# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: Sola vs. Solo Scriptura

## TER

*Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: Sola vs. Solo Scriptura*

  October 4, 2014 by Fr. Andrew Stephen Damick 
 


Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms, by Anton von Werner, 1877
 

One  of my ongoing fascinations is what I have come to refer to in my head  as the Evangelical appropriation of tradition.  Charismatics are  celebrating Lent.  Baptists are talking about the Eucharist.  The  inscrutable maybe-universalist and now Oprah-darling Rob Bell is even  using the phrase _the tradition_.  Maybe this tradition stuff isnt  so bad.  I can branch out a little.  I can line up some Athanasius next  to my MacArthur, and a volume or two of Gregory of Nyssa next to my  Bonhoeffer.  Osteen still goes somewhere preferable near the bottom.   (Who gave me that book, anyway?)  Maybe well put Origen down there with  him.  Both are questionable, right?.  Oh, hey, Ive heard Ratzinger is  kind of interesting.  And that wounded healer Nouwen guys onto  something.  Has anyone heard of someone named Schmemann?

Welcome to the club, the Lutherans and certain Reformed types say.   Weve been waiting for you.  Help yourself to some creeds.  We hope  youll stay for some liturgy.

 And we hope youve discovered the difference between _sola_ and _solo_ _scriptura_.

_Solo scriptura_, it is argued, is what most Evangelicals would  probably understand as their basic matrix of church authoritythe Bible  is above everything.  Some might say that the Bible is the _only_ authority in church life, while others might say it is the _primary_  authority in church life, but its still over everything.  What the  Bible says trumps anything some teacher or cleric or council might say.   Theyve all been wrong, but the Bible is always right.

 Hold on now, say the _sola scriptura_ adherents.  The Church has a place.  The tradition has a place.  Theyre not _above_  the Bible, mind you, but they can inform how we read the Bible.  The  Church has to interpret the Bible, and the vast resources in Christian  history can inform that interpretation.  To summarize that position, let  me quote a passage from a 2013 essay by Reformed Baptist writer Matthew  Barrett (Sola Scriptura Radicalized and Abandoned):
I wish I could say that all evangelicals today have a crisp, accurate grasp of _sola scriptura_.  I am hopeful that many understand how a Protestant view of Scripture  and tradition differs from Romes position. However, I am less confident  that evangelicals understand the difference between sola and solo _scriptura_, for in some cases the latter is assumed to be the identity of the former.

Consequently, some evangelicals, intentionally or unintentionally,  have followed in the footsteps of Alexander Campbell (1788-1866) who  said, I have endeavored to read the Scriptures as though no one had  read them before me, and I am as much on my guard against reading them  today, through the medium of my own views yesterday, or a week ago, as I  am against being influenced by any foreign name, authority, or system  whatever.

Ironically, such a view cannot preserve _sola scriptura_. Sure,  tradition is not being elevated to the level of Scripture. But the  individual is! As Keith Mathison laments, in this view everything is  evaluated according to the final standard of the individuals opinion  of what is and is not scriptural. To be sure, such a view lends itself  more in the direction of individual autonomy than scriptural  accountability.

 So how do we correct such a mistake? First, we must guard ourselves  from an individualistic mindset that prides itself on what I think  rather than listening to the past. In order to do so, we must  acknowledge, as Mathison points out, that Scripture alone doesnt mean  me alone.

Second, tradition is not a second infallible source of divine  revelation alongside Scripture; nevertheless, where it is consistent  with Scripture it can and does act as a ministerial authority. The  historic creeds and confessions are a case in point. While the Nicene  Creed and the Chalcedonian Creed are not to be considered infallible  sources divine revelation, nevertheless, their consistency with  Scripture means that the church spoke authoritatively against heresy.  Therefore, it should trouble us, to say the least, should we find  ourselves disagreeing with orthodox creeds that have stood the test of  time. Remember, innovation is often the first indication of heresy.  Hence, as Timothy George explains, the reformers sought to tie their  Reformation exegesis to patristic tradition in order to provide a  counterweight to the charge that the reformers were purveyors of  novelty in religion, though at the end of the day the fathers  writings should always be judged by the touchstone of Scripture, a  standard the fathers themselves heartily approved.

Abandoning solo _scriptura_ does not require us to go to the  other extreme, namely, elevating tradition to the level of Scripture.  But it does require the humility to realize that we are always standing  on the shoulders of those who came before us. For the reformers, the  early church fathers were valuable (though not infallible) guides in  biblical interpretation. In that light, we would be wise to listen to  Luther this Reformation Day: Now if anyone of the saintly fathers can  show that his interpretation is based on Scripture, and if Scripture  proves that this is the way it should be interpreted, then the  interpretation is right. If this is not the case, I must not believe  him (LW 30:166; WA 14:31).
Im overjoyed, of course, that Baptists, Lutherans, Calvinists and  others should want to read the Church Fathers, sign onto the ancient  creeds, and so forth.  This is very good news, and I can only believe  that it is likely they will thereby move closer to the faith that I hold  as an Orthodox Christian.

 At the same time, in reading this, even though it is certainly far  more nuanced than the no creed but the Bible homespuns one usually  finds in a Baptist church, I am nevertheless left with the sense that  this sola vs. solo business is really a distinction without a  difference.

As  someone who spent ten years as a theatrical stagehand, and now as a  pastor of a not-large parish, whenever I read things like this, my first  thought is to _logistics_how will this work?  What does it mean, practically speaking, to be a sola scriptura and not a solo scriptura Christian?

 On the ground, even the solo types read Bible commentaries, listen  to sermons on Sunday, and largely resemble their co-religionists when it  comes to theological matters.  That means that, even if they deny it _de jure_, the _de facto_  reality is that they are at least subconsciously submitting themselves  to interpretive authorities outside of themselves.  There is an  interpretive community at work even for the most isolated snake-handler  in the hollers of West Virginia.  That community probably consists of at  least his pastor, probably his parents, other members of his church,  his Sunday School teacher, some books and tracts hes picked up over the  years, and maybe the preacher he listens to on the radio on Saturday  nights.

 He might believe in no creed but the Bible, but hes still being influenced, whether he knows it or not.

 Yet even with all those influences, he will still feel free to take  his pastor aside and let him know about something he read in one of  Pauls epistles that he thinks flatly contradicts what was said in the  Sunday sermon.  And he may even hold some beliefs that are different  from everyone elses in his church.  In fact, nearly everyone there has  some ideas that arent in synch with everyone elses.  No one really  minds, though.  Theyre held together by a common inheritance of their  particular kind of theology and spiritual life.

 Enter the sola reformer who will bring these snake-handlers the good news of the real Reformation belief about the Bible.

 Here, read this creed, he says.  Doesnt it square with what the  Bible says?  Isnt this just the right way of reading the Bible?  And  how about this Basil fellow from the fourth century?  Hasnt he got some  interesting ideas about the Holy Spirit?  What do you think about how  that lines up with Pentecost in Acts?  Seems okay, right?

 He gets a few of these snake-handlers to break off and form the First  Reformed Snake-Handling Bible Church of Pinch, West Virginia (yes, its  a real place), and theyre now reciting the Nicene Creed, doing  something that looks a little more liturgical on Sunday, and having  Wednesday night Bible studies where names like Augustine and  Irenaeus get floated occasionally.

 Thats not how it looks for most sola believers, though, some might  say.  Okay, but even for the stodgiest and most liturgical of  Magisterial Reformation churches, I am going to assert that the basic  dynamics are really the same.  The only thing that is actually different  is that the set of influences on the individual believer now includes  more historical documents.

 Is this _better_ than chucking every Bible commentary thats more than thirty years old and clutching to the death my last copy of _The Late, Great Planet Earth_?

 Yes, of course.

 Is it a fundamentally different kind of authority in the spiritual life, though?

 No, it is not.

Supposedly, the difference here is _humility_,  i.e., that the sola approach is not individualistic.  As Barrett puts  it, we must guard ourselves from an individualistic mindset that  prides itself on what I think rather than listening to the past. In  order to do so, we must acknowledge, as Mathison points out, that  Scripture alone doesnt mean me alone.'

 Great, but what does it mean to listen to the past?  Does it mean  that I have to submit my mind to the interpretations of St. Ignatius of  Antioch on the reality of the Eucharist?  Or if, when I read John 6, I  still come away with Zwinglian memorialism, I decide that Ignatius is  wrong and the Bible is right?  Some would say yes, but isnt that  really just what I think versus what Ignatius thinks?

 After all, if tradition is not to be elevated above Scripture, then  that means that Scripture always trumps tradition, right?  But how do I  find out what Scripture says?  By reading it, right?  But what happens  if my reading of Scripture doesnt agree with someone elses?  Why, when  I read John 6, is my interpretation correct, while others who read that  same passage get it wrong?

 Is it because I am smart enough, sincere enough, and well-read  enough, and they are lacking in one or more of those three categories?   Will everyone who is intelligent, honest and well-informed all read the  Bible in exactly the same way?
 You see?  The problem is still there.  Saying Scripture is above  tradition is really saying my reading of Scripture is above tradition.   But the problem is still not solved as to why, when I read the  Scripture, I get it right, while all those readers functioning in the  tradition are getting it wrong.  Or perhaps some of them are right,  while others are wrong.  Surely the right ones are smart, sincere and  well-read.  And the wrong ones theyre just not.

Okay,  it doesnt have to be that way.  The Church is there to help.  The  Church will interpret the Bible together.  I dont have to go it alone.

 But what if my church is wrong?  What about when my church interprets  it in a manner that contradicts the Methodists down the block?  Whos  right?  Just read the Scripture?  But thats what Ive been doing!
 What is missing here is _ecclesiology_.

 Those attempting to derive the perfect method for interpreting the  Scripture (or, at least, perfect enough to get all the really essential  stuff in order) are missing things the Scripture itself says about the  Church and about tradition, too.
 Ill spare you all the detail, but Ill at least point out that the  Scripture calls the Church the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tim.  3:15) and that we should stand fast and hold the traditions which you  were taught, whether by word or our epistle (2 Thess. 2:15).  And  everything that happens in that great mission of the Apostles is finally  churchly, finally ecclesial.  What they found is not a series of Bible  studies and schools of interpretive method, but churches, real  Eucharistic communities who continued to function for centuries before  the New Testament finally coalesced into what we now have.
 And they kept functioning the same way even after that happened.  The  idea that the Scripture theyd produced was now above the tradition  that had produced it would not have made any sense to them.  Were they  supposed to go back and revise all the things theyd been doing for  centuries now that the Bible was around, even though when they put the  Bible together, none of it contradicted what they had been doing?

 Keith Mathison (the author of this sola/solo distinction) asserts correct interpretation is according to the rule of faith (_regula fidei_) that has been in place for 2,000 years.  But where exactly is that to be found?  What defines it?
 In the end, the arbiter is still the individual.  Mathison reaches  towards ecclesiology in his arguments, but falls short when he claims  that traditional ecclesiology makes the Church autonomous apart from  God.  God inspires the Scripture but not the Church, it seems.  But who  will interpret the Scriptures correctly?  Who will correct the Church?

One can say that the Church has authority to interpret Scripture, but _which Church_?   Is it all of them?  What about the fact that they dont all agree?   And no, they dont even all agree on essentials.  Which Church? is a  critical question, and its one that isnt being asked very much in  these discussions.  Still further, What is the Church? is also just as  critical, and I fear its also gotten lost somewhere.  The second  question finally leads to the first.  If you can figure out what the  Church is, then you will realize that not all churches are the Church.

 If not all churches are the Church, then that means theres got to be one that is that One.  The Bible talks about only one.

In  the end, the sola method is really the same as the solo one.  Its  still fallible people claiming to read an infallible document and  deriving their authority from their reading.  That reading is still  above church and tradition.  The only difference between this and the  solo approach is that the solos see it as so far above that they  neednt pay those things much, if any, mind.  A sola reader might pay  far more attention to history, but he is still its master, not its  servant.  He doesnt have to put himself in obedience to any of those  people.

 So the sola reads Athanasius and Origen, while the solo reads  Swindoll and Lewis, and both are free to put those books all back on the  shelf when they think they contradict Scripture.  In the end, its  still the individual by himself, judging all these things for himself.   How else could it be otherwise?

 Part of the problem here is that the main lens through which most  Protestants view questions of tradition and ecclesiology is marked with  their image of Roman Catholicism.  It is seen as a top-heavy,  controlling magisterium who demand obedience and have an infallible  papacy at their center.  And that infallible papacy draws his  pronouncements from two separate sources, Scripture and Tradition, and  we suspect that hes making up some stuff of his own to stick into the  Tradition side that will suit him.

 That is a caricature, of course, but even the more honest version is  not the way these things work in the Orthodox Church.

For the Orthodox,  we have no single infallible, authoritative interpreter of Scripture.   (Protestants rightly protest this, but they finally each make themselves  into their own infallible interpreters.  Saying I could be wrong or  Im standing on the shoulders of giants doesnt really help.  Youre  still in charge.)

 We also do not regard Holy Tradition as a separate source of  authority.  Indeed, none of these things are sources at all.  Rather,  the Scriptures are at the center of Tradition and inseparable from it.   Holy Tradition produced the Scriptures and is the proper context for  their interpretation.  For us, Scripture is not over Tradition nor  with it, but rather, Scripture is _within_ Tradition.  Far from  lessening its authority, this is the Scripture properly enthroned within  its natural sphere of influence.  A king outside his court is subject  to all kinds of dangers, but within it, he is at home and everything is  sensitive to him.  Holy Tradition is the natural home of Holy Scripture.

 And Holy Tradition is not simply anything one might find lurking  somewhere in Christian history.  (This, I think, is what Rob Bell means  when he speaks of the tradition:  Oh, I found this somewhere in an  old book.)  Rather, it is the living reality of Christ in His Church,  vivifying the Church by the Holy Spirit.  No new dogmas are revealed,  because everything was revealed in Christ.  There is an ongoing  revelation, but it is a revelation of the same things, the same God Who  wishes to be known by every person.  That is why not everything ever  said by every Christian writer is really part of Holy Tradition.  Some  got some things wrong, but it was not individual believers reading their  Bibles who knew better and then corrected them.  It was _the Church_,  acting according to the apostolic succession given to bind and to  loose, which sifted out what really represented the tradition and what  didnt.

 Someones always got to bind and loose.  Will it be people who were  ordained by those ordained by those ordained by the Apostles (and so  on), or will it just be me and my Bible?  Or just me and my church  community, founded by some fellow who settled here just a few decades  back?  Do you get the authority to bind and loose just by claiming it?
 R.C. Sproul had this to say about his view of Christian tradition:
Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it  does guide it. If upon reading a particular passage you have come up  with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other  Christian for two-thousand years, or has been championed by universally  recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon  your interpretation.  (_The Agony of Deceit_, p. 34-35)

But who will make you abandon it?  Does anyone have the authority to  do that?  And what if you disagree about whether those heretics are  universally recognized or whether an interpretation has really  escaped the notice of every other Christian for two-thousand years?  

This is finally the problem with Protestants laying claim to elements of Christian tradition while still retaining _sola scriptura_it  all becomes just texts, resources that can be called on or discarded  as the individual sees fit for himself.  I like it when Basil speaks  highly of Scripture but not when Ignatius speaks highly of the bishop.  I  like it when Athanasius insists on the _homoousios_ but not all  that man becomes god stuff.  I like Chrysostoms commentaries on  Scripture but not Cyprians insistence that you cannot have God for your  Father without the Church for your mother.

 They still just get to decide for themselves what they will listen to and what they wont.  Sola as distinct from solo _scriptura_ is really just a better-read version of the same thing.

 I love that some Protestants are getting in touch with Christian  history.  But they shouldnt fool themselves into thinking that theyre  being faithful to that legacy if they do not pay heed to so much of it.   And of course one cannot be faithful to everything in Christian  historythere are heretics and dragons lurking there, after all.  But if  navigating those waters in a craft I designed and built myself is  unlikely to bring me to a safe harbor, then getting together with my  neighbors to build it after we read some old books together is no  guarantee, either.

 My hope is that those who choose to sail those waters will come  bumping up to the Ark of Salvation, which is the Church.  There are lots  of life preservers and rescue teams ready to help.

 But I really am glad some of them are sailing.  Really glad.  This is _very_ good news.

----------


## TER

*Solo versus Sola Scriptura: Whats the Diff?*

                                             Posted on October 12, 2014 by robertar 
 

Father Andrew Stephen Damick recently wrote: _Protestants and a Churchless Tradition: Sola vs. Solo Scriptura._   Its an excellent article and I encourage readers to read the entire  article.  In this article I have excerpted parts of Father Andrews  article and used it as a basis my take on what is happening with the  recent rediscovery of historic _sola scriptura_ by Evangelicals.


Hipster Liturgist   *Source Source 2*
 
*The Latest Evangelical Fad  Tradition is Cool!*

 Fr. Andrew describes the high church fad sweeping the Evangelical world: Charismatics are celebrating Lent.  Baptists are talking about the Eucharist. The inscrutable  maybe-universalist and now Oprah-darling Rob Bell is even using the  phrase the tradition. Maybe this tradition stuff isnt so bad. I can  branch out a little. I can line up some Athanasius next to my MacArthur,  and a volume or two of Gregory of Nyssa next to my Bonhoeffer. Osteen  still goes somewhere preferable near the bottom. (Who gave me that book,  anyway?) Maybe well put Origen down there with him. Both are  questionable, right? Oh, hey, Ive heard Ratzinger is kind of  interesting. And that wounded healer Nouwen guys onto something. Has  anyone heard of someone named Schmemann?

 Welcome to the club, the Lutherans and  certain Reformed types say. Weve been waiting for you. Help yourself to  some creeds. We hope youll stay for some liturgy.

 And we hope youve discovered the difference between *sola* and *solo* scriptura.

*Simple Fundamentalism versus Sophisticated Evangelicalism*

 Most Evangelicals grew up on what Keith Mathison calls _solo scriptura_.   They were taught that all that is needed is the Bible  no external  authority or assistance is needed for understanding Scripture.  (See my review of Keith Mathisons _The Shape of Sola Scripture_.)  This approach can be traced to Alexander Campbell, an American  revivalist who lived in the early 1800s.  Out of the frontier revivals  came the motto: No creed but Christ, no book but the Bible.

 In recent years Evangelicals in growing numbers have begun to discover Church history.  They are venturing beyond Evangelicalisms provincial sub-culture to  explore the broad and diverse Christian traditions: historic Protestant  Reformation, early Christianity, mysticism, Roman Catholicism, and  Orthodoxy.  They soon discover that the original Protestant Reformers  were not afraid to use creeds or to cite the early church fathers and  that the Bible only slogan they grew up on is different from what Luther  and Calvin taught.  Classical _sola scriptura_ while affirming  Scripture as the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice  allowed for creeds and the early church fathers.  The original Reformers  had a far higher view of the church compared to many Evangelicals today  who question whether church membership is necessary to Christian  discipleship.

*Is Sola Scriptura Enough?*

 In recent years Evangelicals have begun to question and criticize _solo scriptura_.  Keith Mathison points out that _solo scriptura_  results in everything being evaluated in accordance with the individual  believers opinion of what is Scriptural.  As a corrective Evangelicals  like Mathison have begun to call for a more communal and historically  informed approach to Scripture, i.e., _sola scriptura_.

 Father Andrew notes that to say _sola scriptura_ involves a communal reading of Scripture leads to important questions about the church.
The Church is there to help. The Church will interpret the Bible together. I dont have to go it alone.
 But *what if* my church is wrong? What about when my church  interprets it in a manner that contradicts the Methodists down the  block? Whos right? Just read the Scripture? But thats what Ive been  doing!
 What is missing here is ecclesiology.
Father Andrew notes:
One can say that the Church has authority to interpret  Scripture, but which Church? Is it all of them? What about the fact that  they dont all agree? And no, they dont even all agree on essentials. *Which Church?*  is a critical question, and its one that isnt being asked very much  in these discussions. Still further, What is the Church? is also just  as critical, and I fear its also gotten lost somewhere. The second  question finally leads to the first. If you can figure out what the  Church is, then you will realize that not all churches are the Church.
 If not all churches are the Church, then that means theres got to be one that is that One. The Bible talks about only one.
Thus, historic _sola scriptura_ becomes deeply problematic in  light of Protestantisms deep rooted denominationalism.  I have called  this Protestantisms fatal genetic flaw*.* (See article.)

*Cause for Rejoicing*

Father Andrew finds Evangelicalisms recent discovery of church tradition cause for rejoicing.
Im overjoyed, of course, that Baptists, Lutherans,  Calvinists and others should want to read the Church Fathers, sign onto  the ancient creeds, and so forth. This is very good news, and I can only  believe that it is likely they will thereby move closer to the faith  that I hold as an Orthodox Christian.
We also rejoice with Father Andrew that Evangelicals are discovering  the early Church and that they are discovering the Liturgy.   Evangelicals are rediscovering their family roots and finding out about  the ancient treasures of historic Christianity.

 This has given rise to a curious kind of ecumenicism.  Some Evangelicals tell me that they too reject _sola scriptura_ (i.e., they reject _solo scriptura_)  and that they too accept church tradition like the Orthodox.  Or they  will maintain that classical Protestantism like Orthodoxy allows for  creeds, liturgies, and the church fathers.  What is being implied here  is that high church Evangelicalism is just as much a part of the one  Church as the Orthodox.  However, on closer inspection there are  problems here. It becomes increasingly obvious there is a superficiality  to the recent Evangelical rush to embrace church tradition.

*Cherry Picking Church History*

One thing that stands out about the recent Evangelical embrace of  early Christianity and church tradition is how decidedly/overwhelmingly  Protestant it all is.   While contemporary Evangelicals can pride  themselves for being well read, and more historically informed than  their Fundamentalist cousins  theyboth come from the same Protestant family tree.  Father Andrew writes:
This is finally the problem with Protestants laying claim  to elements of Christian tradition while still retaining sola  scriptura*it all becomes just texts,* resources that can be *called on or discarded as the individual sees fit for himself*.  I like it when Basil speaks highly of Scripture but not when Ignatius  speaks highly of the bishop. I like it when Athanasius insists on the  homoousios but not all that man becomes god stuff. I like Chrysostoms  commentaries on Scripture but not Cyprians insistence that you cannot  have God for your Father without the Church for your mother.
This kind of individualism has never been part of Orthodoxy. To be  Orthodox is to accept Holy Tradition and to live under the authority of  the bishops the appointed guardians of Tradition.  What we find in the  Orthodox Church: the Divine Liturgy, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the  early Church Fathers, the Sacraments, the priestly order, the icons,  comprise an integrated package known as Holy Tradition.  These are all  the result of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church.
And Holy Tradition is not simply anything one might find  lurking somewhere in Christian history.   . . . .   Rather, it is the  living reality of Christ in His Church, vivifying the Church by the Holy  Spirit. No new dogmas are revealed, because everything was revealed in  Christ. There is an ongoing revelation, but it is a revelation of the  same things, the same God Who wishes to be known by every person.

This understanding that the Holy Spirit guides the Church is a very crucial point.  Father Andrew notes that for Keith Mathison*,* God  inspires Scripture  but God does not necessarily inspire His Church.   This despite Christs promise in Scripture! (see John 14:26, 16:13)   Protestantisms refusal to believe the Holy Spirit inspires the Church  (likely a reaction against Papal authority) resulted in the  individualistic interpretation of Scripture: Luther, Calvin, Wesley,  ones pastor, ones favorite TV preacher or seminary professor giving  rise to the current plethora of Protestant denominations.

*Whats the Diff?*

 In the end the differences between Fundamentalisms _solo scriptura_ and high church Evangelicalisms _sola scriptura_  are inconsequential.  It is like the difference between the practical,  plainly dressed Fundamentalist who likes Hal Lindsey and Charles Stanley  and his upscale hip Evangelical cousin who likes Henri Nouwen, G.K.  Chesterton, and Alexander Schmemann.  Having descended from the same  Protestant family tree they both retain their individualistic autonomy.   Even the Reformed Christian who recently discovers the church fathers  and believes in the real presence in the Eucharist do so as a matter of  individual choice.  There is not the slightest ecclesiastical  consequence for wholesale rejection of the historic Churchs view of  bishop rule, the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Liturgy and Eucharist.   Each denomination (individual?) can have their own unique view of these  things.

 For Protestantschurch is a place of fellowship and  mutual encouragement, a temporary rest spot before moving on.   Tragically absent in Evangelicalism is the biblical understanding of the  Church as the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Timothy 3:15)   Orthodoxy affirms it is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church  confessed in the Nicene Creed.  This is something most Evangelicals and  Protestants would hesitate to affirm about their particular  denomination.  Most Evangelicals have no problem with the notion of an  invisible Church*,* but this leaves them with no concrete  authoritative Church here on earth to guide them and provide them safe  shelter from heresies.


 
*Children in the Attic*

 Father Andrew closes his article  with the wonderful image of tiny rowboats, all bumping up against the  great Ark of Salvation, the Church.  Allow me to suggest an alternative  word picture.  I am reminded of the scene where a group of children  stuck in the house on a rainy day, make their way to the attic.  Opening  antique trunks they discover old dresses and clothes their ancestors  wore years ago in the old country.  They put on the old clothes and  pretend to reenact life in the old days.  The magic of the old days  fills the attic for a brief moment on that rainy afternoon*,*  but after awhile they tire of it and go downstairs to resume their  normal everyday twenty first century life as before.  Before you know  it, they will find another new fun hobby.  But for those of us who  believe church history is the fulfillment of Christs promise in John  16:13 and who believe that ancient Church of yesterday continues in the  Orthodox Church today we bid others to cross the Bosphorus with us.  We converted to Orthodoxy not because its cool* * but because its true.

_Robert Arakaki_

----------


## Terry1

TER, this part of the article really caught my eye because it's basically the same thing I just said in a recent post about difference between the churches that's also explained in the seven letters to the seven churches in Rev. 2.  This is where some churches are indeed stepping stones to greater faith and onto those churches that retain the true Gospel of Christ and the meat eaters of the word as leaders of that church.  God seems to be confirming Himself amongst us here.   Great post and very timely as well. 





> For Protestantschurch is a place of fellowship and mutual encouragement, a temporary rest spot before moving on. Tragically absent in Evangelicalism is the biblical understanding of the Church as “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Timothy 3:15) Orthodoxy affirms it is the one holy catholic and apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene Creed. This is something most Evangelicals and Protestants would hesitate to affirm about their particular denomination. Most Evangelicals have no problem with the notion of an invisible Church, but this leaves them with no concrete authoritative Church here on earth to guide them and provide them safe shelter from heresies.

----------


## TER

I am happy to share these excellent blog posts with you Terry.  It is not meant as a polemic, but to help some of our Protestant friends understand the Orthodox point of view with regards to Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura (which differ by definition but still have as its ultimate authority the opinions and interpretations of the learner over the Church). 

I think it can give some understanding also why our brother here RJB has made his willful decision to join the Orthodox Church and why so many like him are doing the same.   It would be beneficial for some to understand how it is that when someone can check their baggage at the door, humble themselves, study the history of the Christian Church with an open heart and mind, and (most importantly through repentance and prayer!) find that the historic Church which was established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, developed by His beloved God-bearing Saints, and empowered and guided by His Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit has (against all odds!) survived these past 2000 years as Christ promised and continues to witness to the world the gospel of salvation revealed by the Only-Begotten Son of our Father in Heaven, our Savior Jesus Christ.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

5 star thread, thnx. ~hugs~

----------


## Kevin007

> I am happy to share these excellent blog posts with you Terry.  It is not meant as a polemic, but to help some of our Protestant friends understand the Orthodox point of view with regards to Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura (which differ by definition but still have as its ultimate authority the opinions and interpretations of the learner over the Church). 
> 
> I think it can give some understanding also why our brother here RJB has made his willful decision to join the Orthodox Church and why so many like him are doing the same.   It would be beneficial for some to understand how it is that when someone can check their baggage at the door, humble themselves, study the history of the Christian Church with an open heart and mind, and (most importantly through repentance and prayer!) find that the historic Church which was established by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, developed by His beloved God-bearing Saints, and empowered and guided by His Most Holy and Life-Giving Spirit has (against all odds!) survived these past 2000 years as Christ promised and continues to witness to the world the gospel of salvation revealed by the Only-Begotten Son of our Father in Heaven, our Savior Jesus Christ.


*the church isn't a denomination or a building. It is all Bible Believing Christians around the world.

