogenerians fade into eternity...
Much as we disagree, I thank you for spending 5+ hours with me!

God bless you, Bro'...

I love your zeal...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Just a mere moment of weakness, my man!

Reminds me of the cartoon of the young man posting furiously with bloodshot eyes at 3AM explaining himself to his mother: "Sorry Mom, but someone said something wrong on the internet!" :)

The Reformation is soon to celebrate its 500th year...
By their fruits shall ye know them...
Europe is functionally atheist, with virtually all her Churches empty on Sundays...
The US is going "Spiritual" but not "Religious" , and her churches are being turned into art galleries and restaurants, or just closing up as the octogenerians fade into eternity...
Much as we disagree, I thank you for spending 5+ hours with me!

God bless you, Bro'...

I love your zeal...

Arsenios

Roman Catholicism claims, as the state church of countries such as France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, virtually all of the citizens of those countries as Christians, so I suggest that a Catholic member here might be able to address your concern that these countries are "functionally atheist".
 
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Roman Catholicism claims, as the state church of countries such as France, Spain, Italy, and Portugal, virtually all of the citizens of those countries as Christians, so I suggest that a Catholic member here might be able to address your concern that these countries are "functionally atheist".

The presence of the influx of Islam there now might have had an impact... I would hope so...

20-25 years ago, attending Mass at Notre Dame Cthedral in Paris would find 5-6 attendees plus the Clergy... That is all I meant... I remember Bishop Hilarion, Head of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, speaking of the virtual abandonment of Church Services in Europe...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

Arsenios

Russian Orthodox Winter Baptism, Valaam Monastery,
Supporter
Dec 25, 2015
2,827
982
Washington
✟151,120.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Then you don't "get" what you said. Which is that rather than possessing the Scriptures for personal reading as Chrysostom encouraged, you said the Laity in the early Ekklesia, and often even the clergy, were ILLITERATE... "May I repeat: ILLITERATE..." and that "these early and Holy and manuscripted Scrolls were not intended for private reading and study." "God intended His words to be...read aloud to the faithful for their hearing. NOT for their reading... Faith comes by HEARING - Not by reading."

The literate people of those times were the educated elite, and a few self taught merchants... You are in effect saying that the 19th century novel [Dostoyevski and Hugo, for instance] were written for Kindle Fire reading comupters... For you seem to be arguing that Scripture was given for everyone to have their own personal Bible, when the times themselves did not and could not have allowed for it...

You seem to think that I regard private revelation as the ultimate authority for interpreting and validating an interpretation of Scripture... I do not... My whole thrust here has been that the written is for the sake of Union with God in Holy Power... Which your passages below affirm,

Because to know Him who is eternal and is life is to know eternal life. Likewise to whom Him who is the Truth is to know His word which is Truth, (Jn. 17:17) and to know the latter is to know the former.

This knowing above means being united to as in marriage, only infinitely more so...

Joh 5:24
ἀμὴν ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν
Amen Amen I am saying to you all

ὅτι ὁ τὸν λόγον μου ἀκούων καὶ πιστεύων τῷ πέμψαντί με
that he hearing My teaching and believing in Him having sent Me

ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον,
is having Life Eternal

καὶ εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται,
and unto judgement is not coming

ἀλλὰ μεταβέβηκεν ἐκ τοῦ θανάτου εἰς τὴν ζωήν.
but has passed from Death unto Life...

This is speaking of the mature in the Faith of Christ...
This is the Lord the Word referring to His word which means His teaching, which is conveyed by words in part, and by His deeds far more... τὸν λόγον, the word, is a huge term, and here means His teachings, and not His written words, as you seem to assume... The early Church went for decades without the Gospels, which were then written down... The Faith came before the Gospels, and the Epistles, and The Apocalypse...

Indeed, and by receiving His word one comes to know the God of revelation.

Agreed, meaning enfleshing His teachings in one's purified heart and living them... It is progressive and a matter of degrees...

Which means that by the Light of His word and receiving it, one will not simply know ABOUT God but will KNOW God. And feeding upon, and being nourished and built up by it, and by walking in that light one will receive more light.

