Can Orthodox Learn from Protestant Theologians?

[ArmyMatt]

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?

I do, but Scripture isn’t all that was given. because the Scripture wasn’t inspired in the same way Muslims claim the Quran is.

False. I do not believe that the Bible is the only authority. You are assuming my view, which I do not hold.

apologies for the misunderstanding on my part.

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?

name the error of the Orthodox Church, and back it up with evidence.

Is it Church tradition?

tradition, of which the Bible is central and key, corrects people of error. the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, the gates of hades will not prevail against her, and her head and bridegroom is Christ. the Church doesn’t err.

Then the Church can continue to propagate error after error and never correct itself to the Truth. Rather, tradition is corrected by scripture.

if that were the case, Protestants who openly claim to primarily look to Scripture, would not fundamentally disagree.

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

no, but with that St Paul commands us to keep the tradition, whether by word or epistle. not all tradition is bad.

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.

never said that’s a logical contradiction, but it’s also not found in the Bible.

 

[All Becomes New]

name the error of the Orthodox Church, and back it up with evidence.

I'd rather not. I could, but it was never my intention to debate you about Orthodox Tradition. I simply wanted to get some feedback on something I had written.

tradition, of which the Bible is central and key, corrects people of error. the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, the gates of hades will not prevail against her, and her head and bridegroom is Christ. the Church doesn’t err.

The church is not as equally inspired as scripture is. If it was, then you would have no disagreements throughout Chruch history--even in Chruch Fathers who you agree with, who all disagree with each other on some things.

if that were the case, Protestants who openly claim to primarily look to Scripture, would not fundamentally disagree.

It is no different today than it was 1,000 years ago. There have always been various views on things. The Church today is no different than it was then. Paul says there must be divisions because those who are truly of the faith will show themselves approved.

no, but with that St Paul commands us to keep the tradition, whether by word or epistle. not all tradition is bad.

I already discussed this passage with someone else in this very thread. Look for my response there.

never said that’s a logical contradiction, but it’s also not found in the Bible.

Jesus calls scripture God's words. I do not think Jesus says the same thing about the Church.

 

[prodromos]

I already answered this. Because not everyone is equally gifted in interpreting the Bible.

So you accept that Scripture is not the final authority, rather, the right interpretation of Scripture is the final authority.

 

[All Becomes New]

So you accept that Scripture is not the final authority, rather, the right interpretation of Scripture is the final authority.

That is like saying that the fruit of the tree is more basic than the seed of the fruit. With no seed, there cannot be any fruit.

 

[prodromos]

That is like saying that the fruit of the tree is more basic than the seed of the fruit. With no seed, there cannot be any fruit.

I'm sorry, but I can't see how you came to such a metaphor. I don't see how it is anything like that at all.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'd rather not. I could, but it was never my intention to debate you about Orthodox Tradition. I simply wanted to get some feedback on something I had written.

I am not asking for a debate, only evidence to back a claim you made.

The church is not as equally inspired as scripture is. If it was, then you would have no disagreements throughout Chruch history--even in Chruch Fathers who you agree with, who all disagree with each other on some things.

that’s like saying the Bible isn’t inspired because books of the Bible disagree with each other on certain points, or because many people disagree on what it means.

It is no different today than it was 1,000 years ago. There have always been various views on things. The Church today is no different than it was then. Paul says there must be divisions because those who are truly of the faith will show themselves approved.

and we are also commanded to be of one mind, to be one as the Father and Christ are one. we aren’t to just accept our differences. and, when we read Acts, the Church got together in Jerusalem to figure it out.

I already discussed this passage with someone else in this very thread. Look for my response there.

I did, but you didn’t define apostle properly. you just kind of asserted your position as a fact.

Jesus calls scripture God's words. I do not think Jesus says the same thing about the Church.

Christ never calls the Scripture God’s words. and even if He did, He would only be talking about the Old Testament.

and He does call the Church the pillar and ground of truth.

 

[All Becomes New]

that’s like saying the Bible isn’t inspired because books of the Bible disagree with each other on certain points, or because many people disagree on what it means.

For a person who does not see the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, yeah. But what is your basis that the Church is equal to scripture? Where does it say that in scripture?

I did, but you didn’t define apostle properly. you just kind of asserted your position as a fact.

An apostle is someone who is specially called by God as a leader in the Church and the work of ministry and who has received a greater degree of revelation than everyone else. You would be able to understand this if you read the thread I posted.

Christ never calls the Scripture God’s words. and even if He did, He would only be talking about the Old Testament.

How do you know Christ does not know what would be written afterwords?

Matthew 4:4
"He answered, “It is written: Man must not live on bread alone but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.”"

Is that talking about Tradition? I think it would be very hard to make that case given the proceeding dialog between Christ and Satan.

 

[ArmyMatt]

For a person who does not see the scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit, yeah. But what is your basis that the Church is equal to scripture? Where does it say that in scripture?

the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. the gates of hades will not prevail against the Church.

