If the Bible is infallible, why do so many Christians disagree on theology?

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My stake in the ground is about the paradigm - not the literal word.
The notion of a God and what that means to me as a human being is the big picture issue. Getting wrapped up in the meaning of a single verse isnt helpful to me. In fact my observation is that an approach such as that, leads to conflict inside and outside of the Christianity. It leaves no room for discussion and cohesion between religions. Its more focused on what an apostle may or may not have said, instead of spirituality.
Is that a yes or no you believe in the miracle of Christ risen from the dead Bodily?
Yes of course its modern - its meant to be. My whole point was that verses were written within a culture that does not prevail now.
It was a culture which even in NT times refused to live by God's design. Jesus rebuked their traditions.

We don't stone. We don't offer our daughter up to her rapist.
I think you are confusing Mosaic law with what was taught in the NT.

And women lead in all walks of life and are not dependent on men. They were at the time those verses were written.
Men and women are to be complimentary and rely on each other. As the Apostle Paul points out here:
1 Corinthians 7: NASB

1Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband. 3The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does.

As for the Adam and Eve story - I do not take that as a literal story. If you want to use any lesson from the story.... Well my pastor describes it as a story that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't. Adam's act was a wilful crime contradicting Gods law, and compounded his ineptitude by attempting to blame Eve. Eve was tricked, but took the rap for it....I'm guessing that's what we need to understand from the tale.... I see it as a 'Be wary of men and liars' story.
It's unfortunate you don't believe in the texts from the beginning. Jesus quoted from Genesis 2:

Genesis 2: NASB

24For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Matthew 19: NASB
4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? 6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” 7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SENDher AWAY?” 8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”

If you don't accept Genesis then at least trust the words of Jesus.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
What was so awesome about her was that she was one of the most down to earth, hard-working, practical woman anyone can imagine, and the most spiritual. For anyone who bothers to read her I think they'll only grow in understanding of our faith.

It's one of the saddest parts of Protestantism ( I was part of once) : they ignore the writings of all the great saints and doctors of the church, and/ or fundamentally disagree with them! Most were vociferous on ( for example) the Eucharist and intercession of saints.

"Life" and other works make a good read. Interior castles" is tough going but worthwhile for all Christians.
 
Upvote 0

redleghunter

Thank You Jesus!
Supporter
Mar 18, 2014
38,116
34,054
Texas
✟176,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's one of the saddest parts of Protestantism ( I was part of once) : they ignore the writings of all the great saints and doctors of the church, and/ or fundamentally disagree with them! Most were vociferous on ( for example) the Eucharist and intercession of saints.

"Life" and other works make a good read. Interior castles" is tough going but worthwhile for all Christians.
Actually there are many a Protestant which know the fuller extent of Roman Catholicism more than some Catholics.

Since we are sharing quotes from Catholic saints I particularly find this one interesting:

From Anne Baldwin’s Catherine of Siena: A Biography. Huntington, IN: OSV Publishing, 1987, pp.95-6

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.”

St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”)
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Athanasius377
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I dislike the revisionism of orthodox airbrush of history.

It was not ( and is not) nearly as black and white as normally stated, even the date is a fudge. I ndeed I have orthodox writings from fourteenth century saying in essence " if any of you ( talking to other orthodox) took the trouble to READ Latin writings- rather than just attack them - you would find you agree with them." The geographic /language separation and crusader sack of Constantinople had more to do with the mutual distrust than doctrine.

Indeed even in the last couple of decades orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware charged with ecumenical dialogue with Rome says there is in essence only one barrier, to regrouping which is agreeing the scope not the fact of the primacy of the Rome. He does not see the great barrier in Filioque: the Greek and Latin meanings of " proceed" are different.

Orthodox has its own problems, like the lack of a means of resolving doctrinal division,( which is what happens if you chop of the head of the chicken!) and historically has had to be very careful with relationships with local monarchs or authorities - who have had an unhelpful influence. The difficult relationship with the Russian state, so inability of Russian orthodox to acknowledge authority outside Russia is just such a problem.

