you'll hate this thread, I guarantee it.

[Montalban]

I would say that some here seem to be obsessive about and preoccupied with authority, yes.

If I go to where the real worship is, can I play tambourine?

Fondue anyone?

ROFL.

I'm still waiting for someone to show where Paul told people to go and do their own thing

 

[GenemZ]

Can you show me where in scripture scripture says its to be the only judge?

Matthew 4:4 (New International Version)
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."



2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
​

All things to be judged concerning the Church, is supposed to be according to thinking that has been trained and transformed by the Word of God.

Show me where in scripture it says that church dogma (per se) is against God's word!

Church dogma must be in harmony with the Word of God. It all comes back to the Word of God.

Matthew 23:9 (New International Version)
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."
​

That is a tradition of one church that they have devised rationalizations for doing just the opposite.

They end up doing what we are plainly told not to do. So? Is it in harmony with God's Word? Should someone who has been taught its OK? Ask Father Callahan, if its true ? Or? Believe the Word of God?



In Christ, GeneZ




.

 

[GenemZ]

.

I'm still waiting for someone to show where Paul told people to go and do their own thing

He never did. That is your straw man. Those churches whom you condemn many have seminary graduates leading from the pulpits. They teach others, so others can learn to teach. That is, if they find they have been given the gift to do so.


Sure there are those who form private studies and teach from and egotistic subjective point of view. But, that not what good churches are made up of. Yet? You lump all outside of your way of doing things as being your straw man.


I was called of God. Was I doing my own thing?

I do not think so. For it took me approximately ten years to find out what it was I was shown when I was called.

I had not even read the Bible yet when I was called. Had not attended churches in my youth to become indoctrinated. Yet? The Lord called me just the same.


I was a Jew who someone handed a tract. And? I said the prayer. I had not a clue as to what happened next. But, it did!

Am I doing my own thing?


.

 

[sunlover1]

ROFL.

I'm still waiting for someone to show where Paul told people to go and do their own thing

In our church we sing praise and worship songs,
we have a saxaphone and sometimes the sax
player will play solos during worship.

Do you think God hates our worship?

 

[Aloha Joe]

I can't speak for God--but this guy loves it:

 

[sunlover1]

I can't speak for God--but this guy loves it:

Oh yeah, Hey, if you like kenny, maybe you'd enjoy
a bit of ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLwQIcgERSU&feature=related

I'm thinking EVERYone has to like that now.

 

[Rick Otto]

I agree, that I have.


And what did they do? They replaced him with another to continue the 12.

Protestantism means anyone chooses whomever they want to believe/follow, if any and you get 100,000s of different Protestant faiths.

Division everywhere.

Communion was what Jesus established, one faith, one people worshipping him.

Are they all the same color, size and shape?
No, and yet they "are one".
If there are 100s of 1000s of Protestant Faiths, how many Protestants does that leave per faith?

"Division everywhere" cuts a little both ways.
We have a basic division in our individual selves to overcome. We are united on that.

 

[E.C.]

That's encouraging to know. God wanted these hearts (90%) weeded out; and at the same time, it was a test to see if the church would compromise on his Word as to win the approval of men.

True. It always saddens me to see people say and believe that Christianity and/or their local parish must confirm to their own beliefs, views and comfort zones. Instead, it is us who must conform to the Church's beliefs, views and comfort zones.

I realize that. Learned Protestant teachers study the early fathers, as well. But, back then they still were not holders of all the truth that the Bible contains. My gripe is that certain churches are stuck back on the level of spiritual progress that ended centuries ago.

For us (Orthodox) we do not "progress" unless it is necessary. A great example is the Nicene Creed. Before than, there wasn't a Creed (haven't studied about the Apostles Creed that much, so I can't speak for it), yet a Creed was needed to define what is and is not Christian. In short, it was a counter to the Arian heresy. Just like how the Bible canon was a counter to the Gnostics spreading their heresies via the so-called "Gnostic Gospels". We just don't do things because we feel like it or it seems like a good idea; rather we define as definitions are needed.

On the other hand, learned Protestant teachers can learn from all of them without regard to a bias.

