Presenting the Gospel

[abacabb3]

Will check it out! JM, you are a real blessing for us here! Thanks for the info.

 

[abacabb3]

As for the icons, I don't think I have the patience to argue that issue. GOd bless you.

 

[JM]

I don't really want to argue over icons either but I'm using the thread to show the history behind there use was settle by the State, that it was a late tradition and a tradition not accepted universally by Christians.

 

[GQ Chris]

I was just getting warmed up, but it looks like that original thread got zapped out of existence. I wanted to ask the EO people who thought that John Calvin and Martin Luther were heretics.

 

[abacabb3]

They would have said that they were, so?

 

[JM]

What's the jist of the AF broadcast? Curious to know but don't have time to listen right now. Please!

I'm off today, I have to go in tomorrow, doing laundry and finished cleaning the house. Now that I have the washer and dryer full I thought, "why not do gordy my boy a solid and type out the questions the Eastern Orthodox Priest simply could not answer." Chamber music is playing in the background, laptop is on...here we go...

The recording is a highlight reel with the Priest offering commentary and not a real debate in any sense of the word. Some of the audio is a little choppy but I'll do my best.

Background: The Priests name is Joseph Huneycutt and the topic was about Scripture and Tradition. To give you an idea of how it went down a bunch of people arrived to the discussion with their Bibles prepared to ask questions. The Priest seems kind, generally warmhearted but clueless as to how to answer the questions asked by the audience member though the discussion was about Scripture and Tradition the Priest didn't bring a Bible and seemed unprepared to answer questions about the Bible. The Priest admits he made a bunch of mistakes and I commend him for his honesty and his willingness to expect it with humility. Fr. Joseph Huneycutt was a former Southern Baptist who relates how he fell in love with God and was exposed to the Bible daily, mentioning how in North Carolina where is from, they even take their Bibles camping with them. He moved from Southern Baptist to Episcopalian, eventually leaving the Episcopal church in search of "truth." I like how Huneycutt believes the churches teachings should never change to suit the sinner, rather, the sinner must change. I'm assuming this is why he ended up becoming apart of the Eastern Orthodox church, the "Ark of Salvation" as he calls it.

Someone from the audience mentions 1 Cor. 11.14 which reads, "Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?" and asked about the baptism of infants.

Huneycutt mentions the common Baptist idea of confessors baptism, makes the claim that the person asking the question doesn't understand baptism and admits he doesn't understand baptism either. Since we give our children good things, baptism being good, we give it to our children. Somehow they receive Christ in baptism. It's a mystery. They become full members in the EOC and can take part in communion. Huneycutt mentions household baptisms but quickly abandons the Bible for tradition. "Holy Tradition, I'd like to say, is basicly the Holy Spirit plus time. That's what Tradition is. Our Lord said he would send us the Paraclete, the Comforter, who would lead us into all truth. So the Holy Spirit plus time is my poor definition of Tradition and what Holy Tradition is."

My own thoughts on that: He doesn't understand baptism. It's not just his problem but a problem within Eastern Orthodoxy itself, the EOC retreats to mystery far too often, and in so doing lack the ability to defend their position. The EO also assume that since they don't understand the "mystery of baptism" no one else can. If that isn't arrogance I don't know what is. His definition of tradition is useful.

He picks back up with 1. Cor. 11.14

"What do I make of that verse? I believe in the church. The church in various times has said hair, beard, set you apart, people know that you're a clergyman. I'm not going to convince you"

The guy in the audience tells him, "So this is just another example than of where your tradition is different from the scriptures."

Huneycutt: "Where our Tradition is different than the scripture...(slight hesitation) We take the scripture as a whole, we don't pull verses out, we don't pull verses out and build our church around it. The church gives us the scriptures, and the same church that gives us the scriptures had a bunch of hairy men that voted which books went into the canon of scripture."

