Eastern Orthodoxy

[heymikey80]

Websters never registered a copyright; user beware, anyone who publishes a dictionary can use that name, so Websters cannot be considered an assurance of quality

hm.
http://www.m-w.com/info/copyright.htm

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=SaintPhotios;Are you saying that we can't know for sure what is or isn't true about the true teaching of Christ?

No, sir.

If we can't know "who", then it goes without saying that we can't know "what"........

But then, "Just when ya think ya know a guy..."

Does certainty have any place whatsoever regarding the teaching of Christ?

Yes it does.

 

[Thekla]

hm.
http://www.m-w.com/info/copyright.htm

thats M. - Webster's (hence the Merriam, because of the widespread use of Websters).

BBAS mentioned Webster's

 

[JM]

Only 43 pages?

lol

 

[colinlindsay]

Interesting thread this.
Also informative is the manner in which radically different understandings of the scriptures have been presented.
Is the insult and anger caused by:
1) righteous indignation (- Paul called the Judaisers 'dogs')
2) insecurity - the possibility that your hermeneutic is wrong and you may be floundering in the sea after all.
3) personal lack of at least one the fruit of the spirit.

I've made up my mind.

Paul talked about Judaisers being 'dogs'. He wished they would castrate themselves. He seemed to genuinely hate certain heretics. One evangelical web-site urges another to 'crawl back to the slime' they came from.

But I read this from Francis Schaeffer, a man keenly aware and angered by the rise of liberal apostasy:

Thirty five years ago in the Presbyterian crisis in the United States…we did not speak in love about those with whom we differed, and we have been paying a high price for it ever since. Some of them (Biblically orthodox Presbyterians of the 20s) treated the liberals as less than human, and therefore they learned bad habits that, later, when those who formed new groups developed minor differences among themselves, they continued to treat each other badly. Beware of the habits you learn in controversy…. It is not the principole of separation. It is the principle of the purity of the visible church. ("The Church before the Watching World)"

Can we square these two things? Can we learn something about the way we treat each other on these boards?




I've drawn my own conclusions.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=SaintPhotios;Are you saying that we can't know for sure what is or isn't true about the true teaching of Christ?

Not at all.

If we can't know "who", then it goes without saying that we can't know "what"........

I don't follow how you come to that conclusion.

Does certainty have any place whatsoever regarding the teaching of Christ?

Yes, of course.

 

[JM]

The EO have a debate forum. I'm over there now taking with them. Nice folks.

 

[JM]

A few threads to look at:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7861863/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7860979/
http://www.christianforums.com/t7861343/

 

[rakovsky]

Anyway, Gallatin's book is called "Thirsting for God"
He argues that Protestantism's methodology is rationalism and relativism, and is a cul-de-sac against the unity of tradition and scripture.
True experience of the living Christ through sacramnetal living leads to true understanding of doctrine. The protestant insistence on head knowledge leading to heart knowledge is just the wrong way round.

Hello, Colin!
I find this comment remarkable, because this is my own feeling and perception about Reformed Protestantism after being in the Orthodox Church for years.

I made a thread that deals in part with this topic here on the Reformed Debate section:
http://www.christianforums.com/thre...otestantism-lead-out-of-christianity.7931022/

To answer the OP, one Reformed professor who taught in Moscow for years and was sympathetic to Orthodox was asked why he didn't convert to Orthodoxy. He gave his reply in an essay, noting that Protestantism started when a theologian decided to put on the scholar's garments instead of a priest's robe.

If you notice in the pictures of Calvin, isn't he wearing the scholarly attire of the early modern period?

History of Choir Robes

A new style of pulpit wear took hold during the Reformation era, called the Geneva style. This style, still in use today, was based on Academic Regalia for doctoral graduates. Choirs of the reformation followed suit, adopting gowns based on the graduation robe style rather than the secular fashion of the day. It is at this time that the four basic types of gowns were established which remain today: clergy robes, choir gowns, academic robes, and judicial robes.