The over simplistic black white portrayal of what is really a nuanced division helps no one. It is also ridiculous to pretend that the overwhelming majority in numbers ( Rome ) " left" a tiny minority! (Greek orthodox) Clearly it is the other way round if viewed as a tree, as to what is branch and what is trunk. Indeed disavowing the primacy makes " orthodox" very much heterodox in both historic and biblical roots.

I won't see it in my lifetime , but I like many hope for the reconciliation.
It is a sad fact of history that the earlier refusal to join back up centuries ago was in the hands of just one orthodox dissenter. He has a lot to answer for.

The Romans wanted to change the wording of the Church's creed, and the Church would not let them, but they did it anyhow because they had fallen into error. They finally parted ways with us around 1000 years after the birth of the Church. The ways they had established afterwards eventually led them into a rather dark place, until about 500 years after leaving us, a revolt/revolution broke out against the Roman church, and this is what is called the "reformation". The reformation rejected all authority in the Church accept for the Bible, which different people interpret according to their own abilities, and flawed conceptions, resulting in thousands upon thousands of variations in beliefs and practices. People born into these belief systems have either never heard about or understood what the Orthodox Church is, and are strongly influenced by the Christian traditions they've grown up with, so as to think and feel that they ought to disagree with Orthodox Church beliefs and practices.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I can say from experience , not many look over the fence!
Bravo to those who do - because what they would discover is a love story and insatiable thirst for Christ in the writings.


Actually there are many a Protestant which know the fuller extent of Roman Catholicism more than some Catholics.

Since we are sharing quotes from Catholic saints I particularly find this one interesting:

From Anne Baldwin’s Catherine of Siena: A Biography. Huntington, IN: OSV Publishing, 1987, pp.95-6

“Even if the Pope were Satan incarnate, we ought not to raise up our heads against him, but calmly lie down to rest on his bosom. He who rebels against our Father is condemned to death, for that which we do to him we do to Christ: we honor Christ if we honor the Pope; we dishonor Christ if we dishonor the Pope. I know very well that many defend themselves by boasting: “They are so corrupt, and work all manner of evil!” But God has commanded that, even if the priests, the pastors, and Christ-on-earth were incarnate devils, we be obedient and subject to them, not for their sakes, but for the sake of God, and out of obedience to Him.”

St. Catherine of Siena, SCS, p. 201-202, p. 222, (quoted in Apostolic Digest, by Michael Malone, Book 5: “The Book of Obedience”, Chapter 1: “There is No Salvation Without Personal Submission to the Pope”)
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Some people have a fallible understanding of who the original church is.
True.
Those who don't accept the authority of church - the power to " bind and loose" as wielded in councils , and as consequence the New Testament, have just such fallible understanding.
Indeed those who don't understand that the faith was passed by tradition ( paradosis, handing down)in the early church by bishops in apostolic succession , primacy at Rome CERTAINLY have a fallible understanding and need to read up on history!
 
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
Can't help it, the Bible says the Church is it not people saying what the Bible says
Tell that to Catholics, who are still looking for an official commentary on all of the Bible, while the sanctioned (and required) notes of her official Bible for America have for decades often taught liberal interpretations (such as historical accounts being fables or folklore).

Certainly the magisterial office in matter of serious conflict is to step in and resolve such, and which function is affirmed under SS ("It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." - Westminster Confession XXXI) as long as it is manifestly sound, as in Acts 15.

Which condition is again the issue, that of the basis for the veracity of conciliar decisions, that of the collective weight of Scriptural substantiation, as we see in Acts 15, or the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.

Tell me how the NT church began: on the basis of the veracity of the valid historical magisterium, or Scriptural substantiation in word and in power as demonstrated by some itinerant preachers and their Leader? Where did John the Baptist obtain his authority?
 
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
True.
Those who don't accept the authority of church - the power to " bind and loose" as wielded in councils , and as consequence the New Testament, have just such fallible understanding.
Indeed those who don't understand that the faith was passed by tradition ( paradosis, handing down)in the early church by bishops in apostolic succession , primacy at Rome CERTAINLY have a fallible understanding and need to read up on history!
Yes, they do need to read more on history , beginning with the most ancient and only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation, in which distinctive RC doctrines are not manifest . And then we have the exposed falsified history of Rome.

