Can Orthodox Learn from Protestant Theologians?

[ArmyMatt]

Okay, so just when I do it. Thanks, real helpful.

I am not sure. I don’t judge the entirety of someone’s theology based on one or two threads.

 

[All Becomes New]

I am not sure. I don’t judge the entirety of someone’s theology based on one or two threads.

What is the fundamental thing you reject from my thread? It can't be based on tradition since you accept things from Judaism and Protestants.

You have not even analyzed whether my argument holds weight. The only reason you gave is that it is not already part of your tradition which conflicts with you accepting what people outside your tradition say about things.

I'm both angered and insulted that you can't even consider what I am saying because it isn't based on your tradition when you accept things outside of your tradition elsewhere.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is the fundamental thing you reject from my thread? It can't be based on tradition since you accept things from Judaism and Protestants.

because the thread is basically “this is how I read these verses because this is how I read these other verses.” I accept other things from other people when they back them up, even if I don’t agree eventually.

You have not even analyzed whether my argument holds weight. The only reason you gave is that it is not already part of your tradition which conflicts with you accepting what people outside your tradition say about things.

I have, but it doesn’t since it’s just you. 2000ish years of theological writing you could have given something.

I'm both angered and insulted that you can't even consider what I am saying because it isn't based on your tradition when you accept things outside of your tradition elsewhere.

so, clearly it’s not simply because something originated outside of Orthodoxy. it’s because all it was, was your personal exegesis with nothing there to support your point, aside from more of your personal exegesis. if that works for you, fine. it doesn’t for me. if there was something else to it, well I might agree and at least it would give me something to chew on.

 

[All Becomes New]

so, clearly it’s not simply because something originated outside of Orthodoxy. it’s because all it was, was your personal exegesis with nothing there to support your point, aside from more of your personal exegesis. if that works for you, fine. it doesn’t for me. if there was something else to it, well I might agree and at least it would give me something to chew on.

It's not just my opinion. Most of the thread is just me citing verses that all say the same thing I am saying. You can say that those verses don't say what you think I am saying they do, but you have not actually done any exegesis to show I am wrong. You've just said I am wrong from the get-go because you have not seen this argument before. I'm not the first person to come up with this argument; I've just expanded on it.

You don't have any reason to reject what I am saying. All you have is tradition. So you put tradition over logic and reasoning. In short, I don't care about what my personal opinion is on this. I am trying to DEDUCE what the scriptures say. I was thinking there might be a chance you would like what I was saying since it falls in line so well with the Orthodox church having a hierarchy in Chruch government. But you reject that because you haven't seen this argument before. So even though the view actually aligns more with your tradition than Protestant tradition, you still reject it.

 

[All Becomes New]

What I am most angry about is that you have not even tried to correct me and give the Orthodox understanding of these verses. You just tell me I am wrong. There is no explanation you have other than tradition. Understand how frustrating that is for me as a Protestant who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God, not like you care about that.

 

[All Becomes New]

Honestly, the debate should already be over. I already proved you wrong that scripture is God's words from the mouth of Jesus. Your problem is not me, it is scripture which goes against your tradition or so that is how I see it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's not just my opinion. Most of the thread is just me citing verses that all say the same thing I am saying. You can say that those verses don't say what you think I am saying they do, but you have not actually done any exegesis to show I am wrong. You've just said I am wrong from the get-go because you have not seen this argument before. I'm not the first person to come up with this argument; I've just expanded on it.

it’s not the verses, it’s the commentary in between I disagree with.

You don't have any reason to reject what I am saying.

sure I do.

All you have is tradition.

of which the Bible is the main part

So you put tradition over logic and reasoning.

no, I put it over your logic and reasoning.

In short, I don't care about what my personal opinion is on this. I am trying to DEDUCE what the scriptures say.

and since you are fallen, you can come to the wrong conclusion. as can we all.

I was thinking there might be a chance you would like what I was saying since it falls in line so well with the Orthodox church having a hierarchy in Chruch government.

I don’t follow this

But you reject that because you haven't seen this argument before. So even though the view actually aligns more with your tradition than Protestant tradition, you still reject it.

no, I have. I wasn’t always Orthodox. I used to make these arguments.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What I am most angry about is that you have not even tried to correct me and give the Orthodox understanding of these verses. You just tell me I am wrong. There is no explanation you have other than tradition. Understand how frustrating that is for me as a Protestant who believes that the Bible is the inspired word of God, not like you care about that.

it’s because you still think there is some dichotomy between the Bible and tradition, even after I said there isn’t.

and I do care. I wouldn’t keep talking if I didn’t care.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Honestly, the debate should already be over. I already proved you wrong that scripture is God's words from the mouth of Jesus. Your problem is not me, it is scripture which goes against your tradition or so that is how I see it.

it’s not a debate. and no you didn’t. my problem isn’t Scripture. it’s how you read it. and it’s not really my problem at all.

 

[All Becomes New]

and since you are fallen, you can come to the wrong conclusion. as can we all.

