Eastern Orthodoxy

[Philothei]

Do not judge something you do not know and you are never willing to know.... There are not "many churches" as the Protestant ones.....rather different juristictions from different parts of the ancient Patriarchates....in case you forgot that the Bible does talk about the different ....churches in the sense of location not dogma....and all our churches are of the same dogma....not practice as we differ as churches of a specific place....


This is why.....
"And they're not particularly consistent either"


Because our Church is universal in its dogma yet local in its application of the canons.... and rules and regulations..... it is not incosistent....


Sola scriptura .... is nowhere in the Bible... If you had sola scriptura then you admitt that the Bible popped out of the heaven.... given to people and it did not....It was written by people, edited by people, interpreted by all of you who you are people.... thus you are NOT sola scriptura either.... since you interpret the Bible in so many denominations..... and everyone of you believes otherwise.... take your pick....evangelicals, calvinists, lLutherans,,,,, and the list goes on and on.....The fathers "AGREED" on the canon of NT and OT the bible we have today..... if it was up to you would not have agreed to have even the BIBLE..... think about it.

It was the Church who by its first council radified the BIBLE .... it did take a bunch of Orthodox Fahters that put it together.....Our Church is not cultural.... in essence rather Bible tradition based as came down from the Apostles... the Bishops of the Ancient seas...


God bless,
Philothei

 

[colinlindsay]

Rick, that's true.

It's just how do you 'train' a congregation to be mindful of the body, when especially in protestant circles we don't have a strong doctrine of the Body.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

You are correct that there are a great deal of errors in Orthodoxy however there is a correct way to deal with them through gently showing them the error of EO and not being like a bull in a china shop.

It would be interesting to see the Reformed churches taking a similar approach to Catholicism.

 

[BBAS 64]

Do not judge something you do not know and you are never willing to know.... There are not "many churches" as the Protestant ones.....rather different juristictions from different parts of the ancient Patriarchates....in case you forgot that the Bible does talk about the different ....churches in the sense of location not dogma....and all our churches are of the same dogma....not practice as we differ as churches of a specific place....


This is why.....
"And they're not particularly consistent either"


Because our Church is universal in its dogma yet local in its application of the canons.... and rules and regulations..... it is not incosistent....


Sola scriptura .... is nowhere in the Bible... If you had sola scriptura then you admitt that the Bible popped out of the heaven.... given to people and it did not....It was written by people, edited by people, interpreted by all of you who you are people.... thus you are NOT sola scriptura either.... since you interpret the Bible in so many denominations..... and everyone of you believes otherwise.... take your pick....evangelicals, calvinists, lLutherans,,,,, and the list goes on and on.....The fathers "AGREED" on the canon of NT and OT the bible we have today..... if it was up to you would not have agreed to have even the BIBLE..... think about it.

It was the Church who by its first council radified the BIBLE .... it did take a bunch of Orthodox Fahters that put it together.....Our Church is not cultural.... in essence rather Bible tradition based as came down from the Apostles... the Bishops of the Ancient seas...


God bless,
Philothei

Good Day, Philothei

Seems that you have a "bad" view of the historical nature of Sola Scriptura.

Many fallacies here, I assume this is the just the view your church (in error) holds to as such it is their interpretation.

The fathers agreed.. , you can not be real.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Philothei]

what is the fallacy? you are not specific.... I wonder why?

The canon of the Bible was radified by the frist counsel....no one can change that.... and that very fact tells us that the bible did not pop from the sky.... like you claim...

Your reply tells me nothing other that we are "wrong'" quite a proof to Sola scriptura you think??? and

why so many "opinions" about Sola scriptura??? if sola scriptura was enough there would have been ONE Church not so many denominations that multiply by the second..... explain that to me....

and God bless,
Philothei

 

[BBAS 64]

what is the fallacy? you are not specific.... I wonder why?

The canon of the Bible was radified by the frist counsel....no one can change that.... and that very fact tells us that the bible did not pop from the sky.... like you claim...