While vestments are worn by lay leaders, robes are not. The robe's original intent was to designate that the person had academic credentials. Starting with John Calvin, academic robes were worn in religious institutions and churches. To this day, clerical robes are typically worn in churches of the Reformed tradition, including Presbyterians, Calvinists, and Baptists.
http://www.academicapparel.com/choir/

Here is the Evangelical professor Clendenin's article, which includes criticisms of Orthodoxy:

Why I'm Not Orthodox
An evangelical explores the ancient and alien world of the Eastern church.
by Daniel B. Clendenin/ January 6, 1997

In 1523-24 the Reformers Ulrich Zwingli and Martin Luther donned the gown of the university scholar. This simple change of dress symbolized a radical shift that has characterized the Protestant West ever since: that the knowledge of God is mediated primarily through the written Word. The Puritan John Foxe, for example, insisted that "God conducted the Reformation by printing, writing, and reading." Before long, in Reformation churches the sermon had replaced the Eucharist as the defining moment of the liturgy.

...
To my friend who asked why I had not converted to Orthodoxy, the answer was surprisingly easy. I responded by writing back: "Because I am committed to key distinctives of the Protestant evangelical tradition."

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/1997/january6/7t1032.html?order=&start=10

The OP had asked for an Orthodox article responding. There are two:

Deacon [now Father] John Whiteford's Response to Mr. Clendenin's Article
Clendenin further remarks that "Evangelicals might be eager to argue there is no biblical warrant for iconography" but that "for the Orthodox, it is enough that icons have always been a part of Church tradition". Perhaps these Protestants have overlooked the Tabernacle and the Temple. No sooner had the Second commandment been uttered (which banned idols), God commanded the Israelites to make icons:

On the Ark—Ex. 25:18
On the Curtains of the Tabernacle (the "walls")—Ex. 26:1
On the Veil of the Holy of Holies—Ex. 26:31
Two huge Cherubim in the Sanctuary—1st Kings 6:23
On the Walls—1st Kings 6:29
On the Doors—1st Kings 6:32
And on the furnishings—1st Kings 7:29,36

In short everywhere you turned.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/clendenin.aspx

A former Evangelical wrote another reply to Clendenin's essay, noting that Clendenin is in fact trusting in a tradition, which is the last phrase in Clendenin's article (his commitment to the "evangelical tradition"):

Why Isn't Clendenin Orthodox?

Clendenin objects to the Orthodox view that Scripture and Tradition are "complementary means of one organic whole through which the Spirit of God speaks." Yet he never presents a defense of the Protestant view of authority stemming solely from the Bible. In a revealing moment, he says that "Orthodoxy explicitly rejects the historic Protestant ideal of sola scriptura," letting slip that he, too, puts his trust in a tradition - the tradition of the Reformation.


At various points in his article, Clendenin belies his ambivalent attitude toward tradition. On the one hand, any tradition must take a back seat to Scripture. Yet the only reason he can cite for accepting sola scriptura is that it is a "historic" idea. Of course, any number of heresies can claim a rich history. Moreover, the only reason a Protestant can cite for accepting the Bible at all is that it has been handed down by the Tradition of the Church.

Shortly after discovering Orthodoxy, my wife and I went back to visit our Protestant church. The pastor performed an "infant dedication" that morning, proudly proclaiming that this was "an ancient Protestant practice ... going back at last a hundred years." Protestants find themselves wanting to appeal to antiquity on the one hand, yet simultaneously rejecting anything old in the name of making the Gospel "contemporary.
http://www.roca.org/OA/149/149p.htm

 

[JM]

double post

 

[JM]

cygnusx1, "Furthermore, the apostles and those on whom they laid their hands could speak with tongues, prophesy and work miracles. They worked miracles to demonstrate their authority, to show that they were indeed inspired of God. In defense of his own authority, Paul said, "Indeed, the signs of the apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in miracles and wonders and deeds of power." (2 Cor. 12:12). No one can work miracles today as they did; thus, no one is inspired today and no one has the same authority today."