Can you find the Church?

[Albion]

Yes, I do understand that there is no single Protestant position on sola scriptura.

Actually, there is.

There is only one position on Sola Scriptura. The idea is remarkably straightforward.

People sometimes add to it and/or qualify it with their own personal provisos, but that happens with any doctrine, whether we're talking about Catholic teachings or Protestant beliefs. If a Catholic misrepresents Transubstantiation or Purgatory, for example, I would hope that you would not then say that there is no identifiable meaning for them.

 

[Clare73]

As far as making claim to being the original church started by the apostles the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church both make claim to that status.

But as far as finding the pure church as Yeshua originally built it that is not possible and honestly even the early church was not perfect and pure.

So to answer your question the perfect and pure church does not exist but the church that exists today is an outgrowth of the movement started by Yeshua and his apostles. But since the conditions of the early church were only for that period of history and time we will never have those exact same experiences again.

The pure church exists, it's all the born again wherever they are, it is just not visible, it is the invisible true church.

 

[Clare73]

Of interest is that in the whole of what Jesus taught, the only reference I can find on how His church is to be run consists of a few humble instructions.: Don't lord it over one another, but feed and encourage each other in what He already commanded us. Jesus started an interesting project in birthing His church on Pentecost where 3000 people were baptized prior to intensive indoctrination.

The word of God written in the epistles gives more instructions on how a church should be run.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Yes, I do understand that there is no single Protestant position on sola scriptura. The term is used different ways, the details of which vary.

Yes I have to agree that sola scriptura is often subjective depending on who your talking to and how the discussion is going. Here’s a prime example that I’ve encountered on several occasions. I can be refuting eternal security according to the scriptures and when people are proven wrong by the scriptures then all the sudden sola scriptura takes a back seat to what that person feels is right. Here’s how the conversation typically goes. I refute eternal security based on John 15:1-7, 2 Timothy 2:11-13, Galatians 5:4, etc then they’ll often respond with John 6:37-40. Then when I explain to them that the word “will” in verses 39 and 40 not only mean something that God has declared to be true but can also mean something that God wants or desires then they always come back with “do you think God doesn’t get everything He desires”? Then I quote 1 Timothy 2:3-4 and 2 Peter 3:9 and say no according to the scriptures God does not get everything He desires unless you believe in universalism. So then at this point they forget all about the scriptures and turn to their gut feeling about it instead of what the scriptures actually state. They refuse to accept what the scriptures actually say and instead rely on this gut feeling they have so sola scriptura has just gone straight out the window and is replaced with what the person wants to believe instead of what the scriptures actually say. So these people reject what the church has always taught claiming that they only adhere to the scriptures not church tradition but then when the scriptures prove them wrong they turn away from them to what they want to believe and the worst thing about it is they don’t even realize they’re doing it. They’ll go right back to saying they believe in sola scriptura completely forgetting about the scriptures that just proved them wrong. They’ll chalk them up as scriptures that they just don’t understand but they certainly can’t be saying what they appear to be saying otherwise that would contradict other scriptures. For instance, they will say that John 15:1-7 can’t actually mean what it appears to say because that would contradict John 6:37-40 but John 15 doesn’t contradict John 6 it only contradicts their interpretation of John 6. If John 6 is interpreted correctly then John 15 doesn’t contradict it at all. Now when people try to interpret John 15 to coincide with their eternal security interpretation of John 6 their interpretation of John 15 always fails. They have to say things like well those people weren’t really in Christ to begin with when Jesus specifically stated in verse 2 that the branches that are cut off from the vine are “in Me” and Jesus is only speaking to His 11 faithful apostles whom we know for a fact we’re in Christ at that time. Sorry it’s not my intention to get off track here from the subject of sola scriptura I just wanted to give a detailed explanation of what I’ve witnessed on the subject.

 

[BNR32FAN]

As far as making claim to being the original church started by the apostles the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Catholic Church both make claim to that status.

But as far as finding the pure church as Yeshua originally built it that is not possible and honestly even the early church was not perfect and pure.

So to answer your question the perfect and pure church does not exist but the church that exists today is an outgrowth of the movement started by Yeshua and his apostles. But since the conditions of the early church were only for that period of history and time we will never have those exact same experiences again.

Why can’t the Eastern Orthodox Church be the apostolic Church of God mentioned in the scriptures?

 

[BNR32FAN]

No, I’m not denying the existence of the church that would be ridiculous. I said a lot of different things in my posts. I am saying that the first century church was never perfect and that the church as it exists today will never be exactly like the first century church. I suggest that you study the parable of the Tares because it gives a perfect metaphor for what is happening in the church. Take Care Friend!

Parable of the Tares - Wikipedia

Can you give some examples of how the tares apply to the Eastern Orthodox Church? The apostolic churches in the first century experienced tares. The Corinthians, the Galatians, Simon Magus, Jezebel, the churches mentioned in Revelation 2-3. All of these experienced tares.

 

[Albion]

Yes I have to agree that sola scriptura is often subjective depending on who your talking to and how the discussion is going. Here’s a prime example that I’ve encountered on several occasions. I can be refuting eternal security according to the scriptures and when people are proven wrong by the scriptures then all the sudden sola scriptura takes a back seat to what that person feels is right.