The written is a start, yes, and as you say, one must then WALK the TALK... It is the walking that matters, because the demons believe and tremble, but do not so walk, yes?

As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: (1 Peter 2:2)

Here you make my point: The written is the milk of the Word, and not the meat... It is the starting point for the immature, the babes in the Faith, but the meat unto perfecting a person in the faith comes by DEEDS... ["Go... Sell ALL... Give to the poor... Then come... Follow Me (to Golgotha)]

If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained. (1 Timothy 4:6)

The attainment is by deeds, not study... Reading and hearing are but the beginnings, the milk...

And if hearing the word is needful and commanded, and which preaching is tested by, thus personal reading is to be encouraged.

It is to be encouraged no question... But it was written within and for a predominantly illiterate culture... The educated classes simply had the responsibility to see to the copying, distribution and reading of the texts for the faithful...

So I tried to have a little mercy on you and kept this shorter...

Remember, in this post-modern nihilistic culture, YOU may be the ONLY Bible that many will EVER read...
Reading and believing are a start, but we are to LIVE the Gospel of Jesus Christ...

Arsenios
 
Upvote 0

bbbbbbb

Well-Known Member
Jun 9, 2015
27,812
13,119
72
✟362,418.00
Faith
Non-Denom
The presence of the influx of Islam there now might have had an impact... I would hope so...

20-25 years ago, attending Mass at Notre Dame Cthedral in Paris would find 5-6 attendees plus the Clergy... That is all I meant... I remember Bishop Hilarion, Head of External Relations of the Moscow Patriarchate, speaking of the virtual abandonment of Church Services in Europe...

Arsenios

I also have wondered about the impact of Islam on European religion. Unfortunately, from what I can see from my limited perspective, the vast majority of Europeans' religious beliefs remain quite secular. I would appreciate hearing from someone with more insight than I have.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Major1

Well-Known Member
Sep 17, 2016
10,551
2,837
Deland, Florida
✟203,785.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Indeed so!



Indeed so - ekklesiastic or private, those are the alternatives... And because Latin Rome is not in Communion with us for the last thousand years, the next question becomes: "Which Christian Communion? The Latins, or the EOC? Or some other? The Bible is not flesh and blood, you see, so when it is interrogated, it cannot speak, but the Churches can and do and have, and there is a good concensus across time on most issues in the Bible, and on those where there is not, then the interpretations are relegated to pious opinions...



The Church of the Reformation was the Apostatic Latin Church of the West in Rome... It was not the EOC... We of the East have never had a Reformation like the authoritarian Church of the Latins did...



The Eastern Church has as many sinners as any, but the Church is the Body of Christ, and is not made up of men, but of Christ... We confess: "And I BELIEVE IN one, holy, catholic and Apostolic EKKLESIA..." Christ is the Head of His Own Body... Latin Rome went off the rails of Communion with the East in Her Own authoritarian self-importance and thereby illegitimately birthed the Reformation...



I totally get that!



Better not!



Well, may God continue to bless you... The Orthodox understand God's Word as Jesus Christ, and the Church as the Body of Jesus Christ, and the Bible as the Holy and God-inspired writings of His Body, Whose Head Christ IS...



Yes...



Truer truth has never been uttered!



Yup...



I have watched those who do so use ONLY Bible quotes back and forth arguing with each other without offering so much as even one word of their own - It is an amazing thing to watch the Bible arguing with itself at the hands of two Bible believers who believe in letting the Bible interpret itself...



This is why the Bible is best interpreted by the worshipping community that wrote it and preserved it and worships with it from those beginnings... You will notice that theological innovation is not a feature of this Patristic and concensual approach... If you cannot find, say, the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in the first thousand years of Christianity, then it can be safely discarded... The same goes with Sola Scriptura...



Exegetical interpretation forms the basis for layered multiple meanings of virtually every Biblical text...
Especially the Prophets and the Psalms... If you are going to restrict your understanding of the Bible to the material meanings alone of the Bible [exegesis], you will not find access to the reason why God caused it to be written...

Arsenios

I am encouraged to see that there is more we agree on than not!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arsenios
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.