Like I claim, where?
Fallacy, all the fathers agreed, unhistorical and a dream.

The current view of the "church" dpes not even agree with the historical "church".

Jerome

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

On the NT...

John of Damascus :

"The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:17)

Seems like your view of councils, exceed the writing of John Damascus, as his NT is not yours...

They all agree

You really have to spend more time on the issue, from an historical sense.

Your reply tells me nothing other that we are "wrong'" quite a proof to Sola scriptura you think??? and

why so many "opinions" about Sola scriptura??? if sola scriptura was enough there would have been ONE Church not so many denominations that multiply by the second..... explain that to me....

and God bless,
Philothei

Give me some of those "so many", I think you have created a strawman fallacy.

Sola Scriptura does not address the chuch , but the nature of Scripture thus the "Scriptura", bait and switch "fallacy".

I guess that would depend on how you define "denomination", and you have yet to prove that is objectively a "bad" thing and why your denomination is not one of many.

In Him,

Bill

 

[Thekla]

Like I claim, where?
Fallacy, all the fathers agreed, unhistorical and a dream.

The current view of the "church" dpes not even agree with the historical "church".

Jerome

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).

On the NT...

John of Damascus :

"The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John: the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist: seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude: fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul: the Revelation of John the Evangelist: the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement." (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, 4:17)

Seems like your view of councils, exceed the writing of John Damascus, as his NT is not yours...

They all agree

You really have to spend more time on the issue, from an historical sense.





Give me some of those "so many", I think you have created a strawman fallacy.

Sola Scriptura does not address the chuch , but the nature of Scripture thus the "Scriptura", bait and switch "fallacy".

I guess that would depend on how you define "denomination", and you have yet to prove that is objectively a "bad" thing and why your denomination is not one of many.

In Him,

Bill

it seems from your post that you expect a sort of "papal security".

The agreement is to be found in spirit, and is not always found in "letter". Issues were discussed, and where the results agreed with what the Church had always believed and practiced, then the results were "written". There is a range of opinion among the ECFs, but these writings are not always dogmatic, but indicative. Again, it is the agreement with what has been received from the beginning that is important. (Additionally, although I haven't researched the particular points you've raised in St. John of Damascus, he was Syriac IIRC, and the differences may be regional). So, for example, St. Gregory Palamas quotes St. Maximos. But the teachings of St. Maximos cite earlier ECFs. Further, their teachings also find their ground firmly in the Bible as well as Tradition.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Sola Scriptura does not address the chuch , but the nature of Scripture thus the "Scriptura", bait and switch "fallacy".

Quite the contrary. To affirm sola scriptura is necessarily to accept that the church at some point had the authority to define what scripture is. Like it or not, a multitude of 'Christian' books existed at the time and the only authority that picked out the books we now see as the NT was the church.

 

[Philothei]

The Bible was agreed upon by a council in Nicea and that is a historical fact... When i talked about the fathers agreeing I made the point that they had the councils where thy "officially" agreed about matters of faith and established dogma ....not on what they proclaimed individually of course they opinions would be slightly different that is normal also some of their writtings were condemned as heretical by the councils. I do not think you know well the history of christianity...or you would not be saying that......smart move BBAS accusing me of that one and the rest of "typical accusations" ... but it does not hold any water sorry ...and per my church history... I have read it and know it very well... Your answer still does not address the reason for so many Protestant denominations.... either....

Seems like your view of councils, exceed the writing of John Damascus, as his NT is not yours...

yes because the councils exceed the writing of Joh Damascus... and they do in reality. not all the Father's writtings were "radified" by the Church only the decisions by the councils...i.e. St. Augustine's writings (some ) were condemned as heretical by the coucils, that does not mean that they are not saints or that the rest of their writings are not of value of the church....I am glad you said that so i can clarify it.

"As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it read these two volumes for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church." - Jerome (Prefaces to the Books of the Vulgate Version of the Old Testament, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs).


this is again an opinion not radified through a coucil... proves nothing....

