And you thought we had theological conflicts

[A. believer]

Halloween causes moral dilemma for teen

 

[Asinner]

I bet he turns out perfectly normal and becomes Orthodox.

God Bless

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

LOL ASinner

Amen

 

[A. believer]

I bet he turns out perfectly normal and becomes Orthodox.

God Bless

I'll admit, this kind of thing does tend to turn people to the RCC and the EOC just to find a little relief. That infallible church idea can be tempting. But, alas, one then must fallibly decide which infallible church is really infallible.

 

[Asinner]

I'll admit, this kind of thing does tend to turn people to the RCC and the EOC just to find a little relief. That infallible church idea can be tempting. But, alas, one then must fallibly decide which infallible church is really infallible.

Not necessarily. The truth can be revealed outside of our intellect.

God Bless

 

[A. believer]

Not necessarily. The truth can be revealed outside of our intellect.

God Bless

That's a common Roman Catholic response, too.

 

[Asinner]

That's a common Roman Catholic response, too.

OK.

I stated it, not because I have heard others use it, but because it is true of my conversion. If my salvation was based on my intellect, I would be blind and naked.

 

[A. believer]

OK.

I stated it, not because I have heard others use it, but because it is true of my conversion. If my salvation was based on my intellect, I would be blind and naked.

I wasn't implying that you were copying your responses from Roman Catholics. The point is that you both believe the truth of the infallibility of your respective churches was revealed to you completely apart from the intellect. Not very helpful for the poor confused Protestant who's just looking for someone to infallibly inform him about infallible truth.

 

[Asinner]

I wasn't implying that you were copying your responses from Roman Catholics. The point is that you both believe the truth of the infallibility of your respective churches was revealed to you completely apart from the intellect. Not very helpful for the poor confused Protestant who's just looking for someone to infallibly inform him about infallible truth.

Just because I came into the Church outside of my intellect, does not negate that there are many, many who come in using theirs. This was true for my husband.

God Bless

 

[A. believer]

Just because I came into the Church outside of my intellect, does not negate that there are many, many who come in using theirs. This was true for my husband.

God Bless

But that still doesn't resolve my poor Protestant's original dilemma.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I'll admit, this kind of thing does tend to turn people to the RCC and the EOC just to find a little relief. That infallible church idea can be tempting. But, alas, one then must fallibly decide which infallible church is really infallible.

While there are negative issues that push people in the direction of the more ancient churches, it would be highly un_orthodox- I mean not Orthodox- to turn to Orthodoxy just to escape the madness foundin some other quarters.

No, rather, becoming Orthodox is a process which involves attraction, rather than repulsion. I know there are Orthodox and Catholics here who were former Protestants who seem to speak of negative experiences in Protestantism, myself included, but our reason for joining the Church is ultimately based- NOT in the infallibility of the Church, so to speak, but is based in the love of the brethren and in the depth of the worship of God. After all, isn't worship what we are all seeking?

There will be those who read this who will say 'yes, you____worship (icons/statues/the bible).'
Let's leave that aside for the moment..I may be odd, but I wasn't looking for perfect and infallible- I knew that God is that, and that I wouldn't be able as a fallible man to recognize that anyway. What I could do is
1. look for the most heartfelt and reverent worship
2. Look for the most truly charismatic experience- that is to say, the power of the Spirit
3. compare what I experienced and saw and did against history and scripture.

In each of these cases, the Orthodox Church came shining through like a beacon of truth and grace. Perfection? Infallibility? Those are concepts beyond my ability to encircle. If I cannot detect the true Church, how can I detect the truth of scripture, and vice versa? The skill sets and discernment in both of those cases are precisely the same.

So your fallibility puts you in abundant company, present included. I highly doubt that God wouldleave us with such ambiguity without remedy. That remedy is us, not I. "Where two or three are gathered" is a principle, not a founding statement for endless new sects.
peace
James

 

[A. believer]

While there are negative issues that push people in the direction of the more ancient churches, it would be highly un_orthodox- I mean not Orthodox- to turn to Orthodoxy just to escape the madness foundin some other quarters.

No, rather, becoming Orthodox is a process which involves attraction, rather than repulsion. I know there are Orthodox and Catholics here who were former Protestants who seem to speak of negative experiences in Protestantism, myself included, but our reason for joining the Church is ultimately based- NOT in the infallibility of the Church, so to speak, but is based in the love of the brethren and in the depth of the worship of God. After all, isn't worship what we are all seeking?

There will be those who read this who will say 'yes, you____worship (icons/statues/the bible).'
Let's leave that aside for the moment..I may be odd, but I wasn't looking for perfect and infallible- I knew that God is that, and that I wouldn't be able as a fallible man to recognize that anyway. What I could do is
1. look for the most heartfelt and reverent worship
2. Look for the most truly charismatic experience- that is to say, the power of the Spirit
3. compare what I experienced and saw and did against history and scripture.

In each of these cases, the Orthodox Church came shining through like a beacon of truth and grace. Perfection? Infallibility? Those are concepts beyond my ability to encircle. If I cannot detect the true Church, how can I detect the truth of scripture, and vice versa? The skill sets and discernment in both of those cases are precisely the same.

So your fallibility puts you in abundant company, present included. I highly doubt that God wouldleave us with such ambiguity without remedy. That remedy is us, not I. "Where two or three are gathered" is a principle, not a founding statement for endless new sects.
peace
James

But "I" must determine which "us" is the true "us." And if the skills and discernment used to detect true Scripture and those used to detect the true church are the same, and those skills point to the EOC, then I guess Protestants just don't possess those skills and our identification of Scripture as God-breathed is just a lucky shot in the dark because the message we find in Scripture is not the same message we find in the EOC.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

But "I" must determine which "us" is the true "us." And if the skills and discernment used to detect true Scripture and those used to detect the true church are the same, and those skills point to the EOC, then I guess Protestants just don't possess those skills and our identification of Scripture as God-breathed is just a lucky shot in the dark because the message we find in Scripture is not the same message we find in the EOC.

