An Orthodox Deconstruction of Reformed Theology

[Pavel Mosko]

well, that's not what we think. tradition isn't an interpretation, it's the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church. and the life of the Holy Spirit within the Church goes back before creation, so it is a direct pipeline.

And for bonus points next time add in a definition of Paradosis and cite a few scriptures that uses it in its noun or verb form like

Jude 1:3
"Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.".

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Please forgive me OP but I just don't like or trust Jay Dyer.

I know that he is good and debating and all that jazz but there is just something deceptive and not right about him.

He's like the Orthodox version of Dr. James White.


.

I understand that. I did get a lot out of the video but all the feedback does reminds me of my past experiences of sometimes disliking him years back.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Jay Dyer can be interesting but also quite acerbic.

W

And there were not many of the church councils until much later, so? Jesus quoted extensively from the Old Testament Scripture, which predicted His coming and the New Covenant (or New Testament) and I would think Jesus' actions and teachings were well known in 50AD up until the witnesses began passing away.

The question you're avoiding is why do some teachings of the RCC and your church go against what the Bible teaches? It's what the Pharisees did.

You should start a thread based on specific teaching that you think are "unscriptural" and post a new thread. A new thread for each issue.

You will however need to word it diplomatically since the board is a safe zone, so you just can't use words like heretical, false teaching etc. but instead express things a "I believe this not biblical, or unscriptural because of X, Y, and Z".

 

[Light of the East]

QUOTE="Army Matt Unfortunately, the Bible itself contradicts the Protestant model. the Church, according to Christ, cannot err.

and if you think it's alright to adjust beliefs, then the authority is the individual, which is not Biblical or historic.

Where did the Lord say the Church cannot err?

I need to understand where exactly the Church is found throughout history because I see errors in history from people in the Church. I'm asking for help understanding this.

 

[ArmyMatt]

QUOTE="Army Matt Unfortunately, the Bible itself contradicts the Protestant model. the Church, according to Christ, cannot err.

and if you think it's alright to adjust beliefs, then the authority is the individual, which is not Biblical or historic.

Where did the Lord say the Church cannot err?

I need to understand where exactly the Church is found throughout history because I see errors in history from people in the Church. I'm asking for help understanding this.

He said the gates of hades will not prevail and the Church is called the pillar and ground of truth

 

[Light of the East]

Then how did error enter the Church? Was it Athanasius who said "The Church went to sleep and woke up to find itself Arian." meaning that the greatest part of Christianity was Arian. How could this be if the Church could not teach error?

These two verses seem to me to be terribly misunderstood. Gates are a defensive mechanism. Christ is saying that when the Gospel goes out, hades will not be able to resist it and keep souls enslaved to sin.

A pillar holds something up. The Church holds up the
Truth -- Christ -- for the world to see and come to. It seems to me that this verse has been changed to mean not that the Church is a pillar holding up the One who is Truth, but that the Church itself is truth.

Perhaps you can suggest a good Orthodox writer who addresses this in detail, especially including the issue of errors in the Church and how it affected the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Then how did error enter the Church? Was it Athanasius who said "The Church went to sleep and woke up to find itself Arian." meaning that the greatest part of Christianity was Arian. How could this be if the Church could not teach error?

These two verses seem to me to be terribly misunderstood. Gates are a defensive mechanism. Christ is saying that when the Gospel goes out, hades will not be able to resist it and keep souls enslaved to sin.

A pillar holds something up. The Church holds up the
Truth -- Christ -- for the world to see and come to. It seems to me that this verse has been changed to mean not that the Church is a pillar holding up the One who is Truth, but that the Church itself is truth.

Perhaps you can suggest a good Orthodox writer who addresses this in detail, especially including the issue of errors in the Church and how it affected the Church.

error enters individuals, but even if only a small amount retains the faith, the Church exists in its fullness.

and the quote was St Jerome, I believe.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Perhaps you can suggest a good Orthodox writer who addresses this in detail, especially including the issue of errors in the Church and how it affected the Church.

I actually would be interested in that too!


Although I imagine the answer is that there is some person who fights for the Paradosis of the Church and the fact they are successful is what counts. Saint Mark of Ephesus at the counsel of Florence for instance. But for the record, EO Ecclesiology seems about grabbing whatever reason seems to work for the time and not really worry if their is any kind of internal logic to it. If the Church preserves the Paradosis that is what counts.

 

[ArmyMatt]

there is total internal logic. the logic is whoever preserves the faith.

if you want a resource, just read the statements from the Ecumenical Councils