I see zero reason why we collectively as a Church cannot err and have the same proneness to err as individuals.

it’s because you still think there is some dichotomy between the Bible and tradition, even after I said there isn’t.

Yes, you said it. You didn't back it up with anything other than your opinion, just like you are accusing me of.

 

[All Becomes New]

it’s not the verses, it’s the commentary in between I disagree with.

Which, as of yet, I have no idea how you interpret those verses. So if you have some secret way you interpret the pronouns used throughout the NT then now is as good a time as any to tell me how you interpret I, me, we, our, us, you, and your, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I see zero reason why we collectively as a Church cannot err and have the same proneness to err as individuals.

because the gates of hades will not prevail against the Church. the Church is the Body and Bride of Christ.

Yes, you said it. You didn't back it up with anything other than your opinion, just like you are accusing me of.

no, I did way back, but I will do it again. tradition means that which is handed down. since neither of us wrote the Bible, the Bible was handed down to us from earlier generations, it by definition, is tradition.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Which, as of yet, I have no idea how you interpret those verses. So if you have some secret way you interpret the pronouns used throughout the NT then now is as good a time as any to tell me how you interpret I, me, we, our, us, you, and your, etc.

I don’t have anything secret. I do however know enough to know that language has nuance. something written in 1st century Greek is going to have nuance that a 21st century English speaker isn’t going to know just from the English. this is what JWs try to do and fail at.

 

[All Becomes New]

because the gates of hades will not prevail against the Church. the Church is the Body and Bride of Christ.

Where does that say that the Chruch cannot err? It does not say that at all. Rather, what I am drawing from it is that there will always be a remnant and the church will never be completely snuffed out. Your exegesis is poor. You have not told me what that means. I can affirm this verse as much as you can. I just don't see how it means the Chruch cannot err.

no, I did way back, but I will do it again. tradition means that which is handed down. since neither of us wrote the Bible, the Bible was handed down to us from earlier generations, it by definition, is tradition.

Then you deny that the Bible is special. You deny that the Bible is God's words to humanity.

 

[All Becomes New]

I don’t have anything secret. I do however know enough to know that language has nuance. something written in 1st century Greek is going to have nuance that a 21st century English speaker isn’t going to know just from the English. this is what JWs try to do and fail at.

Please define the words as you see them then.

 

[All Becomes New]

I'll help you. Maybe you have an answer, maybe you don't.

The word in question is ἡμῖν which means "us" unless you have a different definition. The verse in Greek says,

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ

The question, then, is who is the "us" in this verse (Ephesians 1:9)? Is it Paul included with the Ephesians? Then why does it say,
Ephesians 1:12
"so that we who had already put our hope in Christ might bring praise to his glory." and this is contrasted with,
Ephesians 1:13
"In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed."?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Where does that say that the Chruch cannot err? It does not say that at all. Rather, what I am drawing from it is that there will always be a remnant and the church will never be completely snuffed out.

yes, that remnant is the Church. even when in the extreme minority. plus, if Christ is the head of the Church, He’s pretty absent if He let’s it err.

Your exegesis is poor.

sure, that’s why I rely on the Church and not myself

Then you deny that the Bible is special. You deny that the Bible is God's words to humanity.

I don’t deny the Bible is special. it’s absolutely special. it’s the most honored text within the tradition. saying it’s a unique part of a larger whole is not denying it’s uniqueness.

and, according to the Bible, Christ is God’s word to humanity.

 

[All Becomes New]

sure, that’s why I rely on the Church and not myself

The Chruch is made of individuals who are prone to error just like yourself. Why do you think that the Chruch is this monolithic thing that exists separate from individuals?

and, according to the Bible, Christ is God’s word to humanity.

But that is not what I am saying. I am saying the Bible is God's words to humanity. It is more than just the Word of God. It is God's words. That is why Christ says scripture is "from the mouth of God," (2 Chr. 35:22; Matt. 4:4).

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'll help you. Maybe you have an answer, maybe you don't.

The word in question is ἡμῖν which means "us" unless you have a different definition. The verse in Greek says,

γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν αὐτοῦ ἣν προέθετο ἐν αὐτῷ

The question, then, is who is the "us" in this verse (Ephesians 1:9)? Is it Paul included with the Ephesians? Then why does it say,
Ephesians 1:12
"so that we who had already put our hope in Christ might bring praise to his glory." and this is contrasted with,
Ephesians 1:13
"In him you also were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and when you believed."?

thanks for this. I don’t have my NPNF off hand, but I will get back to you with answers.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Chruch is made of individuals who are prone to error just like yourself. Why do you think that the Chruch is this monolithic thing that exists separate from individuals?

it isn’t, but when folks err they are corrected by the Church or cut off from the Church. the Church doesn’t err because Christ still guides the Church.

But that is not what I am saying. I am saying the Bible is God's words to humanity. It is more than just the Word of God. It is God's words. That is why Christ says scripture is "from the mouth of God," (2 Chr. 35:22; Matt. 4:4).

neither of those verses equate the Word with the written text.