I find that doubtful. Protestantism is a part of Western Christianity. A Westerner (Protestants and Roman Catholics) will have a better understanding of Augustine's mindset than an Orthodox Christian. Yet an Orthodox Christian will have a better understanding of St. John Chrysostom's mindset than a Protestant or Roman Catholic. That and both sides are known to quote folks from the other direction out of context.

There you go. Eastern church consists of heretics. Right?

Heretics and heresies come and go. Those that follow heresy and heretics are not a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
I know that for a fact Rome does not consider the EO Church to be heretical; only schismatic. However, a number of EOs consider the Roman Church to be both schismatic and heretical!
In Rome's eyes, we are not heretics.

The doctrine of the Trinity did not appear in 40AD. Did it? And, Mary veneration was unheard of in the early Jewish church. It only appeared in Gentile churches where they were leaving behind the worship of female deities which many sentimentally still longed for. Certain teachings were the results of compromise with a desire to keep people in the pews.

In the Church, there is no Gentile or Jew. Only Christian.

I disagree with the veneration of Mary being a "leftover" of pagan worship. St. Luke (who wrote one of the four Gospels) wrote the first icon of the Mother of God (Mary). He came from a Jewish background. After her repose (death) than people began to venerate her. St. Luke was not a Gentile or pagan, but rather a Jew. Besides, for some centuries many Greeks had already believed that there was only one God; they just did not know much and would reportedly make sacrifices to "The One True God" as they called it.

I do not have to know the history of when the first car was invented in order to drive one. Besides, the same truths that the early fathers learned from in the Scriptures, are still in the Scriptures!

That part is debatable since the Protestants use the OT text that was made by the Jews some years after Christ had resurrected and Christianity was spreading far and wide. They took the Deuterocanon (aka "Apocrypha") out because, IIRC, the books in question had a good number of prophetic messages that pointed more towards Christ.

People are still discovering these same truths for themselves, all over again.

I can tell you that for a fact. One day I had a Scriptural correlation, and a light went on. Quite some time afterwards (years), by what seemed by chance, I read that an early church father had the same insight. In my case... I did not need him to know this truth. I needed the Holy Spirit and a desire for more and more knowledge of God's Word.

Now? On the other hand? If I had read that early father's work at a time in my life when I was not yet having the capacity for what he said? I may have disagreed with him.

Indeed, God points people towards Him via many different outlets. I was lead to Orthodoxy via history and how actual Orthodox Christians treated me (not only a non-Orthodox at the time but a Roman Catholic!) with nothing short of love and kindness.
If I may be bold to say, maybe the Church Father whom you had read validated whatever the conclusion was that you came to.

The one whom God was in union with in the hypostatic union? By virtue of that union? Made Christ to be God. The one in whom Deity was in union with, is the one whom Mary gave birth to. Not, Deity itself.

Mary brought Christ into the world. Because He is God, she bore God. She did not bear God (the whole Trinity) but did bear one of the three persons of the Godhead. She was blessed to do so.

Eternally existing Deity can not be born. If it could? It would have not had to exist before being born.

Was the God-Man Christ on this earth before He was born from Mary? Not that we know of. Because He was most likely not on this earth in the flesh until He was brought into the world (or born) than Mary is the Theotokos (Greek for "God-Bearer").
Its as simple as that. To say otherwise is to be Nestorian since the heretic Nestorius justified that she did not bear God by saying that Christ had two separate bodies! One for His divinity, the other for His humanity. It was because of Nestorius's heresy that the whole Church had to meet and, long story short, came to the conclusion that Mary is the Theotokos (God-Bearer) and that Christ had been and always shall be: Divine and human natures united in one body. It is the fact that He was both divine and human united in one body that Mary is the Theotokos (God-Bearer) and since she gave birth to Him in this world, thus bringing Him in to it, she is the Theotokos (God-Bearer).
To say otherwise is to be skating the ice of Nestorianism with hot blades.

Deity always was, and always will be. Deity was one with the experience of the one who was born of Mary. But, as Jesus was being born? Deity was not being born. This is where we disagree.

Christ was brought into the world, thus He was born. Did we exist before we were born? I don't think so (although Buddhists would probably say otherwise). Thus, my mother gave birth to me; she brought me into this world. That same principle applied to Christ; Mary brought Him into this world. Not solely of her own doing, but by the power of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus in the flesh was not walking around Heaven before the incarnation. Jesus was born. Not his Deity.