An apostle is someone who is specially called by God as a leader in the Church and the work of ministry and who has received a greater degree of revelation than everyone else. You would be able to understand this if you read the thread I posted.

that’s not what apostle means. that’s not the word in Greek that Christ used.

How do you know Christ does not know what would be written afterwords?

of course He knew because He is the all-knowing Son of God. his audience didn’t know, and he was teaching them.

Is that talking about Tradition? I think it would be very hard to make that case given the proceeding dialog between Christ and Satan.

He’s actually referring to Himself, since He is the Word Who is with God from the beginning. but since He is quoting Scripture, He certainly makes use of Tradition, because Scripture is central to the Tradition.

 

[All Becomes New]

the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. the gates of hades will not prevail against the Church.

That does not mean that tradition is equal to scripture.

that’s not what apostle means. that’s not the word in Greek that Christ used.

An apostle is someone who has received revelation from Christ Himself and was chosen before they were born.

Galatians 1:12, 15
"For I did not receive it from a human source and I was not taught it, but it came by a revelation of Jesus Christ. But when God, who from my mother’s womb set me apart and called me by his grace, was pleased"

of course He knew because He is the all-knowing Son of God. his audience didn’t know, and he was teaching them.

Which we read today... in scripture.

He’s actually referring to Himself, since He is the Word Who is with God from the beginning. but since He is quoting Scripture, He certainly makes use of Tradition, because Scripture is central to the Tradition.

The problem is that your traditions are not derived from scripture.

Look, are you going to give me feedback on my thread or not? You said you would, but IDEK if you have looked at it yet.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That does not mean that tradition is equal to scripture.

that’s a dichotomy that’s not found in Scripture.

An apostle is someone who has received revelation from Christ Himself and was chosen before they were born.

that’s actually not what it means in the original Greek. you’re assuming you are defining it in the same way.

Which we read today... in scripture.

sure, that has nothing to do with Christ speaking to a first century audience.

The problem is that your traditions are not derived from scripture.

so says you, but you haven’t shown that to be true. you’re just asserting it.

Look, are you going to give me feedback on my thread or not? You said you would, but IDEK if you have looked at it yet.

sure, but the problem is your thread (and all of your posts) are how you see it. well, there’s gotta be something apart from you that I can look to apart from your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[All Becomes New]

that’s a dichotomy that’s not found in Scripture.

Sure there is. Paul rebuked Peter. That's as clear as anything that humans (Christians, all of them) are fallible.

that’s actually not what it means in the original Greek. you’re assuming you are defining it in the same way.

You can either tell me, or I can look it up myself. Which do you prefer?

sure, that has nothing to do with Christ speaking to a first century audience.

Who is Satan in this context.

so says you, but you haven’t shown that to be true. you’re just asserting it.

I don't really care to debate you on your own tradition of Christianity. Is that really difficult to understand?

sure, but the problem is your thread (and all of your posts) are how you see it. well, there’s gotta be something apart from you that I can look to apart from your interpretation of Scripture.

If you don't care what scripture explicitly says, then just say so.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Sure there is. Paul rebuked Peter. That's as clear as anything that humans (Christians, all of them) are fallible.

sure, but that’s not tradition vs Scripture.

You can either tell me, or I can look it up myself. Which do you prefer?

you look it up, because when I look stuff up it sticks.

Who is Satan in this context.

Satan was not in that particular point.

I don't really care to debate you on your own tradition of Christianity. Is that really difficult to understand?

we’re not talking about debating, but we also should present something as a base fact without supporting it.

If you don't care what scripture explicitly says, then just say so.

I do, I just don’t accept what you say simply because you say it. if all humans are fallible, then I should not just accept your interpretation of Scripture.

 

[All Becomes New]

sure, but that’s not tradition vs Scripture.

It is saying a pillar of the faith can be wrong. It does not say this about scripture. Where does tradition come from? People. People are fallible. Scripture is not.

you look it up, because when I look stuff up it sticks.

Which words?

Satan was not in that particular point.

That's literally who Jesus was talking to.

we’re not talking about debating, but we also should present something as a base fact without supporting it.

If you really want to force this into a debate, fine. Nicea II. Zero justification for it since the language of it says that Icon Veneration (bowing down to, kissing, praying through the Icon) goes back to the Apostles when it doesn't and anathemas are attached to this.

I do, I just don’t accept what you say simply because you say it. if all humans are fallible, then I should not just accept your interpretation of Scripture.

You must decide for yourself. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am asking for feedback. I said that at the beginning.

 

[Lukaris]

I was told by our parish priests that New Testament scripture had to be reliably from an apostle. It could be written by a scribe of an apostle like the Gospel of St.Mark that was preached by St.Peter ( for ex.).