If the both the OC and RCC follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they  teach doctrine so different that they are not in communion with  each other?** If the Orthodox church gave the  world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the EOC's  reject the inspiration of the Book of Revelation, then later accept it? *

----------


## Kevin007

http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm

a nice comparison of the RCC vs the EOC and each other saying the other is not the true church and why... interesting reading


*Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox differences based upon tradition:
*Roman Catholics and Eastern Greek Orthodox churches accuse the other of false doctrines both base upon tradition:

The Catholics reject several of the specific canons of the early ecumenical councils, but the orthodox accept them as inspired.Catholics and Orthodox disagree on the dates of Christmas and  Easter. While the Orthodox church claims council at Nice was inspired,  yet is rejects the canons of Nicea on the date of Easter which the  Catholics accept.The Catholics teach purgatory, yet the Orthodox reject it.Universal papal jurisdiction was a rather large dogfight in 588-606 AD.Although the Orthodox reject Papal infallibility, the decisions of the orthodox synods are considered infallible.The Immaculate Conception is utterly rejected by the Orthodox.The orthodox baptized by full immersion (thrice), the Catholics sprinkle.In the Orthodox Church married men can become priests. In the  Catholic church men are forbidden to marry. (except for one small part  of the world)The Roman Catholic church introduced instrumental music no earlier  than the 7th century and the Orthodox church has never used instrumental  music, but like the apostles, sang without instrument.In Catholic communion, the cup is withheld from the members, while the Orthodox float the "crouton looking" bread cubes in the wine. Catholics  believe the bread and wine (transubstantiation) become the literal body  of Christ when the priest says, "this is my body". The Orthodox  disagrees and says the change takes place at prayer. Catholics use  unleavened bread, while Orthodox use leavened bread. Orthodox must keep a  ridged schedule of fasts in order to have communion every week, but the  most common practice is a minimum of four times a year during the four  Orthodox Lents "Christmas, Easter, Peter and Paul, The virgin Mary.  Catholics on the other hand, must not eat the hour before, to have  communion every day. In the end, Orthodox offer communion weekly and  Catholics daily. In practice most Orthodox laity have communion four  times year and Catholics weekly. So which of these two traditions is the  one the apostles used? All this proves that they have no valid  "apostolic tradition", otherwise they would all agree! They differ on  the frequency of communion, the fasting requirements and the actual  method of partaking.Transubstantiation is a false doctrine that  says the bread and grape juice of the Lord's supper actually  molecularly change to become the flesh and blood of Jesus. Of course  this old doctrine was formulated before the advent of molecular  microscopes which see no change. For Catholics the "Transubstantiation"  occurs when the priest says the words, "this is my body". For Orthodox  the change occurs when the priest offers the prayer of thanks.The "Filioque" scandal: Following the Nicene creed, the Orthodox  Church believed the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father alone. Then in  1054 AD the Roman church added to the wording of the Nicene creed "And  the Son" or the "Filioque." The Roman church believed the Holy Spirit  proceeded from BOTH the Father and the Son.Orthodox keeps the original Nicene Creed, accepted by the Universal  Church, East and West, during the first millennium without the addition  of "And the Son" or the "Filioque." It accepts, on faith, Christ's words  in the Gospel, that the Father is the Unoriginate Source of the Life of  the Trinity, with the Only-Begotten Son and the Holy Spirit Proceeding  from the Father Alone. We cannot know how the Begetting of the Son and  the Proceeding of the Spirit from the same Father is different, only  that it is and this distinguishes the two Persons.

----------


## TER

> *the church isn't a denomination or a building. It is all Bible Believing Christians around the world.
> 
> If the both the OC and RCC follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they  teach doctrine so different that they are not in communion with  each other?** If the Orthodox church gave the  world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the EOC's  reject the inspiration of the Book of Revelation, then later accept it? *


My friend Kevin, had you actually read the first two posts you would find that nowhere did such a statement as the Church being a denomination or a building ever get mentioned or implied.

If in fact you did indeed read the first two posts and have this above to be your participation and offering, then you completely missed what the topic of the thread is about.  We are discussing the fact that whether one is 'Sola Scriptura' or 'Solo Scriptura', it still boils down to the individual putting their interpretation and opinion above everything else, including the works of the Holy Spirit in the world.  If you would like to discuss those charges you made above, then please start a thread and initiate a dialogue about the inconsistencies you see between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  It is a fascinating topic actually, full of history, drama, celebrations, and feasts.  A lot of political intrigue as well for those who have an interest in such things.  But I assure you, while we are not in eucharistic and full sacramental unity as of now, there is much common truth between these sister Churches and doctrinal consistencies, especially with regard to moral teachings and how one should live.  For the first thousand plus years, the two were one and collectively were called the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  This is not an exaggeration.  This was the concrete historical truth.  There existed no other Church which could make such a claim and stand up to evidence and deliberation.

The question of this thread has to do with who or what we consider to be the 'foundation and pillar of truth'?  The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or the one we have created in our heads (where we decide who was right and who was wrong, and pick and choose whatever we want and call it the truth)?

----------


## Kevin007

> My friend Kevin, had you actually read the first two posts you would find that nowhere did such a statement as the Church being a denomination or a building ever get mentioned or implied.
> 
> If in fact you did indeed read the first two posts and have this above to be your participation and offering, then you completely missed what the topic of the thread is about.  We are discussing the fact that whether one is 'Sola Scriptura' or 'Sola Scriptura', it still boils down to the individual putting their interpretation and opinion above everything else, including the works of the Holy Spirit in the world.  If you would like to discuss those charges you made above, then please start a thread and initiate a dialogue about the inconsistencies you see between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church.  It is a fascinating topic actually, full of history, drama, celebrations, and feasts.  A lot of political intrigue as well for those who have an interest in such things.  But I assure you, while we are not in eucharistic and full sacramental unity as of now, there is much common truth between these sister Churches and doctrinal consistencies, especially with regard to moral teachings and how one should live.  For the first thousand plus years, the two were one and collectively were called the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  This is not an exaggeration.  This was the concrete historical truth.  There existed no other Church which could make such a claim and stand up to evidence and deliberation.
> 
> The question of this thread has to do with who or what we consider to be the 'foundation and pillar of truth'?  The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church or the one we have created in our heads (where we decide who was right and who was wrong, and pick and choose whatever we want and call it the truth)?


which church is that?

----------


## TER

> which church is that?


I believe, after prayer and study, that it is the Orthodox Church.  From the Saints of the Orthodox Church (which go back to Abraham, Moses and the Prophets and all the New Testament writers) I find the doctrines and wisdom regarding Christ's revelation to mankind which the Christian Church has faithfully carried out (not since I was born), but which can demonstrate historical and apostolic authority and reliability, not only in my head, but in truth.

Since this is a thread about Solo and Sola Scriptura, would you like to share if you believe in one or both?

----------


## Kevin007

> I believe, after prayer and study, that it is the Orthodox Church.  From the Saints of the Orthodox Church (which go back to Abraham, Moses and the Prophets and all the New Testament writers) I find the doctrines and wisdom regarding Christ's revelation to mankind which the Christian Church has faithfully carried out (not since I was born), but which can demonstrate historical and apostolic authority and reliability, not only in my head, but in truth.
> 
> Since this is a thread about Solo and Sola Scriptura, would you like to share if you believe in one or both?



so both your church and the Catholics claim the same thing.....

----------


## TER

> so both your church and the Catholics claim the same thing.....


Good night Kevin.  Maybe another day you will answer my question above.

----------


## TER

*According to the Scriptures*

October 16, 2014 by Nathan Duffy
link HERE
 

 

 In the Nicene Creed, recited by the faithful at every divine liturgy,  the Church confesses that Jesus Christ was crucified and rose again  according to the Scriptures. This language is taken directly from St.  Paul in 1 Cor. 15:4, and is thereafter a common expression among the  apostolic fathers.

 Most of us todaysomewhat naturallytake this to mean that Christ was  crucified and rose again in accord with the account of those events as  recorded in the New Testament documents. But, in reality, this  expression was about the _continuity_ of the apostolic _kerygma,_ or proclamation, of Jesus Christ as God incarnate, crucified and risen for our salvation, _with_ the Scripturesthat is, with the Law, Psalms, and the Prophets. 1 How could it have been otherwise in St. Paul and the early fathers usage?

 The subject of the continuity of the old covenant with the new, of  Israel and the Church, of the God of the Old Testament and Jesus  Christ, was a subject of some controversy for the early church. There  were some heretics who theorized that Jesus Christ was a completely  separate God from the God of the Old Testament, thereby introducing a  radical discontinuity between old covenant and new. On the other hand,  in Judaizing camps, it was claimed that the Law was still in effect in  an unaltered, unfulfilled manner, despite Christs incarnation and all  His mighty saving acts.  The Church, in her wisdom, rejected both  radical discontinuity with the Scripturesthat is, the Law, Psalms, and  Prophetsand a continuity so absolute that Christs work would make no  difference. And she did so in accord with Christs own words on the  matter in Matt. 5:17.

 Likewise, confessing that the apostolic _kerygma_, the  gospel, was according to the Scriptures was nothing more than a  reiteration of what Christ says in John 5:39: You search the scriptures  [i.e. the Old Testament], because you think that in them you have  eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me. Christ himself  alerts the apostles of the Scripturesthe Law, Psalms, and  Prophetstestifying of him, and he does so again on the road to Emmaus,  after his resurrection: and beginning with Moses and all the prophets,  he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning  himself (Luke 24:27). Thus, the revelation of Christ as the Word of God  takes place uniquely in the milieu of the apostolic preaching of the  crucifixion and resurrection in engagement with the Scripturesthe Law,  Psalms, and Prophets.

 Fr. John Behr, in his text _The Way to Nicaea_, explicates this point when interpreting a passage by St. Irenaeus of Lyons _Against Heresies_:
[T]he apostles certainly delivered a new manner of  reading the Scriptures, proclaiming Christ according to the  Scriptures, but, according to Irenaeus, what they handed down, both in  public preaching and in writing, remained tied to the Scripture. Rather  than standing within this tradition of the apostolic engagement with  Scripture, in which Christ is revealed, the Word which is not mans but  Gods, those who distort this canon think that the truth resides in  their own interpretations, their own fabrications, and so end up  preaching themselves. 2

Its only in the apostolic _kerygma_ according to the  Scriptures that the gospel is constituted and delivered to the world.  In other words, it is only within the apostolic _tradition_ that  the gospel is rightly proclaimed. This tradition itself has both written  and unwritten aspects (cf. 2 Thess 2:15), as the authority of the  apostles was not confined to the times they wrote letters to churches,  but included their exhortations, laying on of hands, performance of  miracles, and live preaching.

 But if the Tradition of the Church is authoritative, doesnt that  diminish the authority of Scripture? No, the two are complimentary and  inseparable. Its precisely this unity of Scripture in Tradition that  distinguishes an Orthodox approach to the faith from all others. In  opposition to this, those who claim to have access to some tradition of  the apostles that cant be demonstrated from the Scriptures (i.e. the  Old Testament) are shown to be heretics. Behr continues:
Irenaeus appeal to tradition is thus fundamentally  different to that of his opponents. While they appealed to tradition  precisely for that which was not in Scripture, or for principles which  would legitimize their interpretation of Scripture, Irenaeus, in his  appeal to tradition, was not appealing to anything else that was not  also in Scripture. Thus Irenaeus can appeal to tradition, to establish  his case, and at the same time maintain that Scripture cannot be  understood except on the basis of Scripture itself. 3

The Churchs life and tradition, then, is the space within which  Scripture comes into being and is handed down and interpreted rightlyin  accordance with the apostolic preaching of the gospel of Jesus Christ,  and by the vivifying power of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## jmdrake

When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context.  I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin.  The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible.  And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer.  At least that's what the Bible said.  And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is *not* the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.

----------


## jmdrake

> I believe, after prayer and study, that it is the Orthodox Church.


So let me see if I understand.  After prayer and study *you came to your opinion* that the Orthodox Church is the true church?  I hope you see where I'm going with this.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context.  I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin.  The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible.  And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer.  At least that's what the Bible said.  And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is *not* the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.


Pope Francis is a clueless liberal.

----------


## TER

> When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context.  I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin.  The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible.  And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer.  At least that's what the Bible said.  And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is *not* the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.


I wish you did read more of the Church Fathers and put more energy in studying the actual history of Christianity from the first century and after my brother, especially on how the baptized men and women in the world have labored from the beginning in order to pass down the traditions handed down by the apostles and those who succeeded them.  

There is no conflict with the Scriptures and the Church.  There is interpretation of the Scriptures within the Church.  And not the interpretation of one man or one person, but the interpretation as deliberated and defended and clarified through the milieu of the catholic Church.  Not in fantasy or in thoughtful imagination, but in concrete reality, in a blessed water of baptism, a spoken confession and creed, a written declaration or canon of Scripture, in true succession of the laying of the hands and anointing of the oil and Holy Spirit.  These traditions go back in form and development for 2000 years and lead us to the life of the early Church.  This is the concrete working of the Holy Spirit, not having sprung up a hundred years ago, but 2000 years ago, not starting from the day I was born or the day I thought something up or agreed to something else, but what is the historical, liturgical, and sacramentally sealed witness which has been faithfully handed down, through good times and bad, through persecution and state protection, and demonstrating the power of God and the proofs of the Holy Spirit by the lives of the saints.  The tradition of the Church is the life of the Church, guided by God Himself in the Holy Spirit.

We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't.  At least, I know that applies to me acknowledging my sinfulness and having _really_ read their writings and studied their lives and the unimaginable circumstances and challenges they faced in order to pass down faithfully the traditions and teachings handed down by the Apostles.  I wish to be in communion with those who I know indeed were 'Holy Spirit filled' saints instead of putting so much weight in my own mind's capabilities.  Nor do I put my faith in people who taught completely innovative teachings 15, 17, or 19 centuries later, apart from the body of Christians who have worshiped in unity since the beginning.  If Christ truly did create a Church on earth empowered by the Holy Spirit, which He promised that the gates of Hell would never overcome, then I want to find THAT Church, which can show itself through history AND through the blessed sacrament to go back to the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost.

This is why I am an Orthodox Christian.  Not because I am great, or because I am something, but because I know how badly fallible and sinful I am, and even though I can just as easily trust in myself above all and claim to be 'learning from the Holy Spirit' , I know by the way I live and the sins I do that I am only fooling myself to believe such a thing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> When I read the Catholic Church making statements like they value the sexual orientation of people who are gay (as opposed to just valuing them as people) or the pope saying that "unbridled capitalism" a "new tyranny" I am reminded of why Protestants came up with sola scriptura in the first place.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with looking in writings of Christians to came after the apostles for historical context.  I'll read everyone from St. Augustine to Martin Luther to John Calvin.  The problem comes when there is clear conflict with the Bible.  And ultimately the Holy Spirit is to be the teacher of the believer.  At least that's what the Bible said.  And no, learning from "the Holy Spirit filled priest" is *not* the same as learning from the Holy Spirit Himself.


The pope is not Orthodox (the perspective from which the article's author is writing).  It is the duty of the Roman Catholic laity to correct him.  IDK why it doesn't seem to happen much, but that's how it is.  I've not done much reading WRT how the RCC handles these things.

----------


## TER

*The Bible and the Spirit of Democracy*

Fr. Stephen Freeman 
link HERE




My  first introduction to ancient writings was in my Classical Greek  classes my freshman year of college. Most of those were tortuous  exercises filled with the rules of a foreign grammar. My friends laughed  at how hard and long I labored in those studies. With time, however,  the work began to yield pleasure as the language became a familiar  friend. The same experience followed in my sophomore year as I added  Latin to my studies. For most of my college years I thought that my  future was a doctorate in Classics and a life as an academic. Those  academic thoughts followed me to seminary where I continued to read in  the Fathers. Every serious attempt at mastery opened new worlds to me.  Tracking down a single problematic passage and making sense of it would  easily entail an afternoon in the library and a likely trail through a  number of books. It was hard.

 What I gained from all of that was some  cursory knowledge of a few topics – but a much deeper feel and respect  for the true labor of scholarship and the actual price of knowledge and  mastery. 

 Parallel to these studies was my  beginning work in Holy Scripture. But an obvious conclusion marked that  undertaking. Old books are old books. It doesn’t matter what their  content may be, they have that much in common. It made no sense to me to  treat the Scriptures in a manner that was essentially different than I  treated Plato or Thucydides. I did not dismiss the inspiration of the  Scriptures, but they remained “old books,” no matter what.

 As such, it seemed obvious to me that  reading them in their original languages was essential to their  understanding. I added Hebrew to my languages while in seminary. Latin  and Greek belong to the same great family of languages as English,  German, Russian, etc. – the family known as Indo-European. These  languages have their own feel and many things that distinguish them, but  they share a great deal in common. This is not true of Hebrew. Hebrew  is a Semitic language and is nothing like anything in the Indo-European  family. It has its own feel – one that cannot be had in translation –  and even more impossible if that translation is into a language that  belongs to a completely different family. 

 This same set of learnings applies to the  reading of the Fathers. St. Isaac of Syria, for example, belongs to a  culture that was Semitic, though influenced by the Hellenistic culture  of the Byzantine Greeks. And I could begin here to add layers of  complexity. In short order any reasonable person would throw up their  hands and say, “Then who can understand?” The honest answer would be,  “Few.”

And it is here that our modern world  comes crashing to a halt. For there is no more deeply held assumption  within our modern mythology than the equality of all. It is the bedrock  foundation of the Spirit of Democracy that defines the modern period. 

 Democracy (and Modernity) can be said to  have started with the Protestant Reformation. The principle of Sola  Scriptura was essentially a revolution in the concept of spiritual  authority. If the Bible is the only authority, and every man can read  his Bible, then every man is his own authority. None of the original  Reformers intended such a radical revision of the Church, but its  internal logic was irrepressible. And it spread from the Church to the  culture at large. In Germany it sparked the Peasants’ Revolt, forcing  Martin Luther to reluctantly support the bloody repression that was  among the darkest moments of the period (100,000 peasants were  slaughtered).

 The revolutions that are synonymous with  the modern period are all rooted in the same instincts. Some, like the  Puritan-led Civil War in England, were specifically religious. Others,  like America and France were more specifically political. But all had  their roots in the spiritual democracy of the Reformation (and Sola  Scriptura).

 There is clearly something true about  spiritual equality. No one is superior to another before God. But this  equality before God (as He loves the evil as well as the good) does not  extend to the whole of our lives. We have different gifts and varying  abilities. These same inequalities ascend even to the throne of God: “To  whom much is given, much will be required.”

 The Scriptures may be read by all, but  they will not be understood by all. The arrogance of the democratic  spirit, however, leads many astray and makes them prey to the manifold  charlatans who make them _think_ that they _do_ understand.  This also has its supporting democratic fallacy that our lives (and  salvation) are the product of a rational response to the universally  available information of the Scriptures. The Bible states the facts – I  understand them – I do them. Ergo salvation. Today, the children of Sola  Scriptura have largely reduced the Bible to a set of slogans: John  3:16; Ephesians 2:8, etc. They are quoted like the popularized scraps of  the Constitution that litter the minds of the American public.

 The same spirit of democracy is alive and  well within modern Orthodoxy, it should be noted. “The Fathers say,” is  found as often on the lips of many Orthodox as frequently as “the Bible  says” on the lips of Protestants. And it is equally absurd on the lips  of almost all.

 The Second Epistle of Peter says this of the writings of St. Paul: 
… [in all his epistles, Paul speaks] of  these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which  untaught and unstable peopletwist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. (2Pe 3:16)
But in our modern, democratic world, everyone who reads this passage thinks it is speaking about someone other than them! 

 The Scriptures are difficult to  understand, simply on the most straightforward level. What often passes  for understanding is nothing of the sort. To actually _hear_ the  Scriptures without the filters of cultural abuse and twisting they have  endured over the centuries (and especially in the modern period) is a  great spiritual feat, a miracle. 

 This feat is even greater when it comes  to reading the Fathers – for there the layers become even denser, the  required contextual knowledge yet more complex. 

 The scholarly reading of Scripture and  the Fathers is inherently non-egalitarian. All are not equal. All will  not have equal understanding. But neither is it truly and solely  intellectual. For spiritual meaning is also spiritually discerned. And  it is here that many make shipwreck of their understanding. For the  arrogance of our times convinces many that “at least with themselves”  the ability to spiritually discern will be present. Or, more commonly,  they will champion this reader or that and choose sides like the crowds  of a football match. Theological debate often resembles the conversation  of sports clubs.

At the end of all of this it is easy to wonder how anyone can read and interpret anything. 

 The answer again is truly “very few” can.  What makes such a statement so disturbing in our present world is the  assumption borne of the modern, democratic spirit that only by reading  and interpreting can we be truly saved. This, of course, is necessitated  by the spiritual/political faith of modernity. 

 And it is not true. Most people cannot  rightly read and interpret and they have never been able to. They are as  much prey to spiritual demagogues as they are to political ones. In  today’s world, those demagogues are the masters of consumerism. We  “consume” the “message” of Scripture, just as we consume the nostrums of  our political leaders. And the spiritual world is today at least as  dysfunctional as the political (and for the same reasons).

 But our salvation does not depend on our  intellect nor on a book rightly read. There have probably been large  stretches of time in which virtually no one living had the scholarly  ability to treat texts correctly, to say little of the spiritual  maturity required. God has not left us bereft.

 The necessity of Tradition is revealed in  the very heart of this. Salvation is not found in the pursuit of  understanding – it is found in the pursuit of God. That journey is the  life lived within the practices of the Church. _The Church itself is the interpretation of Scripture_  – it is what theology looks like. It is why everything within the New  Testament is pointed towards the forming and shaping of the Church – not  the forming and shaping of a theological argument. Salvation is lived.

 The continuity of the Church’s life is Holy Tradition. It is the living remembrance promised by Christ: 
“But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom  the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring  to your remembrance all things that I said to you.” (Joh 14:26)
It is why the “remembrance” of the sacrifice of Christ is a meal that is eaten rather than an idea that is entertained.
 The Church has been sustained through the  centuries – particularly through the most difficult centuries – by this  unbroken continuity of life – particularly as found in the liturgies  and practices of the faithful. Interestingly, less harm has been  suffered when the intellectual life of the Church was suppressed (as  under the Soviets) than when the liturgical life of the Church was  suppressed or overthrown (as in the modern Reformation and  Post-Reformation period). 

 The saying, “Lex orandi, lex credendi,”  (the law of praying is the law of believing) has always been true. How  the Church prays will always (always!) shape what the Church believes.  Those who pray like consumers will believe like consumers. Those who  pray in the arrogance of their democratic mythology will believe in the  same manner.

 The day of my ordination to the Orthodox  priesthood, I was being driven across town by a group of priests. I was  full of thoughts and questions, nervously chatting away. A gruff  hierodeacon (from Byelorus) in the car rebuked me sternly, “You don’t  need to think! You need to pray!” 

 It’s still true more often than not.

----------


## jmdrake

> The pope is not Orthodox (the perspective from which the article's author is writing).  It is the duty of the Roman Catholic laity to correct him.  IDK why it doesn't seem to happen much, but that's how it is.  I've not done much reading WRT how the RCC handles these things.


Right.  But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox.  But that's tangential to my point.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church".  (One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.)  In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO.  So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new.  As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that.  But in the dark ages that meant death.  Have you ever heard of Jan Huss?  He was a reformer that preceded Luther.  (Luther really was not the first reformer.)  His argument with the RCC?  He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord.  (Paul himself said "Follow me *as I follow Christ*").  For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake.  So was his friend Jerome.  Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope.  Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.

----------


## jmdrake

TER how about joining Deb and others in going through the Bible?  Seriously?  I know myself that I have a lot more Bible study I need to do.  Have you exhausted everything it is that you could possibly learned from the earliest church fathers, namely the apostles?  If so, good for you.  

As for your statement that "We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't." my response is this.  The earliest church fathers longed for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.

*1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.*

Christians are not supposed to be "Ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth."  I don't think I have "arrived" so that I am "wiser than all Christians before me".  I don't know why whenever this conversation comes up that's the type of response I get.  But I don't believe God is so limited in 2014 that He cannot explain His truth to His children without them having to rely on 2nd hand information.  The writings in the Bible are first hand accounts of God's working through creation to the establishment of the Christian church.  Writings after that are helpful for history.  I like reading Josephus and he wasn't even Christian!  But he is helpful for understanding history.




> I wish you did read more of the Church Fathers and put more energy in studying the actual history of Christianity from the first century and after my brother, especially on how the baptized men and women in the world have labored from the beginning in order to pass down the traditions handed down by the apostles and those who succeeded them.  
> 
> There is no conflict with the Scriptures and the Church.  There is interpretation of the Scriptures within the Church.  And not the interpretation of one man or one person, but the interpretation as deliberated and defended and clarified through the milieu of the catholic Church.  Not in fantasy or in thoughtful imagination, but in concrete reality, in a blessed water of baptism, a spoken confession and creed, a written declaration or canon of Scripture, in true succession of the laying of the hands and anointing of the oil and Holy Spirit.  These traditions go back in form and development for 2000 years and lead us to the life of the early Church.  This is the concrete working of the Holy Spirit, not having sprung up a hundred years ago, but 2000 years ago, not starting from the day I was born or the day I thought something up or agreed to something else, but what is the historical, liturgical, and sacramentally sealed witness which has been faithfully handed down, through good times and bad, through persecution and state protection, and demonstrating the power of God and the proofs of the Holy Spirit by the lives of the saints.  The tradition of the Church is the life of the Church, guided by God Himself in the Holy Spirit.
> 
> We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't.  At least, I know that applies to me acknowledging my sinfulness and having _really_ read their writings and studied their lives and the unimaginable circumstances and challenges they faced in order to pass down faithfully the traditions and teachings handed down by the Apostles.  I wish to be in communion with those who I know indeed were 'Holy Spirit filled' saints instead of putting so much weight in my own mind's capabilities.  Nor do I put my faith in people who taught completely innovative teachings 15, 17, or 19 centuries later, apart from the body of Christians who have worshiped in unity since the beginning.  If Christ truly did create a Church on earth empowered by the Holy Spirit, which He promised that the gates of Hell would never overcome, then I want to find THAT Church, which can show itself through history AND through the blessed sacrament to go back to the Upper Room on the Day of Pentecost.
> 
> This is why I am an Orthodox Christian.  Not because I am great, or because I am something, but because I know how badly fallible and sinful I am, and even though I can just as easily trust in myself above all and claim to be 'learning from the Holy Spirit' , I know by the way I live and the sins I do that I am only fooling myself to believe such a thing.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *Right.  But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox.*  But that's tangential to my point.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church".  (One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.)  In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO.  So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new.  As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that.  But in the dark ages that meant death.  Have you ever heard of Jan Huss?  He was a reformer that preceded Luther.  (Luther really was not the first reformer.)  His argument with the RCC?  He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord.  (Paul himself said "Follow me *as I follow Christ*").  For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake.  So was his friend Jerome.  Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope.  Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.


Hmmm...strange...I've never seen that.  As to "which Orthodox Church", the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Church(a type of Oriental Church) are schismatic.  The Churches in communion with each other-comprising the One, Holy, Catholic (orthodox use this word in its original sense-"universal") and Apostolic Church are those in Russia, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia.

----------


## TER

> Right.  But every time he makes these crazy statements I see Orthodox Christians defending him as if he was Orthodox.  But that's tangential to my point


Have you heard any Orthodox Christian defend the Pope with regards to this current Synod in Rome?  I haven't.  When the Roman Catholic Pope says something which the Orthodox Church proclaims as well, then there is agreement.  When he doesn't, then there is disagreement.  In your experience, there may seem more agreements and defending of the other, but that is because there are signs the two great Churches are coming closer and overcoming obstacles.  Trust me, there were times when because of Papal policies there was little camaraderie, such as in the Fourth Crusade.  But the truth is that there is in fact much that are similar, most importantly, a common history.  The goal is now to strengthen these bonds, re-establish those ancient ties, and forgive one another so that they might share together as one Body as they did for a thousand years starting from the days of the early Church.




> Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Orthodox church is the "true church".


How I wish you did not assume, but also came to know!




> (One has to ask which Orthodox church because Terry doesn't believe the Ethiopian Orthodox church is part of the Orthodox communion.)


The EO and OO have been in schism since the 4th century because of a misunderstanding of Christologic terminology.  In fact, in recent interfaith conferences, it is clear that they share (depending on the terminology one uses) the exact same orthodox faith.  But even still, with the span of 1700 years later, they still have the same saints of the infant Church, still have the same sacraments, still worship liturgically in almost exactly the same way, still confess the same orthodox belief of 99% of teachings.  Pretty interesting, right?  If you don't find that interesting or telling, then I am sorry you do not.  To me, it only further confirms to me that if I want to find the true understanding of the life in Christ, in praxis and worship, I should look to the past and to the beginnings.




> In the Western world there was not the choice between RCC and EO.  So if the RCC was wrong the only choice reformers had was to try to reform it or to start something new.


That is not true.  There was much dialogue in the 17th century between the Lutherans and the Orthodox Church.  




> As for "correcting the pope" I'm not sure how someone does that.  But in the dark ages that meant death.  Have you ever heard of Jan Huss?  He was a reformer that preceded Luther.  (Luther really was not the first reformer.)  His argument with the RCC?  He taught that people should only follow the church if the church was following the Lord.  (Paul himself said "Follow me *as I follow Christ*").  For this "heresy" he was burned at the stake.  So was his friend Jerome.  Oh, and at one point during Huss's lifetime there where 3 different men vying to be pope.  Clearly two of them had to be the wrong person to follow.


It is unfortunate what happened to Jan Huss.  But that was in the dark ages of Papal imperialism and a symptom of larger problems because of such Papal abuse.

----------


## TER

> TER how about joining Deb and others in going through the Bible?  Seriously?  I know myself that I have a lot more Bible study I need to do.  Have you exhausted everything it is that you could possibly learned from the earliest church fathers, namely the apostles?  If so, good for you.


I think that Deb's thread is a great idea.  In fact, I have thought about putting the quotes of the Church Fathers who have commented about those particular verses.  Their wisdom is much greater than mine.  But I have not had the time because of personal reasons.  I do admire those who are contributing to it and wish them well in it.  



> As for your statement that "We can confess we are so full of the Holy Spirit to think we know better than the early martyrs and Church Fathers, but chances are unfortunately, we probably aren't." my response is this.  The earliest church fathers longed for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.


Jmdrake, honest question:  Have you read any complete works of the Church Fathers?  What is your knowledge about the lives of the saints, what they wrote, and what they taught and confessed to be the apostolic truths? I think we must be honest if we are going to say what 'they longed for us' that we have actually read them to make such a guess.  But, nevertheless, in this point, you are right!  They _did_ indeed long for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.  They _also_ longed that we humble _ourselves_, that we don't confess heresy nor depend on our _own_ thoughts, interpretations, and opinions which go against the orthodox teachings handed down by the saints before them (that is, the Church), so that we might enter into unity of faith and worship as one Body of Christ.




> Christians are not supposed to be "Ever learning but never coming into the knowledge of the truth."  I don't think I have "arrived" so that I am "wiser than all Christians before me".  I don't know why whenever this conversation comes up that's the type of response I get.  But I don't believe God is so limited in 2014 that He cannot explain His truth to His children without them having to rely on 2nd hand information.  The writings in the Bible are first hand accounts of God's working through creation to the establishment of the Christian church.  Writings after that are helpful for history.  I like reading Josephus and he wasn't even Christian!  But he is helpful for understanding history.