My own thoughts: The questioner did seem to pull the verse out of context and used it incorrectly. Huneycutt explains in his commentary portion of the audio that Paul was speaking to elaborately adorned hair. I think that makes sense. What is more important is how he answered, not the question itself, but that the EOC doesn't feel it is bound to scripture in any sense. The scriptures find their authority in the government of the EOC and not the other way around. They are bound by nothing but their Traditions...whatever they may be.

Questioner: "Yes sir, thank you for the opportunity to ask you a question. I would like to revisit the subject of infant baptism. It just seems to me that the statement about households being baptized Acts 16 and other places like that, you're assuming what is to be proven. You're assuming infants in those households when you would not find that in scripture. When Jesus taught the disciplines to go forth He taught them to teach and baptize. You teach people (a big disgruntled breath, maybe a yawn into the mic, I'm assuming it's the Priest lol) then you baptize the people you're teaching. Jesus also said in Mark 16.16 'he who believes and is baptized shall be saved." In Acts the 8th chapter v. 35 a man confessed Christ and was baptized. In Acts 2.38 the Apostle Peter said "repent and be baptized." Repentance involves a forsaking of sin, first of all there is no proof that the infant has any sin and if he does how can he forsake it. My point is, how can all of these things; teaching, belief, repentance, confession of Christ all precede baptism in the Bible examples. Now I know you can find things outside the Bible but, is the Bible going to be our standard or not, and I think what you're doing is 'saying we'll set aside the Bible standard and tradition will be our standard' if that's not what you've taught tonight than I've misunderstood and I'm ready to hear clarification."

Huneycutt jumps right in: "As I've said tonight at the beginning, I don't know if you were here, I'm not a Bible scholar. I'm just a sinner. But I will say this, what I just said was that for 500 years before, these were universally accepted by the church, the church was baptizing infants. From the very beginning and those same people baptizing infants saw no problem with the codifying the scriptures that you are quoting from."

Questioner: "Sir, this is the beginning right here in the book of Acts, this is the beginning of the church and there's no infant baptism. You know that and so do I. And my question is...

Huneycutt cuts him off: "No I don't, no, no, no, please."

(Laughter from the audience.)

Questioner: "Ok, I'm sorry."

Huneycutt: "I don't know what you know what I know. Ok. I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything I'm saying the same church that gave you that Bible was baptizing infants and you say 'well I don't find it written here.' St. Basil the Great said, 'Just because you don't find it in the Bible doesn't mean that it isn't an equal part of our Tradition.'"

Questioner: "Well I would agree that it may be apart of the tradition because it's not found in the Bible, (Huneycutt chuckles into the mic) but my point is that in the book of Acts, which was authoritative long before there was any council, this was written by Luke by 63 / 64ad at the latest. This is early (can't make it out, Huneycutt jumps in with)

Huneycutt: "How did they get it? Did they download it? Who all had it?"

Questioner: "It was written by Luke..." (cut off again)

Huneycutt: "I know Luke had it how did he get it disseminated?"

Questioner: "In the book of Colossians chapter 4 the Apostle Paul told the church of Colossi to disseminate his letters among the other churches..." (cut off again)

Huneycutt: "How did Luke get his Gospel out to people?"

Questioner: "Well Luke wrote it and then it was copied, and copies were distributed throughout the churches."

Huneycutt: "Ok."

Questioner: "I think, I think you and I would agree on that."

Huneycutt: "Ok."