Ah, this part helps clarify what you've been saying

Correct, Mary was not the "creator" of Christ's divinity. I know of none that believe this. Any who do, are probably 99% likely to be heretics.

The Lord God of Israel had to lower himself of his rightful function as Deity (Philippians 2:6-8) and Deity become as a man with the humanity that was produced in the womb of Mary.

I'm not sure if we could say that Mary had "created" Christ's humanity since we believe that He had always been and always shall be both God and Man united in one body.

Scripture itself tells us its wrong to think Deity can be born. For Deity proclaims Himself to be eternally existing!

Its the human side of the hypostatic union that was born. For the one who was the Deity side of Jesus? Was always being God before Jesus was born.


Now? God made himself one with the humanity being born. But, Deity was not being born. Its impossible. To be born, means to come into existence at a point in time.


That is one example of how the teachings of your church makes me believe you have failed to advance in understanding.

The inability to reason this through with Bible truth makes me want to have nothing to do with your church. Sorry. But its true.

Actually, I believe that it may not be the Orthodox Church's error for holding to the belief that Mary is the Theotokos. It may be your misunderstanding this particular bit of theology that we hold on to that has brought us to discussion.

If you'd like to pursue the Orthodox understanding of the relation between Christ and Mary, I suggest that you stop by TAW sometime.

Your denomination has turned certain works of the early fathers into idols that you must bow down to without thinking Scripturally. The early fathers did make a few mistakes. You refuse to see this. Or, as they are now presented? Need to be better clarified. For the way they are presented on this issue now? Is contrary to what the Word of God tells us.

Denominations exist only within Protestantism. A good discussion in itself about the semantics and history of the difference between denomination and Church; yet let's try not to derail this thread too much.

The idol line is a bit too far and not necessary or called for. Sure, you as an individual may believe that we "worship Mary" and the saints. However to me, I believe that you probably worship the Bible.
But who am I to judge?

The veneration of the saints is Biblically backed. Mary is the most honored of saints and thus her veneration is also Biblically backed. Even more support can be found by writings of early theologians and the ECFs as well as studying the history of the hymns of the Orthodox Church (particularly the troparions and kontakions).

Please, before you accuse us to be heretics and idol worshipers, I suggest that you visit an Orthodox Church and study the matter from our point of view. After you've done that, than make your accusations because without doing either, you have no right to accuse. Well, being the Christians that we are we have no right to accuse anyway, but even more so that right is not earned without experiencing and studying.

Rationalization. What happened reveals the loss of the needed intimate spiritual relationship God desires of believers. It appears that your church at that time shifted towards a religious expression, rather than a truly spiritual one. Imagine Jesus praying to an icon? He told us how to pray and worship. He would have smashed icons.

I disagree.

Being a Jew and living the Jewish way, Christ prayed towards an altar in the synagogue and the Holy of Holies in the Temple. Having icons is a truly spiritual need and a valid one at that. St. Luke wrote the first icon and the method and theology behind iconography has been continuously going since. If his Gospel is worthy to be in the Bible and continue to be in use for 2,000 years; than certainly iconography is also worthy. In the case of the iconoclasts, the destroying of icons itself came from the Muslims. One of the Byzantine emperors in the 8th century decreed that all the icons were to be destroyed because he asked the Muslims what he would have to do in order for them to become Christian. Their response was basically "destroy your icons". Thus started the heresy of iconoclasm.

However, the theology behind icons and iconography is worthy of a thread in its own right and so I'll refrain from saying anything more here.

Sorry.. The Amish are of the same mind set. Just a different set of beliefs. Stuck back in time.

Ah, but they add in that daily life must be like it was in the 19th century. We don't since obviously I am using the computer and internet, both 20th century inventions, and don't walk around wearing togas and suits of armor (although that would be kind of cool )
We do not take nor add from our theology. Amish do not take nor add... from anything!

Rationalization! God gave us HIS WORD! Men are not always interpreting the Word of God correctly. To be saying... "This is it! We go no further!" Can very well be a trap of the devil.

Hardly. We do not "go further" unless it is needed. By "go further" I am thinking of cases such as the Ecumenical Councils when decisions had to be made when a problem came up. We do not do things just because it seems like a good idea and/or that it may add more seats to the pews. Rather, we do things because they need to be done and/or questions need answering.