My friend, believe as you wish.  I am not trying to convert you (well, maybe a little, but that is because I wish to join in full communion with you in Christ).  If the Spirit has not led you to diligently read the history of the early Church and meditate and study on the writings of the early Church Fathers to find the truths of the apostolic faith (to learn what has _actually_ been handed down continuously since the very beginning), than who am I to lead you to anything (?) since those stated things would be the first things I think (IMO) an honest seeker would do.

 Josephus was a scholar and a great historian.  Why not read the writings of the Christian saints as well?  St. Ignatius has been revered for 2000 years because of his Christian witness to the true faith.  He would be a good place to start to understand what it meant to be in the Church and in obedience to God from the beginning until now. May God bless you in your journey.

----------


## Kevin007

apparently *both* the RCC and EOC claim they are the authority and one true church

----------


## jmdrake

> Hmmm...strange...I've never seen that.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5672272




> As to "which Orthodox Church", the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Church(a type of Oriental Church) are schismatic.  The Churches in communion with each other-comprising the One, Holy, Catholic (orthodox use this word in its original sense-"universal") and Apostolic Church are those in Russia, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Romania, Bulgaria, and Georgia.


Right.  And that's my point.  The Ethiopian Orthodox church is just as old as any other church.  But it's not in communion with the RCC or the "Orthodox" church.  So why should I or anyone else accept what your church teaches as being "scripture"?  All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture.  That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone after the apostles.  But there is enough already in the scripture that everybody accepts for someone to understand how to be saved without arguing over the other stuff.

----------


## jmdrake

> Have you heard any Orthodox Christian defend the Pope with regards to this current Synod in Rome?  I haven't.


Yep.  Right on this forum.  The idea that the Pope was really saying "Love the sinner hate the sin."  And actually I don't know of the Pope himself said or is in agreement with that so I was careful not to say "the Pope".  (I don't know enough about RCC politics to know if a synod can issue a statement like that without the Pope's personal seal of approval.)  And I seem to recall EO Christians that were reinterpreting the Pope's words on "unbridled capitalism" as somehow being "against crony capitalism" when that's not what he said.  The liberty movement opposes crony capitalism but not free market (unbridled) capitalism.  By that was a while back.




> When the Roman Catholic Pope says something which the Orthodox Church proclaims as well, then there is agreement.  When he doesn't, then there is disagreement.  In your experience, there may seem more agreements and defending of the other, but that is because there are signs the two great Churches are coming closer and overcoming obstacles.  Trust me, there were times when because of Papal policies there was little camaraderie, such as in the Fourth Crusade.  But the truth is that there is in fact much that are similar, most importantly, a common history.  The goal is now to strengthen these bonds, re-establish those ancient ties, and forgive one another so that they might share together as one Body as they did for a thousand years starting from the days of the early Church.


I'm just commenting on what I saw.




> How I wish you did not assume, but also came to know!


Sorry but there are too many things that I know to be true that the Orthodox church believes to be false and too many things that I know to be false that the Orthodox church believes to be true for me to be a member.  




> The EO and OO have been in schism since the 4th century because of a misunderstanding of Christologic terminology.  In fact, in recent interfaith conferences, it is clear that they share (depending on the terminology one uses) the exact same orthodox faith.  But even still, with the span of 1700 years later, they still have the same saints of the infant Church, still have the same sacraments, still worship liturgically in almost exactly the same way, still confess the same orthodox belief of 99% of teachings.  Pretty interesting, right?  If you don't find that interesting or telling, then I am sorry you do not.  To me, it only further confirms to me that if I want to find the true understanding of the life in Christ, in praxis and worship, I should look to the past and to the beginnings.


Right.  They've got a lot of things in common.  All Christians have a lot of things in common.  You've even got stuff in common with Kevin and you even had stuff in common with Sola_Fide.  That's kind of my point.  If churches as old as the Greek Orthodox and Ethiopian Orthodox church (I have to stop using abbreviations like EO because that could apply to both) have different views, then accepting church tradition is not some guarantee of church unity.  People have different understandings of the traditions.  I know the Ethiopian church accepts Enoch as an inspired book for example.




> That is not true.  There was much dialogue in the 17th century between the Lutherans and the Orthodox Church.


You realize that the 17th century was 100 years after Luther?  For my statement to "not be true" there had to have been a viable Orthodox presence where Luther lived during his lifetime.  If you have evidence of that please provide and I'll stand corrected.  I just did a quick Google search and couldn't find anything myself.




> It is unfortunate what happened to Jan Huss.  But that was in the dark ages of Papal imperialism and a symptom of larger problems because of such Papal abuse.


True.  But it didn't get that way over night.  And I submit that part of the reason it got that way is because people didn't have a simple common standard that they could go to and say "This is wrong."  The writings of the Old Testament and the New Testament give people a common digestible standard where people can say "This is wrong."  Huss was right because accepted scripture qualifies "follow me" with "as I follow Christ."  Who knows.  In the annals of someone's tradition somewhere centuries later there was "tradition" that backed up what the popes were doing.  In fact that's a certainty because they were laying down their own "tradition."  Protestantism did not start from pride or arrogance but from a genuine recognition that what was happening was wrong.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, honest question:  Have you read any complete works of the Church Fathers?  What is your knowledge about the lives of the saints, what they wrote, and what they taught and confessed to be the apostolic truths? I think we must be honest if we are going to say what 'they longed for us' that we have actually read them to make such a guess.  But, nevertheless, in this point, you are right!  They _did_ indeed long for us to be so full of the Holy Spirit that we would depend upon the Holy Spirit and not them.  They _also_ longed that we humble _ourselves_, that we don't confess heresy nor depend on our _own_ thoughts, interpretations, and opinions which go against the orthodox teachings handed down by the saints before them (that is, the Church), so that we might enter into unity of faith and worship as one Body of Christ.


I think you missed what I was saying.  The earliest church fathers were the apostles themselves.  Paul said "I would that all men prophesy".  I quoted John to you where he said "You have no need of a teacher because the Holy Spirit is your teacher."  Paul praised the Bereans for being more noble than the Thessolinicans because they not only received his words with joy but "Studied the scriptures to see if these things were true."  In Acts when congregations were found not to be full of the Holy Spirit, the apostles send emissaries to them to lay hands on them so that they would be filled with the Holy Spirit.  Now I've read some work by what you are calling "church fathers".  I don't think I've read a "completed work".  But if they disagree with the original church fathers (the apostles) in wanting all believers to be filled with the Holy Spirit....well that's a problem.




> My friend, believe as you wish.  I am not trying to convert you (well, maybe a little, but that is because I wish to join in full communion with you in Christ).  If the Spirit has not led you to diligently read the history of the early Church and meditate and study on the writings of the early Church Fathers to find the truths of the apostolic faith (to learn what has _actually_ been handed down continuously since the very beginning), than who am I to lead you to anything (?) since those stated things would be the first things I think (IMO) an honest seeker would do.
> 
>  Josephus was a scholar and a great historian.  Why not read the writings of the Christian saints as well?  St. Ignatius has been revered for 2000 years because of his Christian witness to the true faith.  He would be a good place to start to understand what it meant to be in the Church and in obedience to God from the beginning until now. May God bless you in your journey.


Ummmm......was what I said really that unclear?  I'm fine with reading church history written from anyone.  In fact the PM I sent you recently contained church history.  My question to you was were the historical quotes accurate, but you instead commented on the doctrinal conclusions.  That's all well and good.  I can do my own research.    My point about Josephus is that he is a good reference for historical understanding.  That's the same way I would look at St. Ignatius.  That's not to say that Ignatius wasn't inspired.  He very well could have been.  But there are people who could have been inspired and have gotten something dreadfully wrong.  Joan of Arc for instance.  (I'll post a thread on that soon.)  Anyway, I've got to get ready for church.  Have a blessed day!

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5672272
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  And that's my point.  The Ethiopian Orthodox church is just as old as any other church.  But it's not in communion with the RCC or the "Orthodox" church.  So why should I or anyone else accept what your church teaches as being "scripture"?  *All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture.*  That doesn't mean the Holy Spirit hasn't inspired anyone after the apostles.  But there is enough already in the scripture that everybody accepts for someone to understand how to be saved without arguing over the other stuff.


You accept the apocrypha as authoritative?  Interesting.  Most of the heterodox world doesn't.  ~hugs~

----------


## acptulsa

> You accept the apocrypha as authoritative?  Interesting.  Most of the heterodox world doesn't.  ~hugs~


You think that's what the man said?  Really?

So you not only accept the apocrypha yourself, but you think TER and 'every other Christian' does too?

----------


## Kevin007

there are no seven sacraments in the NT. Heck, I don't even think the word appears.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You think that's what the man said?  Really?


IDK, which is why I asked




> So you not only accept the apocrypha yourself, but you think TER and 'every other Christian' does too?


I don't know where this is coming from or what to say about it.  It has almost nothing to do with the post you quoted.


ETA: You seem quite cranky today.  Who threw sand in your vagina?

----------


## RJB

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post5672272


  My "yep" in agreement with Paulbot99's  post is me defending the pope like a Roman Catholic?  I truly miss Eduardo.

It was actually me saying it was a non-story rather than the hysteria driven story that most of them become.

----------


## fisharmor

Thanks for this post TER.  I watched an old video of Frank Schaeffer making this same argument (recorded long before he descended into apparent apostasy) and that had a lot to do with my decision to join the Orthodox Church.
He's an interesting character who fits with the conversation.  His recordings on YT support Holy Tradition.  I think they're still very helpful.
His later writings are troublesome to say the least.  But I don't see a problem with extolling one body of work and decrying the other.  He's not defining anything - he's either agreeing with it, or disagreeing.  The thing he's either supporting or destroying is external to him, because he, an individual, is not the arbiter of it.
I didn't have any trouble with this, and still don't.




> there are no seven sacraments in the NT. Heck, I don't even think the word appears.


Neither does "trinity".  I don't know about you guys, but the point I got from the OP is that 
a) you can't set yourself up as the arbiter of these things, because you end up cutting off whole limbs of Christianity
b) you can appeal to tradition with a small t to justify some of those elements that aren't strictly defined in Scripture
c) but that can't get you all the way to the fullness of the Church.

----------


## jmdrake

> You accept the apocrypha as authoritative?  Interesting.  Most of the heterodox world doesn't.  ~hugs~


Ummmm....I didn't say that.  All of what I accept as scripture is what you accept as scripture.  That doesn't mean that all that you accept as scripture is what I accept as scripture.  All dogs (not maimed) have four legs.  Not everything with four legs is a dog.

----------


## jmdrake

> My "yep" in agreement with Paulbot99's  post is me defending the pope like a Roman Catholic?  I truly miss Eduardo.
> 
> It was actually me saying it was a non-story rather than the hysteria driven story that most of them become.


I miss Eduardo too.  That said dismissing something as a "nonstory" is a type of defense.  In fact you said exactly what I would have expected Eduardo to say.

----------


## fisharmor

> Ummmm....I didn't say that.  All of what I accept as scripture is what you accept as scripture.  That doesn't mean that all that you accept as scripture is what I accept as scripture.  All dogs (not maimed) have four legs.  Not everything with four legs is a dog.


Well thanks for clarifying your position but technically you did say what he (and I) read.
If you had said "All of what I accept as Scripture is a subset of what you accept as Scripture" then that would have been clear.

----------


## erowe1

> c) but that can't get you all the way to the fullness of the Church.


Why is adopting innovations that arose centuries after the apostles necessary in order to have the fulness of the Church?

And of all the innovative traditions that various Christians have come up with over the centuries, how does one determine which of those innovations are required for the fulness of the Church?

----------


## TER

*Sola Scriptura vs. Holy Tradition: Is There a Difference?*

  October 6, 2014 by Gabe Martini
link HERE
 



 
I have *recently*—and on a few *other occasions*—written about the differences between the Protestant approach to authority and the Orthodox.

 For Protestants, the final authority or rule is the Bible—a principle known as _Sola Scriptura_.  And while some Protestants have written catechisms and other companion  material to the scriptures themselves, these too are held in check by  the proper interpretation of the Bible.

 With regards to the latter, I have previously *offered*:
Even when Sola scriptura is given nuance to make room for  creeds, confessions, and councils, the final arbiter is still a  person’s interpretation of the Bible. While one might hold to a document  such as the _Westminster Confession of Faith_, if there are  doctrinal disagreements, the consistent Biblicist will come down in  favor of a particular interpretation of the Bible over-and-against the  Confession. This has led to some difficulties over the years for certain  Protestant churches, but I believe that this nuance  is—ultimately—pointless.

 For example, one might confess a creed that states Jesus is a bunny  rabbit. While this belief could theoretically be held by many, anyone  can deny it as being contrary to the Bible (which it obviously is),  rendering the creed both incorrect and unnecessary. It doesn’t really  matter what creeds or confessions say, so long as the Bible is held to  be the final authority.

In distinction from this viewpoint, I have explained that the  Orthodox approach to authority is one that rests in Holy Tradition—the  apostolic continuation of Christ that lives and breathes through the  Body of Christ. By preserving and handing down this Tradition from one  generation to the next (_paradosis_—the very meaning of  “tradition”), the Church endures as the spotless and apostolic Bride of  Christ, the “pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The  gates of Hades—the gates of death, schism, and division—can never  prevail against her (Matt. 16:18). The so-called “source” of authority  in the Orthodox Church is God himself—not clergy, institutions,  documents, or relics, but the very life of God by his Spirit. _This_ is Holy Tradition.

 And while we might point to the splintering of the Western church  since the sixteenth century as evidence of the rotten fruit of _Sola Scriptura_,  a faithful Protestant could just as easily turn such judgment back upon  the Orthodox Church: What about the Old Ritualists, the Old  Calendarists, the Armenians, Copts, and Ethiopians? What about the five  different Patriarchs of Antioch, all claiming to be heirs to the  apostolic throne of Peter and Paul? What about the Nestorians and other  Non-Chalcedonians? And really, what about the (Roman and otherwise)  Catholics, the several churches in communion with the Vatican and the  Pope of Rome? How can anyone _really_ claim that an adherence to Holy Tradition protects the Church against schism any better than _Sola Scriptura_?

 But there _is_ an important difference—a distinction so  significant, it underlines or even defines the entirety of this issue.  This question of authority is not epistemological or theoretical, first  and foremost, but is rather _ontological_. It’s a question of the  very nature or essence of the Church herself, and not any one  particular set of doctrinal beliefs, creeds, or confessions.

 The Church is the Church because she is the Church. Does that sound  like a circular argument to you? Well of course it is, because it isn’t  an argument—it’s a matter of _life_.

 To be a member of the Body of Christ is not a doctrinal commitment or  even choice, but is rather a Personal act—an act of being and becoming  after the true image and likeness of Christ. It is a transfiguring  participation—if we rightly make use of it—in the deifying life and  grace of God’s kingdom. The scriptures are no doubt a central part of  the life and authority of the Church, but we _as_ the Church are the most significant sacred writ of all (2 Cor. 3:2), written by the Spirit of God (v. 3).
 With regards to whether or not an adherence to Holy Tradition is superior to _Sola Scriptura_,  we must emphatically reply in the affirmative. The aforementioned  schisms are not true divisions of the Church (1 John 2:19), but are  rather evidence the Church’s fidelity to Holy Tradition is working as it  should.

 A purpose of Tradition is to show forth this continuation of Christ  and his apostles by defining the difference between orthodoxy and  heterodoxy. When a “corrupt member” (using St. Vincent’s terminology) of  the Body appears, Tradition has worked through the life of the Church  to perform “surgery” on the Body, preserving her holy and without  blemish. When a Patriarch of Constantinople evidenced himself as a  heretic, he was condemned and removed from office by the proper,  conciliar life of the Body. When an entire Patriarchate drifted into  error, the Church acted with both righteousness and discernment to  remove this contagion and supplant the “infected cells.”

 The difference between these conciliar acts and the splintering  within Protestantism is weighty. In the former, it is a Spirit-led  process that takes decades—even _centuries_—to work out, being an  action of the entire, canonical, and conciliar Church of Christ. In the  latter, it’s the result of individuals (or groups of individuals)  acting independently. It is democracy or anarchy rather than  conciliarity.

 Estimates of the number of Protestant bodies in the world today are  often grossly exaggerated, but the reality is that at some point and for  some, faithful Protestants, even _minor_ issues have resulted in  not only lasting divisions but also prevented reunions. And all without  the benefit of the long-established, conciliar, and traditional process  as evidenced in the pages of the New Testament (Acts 15 and the  first-century A.D. council of Jerusalem).

 Without conciliarism, Holy Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils,  the only remaining options are either individualism or Papalism.

 The preservation of Holy Tradition and the Body of Christ is _ontological_, not epistemological. It is a divine act of synergy that never fails us, despite our feeble, human participation.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well thanks for clarifying your position but technically you did say what he (and I) read.
> If you had said "All of what I accept as Scripture is a subset of what you accept as Scripture" then that would have been clear.


It might have been more clear I suppose, but what I said is exactly what I clarified.  Again " All of what I accept as authoritative scripture are what you and every other Christian accepts as authoritative scripture" means exactly the same thing as "All of what I accept as Scripture is a subset of what you accept as scripture".  I'll prove it mathematically.

Let A = set(1,2,3).  Let B = set(2,3).  Let C = set(1,2,3).  Both B and C are subsets of A.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset

If you wanted to be as persnickety as you are attempting you be you should have insisted I say "All of what I accept as Scripture is a proper subset of what you accept as Scripture."  And from the context it should have been clear.  But just it case it wasn't or isn't, I will hammer the point home one more time.  All Christians participating in this thread to my knowledge agrees that the 66 books that are in the King James Version of the Bible are authoritative scripture.  In those 66 books is enough information for someone under the guidance of the Holy Spirit to come to a knowledge of salvation.

----------


## RJB

> I miss Eduardo too.  That said dismissing something as a "nonstory" is a type of defense.  In fact you said exactly what I would have expected Eduardo to say.


Eduardo would have whopped some butt.  I, on the on the other hand, just simply dismissed it.

It is a non-story (and I would have said this about a Calvinist, SDA etc.)  His statement in no way changed any policy of the Catholic Church and was mostly a politically ambivalent state (of which I'm NOT particularly a fan.)  However again considering that it in no way changes the policy of the Roman Catholic Church (as with his economic statements) yet there are many denominations with bishops who are actively and openly homosexual and denominations endorsing gay marriage, it is a non-story.

----------


## jmdrake

> Eduardo would have whopped some butt.  I, on the on the other hand, just simply dismissed it.
> 
> It is a non-story (and I would have said this about a Calvinist, SDA etc.)  His statement in no way changed any policy of the Catholic Church and was mostly a politically ambivalent state (of which I'm NOT particularly a fan.)  However again considering that it in no way changes the policy of the Roman Catholic Church (as with his economic statements) yet there are many denominations with bishops who are actively and openly homosexual and denominations endorsing gay marriage, it is a non-story.


We can agree to disagree.  Eduardo is not here, but there's not much "kicking butt" he could have done with that story.  But you went further than say "It's a non story".  You went along with a reinterpretation of what was said from "We value same sex orientation" to "love the sinner hate the sin."  Since you brought up the popes economic statements, there is a big difference between saying "The popes anti free market statements did not change church policy" to saying "He was really saying we should end central banks."

----------


## RJB

> We can agree to disagree.  Eduardo is not here, but there's not much "kicking butt" he could have done with that story.  But you went further than say "It's a non story".  You went along with a reinterpretation of what was said from "We value same sex orientation" to "love the sinner hate the sin."  Since you brought up the popes economic statements, there is a big difference between saying "The popes anti free market statements did not change church policy" to saying "He was really saying we should end central banks."


Maybe it's our two different perspectives.  For years I've seen reports of Vatican III secretly occurring and initiating a bunch of off the wall changes only to be debunked in a day or two, or I'll see a report with cherry picked statements purposely out of contexts or purposely bad translations--  or Sola posting pure fabrications...  This definitely colors my perception when I see stories like that.

I've also seen SDA fliers, brochures and books that state all kinds of odd things about the Pope and people who worship on Sunday in general...  I'm sure that colors your perception as well.

----------


## TER

below is a nice essay for those who are interested*

Apocalypse and Tradition: The Source of Authority in Orthodoxy*

October 2, 2014 by Gabe Martini
link HERE
 


 

What is the ultimate source of authority in the Orthodox Church? This  is a question that plagues inquirers of the faith and can even be a  significant stumbling block to a persons conversion.

 For Protestants, the ultimate source of authority is the holy  scriptures or the Bible. In this context, the Bible is often pitted  against man made traditions or authoritiesall of which must be  subordinated to the authority of the Bible. This is known as _Sola Scriptura_,  or by scripture alone, a principle borne from the spirit  of Renaissance Humanism emancipating the individual from any external  authority. While several churches of the Magisterial Reformation  developed extensive, written catechisms and confessional standards, they  were are all subject to the final authority of scripture.

 These biases against the idea of tradition can even be seen in  popular, modern translations of the scriptures. The single Greek word _paradosis_  is translated as tradition when used with a negative connotation, and  as teaching when positive. For example, paradosis becomes tradition  when Christ derides the practices of the Pharisees, but is used as  teaching in 1 Cor. 11:2 and 2 Thess. 2:15 (NLT) as well as 2 Thess.  3:6 (NIV).

 And looking past its recent historical appearancenot to mention questionable, epistemic foundations_Sola Scriptura_s  core issue is that not everyone interprets the scriptures the same. And  when two people disagree, who gets to determine the correct  interpretation? How can we know _theyre_ correct? This dilemma is not unique to our own age, but was considered by the Church as early as the fifth century.

For example, St. Vincent of Lérins writes:

[O]wing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept  it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way,  another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many  interpretations as there are interpreters. _Commonitory_ 2.5
What begins as an attempt to make the scriptures the central  authority in the life of the Church results in a confusing mess. A mess  that has led to the splintering of the Western church into hundreds, if  not _thousands_ of different churches or theological movements,  each disagreeing over either minor or major understandings of scripture.  But St. Vincent offers a solution:

Therefore, it is very necessary  that the rule for the  right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in  accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic  interpretation.
For Orthodox Christians, the holy scriptures are not something wholly  other, pitted against the traditions of the Church. Instead, the  scriptures take their place as the heart of everything we call sacred or  holy Tradition. Everything that encompasses Holy Tradition is the sole  and only source of authority in the Orthodox Church. _So what is Tradition?_

From an Orthodox perspective, Tradition is the life of the holy  Trinity in the life of the Church. It is an apostolic continuation of  Christ, delivered first to the apostles and then handed down through  history to their successors (paradosis):

For our faith, brethren, is not of men nor by man, but by  revelation of Jesus Christ, which the divine Apostles preached, the  holy Ecumenical Councils confirmed, the greatest and wisest teachers of  the world handed down in succession, and the shed blood of the holy  martyrs ratified. Let us hold fast to the confession which we have  received unadulterated from such men, turning away from every novelty as  a suggestion of the devil. He that accepts a novelty reproaches with  deficiency the preached Orthodox Faith. _Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs_ 20 (A.D. 1848)
St. Athanasius of Alexandria speaks of the very tradition, teaching,  and faith of the Catholic Church from the very beginning, which the  Logos gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers preserved. Upon this  the Church is founded (_First Letter to Serapion_ 28). Holy  Tradition is still preserved to this day in the Church by the Holy  Spirit. It is not a thing of the past, but is a charismatic gift from  all eternity, experienced in time in the life of the Church. Dr. George  Bebis affirms:

Tradition, therefore, cannot be reduced to a mere  enumeration of quotations from the Scriptures or from the Fathers. It is  the fruit of the incarnation of the Word of God, His crucifixion and  resurrection as well as His ascension, all of which took place in space  and time. Tradition is an extension of the life of Christ into the life  of the Church.
Tradition is a divine revelationan _apokalypsis_ or  apocalypsea removal of the veil that once separated both heaven and  earth, the divine and the created. The purpose of holy Tradition,  thereforeas a manifestation of the life-giving unity of the holy  Trinityis the (re-)union of mankind with the Father; the reversal of  the curse of Eden.

 The fulness of this holy Tradition is experienced in the mystery of  mysteries, the holy Eucharist. The apostle Paul prefaces his  instructions on this mystery as a tradition of the Church: For I have  received (_parelavon_) of the Lord that which I also delivered (_paredoka_) to you (1 Cor. 11:23).

 When speaking of Tradition, we are often speaking of theology. And what _is_  theology? While theology literally means the study of God, for  Orthodox Christians this is largely noetic and spiritual in nature. For  example, Evagrius Ponticus has famously stated:

A theologian is he who prays truly; he who prays truly is a theologian.
Theology in the Eastern tradition is more about _knowing_ _God_ than it is knowing _about_  God. The fathers of the Church have warned throughout the centuries to  flee from teachers who speak only of ideas or concepts, but are  themselves separated from or opposed to the life of the Church. A  theologian engaged in a life of prayer and asceticism can offer insights  altogether hidden from those outside the Body of Christ, regardless of  their academic credentials.

 Theology in the primary sense (experiencing or becoming like God) is a  prerequisite for theology in the secondary sense (information about or  related to God). During the Great Feast of Pentecost, Orthodox  Christians sing about the apostles being made into great teachers by the  Holy Spiritmen who were once simple fisherman or even uneducated and  illiterate. It was only by the Grace of the Holy Spirita divine  encounter with God himselfthat these men could so utterly transform  into true teachers of the faith. And as the Gospel exhorts, a childlike  faith is preferable to even the most astute and cunning wisdom this  world has to offer.

 When we do speak of ideas or concepts, all teaching must be tested  against both the scriptures and broader traditions of the Churchnot  vice versa. In other words, new insights that contradict holy Tradition  should be treated with immediate and unreserved skepticism on the part  of faithful Orthodox Christians. This responsibility to protect and  preserve the faith unaltered falls upon both clergy and laity alike.  There is a delicate balance to be struck between a faithful, personal  obedience to our fathers and clergy, and a healthy watchfulness that  seeks to guard the faithful from both wolves and error. This is affirmed  throughout the history of the Church.

 All true theology is rooted in both Triadology and Christologythat  is, the study of the holy Trinity and the study of Christ. This is  demonstrated explicitly in the life of the Church, and particularly in  the context of the Ecumenical Councils.

 At this point, a Protestant might simply counter that interpreting tradition is no different than _Sola Scriptura_left  to each individual and their own best efforts. So how can faithful  Christians discern between true and false theology? Is it really left to  each individual to decide?

 St. Vincent again offers some helpful insight. [Keep in mind, St.  Vincent writes in the midst of the Nestorian controversy and the Third  Ecumenical Council. Knowing that his context is the heresy and  excommunication of a chief bishop in the Church helps underline the  importance of preserving the Orthodox faith in every age, and no matter  the circumstances.] He explains that we must prefer the beliefs of the  whole body to the novelties of one corrupt member. And we do this by  clinging to antiquity.

 For St. Vincent, antiquity does not simply mean older is better, as  the Church herself is timeless. Holy Tradition too is timeless, being a  charism of the Spirit in the life and ministry of the Church. The  antiquity of the Church is her teaching in the Ecumenical Councils. In  their conciliar deliberations is the royal pathway of the fathers, the  Truth as it has always been. The Tradition of the Church is no less  present for us today than it was a thousand years ago, as it breathes  and lives through each one of us constituting the theanthropic  (divine-human) Body of Christ.

 But what if an Ecumenical Council has not spoken on a particular  doctrinal issue, or an area of great controversy afflicting the broader  Church? It is in this contextand in this context alonethat St. Vincent  offers his oft-quoted, but little-understood canon: to hold fast to  that which has been believed everywhere, always, and by allto hold  fast to the _Catholic_ faith.

 When speaking of the Catholic faith, this carries with it three primary implications (as explained by St. Vincent):

Universality  The one, true faith as confessed and believed by the one, true Church throughout the worldAntiquity  The one, true faith as explained throughout Church history by the recognized fathers and Saints of the ChurchConciliarity  The one, true faith as defined and determined by all;  that is, as defined and determined in holy and Ecumenical Councils 

Outside of the Ecumenical Councils, faithful Christians can look to  the fathers and the Saints, the hymns and liturgies of the Church, and  all other approved authorities, as he puts it. In some of these areas  there is less certainty and more room for discussion (depending on the  issue, of course), but the overall boundaries (Greek _horos_)  have been carefully laid by the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils,  operating as they were under the divine guidance and inspiration of the  Holy Spirit.