God bless,
Philothei

 

[Philothei]

Here... an article:

The Many and the One: The Interface Between Orthodox and Evangelical Protestant Hermeneutics

Grant R.Osborne

..................................................................................
Orthodox hermeneutics is centered in ecclesiology (the "many") and pneumatology, while post-Reformation Protestantism is centered in the individual (the "one") as the focus of God's redemptive activity. Meyendorff says that the greatest challenge to Orthodox scholars "is to preserve the 'ecclesial' character of their theology," which he defines as "the existence of a 'catholic' church, which receives the fullness of divine revelation for the sake of the salvation of all people."(3) All biblical interpretation is consciously done as part of the past (the Apostles and Fathers(4) of the Church) and present (liturgical celebration) Church. The Bible has its origin as the Book of God's people, and it is meant today to be read as such. Further, it is the Church that superintends its meaning and protects the Bible from heretical misunderstandings.
.........................................................................................................
/
..............................................................................................................

"The primary difference between the Orthodox and Protestant lies in the exact place and understanding of Tradition in the life of the Church. The Orthodox criticize the emphasis on sola scriptura in post-Reformation Protestantism as an over-reaction to the Catholic magisterium. The argument is that without Tradition the true historical message or Scripture cannot be appreciated, for the hermeneutical criterion becomes the Church of the present without the guidance and wisdom of the Church of the past. Scripture can become merely a series of Iiteralistic prepositional statements cut off from Church life.(35)
There is a great deal of truth in this criticism, but it is important to realize that "tradition" plays a complex but definite role in evangelical theology. It is true that many have completely rejected tradition in reaction to the Catholic magisterium. However, it is mere pretence to think that one can "reject" tradition. Since "tradition" means a set of established beliefs inherited from the past leaders of a movement, every denomination and Christian leader inherits a traditional belief system that is in many ways binding. Those who reject any notion of "tradition" are all the more controlled by these inherited views because they are not interacting with these dogmas consciously but are presupposing them unconsciously. Brown states that,
it is neither scientific nor possible to ignore tradition and to attempt to understand theology anew every year or every day.... If the church erred by smothering Scripture in tradition, much contemporary scholarship, especially evangelical scholarship, errs by dissecting the Scripture out of the body of believers and the body of belief, by cutting it out of and away from its place In the life -i.e., the tradition- of the company of believers.(36)



In recent years a growing number have been calling evangelicals to return to their patristic roots. One of the most vocal has been Robert Webber, who calls for a "biblical and historic faith" and states that an overemphasis on personal piety to the neglect of church and sacrament has led evangelicals to forego its past roots in favour of an inward and individualistic religion.(37) The solution is to return to the historic faith in terms of both worship and tradition, and this means to the "rule of faith" (redefined as the creedal tradition ) of Iranaeus and Tertullian. Webber calls for a new reformation: 1) The historic belief and practice of the church must be separated from human systems of theology. 2) Apostolic tradition, not the doctrine of verbal inerrancy, is the actual authoritative basis for Christian truth. 3) The "authoritative substance of Christian truth" stems from Scripture and is found in the early creeds; "it is the key to the interpretation of Scripture." 4) The living church, not individualistic approaches, is the true receiver and preserver of truth; thus "what the church has always believed, taught, and passed down in history" should have primacy. 5) The task of the present church is to formulate the faith so as to remain "faithful to the original deposit."(38) This movement has been quite controversial in evangelical circles but nevertheless remains influential.
A great deal has been written lately on the place of historical theology in theological formulation. I have argued elsewhere for a twofold purpose of historical theology: to show how individual doctrines have developed throughout church history, and to trace the origins and development of one's own confessional tradition.(39) Muller adds two others: awareness of how one's own presuppositions cohere with the assumptions of past ages, and the ability to observe doctrine in its original formative context as a control on present understanding.40 Evangelical scholars have long been aware of the critical role tradition plays in all biblical and theological decisions.
The primary difference is not in the role of tradition but in the binding power of tradition in interpreting Scripture. In tracing the relation of tradition to theology, a continuum may be drawn from Catholicism, in which tradition is a critical, at times binding, interpreter of Scripture in theological decisions; and evangelicalism, in which tradition provides models for theological decisions but is not binding in the final analysis. The extent to which traditional formulations are binding in evangelical groups is difficult to ascertain and differs from group to group. It is true, for instance, that in many Reformed circles Calvin and Augustine are indeed binding, and the same is true for Wesley or Arminius in many Arminian denominations. In other words, in most evangelical groups, as in Orthodoxy, the views of the founding fathers are at times treated as virtually infallible.

