you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[Thekla]

to someone on the outside, the liturgical style would seem awfully wordy.

the Bible, its source, is even moreso

 

[Thekla]

Aw, c'mon.
What Jesus re-iterated in the garden wasn't a traditional prayer and his repetition wasn't verbatim or with the thought in mind that say 8 repetitions are better than 4.

You would not have to repeat yourself nor would it be necessarily in vain to pray for a person who might need it more than once in a lifetime for easily imaginably different reasons.

how many have repeatedly prayed for the spiritual re-orientation of a loved one ?

vain = empty, too
it refers also to the pray-er

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I will chant to my God for as long as I have my being.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

no. You're just assuming that Paul meant that we are to be of "one mind" on every little detail. An impossibility.

St. Paul was repeating what Christ had asked for when he prayed...

Jhn 17:11
And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we [are].


Forgive me...

 

[GenemZ]

the Bible, its source, is even moreso

But, the Bible was never intended to be a prayer. But, rather. To tell us how to, and not to, pray.

Matthew 6:7 (New International Version)
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words."​

.

 

[jckstraw72]

But, the Bible was never intended to be a prayer.

what makes you think that? the Psalms especially have been used as the worship book of God's people for millennia.

 

[Uphill Battle]

i guess you can show me where he says to be of one mind only on select things? where does he mention the things that its ok to be at variance about?

he doesn't have to.

why is it an impossibility? anyone in Paul's congregations who simply accepted what he taught would then have unity. its quite possible.

even within your "unified" EO, you have differences of opinion.

look, on one hand you admit that liturgical worship happened in the Temple, and on the other you say its just a supposition. seriously, make up your mind.

It's a supposition that all the christians who went to the temple worshiped liturgically, and only so.

the point is that Christ never said anything about instituting a radical change in worship. do you really think He had to specifically mention EVERYTHING that carried over? Can you imagine the Apostles thinking "well, He didnt say we had to keep worshiping liturgically, so of course that means its time for a massive overhaul!"?

you and I see very different things when it comes to the OC liturgy, and the NC.

actually i quoted Malachi. Doesnt your Sola Scriptura approach kinda demand that you accept it as authoritative?

sure. What it doesn't demand, is that you buy what people tell you things mean.

have you noticed that you're not making any arguments, but simply denying mine?

I'm not the one who asserted that worship MUST be liturgical, and that is the only way it has ever been done.

do you have a point here? How do you justify the complete break that you posit btwn the OT and the NT? the Church is the true Israel, its not completely different. there is a seamless thread beginning with Abraham, running up through Christ and into His Body. it doesnt matter WHO God told to worship liturgically, the point is that we see God specifically demanding liturgical worship -- we KNOW He desires it (since He commanded it, and its in Heaven). you have absolutely no way of KNOWING that any other kind of service is pleasing to God at all. Cain musta thought his service was good too, but God had something different to say.

you STILL haven't done anything to convince me that heaven worship will be liturgical, for one. And the Jewish liturgy encompassed the sacrifices, that are no longer in place. I am not a Jew. The Jewish rituals of sacrifice are 1) complete, fulfilled, with Christ's one time sacrifice and 2) inapplicable to a non Jew.

funny, that doesnt even remotely address what i said.

sure it does. You say "Christ is experienced in the liturgy." I point out, it's not neccessarily so.

and your evidence of non-liturgical worship is what? you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to bolster your argument, from Scripture or history

remember who it was that asserted that worship was, and only was, one way. It wasn't me.

what was the purpose? youve already said that Christ fulfilled the sacrifices but that the prayers were i guess somehow separate since they didnt pertain to Christ, as you said.

huh? I never said any such thing.

worshiping God.

how?

 

[GenemZ]

what makes you think that? the Psalms especially have been used as the worship book of God's people for millennia.

Psalms? In my church, the pastor used to analyze the Hebrew and gave the historical background for the Psalm. Then he proceded to interpret to the best of his ability to explain why the psalm was written.

To use psalms as a prayer? That would be like me writing notes before I walk into the room where my human father was, and reading to him what I wrote, as to converse. How lifeless that would be to me.