Then you are describing a person who allegedly believes in Sola Scriptura but, for whatever reason, chooses to rely upon some other "proof test" instead of Sola Scriptura. The principle we call Sola Scriptura has not been changed at all. Your example doesn't in any way show that there are different versions of Sola Scriptura.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Then you are describing a person who allegedly believes in Sola Scriptura but, for whatever reason, chooses to rely upon some other "proof test" instead of Sola Scriptura. The principle we call Sola Scriptura has not been changed at all. Your example doesn't in any way show that there are different versions of Sola Scriptura.

I didn’t say there are different forms I said it’s often subjective.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Unfortunately, like everything else, the whole dilemma is just clouded by human pride and sin.

On who’s part?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I literally said: "two branches of the same tree".

To me, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, despite the schism, and all the carnal drama, are one church institution. The churches within this institution are apostolic, whereas the protestant/non-denominational churches, are not.

No they are two completely different entities which very different beliefs on several subjects. The only way they will ever be back in full communion with each other is if one side accepts the other’s doctrines. They can’t both be “orthodox” if they can’t agree on doctrine.

 

[Albion]

I didn’t say there are different forms I said it’s often subjective.

You also said that in reply to Fidelibus, but his contention was that there are different versions of Sola Scriptura.

 

[obscura]

On who’s part?

On both parts, of course.

 

[concretecamper]

You also said that in reply to Fidelibus, but his contention was that there are different versions of Sola Scriptura.

1 month on this forum is all that is needed to see that THERE IS many versions of SS. To claim otherwise is denying the truth.

 

[obscura]

No they are two completely different entities which very different beliefs on several subjects. The only way they will ever be back in full communion with each other is if one side accepts the other’s doctrines. They can’t both be “orthodox” if they can’t agree on doctrine.

From an outsider looking in, who is not beholden to either side, from the research I've done, I've found both sides to be quite similar on many supposedly idiosyncratic details.

I've heard Orthodox complain about the Catholic dogma of Original Sin, but then seen a Greek Orthodox use the phrase Original Sin in an article in a validating manner. I've heard the Orthodox harbor the same zeal for Mary that they accuse Catholics of exaggerating. I've seen a whole list of early Orthodox who believed in the concept of purgatory, and a series of quotes from Eastern Orthodox figures that appear to not only appeal to the authority of the Roman See, but venerate it with respect.

These are just a few examples.

IMO, where the East claims to be so different from the West in terms in how they approach sin, or God, it usually ends up sounding exactly the same, once you get past the surface allure of mysticism and their long-winded, nebulous explanations of theology.

 

[Albion]

From an outsider looking in, who is not beholden to either side, from the research I've done, I've found both sides to be quite similar on many supposedly idiosyncratic details.

You're right. The two are very similar, but there are differences that have never been resolved and are considered significant. That aside, though, they still are quite similar in many ways.

However, the issue is whether or not they are different churches/denominations/institutions. And yes, they are.

That being the case, they cannot both, at the same time, be the one and only true church.

 

[obscura]

Okie doke.

 

[BNR32FAN]

On both parts, of course.

I can see the pride on the bishop of Rome’s side but is it also prideful for the rest of the bishops to reject that the bishop of Rome had full authoritative power over all the churches? I don’t see that as being prideful rejecting the claim that all of the churches must submit to the authority of the bishop of Rome. The church has always been governed by the ecumenical council not one supreme executive ruler other than God Himself. What prideful and sinful acts did the Eastern Churches commit?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I've heard Orthodox complain about the Catholic dogma of Original Sin, but then seen a Greek Orthodox use the phrase Original Sin in an article in a validating manner.

The EOC doesn’t believe in the doctrine of original sin they believe in the doctrine of ancestral sin. The difference being that man has inherited Adam’s sinful nature but not the guilt of Adam’s sin. Man is judged according to his own sins not the sins of Adam.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I've heard the Orthodox harbor the same zeal for Mary that they accuse Catholics of exaggerating.

There are differences in the EOC beliefs about Mary compared to the RCC teachings. For one, the EOC doesn’t necessarily believe that Mary never sinned. They believe she could’ve sinned but was cleansed of her sin before Jesus’ incarnation. Many are also opposed to the rosary in which the RCC prays 10 Hail Marys for every 1 Our Father, a practice that in my opinion seems backwards.

I've seen a whole list of early Orthodox who believed in the concept of purgatory

The EOC has a very different perspective on the possibility of purgatory. They believe that we MIGHT have to undergo a cleansing or purging of our sinful nature before we enter Heaven. They don’t teach this as a definite situation but instead a possibility. They reject the RCC doctrine that teaches that we must pay a penalty in the afterlife for the remission of sin.

 

[BNR32FAN]

IMO, where the East claims to be so different from the West in terms in how they approach sin, or God, it usually ends up sounding exactly the same, once you get past the surface allure of mysticism and their long-winded, nebulous explanations of theology.

The differences are sometimes subtle but make a huge difference. For example the RCC doctrine of purgatory compared to the EOC teaching of the possibility of purgatory may seem quite small until you examine the implications of both. According to the RCC doctrine of purgatory we must pay the penalty for our sins in the afterlife which means that Jesus didn’t pay the penalty for all our sins and we must pay the remaining balance ourself. The EOC rejects this teaching and teaches that Jesus paid for all our sins in full but it might be possible that we may have to go through a purging of our sinful nature in order to enter Heaven completely freed from our sinful activities. Basically so that we would sin no more. So while the differences between the RCC and EOC teachings may appear to be minuscule the implications of these differences can be very profound.