Can Orthodox Learn from Protestant Theologians?

[All Becomes New]

how about what has God established to reveal things to man?

What do you mean by establish? Hard to know what you are asking exactly.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What do you mean by establish? Hard to know what you are asking exactly.

what did God leave us by which He reveals Himself to us?

 

[All Becomes New]

what did God leave us by which He reveals Himself to us?

Lots of things. Scripture, for sure, the Holy Spirit, the Church, Fellowship, Baptism, Communion, etc.

 

[All Becomes New]

Most notable, though, is the Holy Spirit who illuminates our eyes to truth.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Lots of things. Scripture, for sure, the Holy Spirit, the Church, Fellowship, Baptism, Communion, etc.

correct in saying the Church, because that’s what God left us and the other stuff you mentioned flow from the Church.

so, since various bodies of belief say various things, the question is which church is the Church?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Most notable, though, is the Holy Spirit who illuminates our eyes to truth.

yes, but He does that through something.

 

[All Becomes New]

correct in saying the Church, because that’s what God left us and the other stuff you mentioned flow from the Church.

so, since various bodies of belief say various things, the question is which church is the Church?

You are ignoring the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Church. Also, scripture is not synonymous with the church either.

yes, but He does that through something.

He doesn't have to do it through anything. The Holy Spirit can give us a vision or a dream or a prophecy or a word of knowledge or whatever else and that is not directly associated with the Chruch.

 

[All Becomes New]

Jesus did not say He gave us the Church. He said He gave us the Holy Spirit.

John 16:4-11
"“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.”"

 

[All Becomes New]

The question is whether scripture should be primary or secondary (or at least that the Church is equal with scripture).

I look to scripture as my authority because people in the church are fallible as I am sure you would agree with as well. I believe since scripture does not change and views people have of scripture do change, that our final authority should be scripture and not the church because the church can and does err.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You are ignoring the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is not the Church.

never said He was the Church.

Also, scripture is not synonymous with the church either.

never said this either.

He doesn't have to do it through anything.

never said this either

The Holy Spirit can give us a vision or a dream or a prophecy or a word of knowledge or whatever else and that is not directly associated with the Chruch.

of course He can

Jesus did not say He gave us the Church. He said He gave us the Holy Spirit.

no, He gave the Holy Spirit to the Church that He founded. this is why in Acts, everyone who encounters God still joins the Church.

The question is whether scripture should be primary or secondary (or at least that the Church is equal with scripture).

that’s never been a question for us.

I look to scripture as my authority because people in the church are fallible as I am sure you would agree with as well.

the Bible doesn’t say this.

believe since scripture does not change and views people have of scripture do change, that our final authority should be scripture and not the church because the church can and does err.

the Church put together the Bible after centuries (407 AD). there were books that were considered Scripture that were ultimately left out (Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, etc). there were books that were left out that were ultimately included (Revelation in the West, Hebrews in the East).

so how can you trust the Bible if you cannot trust the Church that it came from?

 

[All Becomes New]

the Bible doesn’t say this.

Sure does.

1 Peter 1:24-25
"“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
And this word is the good news that was preached to you."

1 John 1:8-10
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

the Church put together the Bible after centuries (407 AD). there were books that were considered Scripture that were ultimately left out (Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, etc). there were books that were left out that were ultimately included (Revelation in the West, Hebrews in the East).

so how can you trust the Bible if you cannot trust the Church that it came from?

Just an example of how the Chruch can err.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sure does.

1 Peter 1:24-25
"“All flesh is like grass
and all its glory like the flower of grass.
The grass withers,
and the flower falls,
but the word of the Lord remains forever.”
And this word is the good news that was preached to you."

1 John 1:8-10
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

does not. at the time both of these were written, not every work of the NT was written. so neither of these writings are speaking of the Bible as we have it today.

Just an example of how the Chruch can err.

or your assumptions are wrong about what the error is. plus, that doesn’t answer the question of how the erroneous Church can produce the authoritative Scripture.

 

[All Becomes New]

does not. at the time both of these were written, not every work of the NT was written. so neither of these writings are speaking of the Bible as we have it today.

And that matters, why? Isaiah was written when Malachi was not. Does that somehow mean that what Isaiah said about scripture does not apply to Malachi? That would be absurd.

plus, that doesn’t answer the question of how the erroneous Church can produce the authoritative Scripture.

It can't. That's the point. Scripture is authoritative. I understand you Orthodox love your traditions, but Jesus makes it clear that scripture, not tradition, is what we should base our faith on.