To consistently change and have no consistency whatsoever is a far worse trap.

Continued below...

 

[E.C.]

In contrast. The Bible commands us...

1 Thessalonians 5:21 (King James Version)
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."
​

That was written to ALL in the church! Paul was saying that even he was to be questioned and proven by means of Scripture! Not just the church fathers.

Well, of course St. Paul should be questioned if needed since he isn't infallible! The Church Fathers have also been questioned and their writings proven to jive with Scripture and that which is orthodox (note the small o). No one is infallible except for God. Yet, writings and people are not to be proven solely by Scripture. If that were the case, than everything posted on this website and all its members would be followers of heresy.

Do you prove all things? The rationales you have accepted from your church not to do so, make that an impossibility. You dare not question the writings of the early fathers. You assume that they had all the knowledge they needed to form the doctrines they had.

I try to answer what is needed. Here in the theology forums I don't answer to questions regarding comfort of different couches.
You saying that I assume is assuming in itself. You do not know me, you have not met me personally and you probably never will. Thus, you do not know how I think, what I believe or how I came to all of it unless I wrote it in a post. Never assume.
If you would like to know what I believe and how I came to believing it, than by all means ask. But on a case-by-case basis. I came to Orthodoxy via God, history and people. Now, if you want particulars on how I came to believing various doctrines, beliefs, dogmas and/or teachings; than that is another story and something done on a case-by-case basis.

Don't you dare assume.

If what you claimed about the works of the early fathers were true? The Bible should have a different verse in

1 Thessalonians 5:21, place. More like...

"Accept all things you are told; hold fast everything that which is from all your early fathers."


​

Even, Paul made mistakes! So did, Peter! But, the early fathers did not?

I'm sure that the early Fathers made mistakes. They are human and thus prone to mistake making in their life. Yet mistakes in writings are highly doubtful since, after reading about many of their lives, they were all very close to God. Closer than what most of us can ever hope to be.
A good number of the Early Church Fathers were bishops during their time here on earth. St. John Chrysostom is one example of this. The bishops are the successors to the Apostles. St. Paul taught the people everything that they needed to know about Christianity and as time went on and questions were answered or clarified (such as the person and nature of Christ) than that goes along with Apostolic teaching. Did the Apostles teach about a Christ in the Arian model of being solely a creature with no divinity? No they did not. However, the Fathers had to respond to the question of Christ's nature and did so by keeping with what they were taught by the Twelve Apostles (and Paul) and that is that Christ is both human and divine. Thus the Nicene Creed was born. Sure, the Apostles never did preach the Creed itself since it did not come around until the early 4th century, yet the Creed and what the Apostles taught do jive together. They are like peanut butter and jelly; they go together and validate each other; they make each other whole.

Making someone into an icon of infallibility is surrendering ones volition to another being besides God. Yet, what's worse. Its done in the name of God. That to me, is a form of death. Not having to think. Only absorb and repeat.

We made no one an icon of infallibility. The only ones that I know of that do so are the Roman Catholics with their pope.

Remember, Orthodoxy is not Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism is not Orthodoxy. Thus items thrown in their direction do not do the same as thrown in our direction.

Sorry... But, I tell you what I see is the truth of the matter. And? I can make mistakes.

Hey, so can I. For all I know, the "True Church" is some convoluted blend of paganism, Rastafari and Buddhism. Yet, from what I have learned, been taught, lived through and prayed about, I am convinced that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the "True Church".
And I am willing to take that chance.

 

[Montalban]

The Bible itself calls on us to keep to the 'traditions' as handed down, and in scripture
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (1 Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

Matthew 4:4 (New International Version)
"Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God."

I agree. Where's it say that only this is found in the Bible? From the 'mouth' doesn't seem to me that it's necessarily written down!

2 Timothy 3:16 (New International Version)
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." [/B]

I agree. But it doesn't say "ALL God's teaching is written down in the Bible"

All things to be judged concerning the Church, is supposed to be according to thinking that has been trained and transformed by the Word of God.

And where it say this is only to be found written down?

Logic should have alerted to you to the fact Paul talks of going and SPEAKING to churches as well as having written to them. If Paul believed only in the written word, he'd have taught by flash-cards. The fact that the Bible wasn't compiled for some time, nor the books in it immediately written down should have warned you about that illogic.