When we are to pray to the Father? We are to speak what's on our mind. Go to the Father through the name of Christ.

Proverbs 18:24 (New International Version)​

"A man of many companions may come to ruin, ​

but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."​

​

Imagine having to write notes and reading them to talk to your friends?


The Lord is closer to us than a friend. Closer than a brother.

All formality dissolves in the presence of a true friend. That is why that person is a true friend. The Lord is even closer... if we let Him be.




Grace and peace, GeneZ



.




.

 

[Philothei]

You still have not addressed the fact that Chritians had prayed with the psalms for centuries... Why would it be wrong now? Where in the Bible it says it is wrong to pray with them?


And also:

What is wrong with Liturgical worship where in the Bible Christ or any Apostle says that we "should not worship God with Hymns and celebrating the Eucarist?

Where does it say we should use "spontaneous prayer"?

It says where two are three are gathered in "my name" I am there among them"... Furthrer more where does it say it is odd to come in prayer and celebrating the eucarist singing hymns? any hymns?

Christ also gave us the commandment to "break bread" among us and we do just that celebrating the Eucarist...

 

[Theophorus]

Psalms? In my church, the pastor used to analyze the Hebrew and gave the historical background for the Psalm. Then he proceded to interpret to the best of his ability to explain why the psalm was written.

To use psalms as a prayer? That would be like me writing notes before I walk into the room where my human father was, and reading to him what I wrote, as to converse. How lifeless that would be to me.

When we are to pray to the Father? We are to speak what's on our mind. Go to the Father through the name of Christ.

Proverbs 18:24 (New International Version)​

"A man of many companions may come to ruin, ​

but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother."​

​

Imagine having to write notes and reading them to talk to your friends?


The Lord is closer to us than a friend. Closer than a brother.

All formality dissolves in the presence of a true friend. That is why that person is a true friend. The Lord is even closer... if we let Him be.




Grace and peace, GeneZ



.




.

I guess we are just fundamentalists when it comes to scripture.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

 

[Theophorus]

what makes you think that? the Psalms especially have been used as the worship book of God's people for millennia.

That's true. Even by the most staunch sola sciptura folks who would not sing or pray anything unless it came from the scripture themselves.

 

[Montalban]

I've never said any such thing. I do not know how you are deriving that from what I've said.

You said Jesus came for the lost, and that you're saved.

probably not, he wrote his portion of the bible after he was imprisoned.

SO he didn't need scripture by which to preach!

no, I said it matters what they CLAIM the HS has lead them to.

And their claim would be validated how? By what they believe and practice!

for instance, some Pope in the past claimed it was God's will to go and slaughter Muslims. Supposedly had the backing of the HS on the whole thing.

Exactly, so simply proclaiming the faith in Jesus as you said was all that's necessary doesn't guarantee anything!

I don't celebrate it. It's actually rather sad.

Why's it 'sad' if it doesn't matter?

false Dichotomy. We are talking about differences between Christians. not believers and unbelievers.

What makes them 'believers'?

 

[E.C.]

Good question. Since Paul mentions traditions were also contained in the Epistles? Where are they?

And when Corinthians and Thessalonians epistles were written? There was no mention of such traditions as praying to the saints... thinking the wine and bread turned into literal blood and flesh... praying to idols (statues) was forbidden, etc.

Why mention to keep to something when all kept to it? Example: a scientist is researching something that has to do with the effects of some new kind of seatbelt in cars. Does this man not refer to Newton's Laws of Motion, or does he ignore that bit of information that would be crucial? Do we have books that instruct all humans how one must breath?
No. Because the venerating of saints was something always practiced in the Church, probably sometime after St. Stephen was martyred, it need not mentioning. All the Christian parishes in the world read from the Bible at one time or another, so are we to instruct all that they must read the Bible in their worship? You could, but it would be telling someone something they already know.

The only reason why things are brought up in Orthodoxy, is if an issue is made of it. Remember, up until the early 4th century there was no Creed until the heretic Arius started spreading his heresy which lead to the need of the Nicene Creed. Just as the so-called Gnostic Gospels lead to the need of a unified Bible canon. Obviously venerating of saints was a non-issue and thus did not need mentioning.