Questioner: "But my point is this, that the book of Acts is early church practice, and maybe you were unaware and I'm sorry for putting words in your mouth, but, when I read the book of Acts I can find no indication of infant baptism. I find that people before they were baptized were taught, they believed, they repented of their sins and confessed Christ. None of which infants can do and why do we then have tradition that runs contrary to those things we find in the book of Acts [that] preceded baptism"

Huneycutt: "I think the way I read, just to go back to your earlier point, we're commanded, the Apostles are commanded, to go and make disciples of all nations. And my children were all baptized, and believe me they have been disciplined in a Christian home from the beginning. We teach by our living example, you know there's nothing stirring within me that says, 'you know he might be right' because I believe the church is the authority...the same church that gave us the scripture, the same church that's been baptizing, at least the way the church believes, from the beginning." (Questioner cuts in)

Questioner: "But sir, this, the book of Acts wasn't given by the church it was given by the Holy Spirit through Luke. And, and I know you believe that, I believe that, it didn't take a church 400 years latter to make it authoritative, this was authoritative from the time it was written. That's, that's the nature of inspiration and the writings of the Holy Spirit."

The audio is interrupted by Huneycutt's commentary on the back and forth. He states, "...I knew this was not going anywhere. In fact arguing, verse by verse, with someone not (emphasis added to not) of the Orthodox faith, is usually fruitless."

Audio picks back up.

Honeycutt: "Well then we'll just have to disagree. I'm not trying to make a convert of you, and you (emphasis on you) will not make one of me."

Questioner: "Well I'd like to."

(laughter from the audience)

Honeycutt: "I know you would."

A quick commentary by the Priest. When the audio picks back up he is relating his own journey toward the EOC. Another break for a quick comment from Honeycutt and then...

Questioner: "'For laying aside the commandment of God you hold the tradition of men. As the washing of pots and cups and many other such things you do and he said to them full well you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your own tradition making the word of God of none effect through your tradition.' So in those cases where your tradition differs Jesus condemned people in the past."

Huneycutt: "I don't think that taking one verse out and comparing it to the witness of 2,000 years of the church, it doesn't enter my mind to do that. I can understand it, but we just don't do that in Orthodoxy. Ah, Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees merely for having traditions he rejected the false traditions that the Pharisees practiced. And condemned them for making the observance of certain legitimate traditions more important than following the teachings of God's word. The Pharisees were obsessed with observing external observances and meticulous detail, while at the same time negating God's commandments. Jesus taught his disciples to keep legitimate traditions but to avoid being hypocritical as the Pharisees were. This is exactly the position of the Orthodox church. The Orthodox church rejects traditions that are at variance with the scripture, the way we understand it (placed emphasis on 'the way we understand it'), and practices only those which are proper expressions of the Christian faith. The Orthodox faithful are warned in the services of the church not to fall into same errors as the Pharisees did."

The last few minutes were spent with the Priest claiming he wasn't trying to convert anyone or make any religious arguments. The Questioner is confused because he thought the Priest was a religious teacher and the audience was instructed to ask challenging questions of he speaking. I get the impression Honeycutt was in over his head and tried to get out of further discussion with the Questioner. That's just my opinion have a listen for yourself.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[gord44]

Thanks JM. Appreciate it.

 

[gord44]

On the topic of baptism and since most folks here are Calvinists of some sort, what do Calvinist credobaptists think of Calvin's stance on infant baptism?

I read this from his Institutes before JM took it from me;

"infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8)

I also remember that Servitus was executed partly because of his objections to infant baptism.

In all honesty I didn't even ponder this when i was a Calvinist but I noticed it the other day.

 

[gord44]

I will say in support of credobaptism that the Dichache, which is championed by many ancient church supporters, infant baptism doesn't seem to be mentioned.

(1) Concerning baptism, baptize in this way. After you have spoken all these things, "baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit," in running water.

(2) If you do not have running water, baptize [baptizon] in other water. If you are not able in cold, then in warm.

(3) If you do not have either, pour out [ekcheo] water three times on the head "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

(4) Before the baptism [baptizomenos] the one baptizing [baptizon] and the one being baptized [baptizomenos] are to fast, and any others who are able. Command the one being baptized [baptizomenon] to fast beforehand a day or two.