 To conclude, Id like to take a bit of a step back and examine what  constitutes holy Tradition. Following fathers such as Met. Hilarion  (Alfeyev), we can break down Tradition as consisting of seven, key  areasand by order of their authority in the life of the Church:1

*The Holy Scriptures*  First and foremost are the holy scriptures.  For Orthodox Christians, this means the canon and text of the Old  Testament as translated into Greek (commonly referred to as the  Septuagint or LXX), along with the twenty-seven books of the New  Testament. Both the canon and text of the Septuagint are important as  they are so widely used and referenced throughout our divine  servicesand especially during Holy Weekand in the theological writings  of our fathers and Saints. The same can be said for the Byzantine and  now Patriarchal Text of the New Testament. As the _Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs_  (1848) puts it: Our Church holds the infallible and genuine deposit of  the Holy Scriptures, of the Old Testament a true and perfect version,  of the New the divine original itself. Of secondary importance are  other translations and editions of the scriptures as used in the life of  the Church, such as Syriac, Latin, Arabic, Slavonic, and Hebrew. *Liturgical Tradition*  Of first importance would be the Divine  Liturgies of Saints James, Basil, Chrysostom, and Gregory the Great,  along with services accorded with time: Orthros, Vespers, Compline, the  Midnight Office, etc., as well as the _Octoechos_ (the book of eight tones), the _Great Horologion_ (the book of hours), the monthly _Menaion_ (the Lives of the Saints), the _Festal Menaion_, and the services of Holy Week. *Ecumenical Councils and Creeds*  There are seven Ecumenical Councils  with universal recognition, culminating with the Second Council of  Nicaea in A.D. 787. The most significant creedal children of these  councils are the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of A.D. 381 and the _Synodikon_  or anathemas of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Alongside these are  other great councilseven of Ecumenical authority and scopesuch as that  under the administration of St. Photios the Great near the end of the  ninth century (termed the Eighth Ecumenical Council by the  aforementioned encyclical of 1848), and those in Constantinople dealing  with the Barlaam-Palamas controversy. There are also Ecumenical  statementse.g. the reply to Pope Pius IX in 1848 by all of the Orthodox  Patriarchsthat have authoritative weight in the history of the Church.  In addition to this are a number of confessional and catechetical  statements (though some are marred by their historical context, and  therefore limited). The canons of the Ecumenical Councils are also  extremely valuable as applied by our bishops. Some canons have a  specific, historical application, and others are superseded by newer  determinations, and so this complexity is best left to the bishops in  each local church. *Fathers of the Church*  These are the Saints and fathers as  commemorated, recognized, and honored in the liturgical life of the  Orthodox Church. We look not only to their theological writings on the  true faith, but also their lives and the examples of Christlike-ness  they set. The fathers and Saints of the Church are not infallible, but  they are, generally speaking, an indisputable source of both wisdom and  piety in the long history of our faith. *Other Ancient Teachers*  These are various ecclesiastical writers  and teachers not properly termed fathers or Saints who are still  valuable in a number of ways. They are helpful in certain circumstances,  influential in others, but are not held in a higher regard than the  aforementioned authoritiesthey can, and often have, erred. Prime  examples of this category of ecclesiastical teacher would be Origen of  Alexandria, Tertullian of Carthage (prior to his apostasy), and Clement  of Alexandria. *Secondary Ancient Literature*  This would include apocryphal and pseudepigraphal2  literature like the Protoevangelion of James, the books of Enoch,  Jubilees, the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the Psalms of Solomon. While  portions of these writings have been canonized by the liturgical life  of the Church, this is not a blanket endorsement of their entirety. In  other words, they are not now a part of scripture. Both discrection  and care are needed to handle these writings properly and with edifying  results. *Miscellaneous Teachers of the Faith (both Ancient and Modern)*  This  includes essentially every other writer and teacher of the Orthodox  Church, and particularly those not condemned (without repentance) in  their lifetimes as a heretic or false teacher. While the insights of men  like Alexander Schmemann, Georges Florovsky, and even Fyodor Dostoevsky  might be both edifying and influential within portions of the Church,  they should in no way be used to _overrule_ the above  authorities. To do so would be a clear abuse of the concept of authority  in the Orthodox faith. All scholarly ruminations on the faith in the  modern era fall squarely within this category.

----------


## TER

Rocco replies to article in OP (read comments in OP link)

October 8, 2014 at 9:19 am

As a 5 point (charismaticish) Calvinist, at a top evangelical seminary and member at a Reformed SBC church, who dealt with Mormons on a regular basis, I was committed to Sola Scriptura in the ilk described in this article. But as time went on 3 things occurred to me.

1. Though I claimed Scripture was my final and only infallible authority, most of that hinged on my definition of plenary inspiration of the autographs. But we didn’t have the autographs and all of the manuscripts had discrepancies (though most not of the doctrinal kind). So I had to trust that God used the Church somehow to infallibly preserve the original intent.

2. Though I claimed Scripture was my final and only infallible authority, I began to realize the only doctrines all the traditions I excepted as orthodox Christianity agreed on, were what had been defined by Nicea and Chalcedon. So even that which was fundamentally Christian God used the Church somehow to infallibly present his truth.

3. As a Reformed Baptist, I came to the realization that no matter how much I, and the Elders in my church quoted Augustine or Calvin, the fact was, they couldn’t be members in our church – nor could we in theirs. And it wasn’t just because of infant baptism. Especially Augustine. He had a completely different concept of the Church than I had. The (only) Church Father I quoted as proof for my beliefs and I, could not commune together. That stung me – especially as someone who’s main argument against Mormonism was that the Church was one throughout history. But practically, I didn’t really believe that did I? I was a functional restorationist just like them. And the more I read the Bible, the less I could see the “no one visible body can claim to be the one, true Church after the Apostles/Constantine/Schism (take your pick)” ecclesiology that my experience mandated I believe. For in the Bible, the experience, and the expectation for the future, is that the Church is One visibly because it shares one cup and one bread. That is to say, as Augustine and Gabe Martini pointed out, I saw that ontology preceded epistomology, even when it came to the Church.

So as you said Presbyter Andrew, what I was missing, was ecclesiology. I took the que from what Presbyter Peter Gilquist, of blessed memory, said concerning his journey to Orthodoxy, I stopped judging God’s history and let God’s history judge me. From there it wasn’t a matter of which church is true as if I stood outside fully equipped with all knowledge. As I saw it, the Orthodox Church was the Church that I both read about, and birthed, the Bible I so love. Therefore, if I was to be a faithful Christian at all, it meant to not simply believe the Church’s doctrine (as if ecclesiology isn’t part and parcel of the Church’s doctrine) but to humbly join it. That is to say, I joined the Orthodox Church because I am a Christian and Christians belong in/to the Church. All other issues, even the place and exegesis of the Holy Scriptures, are to be settled within the Church; not to use the Church’s book to establish or condone anything outside of it.

----------


## Traditionalist

> Why is adopting innovations that arose centuries after the apostles necessary in order to have the fulness of the Church?
> 
> And of all the innovative traditions that various Christians have come up with over the centuries, how does one determine which of those innovations are required for the fulness of the Church?


Doctrinal development isn't problematic, the kernels of the Church's Traditions have been present since the first century. Also, I would bet you're referencing the major traditions (Sacred Tradition as equal authority to Scripture, Sacred Relics, Apostolic succession, praying for the dead, etc..) all of these things are affirmed to have existed since the earliest forms of Christianity. It's absolutely non-controversial among Protestant academia, I would advise reading JND Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines" or anything written by Schaff, Hurtado, NT Wright, & Wallace. 

One Tradition that did come later, however, was the Biblical canon. Prior to the 4th century there was no consensus on the canon, with just about every father disagreeing with what scripture ought to be included and excluded. For the first several centuries it seems like the fathers didn't regard 2 Peter as canonical. But it's funny how Protestants never critique this important tradition, instead they also rely upon the "doctrinal development" way of thinking.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Doctrinal development isn't problematic, the kernels of the Church's Traditions have been present since the first century. Also, I would bet you're referencing the major traditions (Sacred Tradition as equal authority to Scripture, Sacred Relics, Apostolic succession, praying for the dead, etc..) all of these things are affirmed to have existed since the earliest forms of Christianity. It's absolutely non-controversial among Protestant academia, I would advise reading JND Kelly's "Early Christian Doctrines" or anything written by Schaff, Hurtado, NT Wright, & Wallace. 
> 
> One Tradition that did come later, however, was the Biblical canon. Prior to the 4th century there was no consensus on the canon, with just about every father disagreeing with what scripture ought to be included and excluded. For the first several centuries it seems like the fathers didn't regard 2 Peter as canonical. But it's funny how Protestants never critique this important tradition, instead they also rely upon the "doctrinal development" way of thinking.


Where did the "early church" believe the assumption of Mary?

----------


## Traditionalist

> Where did the "early church" believe the assumption of Mary?


This is the typical Evangelical argument. Ah, the assumption of Mary didn't have widespread acceptance! Never mind the doctrines that did have widespread acceptance (Sacred Relics, Sacred Traditions, LXX canon for OT, prayers for the dead) and the doctrines that are essential to Protestantism but were developed later (i.e. the biblical canon). It shows how desperate one can become when trying to form a Protestant worldview. So where did the "early church" believe in the 66 books of the Bible? Explicitly in the first century, at that?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is the typical Evangelical argument. Ah, the assumption of Mary didn't have widespread acceptance! Never mind the doctrines that did have widespread acceptance (Sacred Relics, Sacred Traditions, LXX canon for OT, prayers for the dead) and the doctrines that are essential to Protestantism but were developed later (i.e. the biblical canon). It shows how desperate one can become when trying to form a Protestant worldview. So where did the "early church" believe in the 66 books of the Bible? Explicitly in the first century, at that?


So, no answer.  Why do you believe it?  It doesn't come from the Bible, so where does it come from?  Sola Ecclesia.

----------


## TER

> Where did the "early church" believe the assumption of Mary?


The same way St. Paul knew the rock which Moses struck with his staff and brought forth water followed Israel through the desert.  Through Oral Tradition.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The same way St. Paul knew the rock which Moses struck with his staff and brought forth water followed Israel through the desert.  Through Oral Tradition.


Where is the evidence of the oral tradition of the assumption of Mary in the early church?

----------


## TER

> Where is the evidence of the oral tradition of the assumption of Mary in the early church?


Where is the evidence of the rock following Moses in the OT?

----------


## Traditionalist

> So, no answer.  Why do you believe it?  It doesn't come from the Bible, so where does it come from?  Sola Ecclesia.



Who on earth said it didn't come from the Bible? I think there's a substantial amount of evidence of it from the Bible. And "Sola Ecclesia" would only apply if one were to believe the Church alone as the final authority, whereas Catholics believe in a three-legged stool. So basically your man-made criteria is as follows:

A) Something is only sacred tradition if it's only found in the unanimous consensus of early Fathers
B) The real presence in the Eucharist, Sacred Tradition as a concept, Prayers for the dead, saintly intercession, etc.. were all unanimously believed by early Fathesr. 
C) They are not valid tradition since they contradict my interpretation of the Bible
D) There was no agreed-upon version of the biblical canon until the late 4th century in Rome where Church authorities declared the canon and affirmed controversial works (2 Peter)
E) Therefore the Bible is an invalid tradition.

Anyway you look on it, your own worldview completely falls apart when trying to tackle Catholicism. Your criteria is jumping all over the place, changing rapidly with your arguments, either you honestly believe Sacred extrabiblical traditions needed to be widespread prominence in the early Church (i.e. they couldn't be a minority view) or you don't. Which is it? And how is the Biblical canon infallibly defined in your worldview? So far nothing you have said is convincing.

----------


## TER

The early Church's mission was not centered on the Theotokos, it was on proclaiming that the Messiah had come and His Name is Jesus and He has risen from the dead.  Only later did the Church have the freedom and luxury to express the oral traditions of the Mother of God.

----------


## HVACTech

can someone toss me a bone here please? 

can I assume, that the "reformation" happened after the deformation? 
are all groups here referencing the KJV ?

thank you. I am trying to follow the discourse.

----------


## TER

> can someone toss me a bone here please? 
> 
> can I assume, that the "reformation" happened after the deformation? 
> are all groups here referencing the KJV ?
> 
> thank you. I am trying to follow the discourse.


If you are asking about the rock following Moses, it is in 1 Cor 10:4.  This is not mentioned in the OT but was the oral rabbinical tradition from which St. Paul drew from.  In accordance to the Pharisiacal tradition (which was the approved tradition of Scriptural interpretation according to Christ (Matthew 23:2-3)), the Oral Torah was as authoritative as the Written Torah.

----------


## Traditionalist

The Rock following Moses was an important Christophany in Paul's writings. But the "following" aspect of the story is purely extrabiblical. Paul makes frequent use of Jewish oral tradition, Jannes & Jambres are another prominent example. He even goes as far as calling himself a "father" to his students similar to the old Pharisaic tradition of calling their Rabbi father. Paul identified as a Pharisee 20+ years after his conversion, and it was intrinsic to Pharisiac Judaism to have an Oral Torah on equal authority to the sacred scriptures. Once again, Catholicism & Orthodoxy are totally in-line with first century Judaism whereas Protestantism is the odd-man out, making it up and re-imagining the culture as he pleases.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who on earth said it didn't come from the Bible? I think there's a substantial amount of evidence of it from the Bible. And "Sola Ecclesia" would only apply if one were to believe the Church alone as the final authority, whereas Catholics believe in a three-legged stool. So basically your man-made criteria is as follows:
> 
> A) Something is only sacred tradition if it's only found in the unanimous consensus of early Fathers
> B) The real presence in the Eucharist, Sacred Tradition as a concept, Prayers for the dead, saintly intercession, etc.. were all unanimously believed by early Fathesr. 
> C) They are not valid tradition since they contradict my interpretation of the Bible
> D) There was no agreed-upon version of the biblical canon until the late 4th century in Rome where Church authorities declared the canon and affirmed controversial works (2 Peter)
> E) Therefore the Bible is an invalid tradition.


The three-legged stool makes no sense when Rome infallibly defines doctrines.  That's not a three-legged stool, it's church alone.  There doesn't have to be an "agreed upon" canon by a church for the people of God to know what the Word of God is.  The church does not define the canon.  It merely discovers it, and yes, that did not have to happen in the first century.

----------


## HVACTech

> If you are asking about the rock following Moses, it is in 1 Cor 10:4.  This is not mentioned in the OT but was the oral rabbinical tradition from which St. Paul drew from.  In accordance to the Pharisiacal tradition (which was the approved tradition of Scriptural interpretation according to Christ (Matthew 23:2-3)), the Oral Torah was as authoritative as the Written Torah.


uh, I don't think so... I do know that Paul wrote 13 of the 27 chapters of the NT (KJV) the one that you referenced was one he wrote to a church while in jail...right?

I think the reformation had something to do with the "protestants" arguing with the Pope over who can, and who cannot talk with God. 

there seems to be a lot of blending going on. are "Christians" and "Catholics" one and the same?
I am not trying to argue ANY point.  I am literally just trying to understand the basics. 
it seems the more that I learn and absorb, the more complicated and confusing it gets. 
peace.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *2nd Timothy 3:16-17
> 
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.*


Do you think it is a good work to pray to Mary?  Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed?  Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that the pope is infallible?

Of course you do.  But the Scriptures no where teach these things.  So how can the man of God be thoroughly equipped for these tasks if the Bible doesn't equip Him?  Paul said that the Scriptures themselves were sufficient to equip a man for EVERY good work.

----------


## Traditionalist

> The three-legged stool makes no sense when Rome infallibly defines doctrines.


Says you, but so far you've shown an utter incapability of making sense or coherent logical points thus far in these discussions. Having the Church hold a view of Material Suffiency, where every Tradition is found in the Scripture (albeit in an implicit sense) makes perfect sense. And putting the Tradition, Scripture, & Church authority on equal grounds (all final, all the Word of God) is logically coherent. 





> There doesn't have to be an "agreed upon" canon by a church for the people of God to know what the Word of God is.


What? Huh? Your post (in your worldview) would literally translate like this: There doesn't have to be a Bible for people to know what the Bible is.." If the Bible, as you arbitrarily define it, is the final authority in your worldview, then how do you get the Bible? What is the infallible means of coming up with a canon? Again, it's just this vague wishy-washy explanation. If the canon of the bible is externally compiled then how do you infallibly know what the Bible is while adhering to Sola Scriptura? How does that work while still being logically coherent? So far I've received zero explanation and a lot of just off-the-wall statements about early christians not needing the Bible to have the Bible, basically. (Which is in violation of Leibniz's law of identity by the way) 




> The church does not define the canon.  It merely discovers it, and yes, that did not have to happen in the first century.


Where is your infallible, biblically-backed source for saying ti didn't happen in the first century but has to happen by the 21st century? Your criterias and methodology is completely arbitrary. Also you're playing a game of semantics, the issue here is that the Church infallibly affirmed the canon of scripture through Divine revelation, i.e. an *extrabiblical,* external Spirit-led decision from God lead the Church to define the 27 books of the NT as we now know them, and also the OT while we're at it. You're being vague and saying the "church" (Whatever that is in your view) just happens to walk around one day and "discover" the Bible (what you mean by Bible I'm still unaware, are you talking about the Ethiopian Orthodox bible?) and you somehow infallibly know what the Bible is. That doesn't work, using your own criteria:





> Do you believe the Trinity because the Bible teaches it? Or do you believe it because patristic sources have defined it?




Let me rephrase this for you:

 Do you believe the Biblical Canon because the Bible defines it? Or do you believe it because your Church "discovered" it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *2nd Timothy 3:16-17
> 
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.*


Do you think it is a good work to pray to Mary?  Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed?  Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that the pope is infallible?

Of course you do.  But the Scriptures no where teach these things.  So how can the man of God be thoroughly equipped for these tasks if the Bible doesn't equip Him?  Paul said that the Scriptures themselves were sufficient to equip a man for EVERY good work.

----------


## TER

> uh, I don't think so... I do know that Paul wrote 13 of the 27 chapters of the NT (KJV) the one that you referenced was one he wrote to a church while in jail...right?
> 
> I think the reformation had something to do with the "protestants" arguing with the Pope over who can, and who cannot talk with God. 
> 
> there seems to be a lot of blending going on. are "Christians" and "Catholics" one and the same?
> I am not trying to argue ANY point.  I am literally just trying to understand the basics. 
> it seems the more that I learn and absorb, the more complicated and confusing it gets. 
> peace.


If you are truly interested, I would recommend you reading the classic text "A History of the Christian Church' by Walker.  It is an excellent primer into the history of Christianity.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What? Huh? Your post (in your worldview) would literally translate like this: There doesn't have to be a Bible for people to know what the Bible is.." If the Bible, as you arbitrarily define it, is the final authority in your worldview, then how do you get the Bible? What is the infallible means of coming up with a canon? Again, it's just this vague wishy-washy explanation. If the canon of the bible is externally compiled then how do you infallibly know what the Bible is while adhering to Sola Scriptura? How does that work while still being logically coherent? So far I've received zero explanation and a lot of just off-the-wall statements about early christians not needing the Bible to have the Bible, basically. (Which is in violation of Leibniz's law of identity by the way) 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is your infallible, biblically-backed source for saying ti didn't happen in the first century but has to happen by the 21st century? Your criterias and methodology is completely arbitrary. Also you're playing a game of semantics, the issue here is that the Church infallibly affirmed the canon of scripture through Divine revelation, i.e. an *extrabiblical,* external Spirit-led decision from God lead the Church to define the 27 books of the NT as we now know them, and also the OT while we're at it. You're being vague and saying the "church" (Whatever that is in your view) just happens to walk around one day and "discover" the Bible (what you mean by Bible I'm still unaware, are you talking about the Ethiopian Orthodox bible?) and you somehow infallibly know what the Bible is. That doesn't work, using your own criteria:


Great questions.  If your position is that a church must infallibly define what books are in the canon, how do you prove that your church is an infallible authority to begin with?   There are other churches that infallibly define a canon and who declare that they are the true church, such as the Mormons.

So your questions are easily turned back on themselves and your utter circular "final authority".

----------


## fisharmor

> Paul said that the Scriptures themselves were sufficient to equip a man for EVERY good work.


When Paul wrote these things about Scripture, was he talking about the Gospel of John?  Or Revelation?  If so, how was it he could be referring to a book that was to be written at least 20 years after he died?
If Paul was referring to books that didn't yet exist, then doesn't that tear Sola Scriptura asunder?

It could just also be that he was referring to what he considered Scripture... namely the OT.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When Paul wrote these things about Scripture, was he talking about the Gospel of John?  Or Revelation?  If so, how was it he could be referring to a book that was to be written at least 20 years after he died?
> If Paul was referring to books that didn't yet exist, then doesn't that tear Sola Scriptura asunder?
> 
> It could just also be that he was referring to what he considered Scripture... namely the OT.


Good question.  No, it doesn't.  Because the Spirit of God was working in the very early church in a special way to make sure that Christians of all ages would have the very words of God in written form.  The New Testament itself says it is Scripture (or at least Peter said that about Paul's epistles).

----------


## fisharmor

> If your position is that a church must infallibly define what books are in the canon, how do you prove that your church is an infallible authority to begin with?


You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative.  We do not.
The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.

I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self.  That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.

I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.

I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists.  That part I don't get.  If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
> You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative.  We do not.
> The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.
> 
> I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self.  That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
> I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.
> 
> I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.
> 
> I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists.  That part I don't get.  If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?


Or our views on families?

----------


## fisharmor

> Or our views on families?


Um.... elaborate?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
> You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative.  We do not.
> The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.
> 
> I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self.  That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
> I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.
> 
> I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.
> 
> I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists.  That part I don't get.  If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?





> You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to fisharmor again.


I see what you did there.   
 Sorry I can't +rep ya ATM, brother.   ~hugs~

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Um.... elaborate?


Should the family also be abolished as an institution?

----------


## fisharmor

> Should the family also be abolished as an institution?


If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
> If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?


The position of Sola Scriptura does not mean that we all decide for ourselves what the Bible means.  It says that the Bible is the final authority for all interpretations.

I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief.   Thomas Paine said "Monarchy is the Popery of government".   The Reformed Christians in America constantly argued against the centralization of Rome and they tied it to their arguments for the decentralization of government as well.

----------


## fisharmor

> The position of Sola Scriptura does not mean that we all decide for ourselves what the Bible means.


It's not what it _says_, but that is absolutely what it means.
If that's not what it actually means in practice then there is only one flavor of Protestant, because if people aren't deciding for themselves what it means, then there is only one possible meaning.

Which of Gene Robinson's one-size-fits-all protestant doctrines is your favorite?




> It says that the Bible is the final authority for all interpretations.


So are you appealing to the Lutheran tradition of letting Scripture interpret Scripture?
Because that is, in fact, a tradition... and a new one.




> I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief.


Well, with Ed apparently banned (what happened there?  missed it) I'm not sure what's going on with this statement.  You seem to be shadowboxing.




> I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief. Thomas Paine said "Monarchy is the Popery of government". The Reformed Christians in America constantly argued against the centralization of Rome and they tied it to their arguments for the decentralization of government as well.


And I'll keep pointing out this apparently unknown tidbit about the formation of the US: Thomas Paine was, like so many other revolutionaries, a confirmed deist and critic of Christianity in general, not Rome in particular.

If you want to find out what the actual American reformed Christian position is on the state, you need look no farther than FF: someone had an abortion?  KILL HER.  Doesn't matter what the implications of that are WRT the state, she needs to die.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> If you want to find out what the actual American reformed Christian position is on the state, you need look no farther than FF: someone had an abortion? KILL HER. Doesn't matter what the implications of that are WRT the state, she needs to die.


"had an abortion" is a phrase that simply shouldn't be used.  She murdered her child.  That is better terminology.  

I know that Reformers had a number of different views on the State, so I can't speak for all of them.

Murder should be punished by death.  This is a Noahide law in Genesis 9:6 and reaffirmed in Romans 13:4.

I'm not sure what "implications for the State" this really has except perhaps that it should execute murderers.  If you want to entirely replace the State with private companies that's one thing, but I'm not sure what this has to do with this.  If the State insists on monopolizing government services, it should do its job and punish people for murder, should it not?

I deal with each issue individually at this point.  Yeah, there are a lot of things the State should have no role in, but I'm not really sure what this has to do with this situation.

I happen to think anarcho-capitalism has a weaker Biblical foundation than I did in the past, as for one thing I am unaware of a single Bible verse that strongly implies it.  I can see how you can argue for pacifism from the Bible, but most ancap arguments I've seen are basically just pacifistic hermaneutics that aren't actually taken consistently enough, which leads to problems.  I think from a Bible standpoint we sort of have to pick a side.  Either we support minimal government as God's agent of wrath against the evildoer, or we take the pacifist position and say that violence and justice are something that should be delegated only to God himself, and that Christians should not participate in them.  But, I don't think you can really have it both ways, from a Bible standpoint.

Oh, and Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy leads to a viewpoint that is far more statist than what I'm advocating now.  The Catholic/EO has to deal not only with Romans 13, but also with church precedent that supports the State and an authority structure which is consistent with Big Government.

I think you are sort of framing this debate wrong, and the goalposts need to be moved a little.  You're suggesting that a massive church structure like the EO church is necessary even to justify the existence of families, and thus you find it absurd that a Reformed Baptist such as myself would support a minimal state.  I think there's a much better parallel to be made between small churches and small states as compared to big churches with big states.  But, a viewpoint that denies any governmental authority at all (or family authority) would logically have to be an ultra-low church position.  Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy couldn't be more incompatible with it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The position of Sola Scriptura does not mean that we all decide for ourselves what the Bible means.  It says that the Bible is the final authority for all interpretations.
> 
> I see you making application to political theory, and if there is anything more abhorrent to freedom it is that a central authority (Rome) infallibly defines belief.   Thomas Paine said "Monarchy is the Popery of government".   The Reformed Christians in America constantly argued against the centralization of Rome and they tied it to their arguments for the decentralization of government as well.


I agree.  I believe that both State and church authority are supposed to be limited.  I used to believe, as you do, that State authority doesn't exist at all, but I couldn't honestly defend that view from the Bible.  Even still, the Reformed tradition is MUCH more consistent with a view like this than Catholicism.  If anything dispensationalism would be more consistent with ancap because then you can basically throw out the Old Testament (But then, you can pretty much defend anything you want at that point).  But, Catholicism just leads to ultra-statism, IMO.  If the church has that much authority, its hard to argue that the State shouldn't as well, doubly so when the church is saying that the State should have that authority.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I agree.  I believe that both State and church authority are supposed to be limited.  I used to believe, as you do, that State authority doesn't exist at all, but I couldn't honestly defend that view from the Bible.  Even still, the Reformed tradition is MUCH more consistent with a view like this than Catholicism.  If anything dispensationalism would be more consistent with ancap because then you can basically throw out the Old Testament (But then, you can pretty much defend anything you want at that point).  But, Catholicism just leads to ultra-statism, IMO.*  If the church has that much authority, its hard to argue that the State shouldn't as well, doubly so when the church is saying that the State should have that authority*.


Actually, that's a very easy argument.  Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, et al can speak for Romanism better than I, but Catholics can definitely argue that States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God (per the Nicene Creed).  Since the civil authorities must live up to God's standard, the ancap can argue that this is an impossibility and the State should thus be abolished.  You would do well to study Catholicism seriously before leveling this sort of claim.

The Reformers I've read are quite Statist.  If you don't mind, elaborate on and prove your claim of:  


> If anything dispensationalism would be more consistent with ancap  because then you can basically throw out the Old Testament (But then,  you can pretty much defend anything you want at that point).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, that's a very easy argument.  Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, et al can speak for Romanism better than I, but Catholics can definitely argue that States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God (per the Nicene Creed).  Since the civil authorities must live up to God's standard, the ancap can argue that this is an impossibility and the State should thus be abolished.  You would do well to study Catholicism seriously before leveling this sort of claim.


No, I think you would do well to study Catholicism, because the Catholic catechism not only supports statism and redistribution,  but world government. 

I've posted this several times on this board.

----------


## jmdrake

> You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
> You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative.  We do not.
> The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.


Do you believe the Bible to be a "living breathing document" the same way that some people believe the constitution to be a "living breathing document?"  Okay.  You cede authority to interpret scripture to the church.  The church of which time period?  I know TER is all into reading the church Fathers to see what some particular scripture means.  Fine and dandy.  I will use writings of church fathers, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley and others *as commentary* but *not* as authoritative scripture.  But even those using post apostolic writings as authority can find themselves coming to a conclusion about something written that disagrees with "the Church."  It's dangerous to liberty for the people of a nation to assume that what is "constitutional" is whatever 9 men in robes determine it to be at the moment.  At some point people should study the constitution for themselves and evaluate if the latest ruling that says the state can do X, Y  or Z really measures up to what the constitution actually says.




> I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self.  That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
> I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.


Yep.  And the Eastern Orthodox church takes the same comfort in a different bride.  And yes, I know the two groups share the same belief WRT transubstantiation just like Protestants and RCC and EO share the same belief WRT the Trinity.  Which makes the whole "We take comfort in belonging to the one true church" all the more laughable.  That said, most Protestants are very much like you.  They rely on what that pastor says without deep critical study as well.




> I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.


_James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him._

_1 John 1:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him._

_10 This is the covenant I will establish with the people of Israel after that time, declares the Lord.  I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts.  I will be their God, and they will be my people.

11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’ because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest._

What do you believe ^those verses to mean?  Or should I ask what do you believe "the Church" teaches those verses to mean?

The church plays an important role in introducing the Christian to the Holy Spirit.  But isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to take over and guide and some point?  Do you believe God wants you to always be, in your words, "stupid?"




> I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists.  That part I don't get.  If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?


I trust in the promises of God to give me the Holy Spirit on a personal level and not just entrust the Holy Spirit to "the Church" whichever organization is "the Church."

----------


## jmdrake

> If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
> If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?


Why are you a Roman Catholic Christian and not an Eastern Orthodox Christian?  Did you decide for yourself or did "the Church" decide for you that it is "the Church?"

----------


## pcosmar

Ghaaa!

There is one church,,and there are 7 churches.. And there are churches of Men.

And this is why I reject religion and cling to Faith.





> Whoever has ears, let them hear what the Spirit says *to the churches*.





> The mystery of the seven stars that you saw in my right hand and of the seven golden lampstands is this: The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches.


Seven Churches. 

for whoever has ears to hear.

----------


## moostraks

> You're attributing to non-Protestants qualities which are not in evidence.
> You believe that only the Bible as defined by Luther is authoritative.  We do not.
> The Church - the big C Church, the one Christ talked about as if it's a real thing - is the authority.
> 
> I personally take comfort in the idea that there is something bigger than my stupid self.  That the body of Christ is a tangible thing on Earth.
> I take comfort in belonging to something bigger than me which was instituted by the Son of God and lives on as his bride.
> 
> I'm confounded every time I see people post here (you know who you are, God bless you) saying that religion is all made up and the Church isn't something real and we can figure this all out on our own.
> 
> I'm confounded because to a man these types are all still minarchists.  That part I don't get.  If you trust yourself inherently to decide things that have the potential to jeopardize your immortal soul, that we don't need any official authority to make sure souls are getting sorted properly, then why don't you all use that as a template for your political beliefs, too?


I think it is awesome for those of you who have found your earthly spiritual place to call home. I am perplexed as to why it is seen as so offensive that some of us have not and why it is such a point to be ridiculed. (My experience has been that my failure to accept what another person finds comforting is seen as a personal insult to their decision.) The fact that one's soul is at stake is what makes the decision to submit to another fallible human's understanding all the more critical. As it stands I am accountable for my failings and thereis nowhere to hide and no one else to blame but myself. 