Moreover, writing is God's chosen most-reliable means of preservation. ( Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; John 20:31; Acts 17:11; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; Acts 17:11)

And as abundantly evidenced , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of oral preaching was subject to testing by Scripture in Acts 17:11, and not vice versa.

It was not because oral tradition preserved the Word of God that a national revival was brought, but because of the wholly inspired-of-God written word:

And Hilkiah answered and said to Shaphan the scribe, I have found the book of the law in the house of the Lord. And Hilkiah delivered the book to Shaphan. (2 Chronicles 34:15)
Then Shaphan the scribe told the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath given me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the law, that he rent his clothes. (2 Chronicles 34:18-19)

And the king went up into the house of the Lord, and all the men of Judah, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and the priests, and the Levites, and all the people, great and small: and he read in their ears all the words of the book of the covenant that was found in the house of the Lord. And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the Lord, to walk after the Lord, and to keep his commandments, and his testimonies, and his statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant which are written in this book. (2 Chronicles 34:30-31)

Now do you still want to affirm the premise that being the historical magisterial stewards of the word of God means such is the assuredly infallible authority on what it consists of and means?
 
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
It's one of the saddest parts of Protestantism ( I was part of once) : they ignore the writings of all the great saints and doctors of the church, and/ or fundamentally disagree with them! Most were vociferous on ( for example) the Eucharist and intercession of saints.
They are not that ignored, and such uninspired writings actually attest to the incremental accretion of traditions of men that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

It's one of the saddest parts of Catholicism (I was part of once): they too often ignore the meaning of the writings of all the great saints and doctors of the NT church, and/ or fundamentally disagree with them by making the uninspired writings of later men determintive of their meaning. Thus some became vociferous defenders (for example) of the false Catholic Eucharist and intercession of saints, which, among other developed false teachings, is not what the NT church manifestly believed. As has been shown before, by the grace of God.
 
Upvote 0
Dec 16, 2011
5,208
2,548
57
Home
Visit site
✟234,667.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I dislike the revisionism of orthodox airbrush of history.

It was not ( and is not) nearly as black and white as normally stated, even the date is a fudge. I ndeed I have orthodox writings from fourteenth century saying in essence " if any of you ( talking to other orthodox) took the trouble to READ Latin writings- rather than just attack them - you would find you agree with them." The geographic /language separation and crusader sack of Constantinople had more to do with the mutual distrust than doctrine.

Indeed even in the last couple of decades orthodox bishop Kallistos Ware charged with ecumenical dialogue with Rome says there is in essence only one barrier, to regrouping which is agreeing the scope not the fact of the primacy of the Rome. He does not see the great barrier in Filioque: the Greek and Latin meanings of " proceed" are different.

Orthodox has its own problems, like the lack of a means of resolving doctrinal division,( which is what happens if you chop of the head of the chicken!) and historically has had to be very careful with relationships with local monarchs or authorities - who have had an unhelpful influence. The difficult relationship with the Russian state, so inability of Russian orthodox to acknowledge authority outside Russia is just such a problem.

The over simplistic black white portrayal of what is really a nuanced division helps no one. It is also ridiculous to pretend that the overwhelming majority in numbers ( Rome ) " left" a tiny minority! (Greek orthodox) Clearly it is the other way round if viewed as a tree, as to what is branch and what is trunk. Indeed disavowing the primacy makes " orthodox" very much heterodox in both historic and biblical roots.

I won't see it in my lifetime , but I like many hope for the reconciliation.
It is a sad fact of history that the earlier refusal to join back up centuries ago was in the hands of just one orthodox dissenter. He has a lot to answer for.
There is a lot more lurking within the doctrine of the filioque than you might suspect, and the Creed needed to stay as it is, because the Church prohibited it from ever being altered in any way, and this for a good reason.

Within that one, Trinitarian doctrine is the foundation for all errant western Christian doctrine and ecclesiology. Furthermore, all the so-called "problems" with Orthodox ecclesiology which you paint, these are no different than the problems the Church has always struggled with, from the first century onward. Paul and Barnabas parted company because of a dispute over John Mark. All three, however, are Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) saints. If these holy and faithful fathers of the Church suffered irreconcilable disputes amongst themselves, by what imaginary processes do you or anyone else believe that such things wont be found within our ranks now, and throughout the history of the Church?