 

[abacabb3]

IMy own thoughts: The questioner did seem to pull the verse out of context and used it incorrectly. Huneycutt explains in his commentary portion of the audio that Paul was speaking to elaborately adorned hair. I think that makes sense. What is more important is how he answered, not the question itself, but that the EOC doesn't feel it is bound to scripture in any sense.

The bold part is exactly the problem. THey essentially view themselves has prophets giving new revelation. The RCC teaches that retroactively the tradition always conforms to what the Church teaches today. It is a mind boggling position.

However, 1 Cor 11:14 is not taken out of context. Paul was teaching that men and women can be differentiated upon to show hierarchy. This is why head coverings are so important in worship even today (for men not to wear and women to wear.) THe fact that people have abandoned both the clear, emphatic teaching of the Scripture and tradition on top of it shows that none of us take Scripture seriously enough.

 

[abacabb3]

On the topic of baptism and since most folks here are Calvinists of some sort, what do Calvinist credobaptists think of Calvin's stance on infant baptism?

I read this from his Institutes before JM took it from me;

"infants cannot be deprived of it[baptism] without open violation of the will of God"(Inst.4, 16, 8)

I also remember that Servitus was executed partly because of his objections to infant baptism.

In all honesty I didn't even ponder this when i was a Calvinist but I noticed it the other day.

Big reason I don't put "Calvinism" as my ID. I am a Christian. If Biblical Christianity is called "Calvinism" by some then so be it. But if Calvin or anyone else teaches something in contradiction to the Scripture, and this can be verified by a historical Christian witness of the Church, then I don't see how I am compelled to follow the teaching at the risk I am disobeying God.

 

[gord44]

The bold part is exactly the problem. THey essentially view themselves has prophets giving new revelation. The RCC teaches that retroactively the tradition always conforms to what the Church teaches today. It is a mind boggling position.

However, 1 Cor 11:14 is not taken out of context. Paul was teaching that men and women can be differentiated upon to show hierarchy. This is why head coverings are so important in worship even today (for men not to wear and women to wear.) THe fact that people have abandoned both the clear, emphatic teaching of the Scripture and tradition on top of it shows that none of us take Scripture seriously enough.

They do have the case that their tradition is 'pre scripture'. The NT in any shape we know it today didn't even exist prior to 140 and even then it wasn't even close to the NT we have today.

Maybe they were doing it wrong from the beginning and should have adjusted their practice to fit later scripture?

 

[gord44]

Big reason I don't put "Calvinism" as my ID. I am a Christian. If Biblical Christianity is called "Calvinism" by some then so be it. But if Calvin or anyone else teaches something in contradiction to the Scripture, and this can be verified by a historical Christian witness of the Church, then I don't see how I am compelled to follow the teaching at the risk I am disobeying God.

Thanks for the answer. I really have nothing to add, just curious about that and I appreciate you taking the time to answer

 

[abacabb3]

They do have the case that their tradition is 'pre scripture'.

How? The Scripture was written in the 40s to 60s outside of Revelation, which if we ignore the traditional date and just go by the evidence internally, may still be in that time period.

The NT in any shape we know it today didn't even exist prior to 140 and even then it wasn't even close to the NT we have today.

How so? All the letters and such were already written.

Maybe they were doing it wrong from the beginning and should have adjusted their practice to fit later scripture?

In 1 Cor 11 and I forget which Thessalonians, but both tell the congregation to hold fast to traditions. THen, they go and list what those traditions actually are. So, we know two things. First, the tradition was being followed. Second, what the tradition actually is, because the Scripture discusses it.

The Scripture is God-breathed and thereby the only source of tradition we have that is perfect. Extra-biblical tradition may not be "bad," but cannot make this claim. Hence, just like the Fathers, when we find two traditions conflicting, the Scripture is the sole guide to knowing which is the correct practice.

 

[abacabb3]

Thanks for the answer. I really have nothing to add, just curious about that and I appreciate you taking the time to answer

NP

 

[JM]

The bold part is exactly the problem. THey essentially view themselves has prophets giving new revelation. The RCC teaches that retroactively the tradition always conforms to what the Church teaches today. It is a mind boggling position.