I do not have the liberty to freely disassociate from the government being forced upon me. If I could, I would. I doubt that I would be interested in placing myself or my family under the governorship of another fallible human being after such a divorce from the present one. The government has never been worth any of the misery I have experienced as a result of its existence. I do not need a governing agency to behave properly or to intercede on my behalf. 

As such is my opinion of the benefit of government why would I not have the opinion I do of a fallible governing agency especially considering the experiences I (and others ) have had with the Church?

----------


## TER

> You cede authority to interpret scripture to the church.


Not only fisharmor, but every saint of the the early Church as well.




> The church of which time period?  I know TER is all into reading the church Fathers to see what some particular scripture means.  Fine and dandy.  I will use writings of church fathers, John Calvin, Martin Luther, John Wesley and others *as commentary* but *not* as authoritative scripture.


You don't think you use them as authoritative, but you do.  Your entire approach to the Scriptures and to ecclesiology comes from these men who you have chosen (or they have been chosen for you) to be your Church Fathers.  I do not accept them as such because they have neither apostolic succession either through the grace of ordination nor through the apostolic teachings handed down from the early Church.  





> But even those using post apostolic writings as authority can find themselves coming to a conclusion about something written that disagrees with "the Church."


Saints are fallible.  That is why it is the Church expressed through the catholic witness and the affirmation of the laity which determines what is theological opinion and what is the understaning which has been handed down since as far back as possible.  




> It's dangerous to liberty for the people of a nation to assume that what is "constitutional" is whatever 9 men in robes determine it to be at the moment.  At some point people should study the constitution for themselves and evaluate if the latest ruling that says the state can do X, Y  or Z really measures up to what the constitution actually says.


Individual interpretation which is apart from the mind and experience of the 2000 year Church and Her saints is much more dangerous, which is why you have tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations.




> Yep.  And the Eastern Orthodox church takes the same comfort in a different bride.  And yes, I know the two groups share the same belief WRT transubstantiation just like Protestants and RCC and EO share the same belief WRT the Trinity.  Which makes the whole "We take comfort in belonging to the one true church" all the more laughable.  That said, most Protestants are very much like you.  They rely on what that pastor says without deep critical study as well.


No, it is different.  If my priest begins to preach things that are not orthodox as handed down and defended as being the orthodox and catholic faith, then it is my duty to report him to the Bishop who is the guardian of the faith.  This is not a new innovation.  This is the design of the Church since the first century.  You should read the writings of St. Ignatius to gain a better understanding.  And it is the Holy Spirit Who has constructed it to be so, working through the Church, and the fruits of this is that to this day there is an unbroken line through the grace of ordination and centered around the Holy Eucharist going all the way back to the first century.




> The church plays an important role in introducing the Christian to the Holy Spirit.  But isn't the Holy Spirit supposed to take over and guide and some point?  Do you believe God wants you to always be, in your words, "stupid?"


You have a very different understanding of what the Church is compared to either the apostolic Fathers or the average Orthodox today.  Our very salvation is tied to being a member of the Body of Christ.  There is One Body, One Bride.  That is not to say that someone who is not a good baptized Orthodox Christian will not enter into the Kingdom on the Last Day, but rather, that if he does, it will be into this Body that they will be grafted onto by the mercy of God.




> I trust in the promises of God to give me the Holy Spirit on a personal level and not just entrust the Holy Spirit to "the Church" whichever organization is "the Church."


Yes, we trust God can give us the Holy Spirit on a personal level, but our salvation will not only be a personal event but an ecclesiological event, as members of His Church.

These are this teachings of the Orthodox Church as handed down since the days of the Apostles.  It is the faith we have been given, the faith which has been followed, the faith which has been defended and passed on in every generation.  The comfort fisharmor and every Orthodox Christian has is that there is a concrete and historical proof to the claims of the Orthodox Church, thus our surety does not depend on our mere minds and experiences, but the mind and experience of 2000 years of Saints.  We do not ignore verses from the Scriptures or centuries of events.  We submit to God's plan and working of this plan through and in time.  Humilty would have it no way.  The way of personal interpretation while ignoring what has been revealed and defended by men and women going back to the beginning is the way of pride and false self-assurance.  Entering the Kingdom requires the humility of a child.  Likewise, with entering His Church.  We do not pretend to know the faith better than say a St. Ignatius, but our hope is that through the same Holy Spirit Who guided him, we might enter into this communion in one faith, one mind, one spirit, and one body.  I have absolutely no problems submitting myself to the authority of those men and women who have been filled with the Holy Spirit.  It is an honor for me to worship around the same Eucharist and same worship as one Church.

----------


## erowe1

> If you believe in Sola Scriptura, then why not?
> If we all have the inherent ability to decide for ourselves what Scripture is and what it means, then what reason do we have to have families?


It's not that we all have that ability. It's that none of us do, no matter what office we may hold in any organization.

The meaning of the text is what it is. It was already determined when the text was written. Our job is not to give it a meaning, but to discover what that meaning is.

----------


## erowe1

> Not only fisharmor, but every saint of the the early Church as well.


Source?

----------


## TER

> Source?


Every saint that I know of and have read about.  Do you have anything to say which will prove me to be mistaken?

----------


## TER

> It's not that we all have that ability. It's that none of us do, no matter what office we may hold in any organization.
> 
> The meaning of the text is what it is. It was already determined when the text was written. Our job is not to give it a meaning, but to discover what that meaning is.


Yes, and the _surest_ way to discover what it means after meditating on it is to study the writings of the saints.  Unless, of course, one believes they are more illuminated then them.

----------


## erowe1

> Every saint that I know of and have read about.  Do you have anything to say which will prove me to be mistaken?


Sure. All of the authors of the books of the New Testament and every other Christian writing at least through the second century, and I think well beyond, constantly cite scripture, and never appeal to the Church for its interpretation.

----------


## moostraks

TER, what I find incredibly interesting is how much resonated with me when I saw the explanations put forth on so many different facets of faith through the writings of the early church. It is so invigorating to find the words of others who can so eloquently put forth the comprehensions of matters I have pondered. 

What seems to escape those who have found their spiritual home is the crises of conscience for those of us who have not found with surety that place of companionship on this earth. If one has a serious moral disagreement, they are accused of failing to humble themselves, which only further distances the individual from the structure seeking to impose its will upon the individual.

Going back to the political argument, it is like those of us who have a non-resistance belief who are forced to pay for things against our conscience. Now, I am not forced to comply with a religious authority as I am with the political authority. I do not know why anyone would want to have someone like me in their faith membership when it is clearly understood that I disagree with some very core tenets. Nor should someone demand I just get over it when it is something that in getting over it for the sake of another person it is causing true spiritual damage. 

Some of us are having our walk in the desert right now. You aren't walking a mile in my moccasins but demanding I walk in yours when you misinterpret my motive for not submitting to a religious governing authority. I have associations with the Church as I see it alive and well in the light of others who walk in the Spirit. No one knows myself better than me and the Creator, and trust me, no one is harder on myself than I am, or the Spirit. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide wrt my faith. Be thankful for what you have found and the surety with which you may claim your place in the physical church.

I John 4:17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

You understand that errors occur and you appeal to authorities with your physical church to maintain purity of faith. However, until the disagreement is reconciled the faithful are duty bound under the governing agent.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, and the _surest_ way to discover what it means after meditating on it is to study the writings of the saints.  Unless, of course, one believes they are more illuminated then them.


Does the Spirit not still work in this world to correct error? If I touch a burner that is lit will it not burn me? If a person is earnest in their faith will they not heed the discipline of the Spirit? If they are not earnest in the faith does a governing authority matter?

----------


## PierzStyx

> *the church isn't a denomination or a building. It is all Bible Believing Christians around the world.
> 
> If the both the OC and RCC follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they  teach doctrine so different that they are not in communion with  each other?** If the Orthodox church gave the  world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the EOC's  reject the inspiration of the Book of Revelation, then later accept it? *


I don't remember anything in the Bible saying you had to believe solely in it alone as a repository for sacredness to be a Christian. Seems like that would be an important point. But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.

Your other questions assume that you are correct. I am no Orthodox. But the reality is that if they or the RCC are wrong, so are the Protestant sects. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit after all. Either they're right and Protestants are wrong or they're wrong and Protestants are still wrong. Really, apostates of apostates cannot get it right, not without a new revelation anyway.

I'm an open canon myself. The Bible does not limit God's ability to give further revelation and guidance to the Earth and I see no need to limit God's ability to speak or tel Him what He can or cannot do. Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." The words of God are as limitless as He is and as continuous as His love and desire to communicate with His people.

----------


## erowe1

> But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.


This claim is so false that it's ridiculous. The very earliest Christian writings we have constantly cite scripture.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't remember anything in the Bible saying you had to believe solely in it alone as a repository for sacredness to be a Christian. Seems like that would be an important point. But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.
> 
> Your other questions assume that you are correct. I am no Orthodox. But the reality is that if they or the RCC are wrong, so are the Protestant sects. A bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit after all. Either they're right and Protestants are wrong or they're wrong and Protestants are still wrong. Really, apostates of apostates cannot get it right, not without a new revelation anyway.
> 
> I'm an open canon myself. The Bible does not limit God's ability to give further revelation and guidance to the Earth and I see no need to limit God's ability to speak or tel Him what He can or cannot do. Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible." The words of God are as limitless as He is and as continuous as His love and desire to communicate with His people.


Isn't it interesting to see how similar the Mormon apologetic is to Rome's apologetic.   Both Mormonism and Rome must say things like Pierstyx said: "Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."".   They say this because they want to deny the Bible's authority and add new traditions of men to religion.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But considering the Bible didn't exist for until 300 years after Christianity had begun, it is not surprising.


If I hear this one more time...

----------


## erowe1

> Isn't it interesting to see how similar the Mormon apologetic is to Rome's apologetic.   Both Mormonism and Rome must say things like Pierstyx said: "Only a fool cries "A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible."".   They say this because they want to deny the Bible's authority and add new traditions of men to religion.


I'm glad to be called a fool. It reminds me of this song.

----------


## TER

> Sure. All of the authors of the books of the New Testament and every other Christian writing at least through the second century, and I think well beyond, constantly cite scripture, and never appeal to the Church for its interpretation.


 those people you read were the very members of the Church interpreting the Scriptures (most of them ordained Bishops) in a time when Scriptures were hard to come by and the vast majority of the people (I have heared up to 94% of the population) could not read.  When the later generations sought to understand the Sciriptures, they looked for the understanding as expressed by those saints before them.  This is pretty standard by the end of the second century and onwards.  For the first century and a half, most of the interpretations were dependent upon oral tradition from the fathers before them.

----------


## erowe1

> those people you read were the very members of the Church interpreting the Scriptures


Yes. As individuals. And none of them appealed to the Church for the correct interpretation. All went right to the inspired writings. According to their own words, your view of the Church was not theirs.

----------


## TER

> I'm glad to be called a fool. It reminds me of this song.


Except when it comes to interpreting Scripture, you must consider yourself quite adept considering you place your interpretation over those of the first century saints.

----------


## TER

> Yes. As individuals. And none of them appealed to the Church for the correct interpretation. All went right to the inspired writings. According to their own words, your view of the Church was not theirs.


Well, I think we have a misunderstanding of the Church.  The laity depended on the interpretation of the Bishops, no?

----------


## TER

> TER, what I find incredibly interesting is how much resonated with me when I saw the explanations put forth on so many different facets of faith through the writings of the early church. It is so invigorating to find the words of others who can so eloquently put forth the comprehensions of matters I have pondered. 
> 
> What seems to escape those who have found their spiritual home is the crises of conscience for those of us who have not found with surety that place of companionship on this earth. If one has a serious moral disagreement, they are accused of failing to humble themselves, which only further distances the individual from the structure seeking to impose its will upon the individual.
> 
> Going back to the political argument, it is like those of us who have a non-resistance belief who are forced to pay for things against our conscience. Now, I am not forced to comply with a religious authority as I am with the political authority. I do not know why anyone would want to have someone like me in their faith membership when it is clearly understood that I disagree with some very core tenets. Nor should someone demand I just get over it when it is something that in getting over it for the sake of another person it is causing true spiritual damage. 
> 
> Some of us are having our walk in the desert right now. You aren't walking a mile in my moccasins but demanding I walk in yours when you misinterpret my motive for not submitting to a religious governing authority. I have associations with the Church as I see it alive and well in the light of others who walk in the Spirit. No one knows myself better than me and the Creator, and trust me, no one is harder on myself than I am, or the Spirit. There is nowhere to run and nowhere to hide wrt my faith. Be thankful for what you have found and the surety with which you may claim your place in the physical church.
> 
> I John 4:17By this, love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; because as He is, so also are we in this world. 18There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.
> ...


Thank you moostraks. There is much I would like to say in response, but am at work right now and would like to spend more time to reply.  But in the meanwhile, what do you mean by 'the governing agent'?

----------


## Ronin Truth

And as we all now know, only too well, no one can ever buy a bishop.  LMAO!

----------


## TER

> And as we all now know, only too well, no one can ever buy a bishop.  LMAO!


You are actually right on this one.  Unfortunately, bishops sin.  Some, horrificly.  Thank the good Lord that most (especially those who have been memorialized and numbered amongst the saints on account of their extraordinarily holy lives) have been righteous servants of Christ and loving shepherds to the flock God has given them to feed.

----------


## Christian Liberty

I don't get how you can be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox libertarian.  The idea that individual Christians cannot interpret scripture on their own but need a centralized governing body to do it for them really seems inconsistent with libertarianism.  And it definitely doesn't provide any kind of a theological grounding for libertarianism.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> You are actually right on this one. Unfortunately, bishops sin. Some, horrificly. Thank the good Lord that most (especially those who have been memorialized and numbered amongst the saints on account of their extraordinarily holy lives) have been righteous servants of Christ and loving shepherds to the flock God has given them to feed.


Just like their beloved Savior and behavioral role model commanded and taught them. Right? <snicker!>

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...60.VCHcNgmcDGQ

----------


## TER

> Does the Spirit not still work in this world to correct error? If I touch a burner that is lit will it not burn me? If a person is earnest in their faith will they not heed the discipline of the Spirit? If they are not earnest in the faith does a governing authority matter?


I want to make clear to you Moostraks that I do not consider you a condemned person or a person who will not inherit the Kingdom.  I will not say that an Orthodox Christian has more right over you to the Kingdom just on the basis of them being baptized into the Church.  God's standards are not man's standards and only He knows the heart of a person to be able to judge them.  I am perfectly comfortable believing that heterodox and those of even other religions might enter into the Kingdom on the Last Day.  If that is the case, then glory to God!  They are His children, not mine, and I will not be upset because someone has come in at the 11th hour while I have struggled from the first.  Glory to God!  How I wish all people and even the demons will be saved!  

I will not do as many Calvinists do who speak of elect and nonelect, as if they have any clue who those people are.  I fully understand that you have had your own experiences and your mind has been shaped by these experiences.  I understand that much of your wisdom has occurred through circumstances beyond your control.  If I can understand this and be able to empathize with you and grant you mercy, how much more will God?  

My reasoning for proclaiming the Orthodox Church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not to discourage others, but to provide them hope that God has not abandoned us.  That the Church described in the NT has survived against all odds.  This is not to incite feelings of envy or pride or self-accusation, nor to accuse others' final destination, but to do what they Fathers of the Church have done before, as fallibly as I am.  The apostolic truths have survived because of the Church, through the Holy Spirit working and guiding the Church.  Through the Church's work in writing down the Scriptures, in defending the faith against pagan autocrats, in protecting the teachings against heretics.  This process requires sweat, and blood, and above all the grace of God.

So my point in expressing the teachings of the Orthodox Church is to inform and those who accept it, then glory to God!  May we share in the heavenly worship even here in this world!  If they choose to not accept it, then glory to God!  May He judge justly and according to His loving kindness.

----------


## TER

> I don't get how you can be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox libertarian.  The idea that individual Christians cannot interpret scripture on their own but need a centralized governing body to do it for them really seems inconsistent with libertarianism.  And it definitely doesn't provide any kind of a theological grounding for libertarianism.


I am not a libertarian.  So, I don't see a problem.

----------


## TER

> Just like their beloved Savior and behavioral role model commanded and taught them. Right? <snicker!>
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...60.VCHcNgmcDGQ



Well, it really is a waste of time responding to you.  You have never shown any semblance of being a person who is willing to learn.  Seems like you think you already have it figured out.  I don't think you do, but hey, I am just as fallible as you.

----------


## moostraks

> Thank you moostraks. There is much I would like to say in response, but am at work right now and would like to spend more time to reply.  But in the meanwhile, what do you mean by 'the governing agent'?


In respect to the church it would be church hierarchy, and immediately the likely culprit of offense is the agent closest to tutoring/mentoring the person who claims an error is occurring. I know you and I have a huge disagreement on this issue. I still love you and wish you all the best and am happy you have your spiritual home. One day I might find myself out of the desert as well, idk what the future might hold. I just know that for now, in this place of the path, this is where I am supposed to be.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I am not a libertarian.  So, I don't see a problem.


Well, I wasn't necessarily saying it was a problem except that I don't really think Catholicism or EO goes that well with small government philosophy.

What are you politically?

----------


## Ronin Truth

*FREE IS BEAUTIFUL: Why Catholics should be libertarian* Free is Beautiful by Randy England uses the scriptures, the saints and the Catechism to show why Catholicism is essentially libertarian. Only through our free will can we become virtuous and share in the divine life, knowing, loving and serving God.

----------


## TER

> Well, I wasn't necessarily saying it was a problem except that I don't really think Catholicism or EO goes that well with small government philosophy.
> 
> What are you politically?


Hmm, conservative, traditional. I am not an anarchist.  The perfect model in my opinion is monarchism, but unfortunately in this world is  too unpredictable.  Works great when you have a just and righteous King.  Works really bad when he is not. I like this democratically constitutional republic we have.  Not perfect, but not bad.  Seems to have done a lot of good.  Unfortunately, I think the system is beyond corrupt at this point.  As for big L libertarian, I am definitely not.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I don't get how you can be a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox libertarian.  The idea that individual Christians cannot interpret scripture on their own but need a centralized governing body to do it for them really seems inconsistent with libertarianism.  And it definitely doesn't provide any kind of a theological grounding for libertarianism.


It's actually very easy to be EO/RC libertarian.  The "centralized governing body", as you call it, provides a consistent system of reason and ethics, whereas the protestant's system of reason/ethics can change on an arbitrary whim.  It's the difference between a foundation of concrete and one of shifting sand. (notice how  liberty in the US has only declined since the Revolution, despite non-Catholic/Orthodox being the consistent majority-and only one Catholic has been POTUS.  Pretty important if you believe correlation=causation, as you imply in your post.)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Hmm, conservative, traditional. I am not an anarchist.  The perfect model in my opinion is monarchism, but unfortunately in this world is  too unpredictable.  Works great when you have a just and righteous King.  Works really bad when he is not. I like this democratically constitutional republic we have.  Not perfect, but not bad.  Seems to have done a lot of good.  Unfortunately, I think the system is beyond corrupt at this point.  As for big L libertarian, I am definitely not.


I'm going to have to disagree a bit.  Monarchs have never been as destructive as republics/democracies have.  Hoppe's arguments on the subject are very sound, IMO.

@FF-you should read "Democracy: The God That Failed".

----------


## moostraks

> I want to make clear to you Moostraks that I do not consider you a condemned person or a person who will not inherit the Kingdom.  I will not say that an Orthodox Christian has more right over you to the Kingdom just on the basis of them being baptized into the Church.  God's standards are not man's standards and only He knows the heart of a person to be able to judge them.  I am perfectly comfortable believing that heterodox and those of even other religions might enter into the Kingdom on the Last Day.  If that is the case, then glory to God!  They are His children, not mine, and I will not be upset because someone has come in at the 11th hour while I have struggled from the first.  Glory to God!  How I wish all people and even the demons will be saved!  
> 
> I will not do as many Calvinists do who speak of elect and nonelect, as if they have any clue who those people are.  I fully understand that you have had your own experiences and your mind has been shaped by these experiences.  I understand that much of your wisdom has occurred through circumstances beyond your control.  If I can understand this and be able to empathize with you and grant you mercy, how much more will God?  
> 
> My reasoning for proclaiming the Orthodox Church as the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is not to discourage others, but to provide them hope that God has not abandoned us.  That the Church described in the NT has survived against all odds.  This is not to incite feelings of envy or pride or self-accusation, nor to accuse others' final destination, but to do what they Fathers of the Church have done before, as fallibly as I am.  The apostolic truths have survived because of the Church, through the Holy Spirit working and guiding the Church.  Through the Church's work in writing down the Scriptures, in defending the faith against pagan autocrats, in protecting the teachings against heretics.  This process requires sweat, and blood, and above all the grace of God.
> 
> So my point in expressing the teachings of the Orthodox Church is to inform and those who accept it, then glory to God!  May we share in the heavenly worship even here in this world!  If they choose to not accept it, then glory to God!  May He judge justly and according to His loving kindness.


 thank you my friend...

----------


## TER

> I'm going to have to disagree a bit.  Monarchs have never been as destructive as republics/democracies have.  Hoppe's arguments on the subject are very sound, IMO.
> 
> @FF-you should read "Democracy: The God That Failed".


I honestly don't know much about political theory and such.  I do know Orthodox Christians in pretty much every major political camp, from communist to libertarian.

----------


## erowe1

> Except when it comes to interpreting Scripture, you must consider yourself quite adept considering you place your interpretation over those of the first century saints.


Can you quote me doing that?

----------


## TER

> Can you quote me doing that?


Yes.  Do I feel like doing so?  No.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, I think we have a misunderstanding of the Church.  The laity depended on the interpretation of the Bishops, no?


No.

In fact, in the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the apostles, bishops as you mean that label, monarchical bishops over entire cities, didn't even exist. And the hierarchy of the 5 patriarchates wouldn't develop for many centuries.

There was always a natural interdependence of all members of the body of Christ on one another, where each member would have his or her own role in service of the others depending on spiritual gifts, including teaching. The majority of believers for most of Church history were illiterate, and depended on those who were literate for the actual reading of scripture. But in apostolic Christianity, these roles were not limited to bishops/presbyters. And even to the degree that bishops/presbyters did have authority to counteract false teaching, this never entailed the authority to give a meaning to the text of scripture that it didn't already have.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes.  Do I feel like doing so?  No.


You can't. I never have.

----------


## TER

> You can't. I never have.


When is the first explicit mention of bishops mentioned?

----------


## erowe1

> When is the first explicit mention of bishops mentioned?


That may depend on the dating of certain books. But probably Philippians 1:1. Notice that in that probable first instance of the term it is in the plural, indicating that there were multiple bishops in Philippi. There was no single bishop over the city. This is consistent with all other uses of the term in the first century, where the labels bishop and presbyter are always synonymous, and always refer to an office that was occupied by multiple people in each city. This includes Acts, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and 1 Clement.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When is the first explicit mention of bishops mentioned?


There is NO such office like the "bishop of Rome" in the New Testament.  That is not a Biblical argument.

----------


## fisharmor

> Murder should be punished by death. 
> ...
> I'm not sure what "implications for the State" this really has except perhaps that it should execute murderers.  If you want to entirely replace the State with private companies that's one thing, but I'm not sure what this has to do with this.  If the State insists on monopolizing government services, it should do its job and punish people for murder, should it not?


Such is your tradition.  Such is the way you traditionally read Genesis 9 and Romans 13.  In your tradition murder is repaid with death.
I read those verses differently.  Why is my tradition wrong?
Who else besides you maintains your tradition?
Why is this tradition authortative?




> I deal with each issue individually at this point.  Yeah, there are a lot of things the State should have no role in, but I'm not really sure what this has to do with this situation.


Who besides you is appealing to Scripture in the tradition you're employing with respect to the role of the state?  What makes this tradition authoritative?




> I happen to think anarcho-capitalism has a weaker Biblical foundation than I did in the past, as for one thing I am unaware of a single Bible verse that strongly implies it.  I can see how you can argue for pacifism from the Bible, but most ancap arguments I've seen are basically just pacifistic hermaneutics that aren't actually taken consistently enough, which leads to problems.  I think from a Bible standpoint we sort of have to pick a side.


Glad to see you're employing the pronouns which support my argument.



> Either we support minimal government as God's agent of wrath against the evildoer, or we take the pacifist position and say that violence and justice are something that should be delegated only to God himself, and that Christians should not participate in them.  But, I don't think you can really have it both ways, from a Bible standpoint.


Who else follows this tradition for how you've interpreted Scripture in this matter?  What makes this tradition authoritative?




> Oh, and Catholicism/Eastern Orthodoxy leads to a viewpoint that is far more statist than what I'm advocating now.  The Catholic/EO has to deal not only with Romans 13, but also with church precedent that supports the State and an authority structure which is consistent with Big Government.


You know, I'm fascinated by the history we're never taught.  There's actually quite a lot of history we're not taught.  Mostly because it falls squarely outside the statist narrative.... but also because for Reformed Christians, history stops recording some time around 50 AD and picks back up on October 31, 1517.

Rome regularly placed rulers under interdict in the Medieval period.  This means that if a ruler was being a jackass, the pope could sent a letter to all his bishops in that kingdom saying that nobody within that kingdom could receive the Sacraments.  I know it's going to be hard for you to picture how big a deal that was, since you don't practice them, but it was a BIG DEAL.  The objective was to put the ruler under pressure from his subjects, because everyone's immortal soul was in jeopardy for as long as he didn't repent.

This is one of the reasons the Knights Templar became so prosperous (and also hated by rulers).  They got special dispensation to administer the Sacraments during interdict.  Well of course if they're the ones having Communion after six months of nothing, and they're supposed to have it every week, then donations are going to roll in afterward... making for a very wealthy order, and a very envious king.

(Look up King Philip IV of France some time... he was a real piece of work, a good example of what Earthly rulers are like.)

What does this tell us about how Roman Catholics felt about the state in the times leading up to the Reformation?
1) That they obviously thought the Church was more important than individual states.
2) That they had no problem turning subjects against their rulers.
3) That there were instances in which they would show outright scorn for the state in place.

So on the RC side, your claim does not bear scrutiny.

On the EO side.... dude, there's this tiny little detail called the USSR that you should look up some time if you want to get the EO perspective on the state.




> I think you are sort of framing this debate wrong, and the goalposts need to be moved a little.  You're suggesting that a massive church structure like the EO church is necessary even to justify the existence of families, and thus you find it absurd that a Reformed Baptist such as myself would support a minimal state.


I didn't exactly say it was absurd... I'm just waiting for an explanation for why the Church, something which is talked about quite a bit in Scripture, is treated with less reverence than the state.




> I think there's a much better parallel to be made between small churches and small states as compared to big churches with big states.


You're claiming there is more than one Church.  If there are many, which one is right?  Is noncontradiction a thing or isn't it?
(Though I guess if it isn't a thing then the question is meaningless.)




> But, a viewpoint that denies any governmental authority at all (or family authority) would logically have to be an ultra-low church position.  Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy couldn't be more incompatible with it.


I didn't intend to go this far down this road.  My point was not to probe whether statelessness can be Biblical.  (Awful lot of Irishmen in hell if it isn't.)  My point is to ask what the Sola Scriptura position is on the Church, the one Church, and whether you're applying the same reasoning to it as you do with the state.

----------


## TER

> That may depend on the dating of certain books. But probably Philippians 1:1. Notice that in that probable first instance of the term it is in the plural, indicating that there were multiple bishops in Philippi. There was no single bishop over the city. This is consistent with all other uses of the term in the first century, where the labels bishop and presbyter are always synonymous, and always refer to an office that was occupied by multiple people in each city. This includes Acts, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, and 1 Clement.


Uh huh. And how about with regards to St Ignatius' writings circa 100 AD?

----------


## erowe1

> Uh huh. And how about with regards to St Ignatius' writings circa 100 AD?


Oh, you were thinking that Ignatius's writings ca. 110 were the earliest mention of bishops? Oops.

No. All the writings I listed, by at least 4 different authors reflecting the situation in a wide variety of geographic locales, were clearly earlier, and they clearly show exactly what I pointed out, which I notice you don't even try to dispute.

Ignatius's letters are the earliest evidence we have of the existence of any single bishops over whole cities. This situation only apparently existed in the churches he wrote to in Asia Minor, and did not apply to those in Rome, to whom he also wrote a letter without mention of any bishop there. And these letters reveal that as of that time it was a new development that Ignatius was still trying to convince believers in those cities to adopt. Furthermore, Ignatius does not intimate in any way whatsoever that the model he advocates is the traditional one that the apostles followed.

So, to get back to what I said in post 118, it indisputably remains the case that "in the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the apostles, bishops as you mean that label, monarchical bishops over entire cities, didn't even exist."

----------


## TER

> Oh, you were thinking that Ignatius's writings ca. 110 were the earliest mention of bishops? Oops.
> 
> No. All the writings I listed, by at least 4 different authors reflecting the situation in a wide variety of geographic locales, were clearly earlier, and they clearly show exactly what I pointed out, which I notice you don't even try to dispute.
> 
> Ignatius's letters are the earliest evidence we have of the existence of any single bishops over whole cities. This situation only apparently existed in the churches he wrote to in Asia Minor, and did not apply to those in Rome, to whom he also wrote a letter without mention of any bishop there. And these letters reveal that as of that time it was a new development that Ignatius was still trying to convince believers in those cities to adopt. Furthermore, Ignatius does not intimate in any way whatsoever that the model he advocates is the traditional one that the apostles followed.
> 
> So, to get back to what I said in post 118, it indisputably remains the case that "in the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the apostles, bishops as you mean that label, monarchical bishops over entire cities, didn't even exist."


 No erowe.  No oops.  I am familiar that the mention of bishops was in the NT.  I am trying to take this slowly for you so that up you can understand.  Let us try this again...

You state that Ignatius' writings were the first to introduce bishops over a city/region.  Correct?

----------


## TER

I hope I didn't lose you here, erowe.  But perhaps I slowed it down too much and for that I apologize!