The real Church has always and will always have people who resist others who they believe to be in error. We "check and balance" ourselves in this way. It may seem ugly and tumultuous to you and to others who have a fairy-tale conception of Church unity around the symbol of a single, infallible earthly figure who is someone other than the Christ, but its better than the alternative, where the blind can potentially lead the blind until all eventually walk over a cliff into faithlessness.
 
Last edited:
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

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
Who changed the wording of the Nicene Creed, when Ecumenical councils had anathematized in advance anyone who would ever do it? I'll give you a clue: the Roman church did it, and in doing so have excommunicated themselves as per the rulings of councils that they themselves declare to be authoritative.
Indeed the division is substantial , with irreconcilable differences after over a 1,000 years, though your separated brother (?), Mountainmike,here minimizes such as what is really a nuanced division, with only one barrier, that of agreeing the scope not the fact of the primacy of the Rome.

You can look to Scripture as the only authoritative means of defining doctrine, but you can't deny that an Ecumenical council of the Church proclaimed which of the many Christian manuscripts of the time belonged in the Bible and which did not. Revelations was a book that did not have the vote of everyone, some thinking it should not be included in the Bible. The Church deemed it Scripture, like it did all the other books of the Bible, so that we can be confident about what we're reading.
But you disagree (even if not substantially) with the OT canon of Rome which also lays claim to defining the canon, though this was an affirmation of what the majority held to. In any case, is your position also that the magisterial affirmers and stewards of the word of God are the sure authorities on what it means?
The Church is not just spiritual. It has a physical subsistence, which is why Christ commanded us to Baptize with water, for example, and to eat and drink bread and wine which is His body and blood. We gather together in His name in "physical" bodies in physical places and worship together. We convene councils to make dogmatic and practical decisions which are put into physical writings. All these things are highly visible in a physical sense, and they connect to the spiritual reality of Life in Christ by the Holy Spirit.
Of course Church is not just spiritual, and thus i said "organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter." Which is true, and thus what i was defining was the only one true church.
This physical Church which is also spiritual in that it lives by the grace of the Holy Spirit, is the Orthodox Church.
So you and your estranged cousin Rome says, among others, while shared doctrinal distinctives of both are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.
There should not be all these divisions that we see. These divisions are the chaos created by the evil one with the intended purpose of ridding the world of the presence of Christ through ultimately toppling the Church altogether (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7).
Partly true, but division is also necessary, and which Christ this also brought, and I find more real unity of the Spirit among converted evangelicals than in Catholicism, in which I was raised devout, and remained a weekly Mass-going part of for approx. 6 years after ?I was manifestly born again thru deep personal repentance and faith in the risen Lord Jesus to save me on His account. Thanks be to God, and which means obedience to Him, in I come too short in.
The false philosophy of the "spiritual church" is an instrument of anti-christ, among many such instruments, because it basically states that division in Christianity is okay, normal, and not a really a problem, since the church is "spiritual and invisible" anyway. The enemy wants the Church to be "invisible". That is the whole game plan: to make it so that Christ can no longer be seen in the world. The Bible teaches against division and disunity, and against those who foster it.
The church simply being a spiritual church is not what I stated, while you had best see to thine own house, for rather than those being invisible who see the spiritual body of Christ as being the only qualified to be the one true church, instead it has been and yet is those who most strongly affirm Scripture as being the accurate and authoritative word of God who are the most targeted religious demographic by anti-Christ liberals (some even on forums who claim to be Christian) as well as traditional Catholics, due to them attesting to the strongest unity in many basic beliefs . The secular liberal attack them because of that, while the TradCats attack them due to their threat to Rome, all the while dismissing them as disunified. We are far too much, but Catholicism is more effectually disunified, despite perfunctory and or paper professions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: redleghunter
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
See title. See, like if it was just a thing here or thing there...this probably wouldn't bother me...but no, it's like on every single biblical teaching people are divided over...EVEN LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF....About the only one the vast majority of Christians agree on is Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to save you from your sins...but after that...there is virtually no unity on theology...so how can anyone believe when nobody is sure of the correct belief, while still teaching it as flawless?