 

[Lukaris]

I respect the Protestant emphasis on following scripture and in America, Orthodox Study Bibles have been published in the last 30 years. This was a combined tendency within the Church from our own bishops and priests and the energy and expertise of former Protestants who became Orthodox.

 

[Lukaris]

And that matters, why? Isaiah was written when Malachi was not. Does that somehow mean that what Isaiah said about scripture does not apply to Malachi? That would be absurd.



It can't. That's the point. Scripture is authoritative. I understand you Orthodox love your traditions, but Jesus makes it clear that scripture, not tradition, is what we should base our faith on.

Scripture is tradition ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15). Our basic daily living by faith is as the Lord told us to give alms, pray, & fast ( Matthew 6:1-18). We are to confess our sins as we live our lives ( 1 John 1:5-10). We are to give thanks to the Lord in the Holy Eucharist as we partake in memory of Him ( Luke 22:14-20 etc.). This is the basic way of living by faith within the understanding of salvation by grace of which St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8-10.

 

[All Becomes New]

Scripture is tradition ( 2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Paul is speaking as an Apostle, an authority for all matters of Salvation in the Church. He is not equating scripture with tradition. Rather, he is saying he, as an Apostle, which he does elsewhere, is saying "What tradition you have received FROM ME... AS AN APOSTLE." We don't have Apostles anymore, at least as the 12 and Paul were thought to be understood. There's no scripture that says that this same level of authority is passed on through the Apostles. Why? Because the Apostles were Jesus' chosen eyewitnesses to spread the message of Christ in the Great Commission. There were other eyewitnesses to Christ's resurrection. This does not mean they are Apostles. That is why Christ never had to write anything down. Christ knew it would be taken care of by His Apostles.

This is the basic way of living by faith within the understanding of salvation by grace of which St. Paul tells us in Ephesians 2:8-10.

I'm not really disagreeing with you here, but I don't see how this is relevant.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And that matters, why? Isaiah was written when Malachi was not. Does that somehow mean that what Isaiah said about scripture does not apply to Malachi? That would be absurd.

no, but it would mean that if Isaiah was referring to the Scripture, he would not be including Malachi since it was not yet written.

It can't. That's the point. Scripture is authoritative. I understand you Orthodox love your traditions, but Jesus makes it clear that scripture, not tradition, is what we should base our faith on.

nowhere does Christ say this. plus, you just keep asserting that Scripture is the only thing that’s authoritative, but that’s not actually in the text or from history prior to modern times.

plus tradition means definitionally that which is handed down, which includes the Scripture. so Scripture is authoritative, that’s not in question.

plus you still have not answered why we can trust the Scripture, but not the Church that compiled the Scripture. why is this the one thing we can trust?

 

[All Becomes New]

no, but it would mean that if Isaiah was referring to the Scripture, he would not be including Malachi since it was not yet written.

It would be that way if you don't think all of scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and as such includes all relevant matters pertaining to salvation. Do you believe that?

nowhere does Christ say this. plus, you just keep asserting that Scripture is the only thing that’s authoritative, but that’s not actually in the text or from history prior to modern times.

False. I do not believe that the Bible is the only authority. You are assuming my view, which I do not hold. The Church does have authority, but it does not have the final authority. If the Church errs, which it has most certainly done, then what is it that corrects this? Is it Church tradition? Then the Church can continue to propagate error after error and never correct itself to the Truth. Rather, tradition is corrected by scripture.

Christ says many things against the traditions of the Pharisees. Do you dispute this?

plus you still have not answered why we can trust the Scripture, but not the Church that compiled the Scripture. why is this the one thing we can trust?

Because scripture is a fallible list of infallible books. Because it does not take an infallible source to recognize a source as infallible. That is not a logical contradiction.

 

[prodromos]

tradition is corrected by scripture.

False interpretations of Scripture are corrected by Tradition, holding fast to the teaching which was handed down by the Apostles. If Scripture is the final authority, why is there disagreement between 'Bible based' Churches?

 

[All Becomes New]

False interpretations of Scripture are corrected by Tradition, holding fast to the teaching which was handed down by the Apostles. If Scripture is the final authority, why is there disagreement between 'Bible based' Churches?

I already answered this. Because not everyone is equally gifted in interpreting the Bible. If you want to read the thread I linked, you may be able to see my perspective better. Then I would appreciate your thoughts on what I wrote there.