You state in your earlier post that the first evidence of a bishop over a city is found in St. Ignatius' writings circa 110 AD.  You are correct.  This is the first written evidence of it.  In fact, it is pretty clear to be the case in his writings from Antioch (which was one of the great centers of the Christian world at the time, with the greatest amount of Christians).  In his writings, he mentions and even adresses other Bishops who are in similar form (monarchical).  You claim this was only found in Asia Minor.  Of course, you have no proof to say that, but let us assume that is the case.  What is your earliest estimation that such a development would have occurred then?  Certainly not 110 AD, for it was already established in at least Asia Minor.  So, as an educated person, what is your educated guess that this may have developed in the Church?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Well, it really is a waste of time responding to you. You have never shown any semblance of being a person who is willing to learn. Seems like you think you already have it figured out. I don't think you do, but hey, I am just as fallible as you.


Learn from you? You are correct. I really don't care much for your style or agenda. From my perspective you have much more to learn, than you do to teach. You confuse the vessel with the content.

Try this on for size.




> A plethora of scriptural evidence exists to confirm the above conclusion that Satan is in control of human governments and all worldly authority. For starters:
> 
> 1 John 5:19: We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of Satan.
> 
> According to John, the world is under the control of Satan, just as Satan himself claimed during Jesus’ temptation.
> 
> A constant theme throughout the New Testament is the warning against becoming too involved with Satan’s world. 
> 
> The earthly world is identified as Satan’s realm, while Christians are called to reject the world and follow God. The following are just a couple of such passages:
> ...

----------


## TER

> Learn from you? You are correct. I really don't care much for your style or agenda.  From my perspective you have much more to learn, than you do to teach.  You confuse the vessel with the content.
> 
> Try this on for size.


And what is my agenda, o wise Ronin?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> And what is my agenda, o wise Ronin?


Well for starters, from what I've seen, you push church much more than Jesus.

----------


## TER

> Well for starters, from what I've seen, you push church much more than Jesus.


Have I?  I'm sorry you see it that way.  We have a fundamental difference in idea of what Church is and Who Christ is, so perhaps that is why you think this way.

----------


## erowe1

> You state that Ignatius' writings were the first to introduce bishops over a city/region.  Correct?


Correct.

I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Have I? I'm sorry you see it that way. We have a fundamental difference in idea of what Church is and Who Christ is, so perhaps that is why you think this way.


I just follow the evidence to where it leads. Church is a human institution, in a world controlled by Satan. Church is the vessel. Jesus is (or should be) the content. Yeah, our differences are more than fundamental.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, to get back to what I said in post 118, it indisputably remains the case that "in the Church that Jesus built on the foundation of the apostles, bishops as you mean that label, monarchical bishops over entire cities, didn't even exist."


Exactly.

----------


## TER

> Correct.
> 
> I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.


Well, not really.  You cannot say 'Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity.'  What you can say is that of the writings we have in the canonized Scriptures which make reference to bishops, the formation of the Church at the time which they are witnessing to had episkopoi within cities, meaning more than one leader within a city.  Correct?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Correct.
> 
> I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.


Yes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well, not really.  You cannot say 'Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity.'  What you can say is that of the writings we have in the canonized Scriptures which make reference to bishops, the formation of the Church at the time which they are witnessing to had episkopoi within cities, meaning more than one leaders within a city.  Correct?


Yes, and therefore your extra-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) invented church hierarchy is not what Christians should be a part of.

----------


## TER

> I just follow the evidence to where it leads. Church is a human institution, in a world controlled by Satan. Church is the vessel. Jesus is (or should be) the content. Yeah, our differences are more than fundamental.


The Church is the Body of Christ.  That has always been the teaching, from the very days of the Apostles.  The Church being the Body of Christ, in His image and likeness, is both a divine and human organism, just as Christ is both human and divine.  Christ is the Head and the those Baptized in the Holy Trinity are the members of His Body. That is one of our fundamental differences in understanding what the Church is.  I am using the understanding held fast and passed down from the first century.  You saying the Church is a mere 'human institution' to me and to every true follower of Christ would be incomplete. At least to any Christian that wrote anything of importance in the first 2000 years of the history of Christianity. So there's that.

The next fundamental difference we have is when you say it is just a 'vessel', it is not.  It is actually the presence of Christ amongst us, in His Holy Spirit which deifies this organism called the Church.  You have a very low opinion and incomplete understanding of what the Church is.  You see the works of Satan within it (because he hates the Church and everything good about it) and then change the very fundamental understanding of what the Church is and called to be.  The Church is the work of the royal priesthood of Christ called to bless the world and offer it up to Him in thanksgiving, love, and faith.  This has been done through the divine energies of God working in the Church in the Holy Spirit AND through the faith, blood, tears, and sweat of those who the Church call Saints.  Those who have died in Christ through Baptism so that they may live as a member of His Body, and united with Him through the Holy Spirit.  

So there are differences in our opinion.  Big differences.  I agree.

----------


## TER

> Yes, and therefore your extra-biblical (i.e. unbiblical) invented church hierarchy is not what Christians should be a part of.



Thank you Sola.  I wonder what erowe thinks...

----------


## Ronin Truth

> The Church is the Body of Christ. That has always been the teaching, from the very days of the Apostles. The Church being the Body of Christ, in His image and likeness, is both a divine and human organism, just as Christ is both human and divine. That is one of our fundamental differences in understanding what the Church is. I am using the understanding held fast and passed down from the first century. You saying the Church is a 'human institution' to me and to every follower of true follower of Christ would be incomplete. So there's that.
> 
> The next fundamental difference we have is when you say it is just a 'vessel', it is not. It is actually the presence of Christ amongst us, in His Holy Spirit which deifies this organism called the Church. You have a very low opinion and incomplete understanding of what the Church is. You see the works of Satan within it (because He hates the Church and everything good about it) and then change the very fundamental understanding of what the Church is to be and can be through the faith, blood, tears, and sweat of those who have died in Christ through Baptism so that they may live as a member of His Body, and united with Him through the Holy Spirit. 
> 
> So there are differences in our opinion. Big differences. I agree.


You may now safely return to your ecclesiastical mumbo-jumbo and gobbledy-gook.  

Jesus loves you.

----------


## TER

> You may now safely return to your ecclesiastical mumbo-jumbo and gobbledy-gook.  
> 
> Jesus loves you.


As he does you my friend.  

Some of us are nerds when it comes to Jesus Christ.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Correct.
> 
> I don't just state it, I provided the facts that prove it. Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity. The title "bishop" was synonymous with the title "presbyter," and always referred to an office that was held by multiple people in a city.


Good to have this clarified.

----------


## TER

> Good to have this clarified.


Hi Louise!  Nice to see you!

----------


## TER

> Good to have this clarified.


But unfortunately this hasn't been _completely_ clarified yet, so please, stay tuned.

----------


## osan

> Such is your tradition.  Such is the way you traditionally read Genesis 9 and Romans 13.  In your tradition murder is repaid with death.
> I read those verses differently.  Why is my tradition wrong?
> Who else besides you maintains your tradition?
> Why is this tradition authortative?


This nutshells the basic idiocy of the "great" religions rather neatly.  Each claiming to be the one and only actual truth, ready to put to the sword all who say or merely appear to think otherwise.

Put 1000 people of the same "faith" into a room and I guarantee you will have no less than 1001 versions of that faith therein.

It never ceases to amaze me when I watch people argue this pointless nonsense back and forth, over and over again with the same clapped-out talking points, proving nothing, settling nothing, and changing nothing.  The root of this stupidity is the hell-bending will to convince another that one is right and the other wrong.  Who gives a mouse's $#@!?  Why care?  If you really hold to your faith, then you have no need to convince anyone else.  The fact that one attempts to, tells me everything I need to know about their non-existent faith, for it is nothing but a passel of vaporous lies to himself (the worse of the sins) and to others (the lesser).  When I think on this, my brain wants to turn to mush for the utter incomprehensibility of it.  I find things more sensible when listening to a man speak of the grand virtue of eating one's own head.

I don't give a tinker's damn what one chooses to believe.  Whatever makes you happy is OK with me.  But when one goes clearly out of his way to convince others of the rectitude of his views to the absolute and universal exclusion of all others, I cannot help but wonder what it is really about.  The only exceptions to this are those arguments that work at the most basic conceptual levels, e.g. the Cardinal Postulate that asserts all men hold equal claims to life.  Even _that_ has to be forwarded with care, respect, and some caveats with respect to its truth value.

These are the brands of arguments and attitudes that have fueled the rise of the atheist/materialist progressive scumbag who has murdered by the hundreds of millions during the twentieth century.  Being otherwise intelligent, those filth looked at the history of humankind under the dominion of the "great" churches and they said "$#@! that $#@!", and I do not blame them in the least.  Unfortunately, the progressive atheist proved every bit the raving, brachiating lunatic that those running the churches were, and in some ways are far worse. So we trade one set of disease-ridden scum who beat, lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder their ways through the centuries, with another.  Someone please remind me once again the basis upon which we presume the human animal as being intelligent?

Take your faith, hold on to it as you may, and STFU about it.  Live righteously as you see fit, but leave others to do the same.  The world will be a far better place.

Just another one of my worthless opinions.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> But unfortunately this hasn't been _completely_ clarified yet, so please, stay tuned.


Hi Ter,  You must know that I do not subscribe to your way of interpreting the office of leadership in the early Christian churches.  I will stay tuned to the truth of history as given by Peter, Paul, Timothy, John.  There is no tradition or writings of the ECF to suggest that these holy men were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, in the way we understand these institutions today.

----------


## TER

> Hi Ter,  You must know that I do not subscribe to your way of interpreting the office of leadership in the early Christian churches.  I will stay tuned to the truth of history as given by Peter, Paul, Timothy, John.  There is no tradition or writings of the ECF to suggest that these holy men were Catholic or Eastern Orthodox, in the way we understand these institutions today.


Well, hopefully, as this discussion continues with erowe, it will become clear why I cannot ascribe to your point of view.  In the meanwhile, you are certainly welcome to answer the last question I posted for erowe.

----------


## erowe1

> Well, not really.  You cannot say 'Throughout the first century no such office existed in Christianity.'  What you can say is that of the writings we have in the canonized Scriptures which make reference to bishops, the formation of the Church at the time which they are witnessing to had episkopoi within cities, meaning more than one leader within a city.  Correct?


Yes. And not only in canonized writings, but also 1 Clement, written in the 90s AD after all the apostles were gone, which shows that as of that time, it was still the case in both Rome and Corinth that the terms bishop and presbyter were synonymous and that there were multiple holders of this office in both cities.

----------


## erowe1

> I hope I didn't lose you here, erowe.  But perhaps I slowed it down too much and for that I apologize!
> 
> You state in your earlier post that the first evidence of a bishop over a city is found in St. Ignatius' writings circa 110 AD.  You are correct.  This is the first written evidence of it.  In fact, it is pretty clear to be the case in his writings from Antioch (which was one of the great centers of the Christian world at the time, with the greatest amount of Christians).  In his writings, he mentions and even adresses other Bishops who are in similar form (monarchical).


Correct.




> You claim this was only found in Asia Minor.  Of course, you have no proof to say that


Yes I do. We have his letter to the Romans, which betrays no knowledge of any monarchical bishop there.




> What is your earliest estimation that such a development would have occurred then?  Certainly not 110 AD, for it was already established in at least Asia Minor.  So, as an educated person, what is your educated guess that this may have developed in the Church?


Actually, yes, I would say that we can narrow it down quite closely to AD 110, since Ignatius's letters indicate that this is an innovation he is still in the process of propping up in the face of resistance. If he could have appealed to church tradition that had been passed on to him by a previous generation of leaders, or better yet, the apostles themselves, then his argument would have benefitted greatly from that. Of course the reason he didn't is because everybody knew that what he was advocating had no such pedigree. He doesn't pretend that it did. Anyone who points to his letters and claims he must be passing on something he had inherited from a previous generation is showing disrespect to this esteemed father by putting words in his mouth, in addition to ignoring the positive evidence we do have from the writings of decades prior to him.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Well, hopefully, as this discussion continues with erowe, it will become clear why I cannot ascribe to your point of view.  In the meanwhile, you are certainly welcome to answer the last question I posted for erowe.


The teaching of the EO on this subject is clear as is the teaching of the RCC.  The bottom line is that I believe the holy leaders of the early Christian church were more "catholic" than "Catholic".

----------


## TER

> This nutshells the basic idiocy of the "great" religions rather neatly.  Each claiming to be the one and only actual truth, ready to put to the sword all who say or merely appear to think otherwise


Did someone almost pull a sword in this thread?  I must have missed it.  I think this a rather nice discussion we are having. 




> Put 1000 people of the same "faith" into a room and I guarantee you will have no less than 1001 versions of that faith therein.


That is definitely true.  But there will most definitely be groups, sometime large groups who agree not only on a little, but on a hell of a lot.  Some of these groups can be very large when you put all of history in perspective.  Some would put value on such phenomena.




> It never ceases to amaze me when I watch people argue this pointless nonsense back and forth, over and over again with the same clapped-out talking points, proving nothing, settling nothing, and changing nothing.


 you couldn't be further from the truth, my friend.  To you it may seem to prove nothing or settle nothing or change nothing, but to those who come in faith to the truth and submit themselves to Christ, it changes everything.  And those coming to Christ are multiplying in many regions of the world.  Even here, in this forum.




> The root of this stupidity is the hell-bending will to convince another that one is right and the other wrong.  Who gives a mouse's $#@!?  Why care?  If you really hold to your faith, then you have no need to convince anyone else.


This is sound advice!  Not all are called to be teachers!  Some would be better to keep quiet.  I should do that more often myself.  If one's witnessing is causing people undue grief and breaking hearts and building them more resistance to Christ, then it would be better to keep your faith to yourself and pray for them instead.  I sort of run away and do this myself when things get to hot in here.  The desire to spread the gospel however is precisely because many do give a mouse's $#@! about the welfare of their neighbor and their salvation as children of the same God.  As brothers in Christ.




> I don't give a tinker's damn what one chooses to believe.  Whatever makes you happy is OK with me.  But when one goes clearly out of his way to convince others of the rectitude of his views to the absolute and universal exclusion of all others, I cannot help but wonder what it is really about.


The Church believes many of the pagan philosophers will be enter into the Kingdom. There are truths to be found in all religions and all philosophies.  These are glimmers of the logos of the universe, the shades of the realities of existence and their meanings.  The Church does not absolutely or universally excludes all other views, rather, it puts it in the Light of Jesus Christ, the Light and Logos of the World Who the Church believes gives fulfillment, ressurection and life to all of mankind's philosophical formulations and religious beliefs.




> The only exceptions to this are those arguments that work at the most basic conceptual levels, e.g. the Cardinal Postulate that asserts all men hold equal claims to life.  Even _that_ has to be forwarded with care, respect, and some caveats with respect to its truth value.
> 
> These are the brands of arguments and attitudes that have fueled the rise of the atheist/materialist progressive scumbag who has murdered by the hundreds of millions during the twentieth century.  Being otherwise intelligent, those filth looked at the history of humankind under the dominion of the "great" churches and they said "$#@! that $#@!", and I do not blame them in the least.  Unfortunately, the progressive atheist proved every bit the raving, brachiating lunatic that those running the churches were, and in some ways are far worse. So we trade one set of disease-ridden scum who beat, lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder their ways through the centuries, with another.  Someone please remind me once again the basis upon which we presume the human animal as being intelligent?


Have you been to a museum recently, or heard an orchestra at a concert?  Or read a beautiful poem?  There are many reasons to say that the human animal is intelligent.




> Take your faith, hold on to it as you may, and STFU about it.  Live righteously as you see fit, but leave others to do the same.  The world will be a far better place.


Agreed.  If you are causing people pain, distress, and creating strife and hopelessness that leads to faithlessness, than STFU and leave others alone.  If you wish to share them the hope and joy of the precious things, of the greater things, the divine, then may the Lord bless you always on your endeavors and may you live many years.

----------


## jmdrake

> Not only fisharmor, but every saint of the the early Church as well.


Your opinion.  The Bible says the Saints studied the scriptures themselves to see if what the apostles said was the truth.  That's the opposite of what fisharmor states he is doing.  




> You don't think you use them as authoritative, but you do.  Your entire approach to the Scriptures and to ecclesiology comes from these men who you have chosen (or they have been chosen for you) to be your Church Fathers.  I do not accept them as such because they have neither apostolic succession either through the grace of ordination nor through the apostolic teachings handed down from the early Church.


I see that you in your eagerness to "correct" me, you misinterpreted what I wrote.  I was not listing John Calvin, Martin Luther, and John Wesley as church fathers.  I was listing them *in addition to the men YOU count as church fathers*!  So, in trying to "correct" me you denied the very apostolic succession you put so much stock in.  Way to go TER!    My point, that you missed, is that I think all of these men who put a lot of time into studying God's word are worth reading.  But I put *none* of them in a position of scriptural authority.  When I find writings that deviate from what's clearly in the Bible, I go with the Bible.   




> Saints are fallible.  That is why it is the Church expressed through the catholic witness and the affirmation of the laity which determines what is theological opinion and what is the understaning which has been handed down since as far back as possible.


Of course saints are fallible.  That's why at the end of the day one needs to go back to the source of truth which is God Himself.  "If any man lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives liberally and holds not back."  




> Individual interpretation which is apart from the mind and experience of the 2000 year Church and Her saints is much more dangerous, which is why you have tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations.


  You keep acting like that's such a bad thing.  It isn't.  Your own family of churches is not united either.  The RCC church is significantly different from the Orthodox church.  And there are multiple orthodox churches.  The Ethiopian Orthodox church has a different cannon than the Greek Orthodox church.  So, who's "right"?  If you are born in the RCC church must you stay in the RCC church forever even if you like the Eastern Orthodox church better?  If you leave the RCC for the EO, you are "rebelling" against "the church."  (Which one?)  And you have to use your "own interpretation" to decide which non Protestant church is the "true church."  And even within the EO church there are differences so strong that one group will call the other group "heretics."  No matter what church you put your "faith" in, at the end of the day you must know God and His word for yourself.  And that's exactly what the Bible says..  "Study to show *thyself* approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly divining the word of truth."




> No, it is different.  If my priest begins to preach things that are not orthodox as handed down and defended as being the orthodox and catholic faith, then it is my duty to report him to the Bishop who is the guardian of the faith.  This is not a new innovation.  This is the design of the Church since the first century.  You should read the writings of St. Ignatius to gain a better understanding.  And it is the Holy Spirit Who has constructed it to be so, working through the Church, and the fruits of this is that to this day there is an unbroken line through the grace of ordination and centered around the Holy Eucharist going all the way back to the first century.


Well good.  It's interesting that I've seen Pope Francis say some off the wall things lately and whenever I point that out people slam me for it.  Some of them aren't even Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.  (I admit I do kind of agree with Pope Francis view of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, but his statements on capitalism are quite worrisome and his statements on atheism and homosexuality curious and slightly odd).  I guess what I'm saying is, I see far more following by the laity than I see the laity holding the clergy's feet to the fire.  But maybe that will change.




> You have a very different understanding of what the Church is compared to either the apostolic Fathers or the average Orthodox today.  Our very salvation is tied to being a member of the Body of Christ.  There is One Body, One Bride.  That is not to say that someone who is not a good baptized Orthodox Christian will not enter into the Kingdom on the Last Day, but rather, that if he does, it will be into this Body that they will be grafted onto by the mercy of God.


Well my Bible tells me to come "Boldly before the throne of grace" and that there is "One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."  Salvation comes through Christ.  The purpose of the church is to connect the sinner to Christ and to encourage Christians to do good works.  The idea that the church is the destination, as opposed to the vehicle to reach it, wasn't in the New Testament.  Maybe it's in the writings of the church fathers.




> Yes, we trust God can give us the Holy Spirit on a personal level, but our salvation will not only be a personal event but an ecclesiological event, as members of His Church.


I'm not even sure what you mean by that.  There are people in every church who will be saved and people in every church who will be lost.





> These are this teachings of the Orthodox Church as handed down since the days of the Apostles.  It is the faith we have been given, the faith which has been followed, the faith which has been defended and passed on in every generation.  The comfort fisharmor and every Orthodox Christian has is that there is a concrete and historical proof to the claims of the Orthodox Church, thus our surety does not depend on our mere minds and experiences, but the mind and experience of 2000 years of Saints.


And the RCC Christians?  Oh yeah, differences are only important to point out among the Protestants.  




> We do not ignore verses from the Scriptures or centuries of events.  We submit to God's plan and working of this plan through and in time.  Humilty would have it no way.  The way of personal interpretation while ignoring what has been revealed and defended by men and women going back to the beginning is the way of pride and false self-assurance.  Entering the Kingdom requires the humility of a child.  Likewise, with entering His Church.  We do not pretend to know the faith better than say a St. Ignatius, but our hope is that through the same Holy Spirit Who guided him, we might enter into this communion in one faith, one mind, one spirit, and one body.  I have absolutely no problems submitting myself to the authority of those men and women who have been filled with the Holy Spirit.  It is an honor for me to worship around the same Eucharist and same worship as one Church.


And I'm glad that makes you happy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, yes, I would say that we can narrow it down quite closely to AD 110, since Ignatius's letters indicate that this is an innovation he is still in the process of propping up in the face of resistance. If he could have appealed to church tradition that had been passed on to him by a previous generation of leaders, or better yet, the apostles themselves, then his argument would have benefitted greatly from that. Of course the reason he didn't is because everybody knew that what he was advocating had no such pedigree. He doesn't pretend that it did. Anyone who points to his letters and claims he must be passing on something he had inherited from a previous generation is showing disrespect to this esteemed father by putting words in his mouth, in addition to ignoring the positive evidence we do have from the writings of decades prior to him.



Erowe,

I am blessed to have you here.  Learn something from you in almost every post.

----------


## TER

> Anyone who points to his letters and claims he must be passing on something he had inherited from a previous generation is showing disrespect to this esteemed father by putting words in his mouth, in addition to ignoring the positive evidence we do have from the writings of decades prior to him.


 I am showing disrespect to St. Ignatius the Godbearer?  The man who my Church has a feast day to commemorate and who have named church buildings after?  The man who was a friend of the Apostles?  Who broke bread with them?  Who communed the Eucharist with them?  Who was leader of the largest and most powerful church at the end of the first century?  The one who his followers gathered up his half eaten remains and venerated and built an altar upon?  Am I doing such a thing as disrespecting him?

Forgive me if I have, and may the Lord forgive me.  But I think the one who is showing disrespect between me and you is you, frankly.

Let us approach your answer and ignore the added commentary which was more speculative rather than conclusive proof.

How do you envision St. Ignatius the third Bishop of Antioch gained his sole power over the entire Church in Antioch and was the spiritual leader of the baptized Christians there in the year 110 AD, keeping in mind some of these Christians were already born and live when Christ walked the earth?  

BTW, according to the Church, St. Ignatius became the third Bishop of Antioch in the late 60's AD.  But I am giving your conservative view that he did not become this until the year 110 AD.

----------


## TER

> Erowe,
> 
> I am blessed to have you here.  Learn something from you in almost every post.


Just be a little careful here, Sola.  Erowe makes statements which are speculation and calls it conclusive proof.  Please stay tuned.  This will hopefully be made clear very soon.

----------


## TER

Jmdrake, I will respond to your post when I can, later.  I want to finish my current discussion with erowe first if you don't mind.  Thanks for understanding.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Just be a little careful here, Sola.  Erowe makes statements which are speculation and calls it conclusive proof.  Please stay tuned.  This will hopefully be made clear very soon.


This is funny, Ter, and, just a bit condescending.   Of course, all that you say is without speculation and/or falsehood.   I'm quite sure we can think for ourselves.

----------


## TER

> This is funny, Ter, and, just a bit condescending.   Of course, all that you say is without speculation and/or falsehood.   I'm quite sure we can think for ourselves.


Thank you for your thoughts, Louise.  Would you like to offer any information on the topic at hand regarding St. Ignatius and the development of the monarchical episcopy in the first generation of Christianity?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Thank you for your thoughts, Louise.  Would you like to offer any information on the topic at hand regarding St. Ignatius and the development of the monarchical episcopy in the first generation of Christianity?


 Ignatius was a holy, holy leader in the early Christian church.  He gave his life as a martyr, telling all who would listen who Christ truly is, according to the writings of the apostles.  I spent over a year studying his ways of prayer and dedication to Christ.  I would have loved to have known Ignatius.

----------


## TER

> Ignatius was a holy, holy leader in the early Christian church.  He gave his life as a martyr, telling all who would listen who Christ truly is, according to the writings of the apostles.  I spent over a year studying his ways of prayer and dedication to Christ.  I would have loved to have known Ignatius.


In the Church, we know him very well. 

In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> In the Church, we know him very well. 
> 
> In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.


Yes, many in the church know and love Ignatius and Augustine and Polycarp.  We do not raise them to the heights you do, however.  So be it.  We will not end this tension in our lifetime for sure.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In the Church, we know him very well. 
> 
> In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.


Do you pray to him or pray to an icon of him?

----------


## TER

> Ignatius was a holy, holy leader in the early Christian church.  He gave his life as a martyr, telling all who would listen who Christ truly is, *according to the writings of the apostles*.  I spent over a year studying his ways of prayer and dedication to Christ.  I would have loved to have known Ignatius.


I would just add to what is bolded above.  Not only according to their writings, Louise, but from the words of their very mouths, breathing the same air with them and drinking from the same cup.

----------


## TER

> Do you pray to him or pray to an icon of him?


I pray to him for help.  Can you pray for me as well, Sola?

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, I will respond to your post when I can, later.  I want to finish my current discussion with erowe first if you don't mind.  Thanks for understanding.


No worries.  I've never known you to ignore me and I'm in no rush.

----------


## TER

> Yes, many in the church know and love Ignatius and Augustine and Polycarp.  We do not raise them to the heights you do, however.  So be it.  We will not end this tension in our lifetime for sure.


We Orthodox do raise them up to greater heights than you.  That is true.

----------


## TER

> No worries.  I've never known you to ignore me and I'm in no rush.


Thank you jmdrake.  I should be finishing up school work right now, but erowe's interest has perked mine as well.  I hope we hear from him soon.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I pray to him for help.  Can you pray for me as well, Sola?


Did you know that prayer is an act of worship?  Why do you perform acts of worship to anything other than God?

----------


## TER

> Yes, many in the church know and love Ignatius and Augustine and Polycarp.  We do not raise them to the heights you do, however.  So be it.  We will not end this tension in our lifetime for sure.


Another thing while we wait...  Many in the church you are describing don't know or love Sts. Ignatius, Augustine and Polycarb.  In fact, there are some lurking the liberty forest who have called them vile names.  Some even who have posted in this thread.  Be careful out there!

----------


## TER

> Did you know that prayer is an act of worship?  Why do you perform acts of worship to anything other than God?


There is prayer for worship, and there is prayer that is a solemn request.  Pray tell, do you understand the difference?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Another thing while we wait...  Many in the church you are describing don't know or love Sts. Ignatius, Augustine and Polycarb.  In fact, there are some lurking the liberty forest who have called them vile names.  Some even who have posted in this thread.  Be careful out there!


  They would be the first to say that all manner of treachery could be brought to their names, but surely not to their Lord, Jesus Christ.

----------


## TER

> They would be the first to say that all manner of treachery could be brought to their names, but surely not to their Lord, Jesus Christ.


Actually, its the very life of St. Ignatius, what he accomplished and his writings, which they ascribe as is his treachery.  And in dishonoring him, they too dishonor the Holy Spirit Who guided him.  So you see, it is a very serious problem.  Please be careful.

----------


## erowe1

> I am showing disrespect to St. Ignatius the Godbearer?



I didn't say that you did. 

But anyone who claims that he claimed to say his prescriptions for bishops had been passed down from the apostles, when he didn't does.

Don't you agree?

Let's hope that you don't disrespect him.

----------


## TER

Here is a beautiful drawing rendition of the martyr of St. Antioch.

----------


## erowe1

> How do you envision St. Ignatius the third Bishop of Antioch gained his sole power over the entire Church in Antioch and was the spiritual leader of the baptized Christians there in the year 110 AD, keeping in mind some of these Christians were already born and live when Christ walked the earth?  
> 
> BTW, according to the Church, St. Ignatius became the third Bishop of Antioch in the late 60's AD.  But I am giving your conservative view that he did not become this until the year 110 AD.


Ignatius wasn't the third bishop of Antioch. He was surely the first. Your belief that he was the third, no doubt, comes from the later evidence of writers like Hegesippus who came another 30-40 years later and who assumed that the earlier generations of the Church had the same model of church leadership they knew in their day, and so composed bishop lists going back to the apostles. The fact that they had to compose those lists, and that they didn't exist until then, supports my claims.

You say that your view is "according to the Church," but it is not. It is according to certain individuals. It is not according to Ignatius himself. Nor is it according to the apostles, who tell us in their writings that whenever they appointed bishops, it was multiple bishops in every city, and never a single one over a whole city. So when you say, "according to the Church," all you're doing is taking the evidence that you agree with, and calling it "the Church," while discounting the evidence you disagree with, no matter who it is, even when it's the apostles themselves, as something else.

----------


## erowe1

> Here is a beautiful drawing rendition of the martyr of St. Antioch.


No doubt made by an eye witness to the event in your thinking.

----------


## TER

> I didn't say that you did. 
> 
> But anyone who claims that he claimed to say his prescriptions for bishops had been passed down from the apostles, when he didn't does.
> 
> Don't you agree?
> 
> Let's hope that you don't.


You must have missed the question I asked you.  Let me ask it again, and then you will know the answer to the question you now pose to me.

How do you envision St. Antioch became the Bishop of Antioch, the largest congregation of Christians in the world at that time, which was filled with Christian who actually moved there from Jerusalem during the destruction by Titus?

----------


## TER

> No doubt made by an eye witness to the event in your thinking.


You shouldn't speak like that.  Louise is gonna call you out on it.