So why do we find these traditions popping up in later years that many today find are not in harmony with Scripture?

They are there. Just not in a black and white statement that says "venerate the saints". With this logic, than the doctrine of the Trinity is completely heretical because the word "Trinity" is not mentioned in the Bible at all. Yet all Christians uphold the Trinity.

Instead of trusting in men to tell you what to believe, we should trust God.

The whole idea that some church actually decides what people are to believe, assumes that God actually don't have the will, or the power, to be near to all who call upon Him.

It's placing people in the seat of the Holy Spirit.

We do trust God. Yet, we must at least have a sort of "check and balance" among ourselves.
Do we elect dictators to hold all and complete authority? If you live in a democratic nation or a republic, than no, because there is at least some sort of representation be it Congress or parliament.

Our leaders are exceptional Christians because they, like the rest of us, not only have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them, but also listen to Him more than the average Joe. Read about the lives of a few.

YOU are a priest. Why can't YOU distribute communion?

1) I'm not clergy.

2) I am not worthy to do so.

I hope I can get to do that one day, I really do! I've been to multitude of different congregations, but I've sadly never been to an Orthodox mass yet.

You should if you ever have the opportunity. Although we prefer saying "Divine Liturgy" over mass. Mass sounds too commercialized.

But why do you believe everything they teach is true?

Prayer and research. Granted, I try to view things on a case-by-case or subject-by-subject basis.

What is amazing is that when one studies Orthodox theology, one can see how every bit of theology (Christology, iconography, etc) is related to every other bit of theology.

And I don't think that one should have to agree on absolutely everything a church teaches to be a member there. To have a principle that you should never disagree is a very dangerous thing.

I'm sorry that that is what you see, but trust me, it isn't always the case. The way you say this makes it sound as if there is some sort of written exam needed to become Orthodox (trust me, there isn't! )

We are unified in matters of faith and theology. However, there are many areas were Orthodox Christians do not agree. I could believe that Mary lived a sinless life, whilst any other of my brethren may believe that she lived a near-sinless life.
It depends on what is being discussed. While disagreement between the average Orthodox Christian is not as visible as a disagreement between the average Protestant; there is still disagreement.

The Church does not conform itself to our individual beliefs, but we must conform ourselves to the Church. Does Christ give up His divinity so that someone might go to church? Nope, they have to come and see.

No, not even Christological (if "christological means "about Christ").

Yes, it means "about Christ". Christology has to do the with nature, person and so forth of Christ.
Such popular questions raised through the centuries include by are not limited to: Was He God? Did He have a human and divine nature united in one body? Was His human nature so inferior that His divine nature swallowed the human one up? Did Christ have one will, or two (one divine, one human)? Can Christ be depicted in iconography?

For example, I lived for many years thinking God was mad at me. I thankfully found out better after a while, but I was still saved. I was still just as much part of the Body of believers. If you'd set the thief on the cross down with the blind man who got healed, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't exactly agree on Christ's exact nature. But then they probably wouldn't be too preoccupied about defining Him in the first place

The nature of Christ wasn't an issue until the Arian heresy which taught that Christ was never God, but merely some created creature. That is the earliest Christological issue that I know of.

Well, yes, but keep in mind that Christ is more than we can ever fathom anyway. He is Lord, saviour, son of God, prince of peace, healer, lawyer, spotless lamb, rabbi, and on and on and on.

he doesn't have to.

even within your "unified" EO, you have differences of opinion.

We are united in matters of faith and theology. Example, Theophorus, Philothei, jckstraw, Thekla and I all come to agreement that Christ has a divine nature and a human nature; both united in one body; a divine will and a human will and is ok in being depicted in iconography.

However, we may not come to agreement on how the everyday local parish should receive converts.

Unity, in this case, does not equate to uniformity. Big difference between unity and uniformity.

 

[Montalban]

I have nothing against traditions, sir. I was hoping you would cite from the Scriptures some that were in writing to reveal how its to be done.