When it's recorded in Acts that Peter spoke to the crowd did he refer them to that very book that records that teaching? How could it? Therefore he was able to validly teach by not using the Bible.

The last of the Gospels notes this....
John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.

Paul also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."

So, when he was teaching this, was it the Word of God before it was written down, or was Paul cheating on the teachin' ?

Church dogma must be in harmony with the Word of God. It all comes back to the Word of God.

I agree. No where have you shown either
a) that it isn't in harmony, or;
b) that the Word of God is only written down.

You've failed to show why your challenge to WarrirorAngel is valid. It isn't.

Matthew 23:9 (New International Version)
"And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven."

Do you have a dad? Have you ever celebrated "Father's Day"?

Perhaps then you're looking at 'father' in a different way.
Acts 7:2
To this he replied: "Brothers and fathers, listen to me! The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham while he was still in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran.

Acts 22:1
"Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense."

It's not a biological 'father'. Nor is it someone who's our teacher. See Acts 7:2 Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: "For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as "teachers."
http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp

So what kind of 'father' do you think it refers to?

That is a tradition of one church that they have devised rationalizations for doing just the opposite.

I beg to differ. The fact Paul talks of bishops - leaders - means you've got the wrong meaning for 'father'. Else you've got Paul contradicting himself.

Should someone who has been taught its OK? Ask Father Callahan, if its true ? Or? Believe the Word of God?

I don't know who Father Callahan is. You've got to realise that I'm not in America, so if this is a local story I may not have heard of it.


Get back to me when you can find the Bible saying only the Bible should be taught.

 

[Montalban]

In our church we sing praise and worship songs,
we have a saxaphone and sometimes the sax
player will play solos during worship.

Do you think God hates our worship?

Did God accept all offerings made to him?

Does he not say "Not all who cry "Lord! Lord!" will be saved"?

 

[Montalban]

Are they all the same color, size and shape?
No, and yet they "are one".

No they are not.

"High Church" Anglicans believe that the bread and wine become body and blood. "Low Church" Anglicans say it's just bread and wine - that's just within one Protestant church. They disagree on a fundamental aspect of doctrine, not to count female and gay priests issues.

Some churches handle snakes. Some speak in tongues.

If there are 100s of 1000s of Protestant Faiths, how many Protestants does that leave per faith?

I've no idea what that means

"Division everywhere" cuts a little both ways.

I agree, but with strive to unity. You don't

We have a basic division in our individual selves to overcome. We are united on that.

I've no idea what you mean.

 

[GenemZ]

The Bible itself calls on us to keep to the 'traditions' as handed down, and in scripture
Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions as I delivered them to you (1 Corinthians 11:2)

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our epistle” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

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.

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

Matthew 18:19 (New International Version)
"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
​

Are all the saints that the RCC are told to pray to? ON EARTH? Mary is no longer on earth.

"Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven."
​

See? The Bible must be the final judge on all tradition. If not? We end up with the traditions of men all over again. Just like Jesus had to deal with with the religious leaders in his day. When these teachings crept into the church it was during a time when people did not have Bible to read. They were simply told what to believe. Corruption crept in. Then the printing press opened up a door that no man could shut.




In Christ, GeneZ



.

 

[Montalban]

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

You've still not met the challenge I gave you. Your questions follow from having not addressed the very crux of the matter, not everything was written down.

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.

We don't pray to idols. I note you're asking me about stuff and referring to the RCC. It shows a distinct lack of observation on your part - I'm not Roman Catholic.

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

You're still assuming that it must have been written down

Take your time. When you've found the scriptures saying only scriptures are to be listened to, get back to me.

It would help too, if you take on board what I wrote previously.

How could Paul have taught the churches BY SCRIPTURE ALONE if he didn't as yet have that scripture?

 

[Aloha Joe]

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

You actually almost defeat your own point by asking this question. If you don't believe his epistles contain traditions (as you seem to imply with your question), then you inadvertently suggest that Paul's lying when he refers to them.

At any rate, it's not unlikely that Paul wrote any number of other epistles which are no longer extant.

And if you hold that 2 Thess. 2:15 is the Word of God, isn't important that you decide what traditions (written or spoken) Paul is referring to?

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.