Most people just need to do more study instead of relying on someone else to tell them what the truth is of God’s word. Not only the scriptures but the early church father’s writings. Mostly from the first 500 years of Christianity. Back to when there was one church with one teaching.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Scripture ("God says...")
Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head (1 Corinthians 11:4)

common sense
everybody knows that it's a sign of respect to doff your hat

expert opinion ("yeah, right, and what God really meant was...")
there is actually nothing in these verses about wearing (or not wearing) items on one’s head. Paul declares, “every man while praying or prophesying having [something] over his head (κατὰ κεφαλῆς ἔχων) disgraces his head” (1 Cor 11:4). Is wearing a Yarmulke during prayer really against Paul’s teaching? No, not at all... the apostle would have encouraged the wearing of a yarmulke
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmike

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Nov 2, 2016
4,614
1,591
66
Northern uk
✟561,129.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I have read more than you think: Which is why I think what I think.

And I am echoing what orthodox say - such as Kallistos Ware.

The revisionism or sanitisation of history really does not help.
Or the pretence that somehow "we split from you". Sure there was a dispute, and parting but it was neither as clean as pretended, nor was it at the often quoted date, nor was it a simple split. Orthodox is a group of churches not just one - so complex. A group of orthodox almost agreed a joint declaration with the see, but Russian refused to join them. Thats the problem with autonomous and autocephalous churches some more attached to the state than others. You dont speak with one voice.

We still have the bishop of Rome as primacy, a position acknowledged even in some fourteenths century orthodox writings whether you like it or not: so that means orthodox split away, if it must be expressed like that at all. Becuase where the head is , there is the church..

So reconciling points of difference is better than trying to highlight them.
Which was always a part of the problem.

There is a lot more lurking within the doctrine of the filioque than you might suspect, and the Creed needed to stay as it is, because the Church prohibited it from ever being altered in any way, and this for a good reason.

Within that one, Trinitarian doctrine is the foundation for all errant western Christian doctrine and ecclesiology. Furthermore, all the so-called "problems" with Orthodox ecclesiology which you paint, these are no different than the problems the Church has always struggled with, from the first century onward. Paul and Barnabas parted company because of a dispute over John Mark. All three, however, are Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) saints. If these holy and faithful fathers of the Church suffered irreconcilable disputes amongst themselves, by what imaginary processes do you or anyone else believe that such things wont be found within our ranks now, and throughout the history of the Church?

The real Church has always and will always have people who resist others who they believe to be in error. We "check and balance" ourselves in this way. It may seem ugly and tumultuous to you and to others who have a fairy-tale conception of Church unity around the symbol of a single, infallible earthly figure who is someone other than the Christ, but its better than the alternative, where the blind can potentially lead the blind until all eventually walk over a cliff into faithlessness.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a lot more lurking within the doctrine of the filioque than you might suspect, and the Creed needed to stay as it is, because the Church prohibited it from ever being altered in any way, and this for a good reason.

Within that one, Trinitarian doctrine is the foundation for all errant western Christian doctrine and ecclesiology. Furthermore, all the so-called "problems" with Orthodox ecclesiology which you paint, these are no different than the problems the Church has always struggled with, from the first century onward. Paul and Barnabas parted company because of a dispute over John Mark. All three, however, are Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) saints. If these holy and faithful fathers of the Church suffered irreconcilable disputes amongst themselves, by what imaginary processes do you or anyone else believe that such things wont be found within our ranks now, and throughout the history of the Church?

The real Church has always and will always have people who resist others who they believe to be in error. We "check and balance" ourselves in this way. It may seem ugly and tumultuous to you and to others who have a fairy-tale conception of Church unity around the symbol of a single, infallible earthly figure who is someone other than the Christ, but its better than the alternative, where the blind can potentially lead the blind until all eventually walk over a cliff into faithlessness.

It’s most unfortunate that so many have been misled but I think a few key questions they need to ask themselves are where did the church go for the first 1500 years of Christianity? Was it silent or hidden during that time? Did the Holy Spirit take a long vacation forsaking so many generations allowing them to be misled by a corrupted church? Did the gates of hell prevail over the church for the first 1500 years of Christianity? One of the biggest problems is most people think that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church and unfortunately their actions have dragged the Catholic Church’s name thru the mud for centuries. Few people know the history of the church and that the name Orthodox was only a change of the name not the beginning of a new church.
 