I already did this. Holo challenged the belief in tithes, and I gave a biblical basis for it. I also note here he didn't acknowledge his error, but that's for him to make up for.

Point? The unwritten traditions never went contrary to Scripture. When a church claims traditions that were not in writing, and they run contrary to what is in writing? They can not claim that they have an example of something that was not included in writing which is legit.

I don't get this.

I was simply citing one example of how those who claim to be of the "true church" (that, like your church, claims we are supposed to follow) are they themselves behaving in certain ways like paganism with Christian overtones. For that's what it is.

That's up to them to defend.

No, you missed my point.

Not at all. From what I see you go it must be written down.

Straw man. I never saw that. Sola Scriptura means that anything raised up for the church must not be disharmonious with Scripture. As long as it does not produce something contrary to truth? What ever the tradition may be? Fine.

How did Paul preach with no Scripture at hand by which to determine what he was teaching was the truth?

Paul was different from us. He was an Apostle who received direct revelation from God which was designed to establish the new way of the Church.

What about those after Paul who still didn't have a Bible, such as Ignatius of Antioch. The Bible wasn't compiled until the 300s!

Legalism and the law was being closed up, and the new living way into life with God through Christ was being revealed. Paul was one of the few chosen vessels that God assigned to reveal the ways of the Church.

But you're the legalist, not I. You demand we look to written word by which to judge things by, even though the first 300 years of the church they could not have done this, and you've yet to show the written word saying the written word is the ultimate judge.

What Paul wrote? Much of is what we have as Scripture today. New Testament Scripture!

Who determined which books that we attribute to Paul were written by him? For you say that the ultimate test is referring to Scripture so what scripture is self-proving?

2 Peter 3:15-16 (New International Version)
"Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.
He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction."
​

I agree his letters contain the truth. I know they do because my church, using tradition waded through all the books that were about and tested the books against tradition.
See www.earlychristianwritings.com for a partial list of what books were aroudn PRIOR TO the Bible being compiled.

God was the Divine Architect. The Apostles, the master builders.

I agree, and if they passed on their teachings to other teachers, why do you reject those teachers? (viz Ignatius of Antioch, et al)

The early church fathers that followed the Apostles were not God's master builders of the Church. They were to be its humble maintenance men.

Quote scripture to show this

 

[Montalban]

I was trying to get him to cite some of these traditions that appear in writing. To be raised up as a standard of how its to be done. I was not really denying they are in writing. Here is one, for example.

And I'm trying to get you to show from Scripture where it says Scripture should be the ultimate judge

Which you've failed to do in sevearl days of posting here

 

[Montalban]

no true scotsman.

The application of that is flawed here, because by definition someone who believes in Orthodoxy must believe in Orthodoxy!

I can't say "I am an Orthodox Christian; I believe in no God". The last part falls well out of the scope of what it is to be Orthodox.

The 'no true Scotsman' fallacy would be appropriate if one applied an attribute that wasn't of its nature 'Scottish' (in the original context), such as "No true Scotsman would be a republican"... where it's not necessary to be a monarchist, to be a Scotsman.

Hope this helps you in future.

Better luck next time!

 

[Montalban]

It means that there is no such thing as the "true" Scotsman. Someone will say "no real Orthodox would" or "all true Orthodox would" when it's an assertion that cannot be proven.

It can in this case when the term "Orthodox" denotes certain meaning, such as beliefs in certain things.

 

[Montalban]

i have no idea what that means.

There's a number of 'logical fallacies' that can be applied when argument is flawed.

The "No true Scotsman" fallacy is one such.

The problem is Uphill Battle misapplies it here... possibly because he doesn't quite understand it.

 

[Montalban]

The verse doesn't say "repetitions," it says "vain repetitions."

It's a common mistake, I think. I've seen so many Protestants use it.

It's like people say that "Money is the root of all evil"* when it's the "Love of money"



*-it's in "Money" by Pink Floyd.

 

[GenemZ]

I guess we are just fundamentalists when it comes to scripture.

Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord.

I do not see the word "prayer" anywhere in that passage.


.