I believe Montalban answered this by referring to the "traditions...taught...by word" mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:15

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

Ignatius of Antioch, appointed bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter, asserted that the Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood. It's possible that "popped up" because he heard it from Peter.

I hope I've been gracious in my words--for any lack I've displayed, I ask your forgiveness.

 

[Montalban]

You actually almost defeat your own point by asking this question. If you don't believe his epistles contain traditions (as you seem to imply with your question), then you inadvertently suggest that Paul's lying when he refers to them.

A very good point.

At any rate, it's not unlikely that Paul wrote any number of other epistles which are no longer extant.

And if you hold that 2 Thess. 2:15 is the Word of God, isn't important that you decide what traditions (written or spoken) Paul is referring to?

I believe Montalban answered this by referring to the "traditions...taught...by word" mentioned in 2 Thess. 2:15

Ignatius of Antioch, appointed bishop of Antioch by the Apostle Peter, asserted that the Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood. It's possible that "popped up" because he heard it from Peter.

And, if it was novel, then the rest of the church would have scolded him for teaching false doctrine.

I hope I've been gracious in my words--for any lack I've displayed, I ask your forgiveness.[/SIZE][/FONT]

You should be Orthodox!

 

[holo]

all the ones in Scripture. why else would they be in there? he also says to keep the traditions that have been received -- he doesnt say pick and choose which you feel are important

But there simply aren't as many doctrines in the bible as there are in the churches... If God wants to deliver some strict doctrine about anything, He does so. He doesn't throw lots of hints and single verses around in the bible for us to put together and dechiper like some sort of code. Jesus crucified is the one central theme in the scriptures, and that's all we need to agree on. That's the only "doctrine" we need. If the thief on the cross, the bleeding woman, Peter, Thomas, Mary and Martha and all the healed sick people didn't need some specific doctrine to be saved and healed by Jesus, why do we? All they needed, all they wanted, was the person Jesus Christ. They didn't need to agree on some definition of Him or how He did this or that, they didn't need to decide upon som lithurgy or get together to create some "traditional" and "true" way of worship. Jesus Himself was more than enough. And He still is. EVERYTHINIG ELSE is second place, and therefore shouldn't be used to include or exclude any of us.

 

[holo]

This is what i am saying...
Someone HAS TO BE RIGHT!

Nah. Maybe we are ALL wrong. That's perfectly possible. And besides, we don't HAVE to know the full truth about everything. Like the trinity, for example. That's largely a mystery to me, and it'll be mystery at least to the day I die. But so what? My faith, let alone my salvation, doesn't depend on me or anybody else having figured out exactly how to understand the trinity.

My dad doesn't become any less, or more, my dad, according to my understanding of him.

Because of the words of Christ 'the gates of hell shall not prevail' means that Church would be here for every generation, and that Church would not teach error, and they would be the same Church instituted that very day by Christ.

That's an interpretation, and a creative one at that...

The reason believers can overtake the gates of Hades isn't because they have some sort of flawless doctrine, or that their doctrines have never changed. It's because they are in Christ and Christ are in them. The battle belongs to the Lord, not to the doctrines, and victory is a gift, not a result of figuring out all sorts of theological stuff.

And besides, the Catholic church has also -thankfully!- changed their doctrines and practices from time to time.

The Holy Spirit doesn't change, and He is capable [as God] to keep everything on track.

Yes indeed! So it's a tragedy that so many christians are instructed NOT to trust the Spirit, but rather some assembly of old men, to interpret everything FOR them and TELL them what to believe.

 

[holo]

So, instead of having bad leaders that may lead us into heresy, we should lead ourselves into heresy?

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.

I trust my priest to do what is his job as a priest: distribute Communion and oversee the spiritual well-being of the parish.

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

That is not so. Come to an Orthodox church and see for yourself.

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.

If by infallible you mean that I believe them to be true? The answer there is yes, or else I would not be Orthodox, would it?

But why do you believe everything they teach is true? 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.

What? We don't need to agree on every theological detail?

Not even Christological?

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

However, don't you think that while our unity should be in Christ, that we must agree on who Christ is?

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.

 

[holo]

You saying individuals can't err into heresy?

No. A lot of individuals do, and when these individual have other individuals under them who don't think for themselves, they're dragging them with them into heresy.