Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is belief in the Trinity required?Am appreciating following along.
Just one ? in this - I don't know of any extra-Scriptural requirements for salvation within Orthodoxy? Do those in or out of our Tradition perceive any?
Interesting question.Is belief in the Trinity required?
I agree.But required for salvation? I'm honestly not sure we would say that. The only completely firm requirement I think no one would deny is that the person must not willingly reject God's forgiveness and mercy.
Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:Am appreciating following along.
Just one ? in this - I don't know of any extra-Scriptural requirements for salvation within Orthodoxy? Do those in or out of our Tradition perceive any?
Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:
Prayer To The Saints
Apostolic Succession
Ecumenical Councils as Infallible
Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption
and if a member rejects any of them, does it matter?
Apologies in advance for the brevity, as I can only answer part of this in the few minutes I have right now. It's been a great day, but very busy!Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:
Prayer To The Saints
Apostolic Succession
Ecumenical Councils as Infallible
Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption
and if a member rejects any of them, does it matter?
That would be because the orthodox church asserts that it is a pre-New Testament church (as it applies to the written words).Yes, my reservation about that is that it apparently asserts that doctrines can be developed that have no Scriptural basis. Not that they conflict with Scripture, because that wouldn't be allowed, but which are nevertheless extra-Scriptural beliefs. Why any church would think that process to be necessary to engage in, I cannot appreciate.
So, your point is that some of what's required of the members is not Biblical because the church says it was part of the faith of the Apostles but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle. But is there any evidence of that? None that I am aware of. How about you?The oral tradition and practice pre-dates even the first epistle's (James) writing by at least 20-25 years. The other 'books' trickled in over time, while the church was practicing. It's not just the establishment of canon. Even if we were to assume that every letter was immediately recognized as canon upon its writing, there's still the problem of the timeline.
The New Testament is actually from within the church's tradition, it's not extra or an aside. They are inseparable.
Let's turn this around temporarily for the sake us who are not Orthodox. What is the basis for such teachings as:
Prayer To The Saints
Apostolic Succession
Ecumenical Councils as Infallible
Mary's Ever-Virginity and Bodily Assumption
and if a member rejects any of them, does it matter?
I appreciate what you said prior to the part I'm quoting here, but in view of what you say in this part of your post, it looks like my suspicions may be confirmed. But we can talk again about it at another time.Can we reject? Well, we must at least recognize the Church as having some authority. And as far as teaching about Mary, would have to talk to priest. I don't THINK it would bar communion ... but one would be censured for actively teaching against it. The only time I know of a person denied communion based on belief was doubt regarding the divinity of Christ. I'm speaking for those already Orthodox. If one wants to join and outright rejects these, the priest would probably hold off on receiving them.
I appreciate what you said prior to the part I'm quoting here, but in view of what you say in this part of your post, it looks like my suspicions may be confirmed. But we can talk again about it at another time.
I really can not address your awareness or lack of.So, your point is that some of what's required of the members is not Biblical because the church says it was part of the faith of the Apostles but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle. But is there any evidence of that? None that I am aware of. How about you?
In most Bibles, even those marketed to protestant churches, there are historical notes about each of the books/letters in the New Testament. Have you never read any of those? Have you never even been curious about that historical setting that precipitated the books of the New Testament; to whom they are written and why?It would appear that the claim is just cover for whatever doctrine has been authorized but is without a Scriptural basis.
One comment at this point that I think is in order--I listed those teachings only as examples of what EO people accept and believe although they are not taught in Scripture. It's not necessary to explain or justify them.Will have to wait to discuss in depth, yes.
Just example - asking Saints for prayer. If one doubts, is uncomfortable, doesn't want to - they can still be received as long as they accept the Church is generally authoritative. They never have to ask any Saint to pray for them. But otoh, if they firmly believe the Saints are in soul-sleep, the Church is completely wrong and they know better than the Church, then they should not be received.
I didn't ask you to judge my awareness. I asked how some doctrine that doesn't have any scriptural--or historical--backing can just be described as being something the Apostles taught but didn't record in writing...and that's all it takes for a church to make it a dogma.I really can not address your awareness or lack of.
That's not a doctrine. It's a practice like naming churches after saints or kneeling at certain times during the worship service.However, as example because you asked;The Orthodox fast on a regular basis. There are numerous references to fasting in scripture but we fast every Wednesday and Friday (with few exceptions).
Why? A Wednesday and Friday fast is not in the New Testament.
Let's face it, that's a custom and an old one, that's all.Again, I'm not referencing the canonization per say, just history and a time line. The Epistles in the New Testament are not written as a "how to conduct church" catechism. Each one was written to address a specific purpose, whether it was correction of something that needed to be addressed (such as 1 Corinthians) or a simple exhortation/greetings.
There's not a section in the NT on; When you baptize, do it this way.
Why? The letters were written to churches that already existed, they had already been taught how to baptize.
All of them, to my knowledge, involve references to SCRIPTURE. They're argued, pro and con, on the basis of some guidance from Scripture.Yet, we will still see arguments raging about what (or if) there is the proper way to conduct baptisms today.
They ARE Bible books, however, so referring to them doesn't do a thing to dispute or discredit Sola Scriptura.This is the challenge for Sola Scriptura, as it is practiced, maybe not by definition. The Gospels and Epistles that make up the NT came from within Orthodox Tradition, they are not two separate items.
"or historical" was not part of your question.I asked how some doctrine that doesn't have any scriptural--or historical--backing can just be described as being something the Apostles taught but didn't record in writing...and that's all it takes for a church to make it a dogma.
When I was received into the church, I did not feel comfortable asking the saints to pray for me. I didn't, however, teach against it. I was received into the church anyways. However, I essentially agreed that I will follow the church's lead, that it is acceptable, but I personally was not comfortable with it. I did not need to actively follow the practice myself. I also didn't need to agree with some of the devotional prayers that are more intense. That said, accepting that asking to the saints to pray for us is an acceptable practice is required. (There are some beliefs that are adiaphora, but the core of that particular belief is not adiaphora).One comment at this point that I think is in order--I listed those teachings only as examples of what EO people accept and believe although they are not taught in Scripture. It's not necessary to explain or justify them.
But since you did give us an overview of the church's thinking, my response to that would be this: if it were true that a member or candidate for membership can let it be known that he does NOT think such a practice is right with God, and the priest and whoever else will take that in stride as being their opinion and it's all right...then that would be significant. But is that so? I get the idea from what you've said about being received into the church, that it's not really all right or a matter of adiaphora with the church.
I think I did...when I wrote this:"or historical" was not part of your question.
...church says it was part of the faith of the Apostles but yet never written down in any Gospel or Epistle. But is there any evidence of that? None that I am aware of. How about you?
I named several a few posts back. Substantiate any of them by Scripture or history if you care to.If that is the criteria, I can think of no doctrine/dogma of the Orthodox Church that is not supported by scripture and/or history.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?