Yet at the theoretical level, evangelicals try to be aware of the fallibility of all interpreters, past as well as present"

On the whole, evangelicalism gives no more preference to ancient scholars than to present commentators; from Chrysostom to Augustine to Aquinas to Calvin to the scholars of the current age, all are theoretically given equal weight as interpreters to the Biblical data. As Erickson says, tradition does not have legislative authority, establishing a final statement of theological truth, but judicial authority, depending on the extent to which the tradition faithfully utilizes and elucidates the biblical teaching.(41)
........................................................................................................................................

You c an read the rest here for anyone interested.


http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/OsborneScripture.php


God bless,

Philothei

 

[bradfordl]

Babble, babble, babble, babble.

An idolater is an idolater is an idolater is an idolater.

Eastern orthodoxy is idolatry. All the dancing and quibbling and erudite obfuscation cannot change that. Any in that synagogue of Satan who are of the elect will heed the Shepherd's call and come out of it. The mutitudes of sons of destruction there who find solace and warm fuzzies bowing to idols will perish in their idolatry.

So what is the obviously strong desire of you EO idolaters to come over here to this forum and proselytise? Your father given you the marching orders to try and stumble the sons of the living God? Won't work. The war is already won. Why do you waste your time?

 

[SaintPhotios]

Babble, babble, babble, babble.

An idolater is an idolater is an idolater is an idolater.

Eastern orthodoxy is idolatry. All the dancing and quibbling and erudite obfuscation cannot change that. Any in that synagogue of Satan who are of the elect will heed the Shepherd's call and come out of it. The mutitudes of sons of destruction there who find solace and warm fuzzies bowing to idols will perish in their idolatry.

So what is the obviously strong desire of you EO idolaters to come over here to this forum and proselytise? Your father given you the marching orders to try and stumble the sons of the living God? Won't work. The war is already won. Why do you waste your time?

Your words are now empty gestures.... you do nothing more than continually accuse of idolatry. When you attempt to bring forth a point, and it is shot down, you go back to accusations of idolatry again. It's utterly empty.

If we are such obvious idolaters, then you should have no problem coming up with a coherent set of points explaining your position. Yet you don't because you can't? So why is it you keep spewing on the same baseless accusations? If you had a case, you'd present it and no longer rely on your mere name-calling. Yet you fail to do so. Is God's truth so easily defeated that those sworn to protect it tremble with repetitive nonsense? God's truth is supposed to be powerful, and easily defended against the absurdities of Satan. And you bring what? --- more and more of the same mindless name-calling? Those without God's truth will be unable to rest firmly on it. This has never been more obvious than right here in this discussion.

 

[bradfordl]

Your words are now empty gestures.... you do nothing more than continually accuse of idolatry. When you attempt to bring forth a point, and it is shot down, you go back to accusations of idolatry again. It's utterly empty.

I have brought forth no points that anyone has shot down. Iconography is idolatry, proven over and over, your ridiculous convoluted denials notwithstanding. And I've stayed out of this debate for some time, but the continual dripping of heretics' attempts to stumble those of the household of God becomes a vexation that after a time I have not the stomach to ignore. Why don't you crawl back under the slimy rock that idolaters belong under and leave my brethren alone?