----------


## TER

> Ignatius wasn't the third bishop of Antioch. He was surely the first. Your belief that he was the third, no doubt, comes from the later evidence of writers like Hegesippus who came another 30-40 years later and who assumed that the earlier generations of the Church had the same model of church leadership they knew in their day, and so composed bishop lists going back to the apostles. The fact that they had to compose those lists, and that they didn't exist until then, supports my claims.
> 
> You say that your view is "according to the Church," but it is not. It is according to certain individuals. It is not according to Ignatius himself. Nor is it according to the apostles, who tell us in their writings that whenever they appointed bishops, it was multiple bishops in every city, and never a single one over a whole city. So when you say, "according to the Church," all you're doing is taking the evidence that you agree with, and calling it "the Church," while discounting the evidence you disagree with, no matter who it is, even when it's the apostles themselves, as something else.


All your points will be addressed in time.  Forgive me for taking the long winded way, but it is important for clarity sake.  Thanks!

----------


## erowe1

> How do you envision St. Antioch became the Bishop of Antioch, the largest congregation of Christians in the world at that time, which was filled with Christian who actually moved there from Jerusalem during the destruction by Titus?


Edit.

Scratch my last answer if you already read it. I see that I misread this. Notice that you refer to Ignatius as "St. Antioch," which confused me.

I don't doubt that Ignatius was a legitimate bishop in the sense that all other bishops/presbyters were throughout the decades leading up to his time, being one among many in Antioch, who distinguished himself among his peers. We don't have specific evidence, so we can only speculate how he distinguished himself. But it isn't difficult to imagine plausible scenarios. Most likely he and other like minded bishops/presbyters in Antioch recognized the need to present a united front against teachers they disagreed with, and provide clear boundaries between the churches in communion with themselves, and those outside that communion (notice that this, too, is a major concern for Ignatius in his letters, and is closely related to his insistence on bishops having the authority he wants them to have). In carrying this out as a college of bishops/presbyters in that city, they had to meet together as a group and work together in an organized way. As organizations generally require officers of some kind out of shear practicality, this college of bishops/presbyters selected Ignatius to fill a role that put him in a position of preeminence among them, perhaps as a presiding officer or spokesman. In fact, a development like this may have even happened before the time that Ignatius took such a position. Initially, this person would not have even been called "the bishop of Antioch." It is only after accruing more power to that office that it would be so distinguished, such that only that person would be the bishop, with the others being the presbyters.

We see something similar in the letter that is traditionally called 1 Clement, written perhaps 10-15 years earlier than Ignatius's letters. The letter only claims as its author "the Church in Rome," and as its addressee, "the Church in Corinth." It is traditionally thought that its specific author was Clement, whom later bishop lists call one of Rome's early bishops. But at the time the letter was written, it is clear that nobody was "the bishop of Rome," nor anybody, "the bishop of Corinth." But whoever wrote this letter from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth was, it was probably one of the bishops/presbyters in Rome, who was distinguished among his peers as the appropriate spokesman to write such a letter (and I don't doubt that this individual, indeed, was Clement). At this point in time (and even later when Ignatius wrote his letter to the church in Rome), the leadership in the church in Rome had not yet developed to the point of having a single bishop the way the churches in several cities in Asia Minor would soon have in Ignatius's day. But it had some of the circumstances in place that would make such a development possible. When Ignatius writes his letters to other churches in several major cities in Asia Minor (though not his letter to those in Rome), he is still laboring to persuade them to accept the authority of these singular bishops in those cities, as apparently they were undergoing the same process at that time as the churches in Antioch, most likely in an organized way under the efforts of Ignatius and his cohorts in those cities as a result of labors that must have been ongoing in the years leading up to his writing of his letters.

It is also important to recognize that the evidence we have from Ignatius's letters is his perspective on things. Out of all the Christians and churches in Antioch, we don't know how many recognized him as their bishop. Likewise with the churches in the cities to whom he addresses his letters, there's no telling how many Christians and churches there were in those cities who did not regard the individuals whom he calls the bishops of those cities as their bishops. In Ignatius's mind, those outside the authority of himself and the other individuals he calls "bishops," were not part of the true catholic church. But according to the Gospel of the apostles, he had no authority to say such a thing.

----------


## TER

> I don't need to envision it. The book of Acts tells us about it, Acts 11:19-20.


Uh huh.  That is a very good start.  Now, when did that take place about, according to modern scholarship?

----------


## TER

> Edit.
> 
> Scratch my last answer if you already read it. I see that I misread this. Notice that you refer to Ignatius as "St. Antioch," which confused me.
> 
> I don't doubt that Ignatius was a legitimate bishop in the sense that all other bishops/presbyters were throughout the decades leading up to his time, being one among many in Antioch, who distinguished himself among his peers. We don't have specific evidence, so we can only speculate how he distinguished himself. But it isn't difficult to imagine plausible scenarios. Most likely he and other like minded bishops/presbyters in Antioch recognized the need to present a united front against teachers they disagreed with, and provide clear boundaries between the churches in communion with themselves, and those outside that communion (notice that this, too, is a major concern for Ignatius in his letters, and is closely related to his insistence on bishops having the authority he wants them to have). In carrying this out as a college of bishops/presbyters in that city, they had to meet together as a group and work together in an organized way. As organizations generally require officers of some kind out of shear practicality, this college of bishops/presbyters selected Ignatius to fill a role that put him in a position of preeminence among them, perhaps as a presiding officer or spokesman. In fact, a development like this may have even happened before the time that Ignatius took such a position. Initially, this person would not have even been called "the bishop of Antioch." It is only after accruing more power to that office that it would be so distinguished, such that only that person would be the bishop, with the others being the presbyters.
> 
> We see something similar in the letter that is traditionally called 1 Clement, written perhaps 10-15 years earlier than Ignatius's letters. The letter only claims as its author "the Church in Rome," and as its addressee, "the Church in Corinth." It is traditionally thought that its specific author was Clement, whom later bishop lists call one of Rome's early bishops. But at the time the letter was written, it is clear that nobody was "the bishop of Rome," nor anybody, "the bishop of Corinth." But whoever wrote this letter from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth was, it was probably one of the bishops/presbyters in Rome, who was distinguished among his peers as the appropriate spokesman to write such a letter (and I don't doubt that this individual, indeed, was Clement). At this point in time (and even later when Ignatius wrote his letter to the church in Rome), the leadership in the church in Rome had not yet developed to the point of having a single bishop the way the churches in several cities in Asia Minor would soon have in Ignatius's day. But it had some of the circumstances in place that would make such a development possible. When Ignatius writes his letters to other churches in several major cities in Asia Minor (though not his letter to those in Rome), he is still laboring to persuade them to accept the authority of these singular bishops in those cities, as apparently they were undergoing the same process at that time as the churches in Antioch, most likely in an organized way under the efforts of Ignatius and his cohorts in those cities as a result of labors that must have been ongoing in the years leading up to his writing of his letters.
> 
> It is also important to recognize that the evidence we have from Ignatius's letters is his perspective on things. Out of all the Christians and churches in Antioch, we don't know how many recognized him as their bishop. Likewise with the churches in the cities to whom he addresses his letters, there's no telling how many Christians and churches there were in those cities who did not regard the individuals whom he calls the bishops of those cities as their bishops. In Ignatius's mind, those outside the authority of himself and the other individuals he calls "bishops," were not part of the true catholic church. But according to the Gospel of the apostles, he had no authority to say such a thing.


Just saw your edit..

That was a _very well written answer erowe_ and I thank you for it.  Your vision can very well be plausable.  I would not agree with everything you have written, but nonetheless, I think you make some very poignant and thoughtful points.  

Now, putting out there that I object to some of your speculations, I will take your opinion as being the correct one for the sake of this discussion and the point I am trying to make.  So please bear with me a little longer....

When the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost and filled the Apostles and the Mother of God who was also present there with power from on high, were there any bishops in Antioch?

----------


## erowe1

> ]
> When the Holy Spirit descended upon Pentecost and filled the Apostles and the Mother of God who was also present there with power from on high, were there any bishops in Antioch?


No.

----------


## TER

> No.


Why not?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When the Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost and filled the Apostles and the Mother of God who was also present there with power from on high, were there any bishops in Antioch?



...what?

----------


## erowe1

> Why not?


Because there were no bishops anywhere.

----------


## TER

> Because there were no bishops anywhere.


So there was a time that there were no bishops.  We can agree.

We learn that these bishops who were eventually chosen were from amongst the baptized, known to be faithful men, lovers of Christ and followers of the Way.  

What differentiated these men from other, that is, what process or ritual was performed in order to elevate them to the bishop as leader of the community?

----------


## erowe1

> What differentiated these men from other, that is, what process or ritual was performed in order to elevate them to the bishop as leader of the community?


There were a variety of processes. Some bishops/presbyters were appointed directly by apostles. Others were appointed by their churches, such as is mentioned in Didache 15:1.

----------


## TER

> There were a variety of processes. Some bishops/presbyters were appointed directly by apostles. Others were appointed by their churches, such as is mentioned in Didache 15:1.


Okay, when you say they were appointed by their churches, what do you mean by the word 'appointed'?  The Biblical term is 'cheirothesia'.  How do you understand this word to mean?

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, when you say they were appointed by their churches, what do you mean by the word 'appointed'?


We don't know how. The evidence is sparse. Didache doesn't say. Apparently its audience knew already. That it involved literal laying on of hands is probable. But here it wasn't done by apostles, nor by existing bishops. It was the laity of the churches appointing those who would be their leaders.

Undoubtedly this had to be the norm in the first century (and probably the second and third too), rather than the exception, since the Christian faith spread much faster than the movements of the apostles or anyone delegated by them to establish churches and bishops. This is clear in the book of Acts and other writings of the New Testament.

----------


## TER

> We don't know how. The evidence is sparse. Didache doesn't say. Apparently its audience knew already. That it involved literal laying on of hands is probable. But here it wasn't done by apostles, nor by existing bishops. It was the laity of the churches appointing those who would be their leaders.


Okay, we know in the Scriptures it has EVERYTHING to do with laying of the hands which is the very English translation for the Greek work cheirothesia.  The Scriptures go on further to say that this mysteriously (or in Latin, sacramentally) transferred the Holy Spirit to the one who was 'layed hands on', or 'ordained'.  

The example you bring up from the Didache uses the word  Χειροτονήσατε, which too means to 'lay hands on'.  So there were no various processes as you suggest, but a standard process of the laying of the hands, both in the Scriptures and in the earliest Christian writings. 

Now your next speculation that it was the laity of the churches laying hands and transferring the Holy Spirit has no historical basis, at least not in the Scriptures or in any of the Christian writings of the first 1600 years.  You are assuming that the laity laid hands to appoint bishops, but all of the evidence we have does not state that.  Rather, this is your educated guess, which I respect, but which I must point out is without merit.




> Undoubtedly this had to be the norm in the first century (and probably the second and third too), rather than the exception, since the Christian faith spread much faster than the movements of the apostles or anyone delegated by them to establish churches and bishops. This is clear in the book of Acts and other writings of the New Testament.


Now again, this paragraph is dependent upon your previous assertion that the laity appointed bishops, which has no historical merit to it.  So I think I can confidently say that you are making a speculation which happens to be against the historical records and the tradition of the Church.

Have you followed me so far?

----------


## TER

One thing that is frustrating is waiting for replies!  If you and I erowe were sitting down over coffee (though I have started to cut down on that and drink more tea), we would have come to the point I am trying to make in 10 minutes, but to get there on an internet discussion forum can take HOURS if not DAYS!!!  And I still have not gotten to the original point I have been trying to get to since this morning! lol

But anyway, this was an unsubtle hint to give quick replies cause I have a crap load of work I need to get finished before bed tonight  !!!!  I promise I will do the same.

----------


## erowe1

> Okay, we know in the Scriptures it has EVERYTHING to do with laying of the hands which is the very English translation for the Greek work cheirothesia.  The Scriptures go on further to say that this mysteriously (or in Latin, sacramentally) transferred the Holy Spirit to the one who was 'layed hands on', or 'ordained'.


This is false. You're mixing together various different things. There are cases where the Holy Spirit was conferred by a laying on of hands. There are cases where healings are performed by laying on hands. There is a case of a spiritual gift being conferred by the laying of hands. It's possible that there were elders appointed by the laying of hands, although the New Testament doesn't explicitly say so. These are different things. Also, you are incorrect about this being the word cheirothesia. I don't know if that word is used in Greek Orthodoxy. It's a fine Greek word to coin for the laying on of hands. But it is not used in the New Testament.

In the verse of the Didache I mentioned, it uses the word cheirotoneo, which can as easily refer to electing someone by the raising of hands in a vote as it can refer to a laying on of hands. It is used for appointing people to tasks not only in Christian literature, but also in ordinary documents in koine Greek. See the similar usage of the word in 2 Corinthians 8:19, where a congregation as a group had appointed someone to send as a companion to Paul.




> Now your next speculation that it was the laity of the churches


In the case of the Didache it's not speculation. That's what it says. And it's impossible that this was anything less than very normal.

----------


## erowe1

> But unfortunately this hasn't been _completely_ clarified yet, so please, stay tuned.





> Well, hopefully, as this discussion continues with erowe, it will become clear why I cannot ascribe to your point of view.  In the meanwhile, you are certainly welcome to answer the last question I posted for erowe.





> Just be a little careful here, Sola.  Erowe makes statements which are speculation and calls it conclusive proof.  Please stay tuned.  This will hopefully be made clear very soon.





> Another thing while we wait...  Many in the church you are describing don't know or love Sts. Ignatius, Augustine and Polycarb.  In fact, there are some lurking the liberty forest who have called them vile names.  Some even who have posted in this thread.  Be careful out there!





> All your points will be addressed in time.  Forgive me for taking the long winded way, but it is important for clarity sake.  Thanks!


And then....




> One thing that is frustrating is waiting for replies!  If you and I erowe were sitting down over coffee (though I have started to cut down on that and drink more tea), we would have come to the point I am trying to make in 10 minutes, but to get there on an internet discussion forum can take HOURS if not DAYS!!!  And I still have not gotten to the original point I have been trying to get to since this morning! lol
> 
> But anyway, this was an unsubtle hint to give quick replies cause I have a crap load of work I need to get finished before bed tonight  !!!!  I promise I will do the same.


Good grief. If you had a point to make you could have made it back when you first started telling us to stay tuned.

All of your dancing around just obfuscates the indisputable fact that we're still left with, which is that in the apostolic church, the titles bishop and presbyter were synonyms, and referred to an office that was always occupied by multiple people in a city, and never just one. The apostles did not appoint anyone as the bishop of Antioch, or the bishop or Rome, or the bishop of any other city anywhere. Their own writings tell us this. And all the evidence we have, including the letters of Ignatius, corroborates it.

----------


## erowe1

I take back what I said about cheirtoneo.

It is not the case that it can as easily refer to laying of hands as it can raising hands in a vote. It is much more likely to refer to the latter, or simply to appoint in general without respect to the method.

See here:

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...Dxeirotone%2Fw

----------


## TER

> This is false. You're mixing together various different things. There are cases where the Holy Spirit was conferred by a laying on of hands. There are cases where healings are performed by laying on hands. There is a case of a spiritual gift being conferred by the laying of hands. It's possible that there were elders appointed by the laying of hands, although the New Testament doesn't explicitly say so. These are different things. Also, you are incorrect about this being the word cheirothesia. I don't know if that word is used in Greek Orthodoxy. It's a fine Greek word to coin for the laying on of hands. But it is not used in the New Testament.


Can you please tell us then what is the word used for 'appointing' in ordination in the original Koine Greek Bible?  Because as far as I understand, the word mean literally 'laying of the hands'.   Of course, I am not arguing that the laying of the hands did not occur for other purposes as well, such as healing and entrance into the Church after baptism.  I am just focusing on the ordination of the clergy.  You make the claim that there were 'various process', even ascribing that this was done by the laity, but so far you have not provided any evidence or proof for that.  You have provided conjecture based on your speculations.

You state that the word used in the Didache 'can be easily refer to electing someone by the raising of hands in a vote as it can refer to a laying on of hands'.  Well, maybe for you, but just because you think it can easily refer to a vote call and not be in accordance to the original understand (let alone literal term for the word used) is again mere conjecture on your part and speculation.  These are educated guesses which have no definite proof.  Can we at least agree to that so that we can move on?  I am not fighting you in this regard, I am merely pointing out that you are taking an educated guess on these things with no definitive proof.

----------


## TER

> And then....
> 
> 
> 
> Good grief. If you had a point to make you could have made it back when you first started telling us to stay tuned.


Getting closer now.  Just need you to start admitting that some of the things you are basing your answers on are speculation and educated guesses, then we can get closer to the point.

----------


## TER

> I take back what I said about cheirtoneo.
> 
> It is not the case that it can as easily refer to laying of hands as it can raising hands in a vote. It is much more likely to refer to the latter, or simply to appoint in general without respect to the method.
> 
> See here:
> 
> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...Dxeirotone%2Fw


Actually, no, erowe.  It is not more likely to mean the latter.  It is actually much more likely to refer to the previous, considering that was the practice in the beginning by the Apostles and has been carried down and described in this way in every Christian writing since.  You are taking a verse from the Didache and putting in the definition you want.  But you have no proof you are right, but rather that it is your guess.

----------


## erowe1

> Actually, no, erowe.  It is not more likely to mean the latter.  It is actually much more likely to refer to the previous, considering that was the practice in the beginning by the Apostles and has been carried down and described in this way in every Christian writing since.


That is precisely the point of contention. And the evidence available says you're wrong.





> You are taking a verse from the Didache and putting in the definition you want.  But you have no proof you are right, but rather that it is your guess.


I just showed you the proof. Did you click the link? That wasn't me guessing. That was a compilation of usages of the word cheirotoneo in ancient Greek literature in the preeminent lexicon made by the world's best lexicographers.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually, no, erowe.  It is not more likely to mean the latter.  It is actually much more likely to refer to the previous, considering that was the practice in the beginning by the Apostles and has been carried down and described in this way in every Christian writing since.  You are taking a verse from the Didache and putting in the definition you want.  But you have no proof you are right, but rather that it is your guess.


So you like to argue with the lexicons and make the Greek mean anything you want it to, like Jehovah's Witnesses do?

----------


## erowe1

Notice that Ignatius also uses the word cheirotoneo for the election of someone to a task by the laity of the congregation in his letters in Philadelphians 10:1 and Smyrneans 11:2.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

TER and erowe-I just want to thank you for the interesting and thoughtful discussion.  You've given me a great deal to think and read about.

----------


## erowe1

> Can you please tell us then what is the word used for 'appointing' in ordination in the original Koine Greek Bible?  Because as far as I understand, the word mean literally 'laying of the hands'.


You might be thinking of the word cheirotoneo, which is used for appointing elders in Acts 14:23. As you can see from the link I provided, that word does not mean literally laying of hands, although that may well have happened there.




> You make the claim that there were 'various process', even ascribing that this was done by the laity, but so far you have not provided any evidence or proof for that.  You have provided conjecture based on your speculations.


I have provided evidence. Didache 15:1 refers to it. You might debate about whether cheirotoneo refers to physical laying on of hands there. But there's no debating the fact that it is the laity being told to appoint their own elders ("appoint for yourselves..."), and not apostles appointing them or one generation of elders appointing the next.

----------


## TER

> That is precisely the point of contention. And the evidence available says you're wrong.


Well, I would disagree.  I think the available evidence is that those mentions in the New Testament is invariably a literal understanding and not an innovation in the faith.  I think it was quite clear what the Apostles instituted when they ordained the deacons and the clergy.  It involved the very literal laying of the hands.

This word may have multiple meanings (which many Greek words do, that is what makes it such a beautiful language and why through it some of the greatest philosophers have spoken).  But every time it is used in the New Testament, it is refers to the very practice the Apostles originated and gave authority to and made holy, namely through the laying of the hands.

Find me one example in the New Testament that this word meant 'rise hands in a vote' or be 'ordained' or selected.

In fact, the first time the word is described (in the only meaning it is EVER used in the New Testament) it means to lay hands on, in the ordination of the twelve Deacons in Acts 6:6

 ους εστησαν ενωπιον των αποστολων και προσευξαμενοι *επεθηκαν αυτοις τας χειρας*

It says *they layed their hands on them.*

So the only precedent we have in the New Testament of the 'ordination' involves the actual laying of hands, the physical sacramental mysterious action of movement of the Holy Spirit, of spiritual transference as literally and in no uncertain described in the Holy Scriptures. 

Every use of 'laying of hands' after that, in the word *χειροτονηθεὶς*, points to this very description and definition of how the clergy would be given authority to serve the liturgy and serve the people.

So, you can show as many Protestant definitions for the words and interpretations you wish but the simple BIBLICAL truth is that the apostles structured this grace given mystery through actual laying of hands.  So if you want to talk about 'various other methods' then you are introducing novelty and steering away from the Apostolic teachings.

Do you see what I mean?

----------


## erowe1

> Well, I would disagree.  I think the available evidence is that those mentions in the New Testament is invariably a literal understanding and not an innovation in the faith.


Those mentions of what in the NT? Can you please cite the verses you are referring to?

----------


## erowe1

> Find me one example in the New Testament that this word meant 'rise hands in a vote' or be 'ordained' or selected.


What word? The word you mentioned earlier is never once used in the NT.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In the Church, we know him very well. 
> 
> In fact, we pray with him every Divine Liturgy.





> Do you pray to him or pray to an icon of him?





> I pray to him for help.  Can you pray for me as well, Sola?





> Did you know that prayer is an act of worship?  Why do you perform acts of worship to anything other than God?





> There is prayer for worship, and there is prayer that is a solemn request.  Pray tell, do you understand the difference?



Since you are so eager to prove things from the Bible now, where in the Bible does a man pray to another man or where does God authorize prayer to another man?

----------


## erowe1

> In fact, the first time the word is described (in the only meaning it is EVER used in the New Testament) it means to lay hands on, in the ordination of the twelve Deacons in Acts 6:6
> 
>  ους εστησαν ενωπιον των αποστολων και προσευξαμενοι *επεθηκαν αυτοις τας χειρας*
> 
> It says *they layed their hands on them.*


You say "word" singular, as if it's the word you were talking about earlier, but then you provide a quote that, as plain as day, even to anyone who can't read Greek, uses a whole phrase with separate verb and noun. Yes, the phrase means to lay hands.

Variations of that phrase, combining that verb or similar ones and that noun, are used several times in the NT for various different occasions. It is never explicitly used for appointing bishops/presbyters though. And again, I don't claim that such a ritual wouldn't have ever been used for that.

And notice, by the way, that the appointment of those servants in Acts 6:6 (deacons is your word, it's not in the text, and there were seven, not twelve), does not involve any imparting of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## TER

> TER and erowe-I just want to thank you for the interesting and thoughtful discussion.  You've given me a great deal to think and read about.


I want to thank erowe as well.  I should be doing work right now, but this has been too pleasant an exchange to give up!

Though, my eyelids are starting to feel heavier.  It sucks getting old!

----------


## TER

> Those mentions of what in the NT? Can you please cite the verses you are referring to?


I mean the word, in whichever tense you are using it, for *χειροτονηθεὶς* in Acts 14:23 and 2 Corinthians 8:19.  The word literally means "layed hands upon" and refers to the first description of the 'appointing' of deacons and clergy in Acts 6:6 which describes this ritual by saying exactly "they prayerfully layed their hands upon them"  *προσευξαμενοι επεθηκαν αυτοις τας χειρας*  .  That is the exact description of the ritual which would later be called *χειροτονηθεὶς* which means "layed hands upon".  

Any introduction of a new or various 'process' is an innovation and not according to the earlier Apostolic practice.  Would you agree?

----------


## TER

Here is Acts 13  "So after they had _fasted_ and prayed, *they placed their hands on them* and sent them off."

First, I want you to notice that they _fasted_ and prayed.  They didn't just pray, they fasted as well. Apparently there is an important efficient role for fasting before 'appointing' them.  

After fasting and prayer, they literally placed their hands on them and then sent them off.  It didn't say they 'ordained' them or 'voted on them', it says they put their two hands and ten fingers on them.  Now you can believe this to be unnecessary, merely symbolic, or pious supernatural mumbo jumbo, but the earliest Christians did not see it like that.  Because the Apostles did not see it like that.  They believed the very Holy Spirit which filled them with divine flame and granted them knowledge of the Kingdom on the Day of Pentecost was being transferred by fasting, praying, and then laying hands upon the initiates.

The understanding that these words in the NT simply meant 'to vote upon' is found NOWHERE in Christian writings before the Reformation and I challenge you to find any other interpretation which matches yours.  No Christian writer in history has written about any other understanding of this process of the very literal touching of hands until many centuries later in the Reformation.  In fact, if many was a hundred years, then many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many years. 

A little later in Acts, we read:

Acts:8:14-17 

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,  who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. * Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.*

----------


## TER

Just want to add two more things to this passage:

*Acts:8:14-17* 

Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,  who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. * Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.*

In this wonderful passage we see two things.  First, being baptized does not confer the Holy Spirit.  Although it is to mean our death and burial with Christ of the old man and rebirth into the new man and the newness of life.  It is purification and illumination, however not the completion.  They had not yet received the Holy Spirit.  And the Apostles were praying for them.  (and probably fasting!)

'He had fallen upon none of them'.  Who?  The Holy Spirit.  So to grace them with the Holy Spirit, it required the very actual laying of hands.  This is the rudiment of Chrismation into the Church, the transferrence of the Holy Spirit through physical and spiritual, created and uncreated, earthly and divine.  

So to be a complete Christian, not only born 'of water' but 'of spirit', requires both Baptism AND Chrismation, at least according to Acts 8:14-17

----------


## TER

Erowe logged out.  Oh well.  It is getting late anyways.  I hope we can discuss this tomorrow evening again and start off where we have left it tonight.

So far, from my understanding, the Apostles layed hands as the means of transference of the Holy Spirit (whether for healing, entrance into the Church in the Holy Spirit, or ordaining into the clergy).  Thus, any other 'various method' of being a clergy or bishop is an innovation or change from the Apostolic practice.  I am not going to automatically assign that to be negative, after all, we know that there was no Bishop in Antioch on the Day of Pentecost, so obviously some things were developed and instituted after Christ ascended to the Right Hand of the Father.  I believe, and the Church teaches, this is where the Holy Spirit comes in, as the Guide and Bringer of Truth.  

So erowe, the point of where I am going, and where I would like us to further explore, is what does it mean that the Holy Spirit is the Paraklete, and that He will guide the Apostles to all truths.? How does that play into the discussion we have about monarchical episcopacy, with the transmission of ordination, and with the point of the OP of this thread?  I hope we can finish this discussion and answer these questions tomorrow.  Until then, good night!

----------


## TER

> You know, I'm fascinated by the history we're never taught.  There's actually quite a lot of history we're not taught.  Mostly because it falls squarely outside the statist narrative.....


Like this gem of a story which every Christian should know to see  how the Bishop of a city holds power for the defense of the baptized believers in Christ

http://blog.adw.org/2010/08/an-ancie...or-theodosius/

The history of the Church is filled with such examples of Bishops standing up to the Statist authorities at the risk of their lives.  Many paid for it by banishment and exile, others with their limbs and their lives.  St. Ignatius was one of the early ones, but the list is very long.  There have been bad bishops but that is in spite of the great ones the History Channel doesn't have much interest in broadcasting about.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You know, I'm fascinated by the history we're never taught. There's actually quite a lot of history we're not taught. Mostly because it falls squarely outside the statist narrative.... but also because for Reformed Christians, history stops recording some time around 50 AD and picks back up on October 31, 1517.
> 
> Rome regularly placed rulers under interdict in the Medieval period. This means that if a ruler was being a jackass, the pope could sent a letter to all his bishops in that kingdom saying that nobody within that kingdom could receive the Sacraments. I know it's going to be hard for you to picture how big a deal that was, since you don't practice them, but it was a BIG DEAL. The objective was to put the ruler under pressure from his subjects, because everyone's immortal soul was in jeopardy for as long as he didn't repent.
> 
> This is one of the reasons the Knights Templar became so prosperous (and also hated by rulers). They got special dispensation to administer the Sacraments during interdict. Well of course if they're the ones having Communion after six months of nothing, and they're supposed to have it every week, then donations are going to roll in afterward... making for a very wealthy order, and a very envious king.
> 
> (Look up King Philip IV of France some time... he was a real piece of work, a good example of what Earthly rulers are like.)
> 
> What does this tell us about how Roman Catholics felt about the state in the times leading up to the Reformation?
> ...


Did Rome command rulers to resign in order for their nations to receive communion?  Did the church ever preach that the State shouldn't exist?

If not, you're misunderstanding my position.  I'm not saying civil disobedience is wrong, nor am I saying that individual states are more important than the church.

----------


## jmdrake

> Just want to add two more things to this passage:
> 
> *Acts:8:14-17* 
> 
> Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them,  who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit.  For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. * Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.*
> 
> In this wonderful passage we see two things.  First, being baptized does not confer the Holy Spirit.  Although it is to mean our death and burial with Christ of the old man and rebirth into the new man and the newness of life.  It is purification and illumination, however not the completion.  They had not yet received the Holy Spirit.  And the Apostles were praying for them.  (and probably fasting!)
> 
> 'He had fallen upon none of them'.  Who?  The Holy Spirit.  So to grace them with the Holy Spirit, it required the very actual laying of hands.  This is the rudiment of Chrismation into the Church, the transferrence of the Holy Spirit through physical and spiritual, created and uncreated, earthly and divine.  
> ...


Sorry to butt into your conversation with erowe1, but there were times in Acts when the Holy Spirit fell without laying on of hands.

_Acts 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning._

That said, most Protestant churches I know lay on hands to ordain pastors, deacons and elders, and some lay on hands specifically for member, office holder or otherwise, to receive the Holy Spirit.  I'm not sure what you two are debating but there's been a lot of posts.

----------


## erowe1

> The understanding that these words in the NT simply meant 'to vote upon' is found NOWHERE in Christian writings before the Reformation


Are you deliberately misrepresenting everything I said?

I never said, or implied, or came close to implying that the phrase, "lay hands on," used in Acts 8:17 and elsewhere, meant voting.

I made that remark about the word cheirotoneo, which is the word used in Didache 15:1. And I proved it.

Back in post 118, you said, "The Biblical term is 'cheirothesia'." This isn't true. I think by now you know it isn't true. And yet you're just carrying on as though you were right, and just switching in this phrase that we weren't talking about before as if we were.