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

Concord1968

LCMS Lutheran
Sep 29, 2018
790
437
Pacific Northwest
✟23,029.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Tell that to Catholics, who are still looking for an official commentary on all of the Bible, while the sanctioned (and required) notes of her official Bible for America have for decades often taught liberal interpretations (such as historical accounts being fables or folklore).
Unfortunately, those interpretations are now supported by a majority of the Bishops including the current Pope. The Modernist heretics took over the Catholic Church in the 1960s and they've been sliding into apostasy ever since.
 
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
Most people just need to do more study instead of relying on someone else to tell them what the truth is of God’s word. Not only the scriptures but the early church father’s writings. Mostly from the first 500 years of Christianity. Back to when there was one church with one teaching.
Even CF can claim to have one teaching based on assent to some basics, but that does not correspond to comprehensive doctrinal unity,and division was and is not something new. Basil of Ceasarea, the ascetic 4th century Greek bishop of Caesarea attests:


Liberated from the error of pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of the truth.

When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for which Christ died and upon which He poured out in abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree violently with one another and also in their understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

Most alarming of all is the fact that I found the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the prophecy, "˜Of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.´

Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I veered now this way, now that"”attracted now to one man, now to another, under the influence of protracted association with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures.

After a long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in the words" "˜In those days there was no king in Israel.´ With these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present circumstances that explanation which, incredible and frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is understood; for never before has there arisen such discord and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and true God, only King of the universe...

Many such instances have I witnessed and many others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting. By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another and with respect to the Lord´s commands, it would be an indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according to the Scriptural saying: "˜only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way,´ or of denial of Him according to the Psalmist: "˜The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.´...

Is there not a far greater obligation, then, upon the whole Church of God to be zealous in maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, fulfilling those words in the Acts: The multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul.' That is, no individual put forward his own will, but all together in the one Holy Spirit were seeking the will of their one Lord Jesus Christ, who said : *I came down from heaven not to do my will but the will of Him that sent me, the Father/ to whom He says: 'Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me, that they all may be one...' St. Basil : Ascetical Works Fathers of the Church, Volume 9

What this writings by Basil, the ascetic 4th century Greek bishop of Caesarea, does is actually testify to the great amount of contentions and disunity in that era, and of his finding in Scripture the reason for the condition which he found perplexing. He thus advocates the need for unity and holiness under the leadership of Christ, and which conclusion and substantiation he also obtains directly from Scripture.
 
Upvote 0

Erik Nelson

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Aug 6, 2017
5,117
1,649
46
Utah
✟347,045.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is a lot more lurking within the doctrine of the filioque than you might suspect, and the Creed needed to stay as it is, because the Church prohibited it from ever being altered in any way, and this for a good reason.

Within that one, Trinitarian doctrine is the foundation for all errant western Christian doctrine and ecclesiology. Furthermore, all the so-called "problems" with Orthodox ecclesiology which you paint, these are no different than the problems the Church has always struggled with, from the first century onward. Paul and Barnabas parted company because of a dispute over John Mark. All three, however, are Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) saints. If these holy and faithful fathers of the Church suffered irreconcilable disputes amongst themselves, by what imaginary processes do you or anyone else believe that such things wont be found within our ranks now, and throughout the history of the Church?

The real Church has always and will always have people who resist others who they believe to be in error. We "check and balance" ourselves in this way. It may seem ugly and tumultuous to you and to others who have a fairy-tale conception of Church unity around the symbol of a single, infallible earthly figure who is someone other than the Christ, but its better than the alternative, where the blind can potentially lead the blind until all eventually walk over a cliff into faithlessness.
As an Orthodox Christian. You acknowledge That living church tradition. Can continuously add to scripture?

Obviously. No tradition can flat out conflict or contradict or invalidate scripture. But because the Holy Spirit. Inspires the church. It's living tradition can continuously add to and update. The total composite corpus of authority. Both written scripture. And oral church tradition.

the filioque is just that. It adds to the Nicene Creed. But it does not in any way contradict or invalidate or overturn the Creed. It merely adds a word to it. Just as living church tradition as authoritative words to written scripture.