 

[Philothei]

I have brought forth no points that anyone has shot down. Iconography is idolatry, proven over and over, your ridiculous convoluted denials notwithstanding. And I've stayed out of this debate for some time,

Good and you should keep it that way....

but the continual dripping of heretics' attempts to stumble those of the household of God becomes a vexation that after a time I have not the stomach to ignore. Why don't you crawl back under the slimy rock that idolaters belong under and leave my brethren alone?

Who is under the rock? Not a 2,000 years old Church the second Church of Christendom in the WORLD? or the individual.... proterstant Churches that no one answers me......"who from all of you has the truth?"


since you cannot bring forth any proof of what you are saying why do not do us the favor and stop posting the same and the same and the same....that is a straw man.....

Idolatry is also worshiping the BIBLE as a word of God.....and not Christ himself as God and savior....

.... when you absolutize any truth you become a heretic.... This is a debate area and we have the same right that you do to INFORM about our Church. The Church of the Apostles, the Creed and the Councils where so many ex-protestants have come to appreciate and embrace ....

guess what .... I wonder why??? Maybe because we are the Historical Church of Jesus Christ... the ones who kept the tradition of the Bible? The ones who defended all heresies.... The one that spoke the language of the Gospels?? The ones who kept the meaning of the word Church as it was intented by the Apostles?

Fr. Peter Guilguist, Frank Scheffer, and others who joined our Church.....coming from the Protestant traditions


Again this a debate forum we do hardly prosylitize. We do evangelize to those who are honesty and commited to learn the faith of the Apostles... Conversion in our faith takes longer, as in order to aquire the faith one has to make a greater commitment in Christ, His Gospel, and His Church.





God bless,

Philothei

 

[jckstraw72]

i love how ppl like bradfordl believe that God left His Body to wallow in idolatry for 1500 yrs ... youre saying great things about God there buddy.

 

[bradfordl]

Good and you should keep it that way....

Why? Because it would make your nefarious little task a tad easier? Get thee behind me.

i love how ppl like bradfordl believe that God left His Body to wallow in idolatry for 1500 yrs ... youre saying great things about God there buddy.

The EO is NOT His Body... His Body has never engaged in idolatry. Not your buddy, either. No enemy of Christ is any "buddy" of mine. So why the fixation with attempting to draw believers away into your error? Why not spend your time encouraging one another's idolatry on your own forum? Misery love company? Sure seems to be alot of you bantering twisted defenses of idolatry over here.

1Co 6:9-10 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, (10) Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

1Pe 4:1-5 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin; (2) That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God. (3) For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries: (4) Wherein they think it strange that ye run not with them to the same excess of riot, speaking evil of you: (5) Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

1Jn 2:17-19 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever. (18) Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. (19) They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Rev 22:14-15 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (15) For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

God has ordained that false christs and false gospels and false brethren, and yes, even false churches would arise over the course of redemptive history. That says nothing untoward about Him, it is His will:

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

 

[jckstraw72]

The EO is NOT His Body... His Body has never engaged in idolatry. Not your buddy, either. No enemy of Christ is any "buddy" of mine. So why the fixation with attempting to draw believers away into your error? Why not spend your time encouraging one another's idolatry on your own forum? Misery love company? Sure seems to be alot of you bantering twisted defenses of idolatry over here.

for 1500 yrs you could either be EO, Catholic, or OO -- all of which use images. So you believe God was powerless to maintain a true Church.

 

[Philothei]

......"who from all of you has the truth?"

Let's see.....

Maybe in the thousands right....Enought said.

Do not talk to us about fallacy... look at the facts ...the historical ones that is. And stop calling us something you do not even know its meaning....

God bless,
Philothei

 

[Ceridwen]

Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs. Jonah 2:8-9.

 

[jckstraw72]

Those who cling to worthless idols forfeit the grace that could be theirs. Jonah 2:8-9.

truly truly. this would be a good verse to remember any time were tempted to lift up any sin as more important than God.