Two more examples come to mind, inspired by the recent attempted derailment of this thread:
Mark 7:13 which is erroneously used by Restorationists and other non-traditional Christians to falsely accuse traditional Christians such as Lutherans, Orthodox, Anglicans, and of course the Roman Catholics who so many of them seem to regard opposing as essential to the faith (in some cases, with some Restorationists and people like Jack Chick, very essential), when it is in fact if read in the context of the larger chapter of Mark 7 a specific condemnation of the Pharisees, whose Oral Torah often had the effect of nullifying parts of the actual Old Testament based on hyper-legalistic interpretations of the text, which unfortunately persisted into Rabinnical Judaism.
Indeed in the lifetime of our Lord, the Scribes were those Jews in the business of writing down the Oral Torah, which eventually gave rise to the Mishnah, which then became the basis for the Talmud, and still later, a mystical interpretation of the Talmud became the basis for Kabbalah, which is a peculiar emanationist doctrine which disagrees with much of Scripture and which divides God into ten
sephirot (whereas in Christianity, God, despite abiding in the three Persons of the Holy Trinity is undivided, which is why Nestorianism is rejected by traditional churches).
This erroneous reading of Mark 7:13 as applying to Christians, rather than to Scribes, Pharisees and their descendants, is eisegetical both within the chapter and book of Mark in which it is contained, and also within the broader context of the New Testament, directly contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:2 and 2 Thessalonians 2:15, as well as the Koine Greek text of Galatians 1:8-9.
It must be stressed however that contrary to the assertions of some Roman Catholics, this is not in contradiction to the idea of Sola Scriptura, insofar as the Magisterial reformers such as Cranmer, Luther and Calvin recognized the importance of received tradition, but regarded Scripture as being the means by which the practices of the Roman Catholic Church could be differentiated between those authentic traditions from the Early Church and the innovations which were the cause for much consternation. Unfortunately, and I think much of the blame for this lies with Zwingli, hence my love for
@Ain't Zwinglian ’s username, a uniform interpretation of Scripture was not attained at the Marburg Colloquy, and also while Martin Luther’s decision to break free from Rome was reinforced in terms of his confidence by his research into the existence of certain Oriental Orthodox churches which had never been under the control of the Roman church, like the Ethiopian Orthodox, communications between the Orthodox and Western Europe at the time were difficult due to the state of war that existed between all of Western Europe and the Ottoman Empire at that time, as well as political unrest in Russia, and this I believe is why Luther did not personally reach out to the Eastern Orthodox, but rather communication with them occurred only after his death, and Patriarch Jeremiah II I would say tired too quickly of ecumenical discussions with the Lutherans; conversely, there is a possibility that a subsequent Patriarch was converted to Calvinism, although many deny this, but the threat of the conversion of the Orthodox to Calvinism was enough to prompt the Synod of Dositheus, a local synod with pan-Orthodox participation, in the 17th century to declare it as theologically erroneous.
However, it should be noted that the Oriental Orthodox did not participate in the Synod of Dositheus, although unfortunately they have historically not had much contact with the Lutherans, although this is changing because of the large number of Syriac Orthodox who, facing persecution by ISIS and also the government of Erdogan in Turkey, have been forced to flee to Europe and who have settled in Germany and Sweden. I would not be surprised, given the tragic decline of the Church of Sweden, if the confessional Mission Province of the Church of Sweden and the Syriac Orthodox become the two churches with the most actual members in that country (since many members of the Church of Sweden and other state churches in Europe only ever go to church for baptisms, weddings and funerals. Or, to quote an old American joke about marginal church members, they attend when they are “hatched, matched and dispatched.” Without, I should add, the very legitimate excuse of bad health.
However, while that synod did affirm the doctrine of the Real Presence in the Eucharist, which was good as far as relations with the Lutherans and the more high church Anglicans such as the Non-Jurors, it also declared Martin Luther a “madman”, which would hinder relations with the Lutherans. And lately ecumenical dialogue did make progress, but unfortunately the Orthodox conducted it with the liberal Lutheran churches of the LWF, rather than the confessional churches like the LCMS, LCC, AALC, and their communion partners in Europe, which would have been particularly valuable considering that two of these Lutheran churches in communion with the LCMS and LCC are the Church of Lithuania and the Church of Latvia, and these countries also have autonomous Eastern Orthodox churches active within their borders, so having a coherent doctrinal platform with them would have been useful.
Now of course, one could argue the LWF includes Estonia and Finland, which also are home to Eastern Orthodox churches, with the Finnish Orthodox Church accounting for 10% of that country’s population, making it one of the larger minority Orthodox churches in Europe. However, the extreme liberalism of some LWF churches on issues of human sexuality, euthanasia and so on, and the fact that the ELCA has done nothing about Ebeneezer Lutheran Church in San Francisco, which calls itself “herchurch” with its neo-Paganist influence, for example, are toxic to Orthodoxy, since we agree with the Confessional Lutherans like the LCMS / LCC of the importance of theological consistency in who one is in communion with, which is why both groups practice closed communion.
I myself would love to see communion established with the confessional Lutherans but it would require a great deal of theological work which would need extreme precision, because the last thing we would want to do is inadvertently embrace some aspect of liberal theology in an attempt to gloss over doctrinal differences, which is a legitimate risk. But I do feel like the Eastern Orthodox ought to avoid discussions with the LWF without also talking to the confessional Lutherans, because at the very least we should endeavor to replicate on the denominational level the great friendship and warm relations that exists on Christian Forums between the Lutheran and Orthodox members, such as my relationships with
@Ain't Zwinglian and
@MarkRohfrietsch and other members of the LCMS and LCC who I care for very much.