You are in some sense. Treating the Creed. With a Protestant like Sola Scriptura mentality. Only what is written, only the scripted Creed.

Just as Protestants effectively imply that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church after the first century. So that no later church traditions are authoritative. Because they "just can't" be inspired...

So you are implying that the Holy Spirit abandoned the (Roman Catholic) Church after the seventh or eighth century. So that nothing they said afterwards could be authoritative any more.
 
Upvote 0

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Even CF can claim to have one teaching based on assent to some basics, but that does not correspond to comprehensive doctrinal unity,and division was and is not something new. Basil of Ceasarea, the ascetic 4th century Greek bishop of Caesarea attests:


Liberated from the error of pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of the truth.

When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for which Christ died and upon which He poured out in abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree violently with one another and also in their understanding of the Holy Scriptures.

Most alarming of all is the fact that I found the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the prophecy, "˜Of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.´

Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I veered now this way, now that"”attracted now to one man, now to another, under the influence of protracted association with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures.

After a long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in the words" "˜In those days there was no king in Israel.´ With these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present circumstances that explanation which, incredible and frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is understood; for never before has there arisen such discord and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and true God, only King of the universe...

Many such instances have I witnessed and many others I have heard of, and persons who make profession of such matters know many more still, so that they can vouch for the truth of what I have said. Now, if good order with its attendant harmony is characteristic of those who look to one source of authority and are subject to one king, then universal disorder and disharmony are a sign that leadership is wanting. By the same token, if we discover in our midst such a lack of accord as I have mentioned, both with regard to one another and with respect to the Lord´s commands, it would be an indictment either of our rejection of the true king, according to the Scriptural saying: "˜only that he who now holdeth, do hold, until he be taken out of the way,´ or of denial of Him according to the Psalmist: "˜The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.´...

Is there not a far greater obligation, then, upon the whole Church of God to be zealous in maintaining the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace, fulfilling those words in the Acts: The multitude of believers had but one heart and one soul.' That is, no individual put forward his own will, but all together in the one Holy Spirit were seeking the will of their one Lord Jesus Christ, who said : *I came down from heaven not to do my will but the will of Him that sent me, the Father/ to whom He says: 'Not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me, that they all may be one...' St. Basil : Ascetical Works Fathers of the Church, Volume 9

What this writings by Basil, the ascetic 4th century Greek bishop of Caesarea, does is actually testify to the great amount of contentions and disunity in that era, and of his finding in Scripture the reason for the condition which he found perplexing. He thus advocates the need for unity and holiness under the leadership of Christ, and which conclusion and substantiation he also obtains directly from Scripture.

This is not surprising which is why it is imperative that the church be led by ecumenical council and not by a single individual to ensure that a more comprehensive knowledge be taken into consideration during these decisions being made as well as greatly reducing the possibility of corrup individuals misleading the church.
 
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

BNR32FAN

He’s a Way of life
Supporter
Aug 11, 2017
22,113
7,243
Dallas
✟873,884.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
As an Orthodox Christian. You acknowledge That living church tradition. Can continuously add to scripture?

Obviously. No tradition can flat out conflict or contradict or invalidate scripture. But because the Holy Spirit. Inspires the church. It's living tradition can continuously add to and update. The total composite corpus of authority. Both written scripture. And oral church tradition.

the filioque is just that. It adds to the Nicene Creed. But it does not in any way contradict or invalidate or overturn the Creed. It merely adds a word to it. Just as living church tradition as authoritative words to written scripture.

You are in some sense. Treating the Creed. With a Protestant like Sola Scriptura mentality. Only what is written, only the scripted Creed.

Just as Protestants effectively imply that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church after the first century. So that no later church traditions are authoritative. Because they "just can't" be inspired...

So you are implying that the Holy Spirit abandoned the (Roman Catholic) Church after the seventh or eighth century. So that nothing they said afterwards could be authoritative any more.

The problem is it was not convened in an ecumenical council and if it had been so it would’ve been rejected by four of the five pentarchates.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Erik Nelson
Upvote 0