I highly doubt that you believe that the scriptures are true because you discern them to be. I'm betting the farm that you believe them to be true because God spoke and authorized them.

I'm putting a second mortgage on that same farm and betting that you believe that God helps you to discern what the scripture says, but that He has already determined without your discernment what is scripture.

Now think about how you feel about those who reject the scripture as authoritive.

As for whether you find what the EOC believes says or does to be true or not does not make it so, nor does my statement that it is true make it so. Neither of us have proof, each approaches by faith. Each of has a tradition. We each accept by faith that God revealed Himself, and that holy men by th inspiration of God spoke the oracles of God to man, giving us a measuring rod of what is truth.

The "us" that He gave these oracles to was the commonwealth of Israel first, then to the Church. In each of those cases, and identifiable, physical leadership was established, an imperfect leadership, yet God-ordained.

The oracles proclaimed that God would take away the priesthood from Aaron and give it to Melchizedek, he without obvious origin. This is a type of the new man in the Church, whom is both Jew and Gentile, without natural descent determining his/her choosing.

There have been no oracles prclaiming that God would take away authority from the Church, nor that He would void the leadership of same. Nor is there an oracle forseeing the day when anything of this nature would happen.

There is, however, the prophetic utterance suggesting that days would come when winds of doctrine would blow, and people would toss in the wind under the power of such winds and whims.

 

[OnTheWay]

I wasn't implying that you were copying your responses from Roman Catholics. The point is that you both believe the truth of the infallibility of your respective churches was revealed to you completely apart from the intellect. Not very helpful for the poor confused Protestant who's just looking for someone to infallibly inform him about infallible truth.

It's all really quite logical. Who is more logically correct, the Church which can trace it's roots 2,000 years to Christ and the Apostles or a guy named John Calvin that lived and died some 1,500 years afterward? After that it's a simple matter of reading the ECF's and deciding what you think about universal jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome. While there is some differences between the Orthodox and Rome, we share a great deal of commonality of belief that is clearly rooted in the early Church. The teachings of John Calvin however are rooted basically in Martin Luther, another man that lived some 1,500 years after Christ. Thus one has two logical choices for the correct Church, neither involve Calvinist theology.

 

[A. believer]

I highly doubt that you believe that the scriptures are true because you discern them to be. I'm betting the farm that you believe them to be true because God spoke and authorized them.

Huh? Of course I believe them to be true because God spoke them, but I believe them to be spoken of God because of the Holy Spirit authenticating to me the true and divine nature of their message.

I'm putting a second mortgage on that same farm and betting that you believe that God helps you to discern what the scripture says, but that He has already determined without your discernment what is scripture.

Obviously.

Now think about how you feel about those who reject the scripture as authoritive.

Who cares how I feel about them.

As for whether you find what the EOC believes says or does to be true or not does not make it so, nor does my statement that it is true make it so. Neither of us have proof, each approaches by faith. Each of has a tradition. We each accept by faith that God revealed Himself, and that holy men by th inspiration of God spoke the oracles of God to man, giving us a measuring rod of what is truth.

The "us" that He gave these oracles to was the commonwealth of Israel first, then to the Church. In each of those cases, and identifiable, physical leadership was established, an imperfect leadership, yet God-ordained.

The oracles proclaimed that God would take away the priesthood from Aaron and give it to Melchizedek, he without obvious origin. This is a type of the new man in the Church, whom is both Jew and Gentile, without natural descent determining his/her choosing.

But the faith by which we each believe what we do is not of the same quality. I'm confident in the truth of the gospel and of the Scriptures proclaiming that gospel because of the so-called "impossibility of the contrary." But neither my nor your belief in a particular ecclesiology has the same foundation.

There have been no oracles prclaiming that God would take away authority from the Church, nor that He would void the leadership of same. Nor is there an oracle forseeing the day when anything of this nature would happen.

And neither is there anything proclaiming the infallibility of the church or the specific manner of succession of leadership that either the EOC or the RCC insists upon. In fact, we see very much the contrary in the ecclesia of the Old Testament.

There is, however, the prophetic utterance suggesting that days would come when winds of doctrine would blow, and people would toss in the wind under the power of such winds and whims.

And those days began pretty much at the inception of the New Covenant and continue to this day.

 

[A. believer]

It's all really quite logical. Who is more logically correct, the Church which can trace it's roots 2,000 years to Christ and the Apostles or a guy named John Calvin that lived and died some 1,500 years afterward? After that it's a simple matter of reading the ECF's and deciding what you think about universal jurisidiction of the Bishop of Rome. While there is some differences between the Orthodox and Rome, we share a great deal of commonality of belief that is clearly rooted in the early Church. The teachings of John Calvin however are rooted basically in Martin Luther, another man that lived some 1,500 years after Christ. Thus one has two logical choices for the correct Church, neither involve Calvinist theology.

Oh please, spare me. We all trace our roots to the same place. John Calvin and Martin Luther were just as much heirs of the ECFs as are any of your theologians.

 

[A. believer]

And, incidentally, I didn't start this thread just rehash the same old debates I pretty much retired from a year or two ago. It was meant to be light and humorous. If anyone wants to comment on the content of the link, that would be welcomed, but I lost my taste for these debates a long time ago and it hasn't come back yet.