However, 1 Cor 11:14 is not taken out of context. Paul was teaching that men and women can be differentiated upon to show hierarchy. This is why head coverings are so important in worship even today (for men not to wear and women to wear.) THe fact that people have abandoned both the clear, emphatic teaching of the Scripture and tradition on top of it shows that none of us take Scripture seriously enough.

I don't know...I think the fact that Jews during the time of Christ, the Nazerite vow to not cut their hair and the fact that pagan men often kept their hair short is telling.

I'm not going to say anymore than that.

As for baptism...that's the least of the EO worries. Their Gospel is a mass of confusion. The very fact that a Priest, a teacher and claimed former Baptist couldn't even offer a scriptural rebuttal is saddening.

The thread on Icons keeps getting bogged down and side tracked with other issues.

I'll make one more post and then unsubscribe.

jm

 

[GQ Chris]

I dunno, I think we argue enough about Theology for me to be interested enough to also include infants in the argueing.

 

[gord44]

How? The Scripture was written in the 40s to 60s outside of Revelation, which if we ignore the traditional date and just go by the evidence internally, may still be in that time period.

We don't really know what scripture was floating around at the time and who had it and who didn't. The first real attempt at a 'canon' wasn't until nearly 100 years later and even that 'canon' was by Marcion, who was considered a heretic for his 'unorthodox' views on the Hebrew Bible or Tanakh.

How so? All the letters and such were already written.

Same as above. There was no canon, no organized Christian scripture. No internet or postal service. No way of knowing who had what and if so and so was authoritative.

In 1 Cor 11 and I forget which Thessalonians, but both tell the congregation to hold fast to traditions. THen, they go and list what those traditions actually are. So, we know two things. First, the tradition was being followed. Second, what the tradition actually is, because the Scripture discusses it.

Noted.

The Scripture is God-breathed and thereby the only source of tradition we have that is perfect. Extra-biblical tradition may not be "bad," but cannot make this claim. Hence, just like the Fathers, when we find two traditions conflicting, the Scripture is the sole guide to knowing which is the correct practice.

2 Tim 3:16 is pre NT or Christian Bible. I am not sure that can be used unless it was meant to be used proactivly for something that didn't exist yet. Most likely just referring to the Tanakh.

Either way, not here to argue about that. Just pointing out that we can all agree that the Bible as Christians know it today or even knew it 1000 years ago didn't exist when many Church traditions were created.

Perhaps the Bible came to light and shone error on ancient ideas and lead to the Reformation?

 

[gord44]

I dunno, I think we argue enough about Theology for me to be interested enough to also include infants in the argueing.

hehe

 

[abacabb3]

I don't know...I think the fact that Jews during the time of Christ, the Nazerite vow to not cut their hair and the fact that pagan men often kept their hair short is telling.

This is going beyond my pay grade, but I do not think there were any Nazarites at that point. But even if they were, Paul spoke with the authority of God and made clear that it was a teaching binding on all the churches of God. The fact that anyone, other than liberals who doubt things like the virgin birth and the resurrection, disregard a teaching literally placed alongside the Lord's Supper simply boggles my mind. I know that there is a thread on it here so I don't want to belabor the point, but if the unanimous testimony of Scripture and Church Tradition does not convince people, how can they technically be convinced of anything?

That scares me.

As for baptism...that's the least of the EO worries. Their Gospel is a mass of confusion. The very fact that a Priest, a teacher and claimed former Baptist couldn't even offer a scriptural rebuttal is saddening.

That surprised me. He could have offered a pretend Scriptural defense (1 Cor 7, circumcision, I mean, something!)

It didn't stop him from quoting a Church Father who said something against the Scripture of course!

The thread on Icons keeps getting bogged down and side tracked with other issues.

I backed you up