There were other writings that are traditionally acceptable like the Protoevangelion of St. James. This writing traces its origin to James, the Lord’s step brother and is accepted within tradition. It is not acceptable as scripture since it is a faithful but secondary ( & perhaps slightly confused) account of St. James’ faith. This writing was later condemned in the Western Church which the Eastern Church seems to believe was extreme.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It is saying a pillar of the faith can be wrong. It does not say this about scripture. Where does tradition come from? People. People are fallible. Scripture is not.

except it says THE pillar and ground of Truth. and Tradition comes from God, since He was the first to hand us something down (which is what tradition means).

Which words?

in this case, Apostle.

That's literally who Jesus was talking to.

yeah, in the specific verse you mentioned, but that wasn’t the overall point.

If you really want to force this into a debate, fine. Nicea II. Zero justification for it since the language of it says that Icon Veneration (bowing down to, kissing, praying through the Icon) goes back to the Apostles when it doesn't and anathemas are attached to this.

I am not going to debate you, but thanks. we do have an answer to this and we can debate it in our debate forum if you want. I just wanted something a little more concrete.

You must decide for yourself. I am not asking you to agree with me. I am asking for feedback. I said that at the beginning.

well, if you want feedback you should not argue that we can’t trust man because he is fallen, and then link with how you see it.

 

[All Becomes New]

in this case, Apostle.

The base meaning is "sent one." However, that is not all the word entails; especially for the 12 and Paul.

yeah, in the specific verse you mentioned, but that wasn’t the overall point.

The point was that Jesus was tempted and they fought over what scripture says. That is literally the sword of the Spirit that Jesus used.

well, if you want feedback you should not argue that we can’t trust man because he is fallen, and then link with how you see it.

I believe in the end, the truth will win out. I believe the church will be united before the Lord's return. As such, I do NOT believe that any one church will take over and become the One True Church. Perhaps something radical happens and your tradition, and Catholics, and Protestants all learn from each other and Christianity changes to be something different, something more truthful. Humans are fallible. I am fallible. But that is why I want to learn. As of yet, you deny that I you can learn from me, and as a consequence, I have no reason to learn from you. Yet, here we are. I am still asking for what you think of what I have written. The Bible says with many counselors, plans succeed. That is really all I am doing in asking you.

 

[All Becomes New]

@ArmyMatt,

You seem to think my problem is fundamental. But the thing is, the vast majority of human population does not view things the same way you think that because we are fallible we can't learn from each other. Rather, it is largely the opposit: because we are fallible, we need to get input from each other to correct each other.

And I'm pretty close to just saying forget it since I would have to convert to Orthodox before you would ever consider looking at what I said. So much for learning from Protestants. What a joke.

 

[All Becomes New]

I am not going to debate you, but thanks. we do have an answer to this and we can debate it in our debate forum if you want. I just wanted something a little more concrete.

Of course, you have "an answer" to this. If you didn't, your whole tradition would crumble to the ground. That does not mean your answer succeeds. It's the same exact thing I ran into talking to a Calvinist about 1 Joh 2:2 in that he was saying it poses no problem for limited atonement. Everyone is sure that their tradition is correct. No one wants to give an inch.

I try and be faithful to scripture. I am not saying I am infallible. I am as fallible as anyone. But you learn as you go. A wise man recently told me, when I asked him how I know if I am reaching my potential in being an online evangelist, he said that if it feels like I am banging my head against a wall (what it seems like talking with you) to step back and reevaluate. I immediately thought of my conversation with the Calvinist who is sure that 1 John 2:2 poses no problem for limited atonement. It's the same thing with you and interpreting literally everything through tradition.

 

[All Becomes New]

Tradition is not immune to error and thinking it is is weird.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The base meaning is "sent one." However, that is not all the word entails; especially for the 12 and Paul.

I just asked what the definition of the word is. yes, it means one who is sent. that’s all I was asking. and yes, when it comes to the 12 and the 70 it’s more nuanced because they were selected by Christ in a unique way and all were called after experiencing the resurrected Christ.

The point was that Jesus was tempted and they fought over what scripture says. That is literally the sword of the Spirit that Jesus used.

yes, One followed the Tradition He laid out and gave the proper understanding, the other deviated and gave his own.

I believe in the end, the truth will win out. I believe the church will be united before the Lord's return. As such, I do NOT believe that any one church will take over and become the One True Church. Perhaps something radical happens and your tradition, and Catholics, and Protestants all learn from each other and Christianity changes to be something different, something more truthful. Humans are fallible. I am fallible. But that is why I want to learn. As of yet, you deny that I you can learn from me, and as a consequence, I have no reason to learn from you. Yet, here we are. I am still asking for what you think of what I have written. The Bible says with many counselors, plans succeed. That is really all I am doing in asking you.

well, Orthodoxy professes Truth has won and the Church is united.

I never said I can’t learn from you, I said as far as the post you gave, its premise has some red flags.