How you somehow weave the Reformation into this I can't fathom.

----------


## erowe1

> So far, from my understanding, the Apostles layed hands as the means of transference of the Holy Spirit (whether for healing, entrance into the Church in the Holy Spirit, or ordaining into the clergy).


Your list in parentheses is ridiculous. Laying on of hands was used on various occasions. There is no single unifying reason for them all. There are cases where it involved the transference of the Holy Spirit. There are other cases where it involved other things, having nothing at all to do with the transference of the Holy Spirit. And there are cases where the Holy Spirit entered people with no laying on of hands.

----------


## erowe1

> The history of the Church is filled with such examples of Bishops standing up to the Statist authorities at the risk of their lives.  Many paid for it by banishment and exile, others with their limbs and their lives.  St. Ignatius was one of the early ones, but the list is very long.


The list is long. But the great majority of the stories in it are fictional. In churches that have days dedicated to martyrs, many of those days are devoted to people who never existed, or who weren't even Christians, or whose stories are so embellished that there's no telling what's true or false. At least one feast day is devoted to someone who was just a character in a Christianized version of a legend that was originally about Buddha.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Sorry to butt into your conversation with erowe1, but there were times in Acts when the Holy Spirit fell without laying on of hands.
> 
> _Acts 11:15 "As I began to speak, the Holy Spirit came on them as he had come on us at the beginning._
> 
> That said, most Protestant churches I know lay on hands to ordain pastors, deacons and elders, and some lay on hands specifically for member, office holder or otherwise, to receive the Holy Spirit.  I'm not sure what you two are debating but there's been a lot of posts.


I agree, this was the very point erowe was trying to make.  The laying on of hands does not make one a "Bishop" as the EO/RCC defines it.

 A former church we attended spent a whole day in fasting, prayer and laying on of hands before sending out two holy women who were called to help in a dangerous region.

The action of laying on of hands is for the whole church. IMHO.

----------


## erowe1

> The list is long. But the great majority of the stories in it are fictional. In churches that have days dedicated to martyrs, many of those days are devoted to people who never existed, or who weren't even Christians, or whose stories are so embellished that there's no telling what's true or false. At least one feast day is devoted to someone who was just a character in a Christianized version of a legend that was originally about Buddha.


For those who are interested in the feast day that some major professing Christian organizations dedicate to Buddha (albeit by a different name), you can read about it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> For those who are interested in the feast day that some major professing Christian organizations dedicate to Buddha (albeit by a different name), you can read about it here.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat





> *Feast day*
> 
>  Although Barlaam and Josaphat were never formally canonized, they were included in earlier editions of the Roman Martyrology (feast day 27 November)[51] — though not in the Roman Missal — and in the Eastern Orthodox Church liturgical calendar (26 August in Greek tradition etc.[3] / 19 November in Russian tradition).[42][43]


I have a calendar of feast days on my wall, and this isn't on it.   Perhaps a wiki writer error?

----------


## erowe1

> I have a calendar of feast days on my wall, and this isn't on it.   Perhaps a wiki writer error?


This calendar does list Barlaam and Ioasaph, along with a bunch of others for November 19, 2010.
http://www.holytrinityorthodox.com/c...2&trp=0&tzo=-5

Admittedly, I don't know how those calendars work, and what degree of acceptance this has.

ETA: Here the Antioch Patriarchate has a feast day for Barlaam on November 19, 2014. But the story seems different than Barlaam and Josaphat.
http://antiochpatriarchate.org/en/pa...-caesarea/874/

----------


## heavenlyboy34

It appears to be a Greek and Russian thing 


> *http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barlaam_and_Josaphat
> Feast day* Although Barlaam and Josaphat were never formally canonized, they were included in earlier editions of the Roman Martyrology (feast day 27 November)[51] — though not in the Roman Missal — and in the Eastern Orthodox Church liturgical calendar (26 August in Greek tradition etc.[3] / 19 November in Russian tradition).[42][43]


And even in those traditions they were not canonized. /shrugs

----------


## erowe1

> It appears to be a Greek and Russian thing 
> And even in those traditions they were not canonized. /shrugs


What distinguishes canonized from not canonized saints? And what does the label "venerable" mean on that calendar from the Russian Church? Is venerable a title for someone not canonized?

----------


## pcosmar

> And even in those traditions they were not canonized. /shrugs


Fire away





> There are very few personal problems that cannot be solved through a suitable application of high explosives.
> _Scott Adams_

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> What distinguishes canonized from not canonized saints? And what does the label "venerable" mean on that calendar from the Russian Church? Is venerable a title for someone not canonized?


IDK a lot about canonization yet, so take this with a grain of salt.  WRT the Russian Church, I can't say because I'm not a member of the ROC (I'm Antiochian).  "Venerable" is used in different ways in different contexts.  Pastors at individual parishes, for example, can use "Venerable" in their title to indicate seniority/pastorhood.  For example, "V. Rev. Fr. Seraphim Slovatski", where "V." means "venerable".  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canoniz...rthodox_Church



> *Historical development of the process* The first people honored as saints were the martyrs. Pious legends of their deaths were considered to affirm the truth of their faith in Christ.
>  The Roman Rite's Canon of the Mass contains the names only of martyrs, along with that of the Virgin Mary and, since 1962, that of Saint Joseph.
>  By the fourth century, however, "confessors"—people  who had confessed their faith not by dying but by word and life—began  to be venerated publicly. Examples of such people are Saint Hilarion and Saint Ephrem the Syrian in the East, and Saint Martin of Tours and Saint Hilary of Poitiers in the West. Their names were inserted in the diptychs, the lists of saints explicitly venerated in the liturgy,  and their tombs were honoured like those of the martyrs. Since the  witness of their lives was not as unequivocal as that of the martyrs,  they were venerated publicly only with the approval by the local bishop. This process is often referred to as "local canonization".[1]
>  This approval was required even for veneration of a reputed martyr. In his history of the Donatist heresy, Saint Optatus recounts that at Carthage a Catholic matron, named Lucilla, incurred the censures of the Church for having kissed the relics of a reputed martyr whose claims to martyrdom had not been juridically proved. And Saint Cyprian  (died 258) recommended that the utmost diligence be observed in  investigating the claims of those who were said to have died for the  faith. All the circumstances accompanying the martyrdom were to be  inquired into; the faith of those who suffered, and the motives that  animated them were to be rigorously examined, in order to prevent the  recognition of undeserving persons. Evidence was sought from the court  records of the trials or from people who had been present at the trials.
>  Saint Augustine of Hippo  (died 430) tells of the procedure which obtained in his day for the  recognition of a martyr. The bishop of the diocese in which the  martyrdom took place set up a canonical process for conducting the  inquiry with the utmost severity. The acts of the process were sent  either to the metropolitan or primate, who carefully examined the cause, and, after consultation with the suffragan bishops, declared whether the defunct was worthy of the name of 'martyr' and public veneration.
>  Acts of formal recognition, such as the erection of an altar  over the saint's tomb or transferring the saint's relics to a church,  were preceded by formal inquiries into the sanctity of the person's life  and the miracles attributed to that person's intercession.
>  Such acts of recognition of a saint were authoritative, in the strict sense, only for the diocese or ecclesiastical province for which they were issued, but with the spread of the fame of a saint, were often accepted elsewhere also.
> *Catholic Church* In the Catholic Church (both the Western and Eastern Catholic Churches), the act of canonization is reserved to the Holy See  and occurs at the conclusion of a long process requiring extensive  proof that the person proposed for canonization lived and died in such  an exemplary and holy way that he or she is worthy to be recognized as a  saint. The Church's official recognition of sanctity implies that the  persons are now in heavenly glory, that they may be publicly invoked and  mentioned officially in the liturgy of the Church, most especially in the Litany of the Saints. Other churches still follow the older practice (see, for instance, below on the practice of the Orthodox Church).
>  In the Catholic Church, canonization involves a decree that allows veneration of the saint in the liturgy of the Roman Rite throughout the world. For permission to venerate on a local level, only beatification is needed, not canonization.[2]
> ...


It's called "Glorification" in the EOC (even though icons are venerated).




> Glorification is the term used in the Eastern Orthodox Church for the official recognition of a person as a saint  of the Church. The Glorification of saints, as in the Catholic Church,  is considered to be an act of God, not a declaration of the hierarchy.  The official recognition of saints grows from the consensus of the  church.
>  When an individual who has been sanctified by the grace of the Holy Spirit falls asleep in the Lord, God may or may not choose to glorify the individual through the manifestation of miracles.  If He does, the devotion to the saint will normally grow from the  "grass roots" level. Eventually, as the Holy Spirit manifests more  miracles, the devotion to the individual grows. At this point there are  no formal prayers by the Church _to_ the individual. Rather, memorial services (Greek: _parastas_, Russian: _panikhida_) are served at the grave of the individual, praying _for_ him or her—though an individual may pray privately to someone who has not yet been formally Glorified, and even commission Icons, which may be kept in the home but not displayed in the Temple (church building).
>  Eventually, the evidence of their saintliness will have grown to such  a degree that a formal Service of Glorification will be scheduled. A  Glorification may be performed by any Bishop within his Diocese, though such services are usually performed under the auspices of a Synod  of Bishops. Often there will be a formal investigation to be sure that  the individual is Orthodox in their faith, has led a life worthy of  emulation, and that the reports of miracles attributed to their  intercessions are verifiable. The Glorification service does not "make"  the individual a saint; rather, the Church is simply making a formal  acknowledgement of what God has already manifested.
> 
> Sometimes, one of the signs of sanctification is the condition of the Relics of the Saint. Some saints will be incorrupt, meaning that their remains do not decay under conditions when they normally would (natural mummification  is not the same as incorruption). Sometimes even when the flesh does  decay the bones themselves will manifest signs of sanctity. They may be  honey colored or give off a sweet aroma. Some relics will exude myrrh. The absence of such manifestations is not necessarily a sign that the person is not a Saint.
>  In some traditions, an individual who is being considered for  Glorification will be referred to as "Blessed," though there is no  formal service of "beatification" in the Orthodox Church. Some fully  glorified saints are also referred to as "Blessed," such as a Holy Fool for Christ (for instance, "Blessed St. Xenia") or saints who have been given this particular appellation (such as, "Blessed Augustine", "Blessed Jerome",  and others). In such cases the title "Blessed" is in no way intended to  imply that they are less than fully saints of the Church.
>  The particulars of the Service of Glorification may differ from  jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but normally it involves the formal  inscribing of the individual's name into the Calendar of Saints (assigning a special day of the year on which their feast day  is to be celebrated annually), the chanting of a service in honor of  the Saint (normally using specially commissioned hymns which are chanted  for the first time at the Glorification) and the unveiling of an Icon of the new Saint. Before the Glorification itself, there may be a special "Last Panikhida",  a solemn Requiem at which, for the last time, the Church prays for the  repose of their soul. After the Glorification, the Church will no longer  serve a Panikhida for the repose of his soul, but instead a _Paraklesis_ or _Moleben_ will be served to implore their intercessions before the Throne of God.
> Martyrs  need no formal Glorification. The witness of their self-sacrifice is  sufficient (provided their martyrdom was the result of their faith, and  there being no evidence of un-Christian behaviour on their part at the  time of their death). Not all saints are known, many will remain hidden  by God until the Second Coming of Christ. For this reason, on the Sunday after Pentecost the Orthodox celebrate all the righteous souls together on All Saints Sunday.  In some jurisdictions, the Sunday following All Saints Sunday will be a  day of general commemoration of all saints (known and unknown) of the  local church. For instance, All Saints of the Holy Mountain, All Saints of Russia, All Saints of America, etc.
>  St. Symeon the New Theologian  writes: "The saints in each generation, joined to those who have gone  before, and filled like them with light, become a golden chain, in which  each saint is a separate link, united to the next by faith, works, and  love. So in the One God they form a single chain which cannot quickly be  broken."

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Fire away


lulz

----------


## Sola_Fide

> IDK a lot about canonization yet, so take this with a grain of salt.  WRT the Russian Church, I can't say because I'm not a member of the ROC (I'm Antiochian).  "Venerable" is used in different ways in different contexts.  Pastors at individual parishes, for example, can use "Venerable" in their title to indicate seniority/pastorhood.  For example, "V. Rev. Fr. Seraphim Slovatski", where "V." means "venerable".  
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canoniz...rthodox_Church
> 
> It's called "Glorification" in the EOC (even though icons are venerated).


Where in the Bible does it say we should use acts of worship toward anything other than God?

----------


## Traditionalist

> Great questions. If your position is that a church must infallibly define what books are in the canon, how do you prove that your church is an infallible authority to begin with? There are other churches that infallibly define a canon and who declare that they are the true church, such as the Mormons.
> 
> So your questions are easily turned back on themselves and your utter circular "final authority".





This is the typical response from a Protestant, when they are confronted about their errors in _Sola Scriptura_ and the various unaccounted for presuppositions they make by simply having a biblical canon, they will change the argument to proving the Church to be true. That's irrelevant to the discussion on the Bible's authority, and my evidence for the Church being authentic relies upon internal & external evidences so it's not "circular" by any means. But you have yet, probably for the 10th time now in this sub-forum, provided a solid response for why you have a Bible and which intra-biblical means do you ascertain the canon? Your Sola Scriptura heresy is not only anachronistic, ahistorial, antithetical to the Jewish religion of which the Apostles & Christ developed from, but it's hopelessly self-defeating. For about the 11th time now, how do you develop a biblical canon using external means for your final authority while still maintaining Sola Scriptura?

----------


## TER

> Your list in parentheses is ridiculous. Laying on of hands was used on various occasions. There is no single unifying reason for them all. There are cases where it involved the transference of the Holy Spirit. There are other cases where it involved other things, having nothing at all to do with the transference of the Holy Spirit. And there are cases where the Holy Spirit entered people with no laying on of hands.


My point, which you keep with missing or ignoring erowe, is that the Biblical description of how the Apostles 'ordained', that is transfered the Holy Spirit, particularly for deacons, was to 'lay hands' on the initiate.  Do you deny this?  It is quite clearly described in Acts.

PS: it is ironic that you keep referring up to the Didache for authority.  Tell me, do you consider all of the Didache as apostolic proofs, or just the parts you want to?

----------


## TER

> The list is long. But the great majority of the stories in it are fictional. In churches that have days dedicated to martyrs, many of those days are devoted to people who never existed, or who weren't even Christians, or whose stories are so embellished that there's no telling what's true or false. At least one feast day is devoted to someone who was just a character in a Christianized version of a legend that was originally about Buddha.


'The great majority of the stories in it are fictional'? Wow.  By your authority?  Do you have proof to say 'the vast majority' are fictional?  For someone who loves to ask others for proof, you seem to like to make such grandiose speculations yourself out of thin air.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> [/COLOR]
> 
> 
> This is the typical response from a Protestant, when they are confronted about their errors in _Sola Scriptura_ and the various unaccounted for presuppositions they make by simply having a biblical canon, they will change the argument to proving the Church to be true. That's irrelevant to the discussion on the Bible's authority, and my evidence for the Church being authentic relies upon internal & external evidences so it's not "circular" by any means. But you have yet, probably for the 10th time now in this sub-forum, provided a solid response for why you have a Bible and which intra-biblical means do you ascertain the canon? Your Sola Scriptura heresy is not only anachronistic, ahistorial, antithetical to the Jewish religion of which the Apostles & Christ developed from, but it's hopelessly self-defeating. For about the 11th time now, how do you develop a biblical canon using external means for your final authority while still maintaining Sola Scriptura?


My view is antithetical to Jesus and Paul?  _What?_  What central authority did Jesus or Paul appeal to when determining what books to appeal to as Scripture?

----------


## TER

> I agree, this was the very point erowe was trying to make.  The laying on of hands does not make one a "Bishop" as the EO/RCC defines it.
> 
>  A former church we attended spent a whole day in fasting, prayer and laying on of hands before sending out two holy women who were called to help in a dangerous region.
> 
> The action of laying on of hands is for the whole church. IMHO.


I am only trying to describe what the Biblical description is for making one a deacon or presbyter in the NT.  I am not mentioning any particular Church or limiting it to any particular Church in this dialogue so far.  I am simply trying to understand how erowe ignores the biblical teachings and then using the extrabiblical source called the Didache (which I still maintain he is misinterpreting and which I am sure he will disagree with other things written in it though he is using it as an authority out of convenience and ignoring the rest (the typical way a reformed Protestant approaches both tradition and the scriptures)) and then he goes on to say that the ordination was done in 'various ways' and by laity, when he has zero definite proof to say this.  He is introducing a change in the Apostolic tradition, and I wonder if he sees that or not.  And if he doesn't, why doesn't the fact that he has no Patristic evidence to prove his point (that there were various ways, such as laity laying hands to ordain) not make him pause and think that perhaps he is wrong and not 2000 years of saints.

----------


## Traditionalist

> My view is antithetical to Jesus and Paul? _What?_


_

Christ & Paul made frequent appeals to the Oral Torah, it was a necessity for Judaism at the time, and I would confidently argue that it was present in varying forms in most branches. Jesus would have had to accept a binding, authoritative, oral tradition that stemmed from Moses. How does one perform the Kosher Slaughter? Which calendar do you use? How did Jesus know and re-affirm the Pharisaic tradition that they had a legitimate heir to Moses's Seat? It was a world that had already accepted Oral Traditions as authoritative and the Word of God. Paul, likewise, identified as a Pharisee 20+ years after converting and still referenced Jewish tradition as authoritative. By rejecting this way of thinking and asserting some Sola Scriptura view you're way out of line with the original Jewish believers in Christ, it's simply an alien way of thinking. 





			
				What central authority did Jesus or Paul appeal to when determining what books to appeal to as Scripture?
			
		



Jesus & Paul defined a canon? That's news to me._

----------


## TER

> Your list in parentheses is ridiculous. Laying on of hands was used on various occasions. There is no single unifying reason for them all. There are cases where it involved the transference of the Holy Spirit. There are other cases where it involved other things, having nothing at all to do with the transference of the Holy Spirit. And there are cases where the Holy Spirit entered people with no laying on of hands.


Yes, I agree. The laying of the hands was done for other reasons then making one a member of the clergy.  I understand that.  For example the passage I listed above which describes how St. Peter and St. John layed their hands on the people in Samaria because they had not received yet the Holy Spirit, they had just been Baptized.

My confusion is where you are getting that there were other methods of making one a bishop then the way it was described in the Bible which is only described by laying of the hands.  Are you putting extra biblical writings, namely the Didache, as more authoratative then the Book of Acts?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> uh, I don't think so... I do know that Paul wrote 13 of the 27 chapters of the NT (KJV) the one that you referenced was one he wrote to a church while in jail...right?
> 
> I think the reformation had something to do with the "protestants" arguing with the Pope over who can, and who cannot talk with God. 
> 
> there seems to be a lot of blending going on. are "Christians" and "Catholics" one and the same?
> I am not trying to argue ANY point.  I am literally just trying to understand the basics. 
> it seems the more that I learn and absorb, the more complicated and confusing it gets. 
> peace.


The definition of "Christian" really depends on who you ask.  Ultimately (if the Christian worldview is true) there's a right answer, and I have my opinion, but if you're just trying to understand the debate I'll leave it at that.

No, "Christian" and "Catholic" don't mean the same thing.  They are either two different religions, or Catholicism is a subset of Christianity, depending on who you ask.

----------


## TER

> What distinguishes canonized from not canonized saints? And what does the label "venerable" mean on that calendar from the Russian Church? Is venerable a title for someone not canonized?


The Church does not make a person a Saint.  They merely proclaim what the person already is.  Many (even most) of the Saints of the past 2000 years have been forgotten in this world by the average person, even when alive many were hardly known, living quiet, simple lives.  Those that are 'canonized' by the Church are merely proclaimed as an example for others, as lives we in the Church should imitate, as a ruler (kanon)' we should measure our own lives against.  And it is the people, the laity, who initiate this process, a true grassroots effort in the regular way in which this occurs.  Because the Church officially pronounces a Feast Day in remebrance to them doesn't then make them holy or a saint.  They were holy before this happened.

Now, knowing that these men were still men and as such have sinned, we do not memorialize them for any sins they had done, but for the great good they did, in either works of love. charity, or repentance.  

Venerable describes one who many consider holy and to be a Saint yet has not officially been recognized as such.  Again, this does not mean they are 'less' than one who has been 'canonized' a Saint, but rather that the Heirarchy for whatever reason (and their can be several) has yet to place their names in the list of those canonized.  I hope this very rudimentary explanation is helpful.

----------


## TER

> Your opinion.  The Bible says the Saints studied the scriptures themselves to see if what the apostles said was the truth.  That's the opposite of what fisharmor states he is doing.


No, I don't believe it is.  Of course we should study the Scriptures like the Apostles did.  We should also try to understand them in the light of Holy Tradition, just as they did.  Just like St. Paul did and all the first century Jews did (except for the Saduccees who were the Solo Scripturist of their day)..  




> I see that you in your eagerness to "correct" me, you misinterpreted what I wrote.  I was not listing John Calvin, Martin Luther, and John Wesley as church fathers.  I was listing them *in addition to the men YOU count as church fathers*!  So, in trying to "correct" me you denied the very apostolic succession you put so much stock in.  Way to go TER!    My point, that you missed, is that I think all of these men who put a lot of time into studying God's word are worth reading.  But I put *none* of them in a position of scriptural authority.  When I find writings that deviate from what's clearly in the Bible, I go with the Bible.


The problem is that what you might intepret in the Bible may be a false interpretation.  There is a mechanism to see this and be corrected, and according to St. Paul, it is through the Church which is the bulwark and foundation for the truth.

And as for apostolic succession, their is not only apostolic succession through ordination (laying of the hands) which Calvin and Wesley did not have, but apostolic succession in teachings and understanding, what neither Calvin, Wesly, or Luther had.  So, while they may some value as you say, they must be approached in that light.  To me, I would rather read those who history and the Church have proclaimed to be apostolic both by grace and by their teachings being in conformity to the apostolic deposit of faith.




> Of course saints are fallible.  That's why at the end of the day one needs to go back to the source of truth which is God Himself.  "If any man lacks wisdom let him ask of God who gives liberally and holds not back."


All saints are fallible, and some less than others.




> You keep acting like that's such a bad thing.  It isn't.


I would strongly disagree with you, and the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane, the Acts of the Apostles described in the Bible, and the epistles for instructions in the NT would strongly counter your claim that it is 'not such a bad thing' for the churches to be divided in faith, worship and spirit.




> Your own family of churches is not united either.  The RCC church is significantly different from the Orthodox church.  And there are multiple orthodox churches.  The Ethiopian Orthodox church has a different cannon than the Greek Orthodox church.


This is a tragedy.  Not a good thing.




> So, who's "right"?


I believe it to be the EOC.




> If you are born in the RCC church must you stay in the RCC church forever even if you like the Eastern Orthodox church better?


No.  Many Catholics have joined the Orthodox Church.




> If you leave the RCC for the EO, you are "rebelling" against "the church."  (Which one?) And you have to use your "own interpretation" to decide which non Protestant church is the "true church."  And even within the EO church there are differences so strong that one group will call the other group "heretics."  No matter what church you put your "faith" in, at the end of the day you must know God and His word for yourself.  And that's exactly what the Bible says..  "Study to show *thyself* approved unto God, a workman that need not be ashamed, rightly divining the word of truth."


Many Christians fell away and became Arians in the third century.  Many also fell away from Arianism and came back to the catholic Church.  Both used the same Scriptures to prove their point.  Why was one wrong and not the other?




> Well good.  It's interesting that I've seen Pope Francis say some off the wall things lately and whenever I point that out people slam me for it.  Some of them aren't even Catholic or Eastern Orthodox.  (I admit I do kind of agree with Pope Francis view of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, but his statements on capitalism are quite worrisome and his statements on atheism and homosexuality curious and slightly odd).  I guess what I'm saying is, I see far more following by the laity than I see the laity holding the clergy's feet to the fire.  But maybe that will change.


I think if you study the history of Christianity, you will find many instances of the laity holding the clergy's feet to the fire in both Catholisicm and Orthodoxy.  




> Well my Bible tells me to come "Boldly before the throne of grace" and that there is "One mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."  Salvation comes through Christ.  The purpose of the church is to connect the sinner to Christ and to encourage Christians to do good works.  The idea that the church is the destination, as opposed to the vehicle to reach it, wasn't in the New Testament.  Maybe it's in the writings of the church fathers.


St. Paul clearly says were at to be one Body.  Our destination is tied in with the vehicle.  The early Christians risked much to become members of this United Body through baptism and Chrismation.  They often signed their death warrant in joining.  And the destination is to be in this Body, united with the believers through Christ.  It wasn't the mere vehicle, but the very eschatological destination of the Kingdom, even here in this world.  We have a very different understanding of what the Church is and how our salvation is tied to it through Christ.  You would do well instead of guessing what the Church Fathers write and actually read them.  Then you could better understand this.





> And the RCC Christians?  Oh yeah, differences are only important to point out among the Protestants.


The major differences between Orthodoxy and Catholisicm is ecclesiological, not as much doctrinal (though they do exist, especially since ecclesiology and doctrinal theology are tied in together). The difference between Orthodox and Protestantism is much greater and much more profound.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Church does not make a person a Saint.  They merely proclaim what the person already is.


Where did the apostles ever do this?  Is this in Acts somewhere?

----------


## erowe1

> My confusion is where you are getting that there were other methods of making one a bishop then the way it was described in the Bible which is only described by laying of the hands.  Are you putting extra biblical writings, namely the Didache, as more authoratative then the Book of Acts?


First of all, where in the Bible does it say anything about that method of choosing bishops? In all your scouring of the passages that have variations of the phrase "lay hands on," did you not notice that none of them are clearly about appointing bishops?

Second of all, as I already showed you, we know from Didache 15:1 that there were places where the laity chose their bishops.

No, I'm not saying the Didache is authoritative here as anything other than a historical source that reveals that this, indeed, happened.

The myth that all bishops in any given denomination in existence today received their office by some unbroken succession of laying on of hands reaching back to the apostles is just that, a myth. It is unsupported by historical evidence, including the book of Acts. Nowhere in Acts, or anywhere else in the Bible is there the slightest hint that the only bishops who existed in churches around the world at that time were those who had been appointed by apostles or by some succession of bishops going back to the apostles, nor that churches whose bishops had not been so appointed were in any way illegitimate.

----------


## TER

Erowe, just left the house. Will answer your post later today.

----------


## erowe1

> 'The great majority of the stories in it are fictional'? Wow.  By your authority?


No. That view is universally held by scholars who have studied it. Check out the writings on martyrdom by Roman Catholic scholar Candida Moss.

----------


## erowe1

> My point, which you keep with missing or ignoring erowe, is that the Biblical description of how the Apostles 'ordained', that is transfered the Holy Spirit, particularly for deacons, was to 'lay hands' on the initiate.  Do you deny this?  It is quite clearly described in Acts.


I'm not missing it. You're clearly wrong. No it is not quite clearly described in Acts. You keep mixing together different cases. There is nothing in Acts that indicates that apostles always ordained people by laying on hands, nor is there anything to indicate that when they did it involved any transference of the Holy Spirit.

You claim that you realize that laying of hands was done on a variety of different occasions, and yet you keep insisting on mixing these together and universalizing them to say something that isn't there.

----------


## jmdrake

> No, I don't believe it is.  Of course we should study the Scriptures like the Apostles did.  We should also try to understand them in the light of Holy Tradition, just as they did.  Just like St. Paul did and all the first century Jews did (except for the Saduccees who were the Solo Scripturist of their day)..


Except that you are glossing over the fact that Paul said the saints were the ones subjugated "Holy tradition" to the plain meaning of established scripture.  You're turning it on it's head.  Paul said "The received the word (of the apostles) with eagerness *and searched the scriptures to see if those things (words of the apostles) were true*."  You've got it backwards my friend.  Jesus also castigated the Pharisees for setting aside the law based on their tradition.  They were able to get away with not honoring their responsibility to their parents by using (false) "Holy" tradition.  Tradition is fine if it doesn't violate clear meaning of scripture.




> The problem is that what you might intepret in the Bible may be a false interpretation.


I see you are going to gloss over the fact that you were wrong in your interpretation of my words in that you thought I was saying Calvin, Luther and Wesley were church fathers when that is not at all what I was saying.  No worries.  We're still friends.   But that helps prove my point.  You can claim all day that I'm using a "false interpretation" and you, somehow, are not, when you interpret things falsely just like anybody else.  Relying on the church fathers doesn't get you out of the interpretation trap because you have to interpret what they say as well.  I was able to find what I believe to be support for the idea that the body and blood of Jesus was metaphor.  You disagree even though the word "metaphor" was used.  So you were still interpreting.  Oh you can say "Well much church ultimately teaches that what that church father really mean was X", but that's different from saying you are merely going with the interpretation of the church fathers.

Come on down to the 21st century.  Pope Frances made some statements that, taken on its face value, were highly critical of free market capitalism.  I took him at his word and the fact that he is a known supporter of "liberation theology" which tends towards socialism.  I was attacked by Catholics and non-Catholics alike.  How dare I attack the pope by taking him at his word!  I was supposed to "re-interpret" what he side to mean that he was against "mercantile capitalism" even though he never said that.  The thing is, on a democratic and/or socialist website my interpretation of what the pope said would have been most welcomed at not seen at all as anti Catholic because those particular Catholics are not per se anti socialism as is just about everyone here at RPF.  So, even though you say you leave interpretation up to the church, you even interpret the church.  (And yes I know the RCC is not your particular church but I'm fairly certain that if the bishop of your particular church had made similar statements you would have had a similar interpretation.)





> There is a mechanism to see this and be corrected, and according to St. Paul, it is through the Church which is the bulwark and foundation for the truth.
> 
> And as for apostolic succession, their is not only apostolic succession through ordination (laying of the hands) which Calvin and Wesley did not have, but apostolic succession in teachings and understanding, what neither Calvin, Wesly, or Luther had.  So, while they may some value as you say, they must be approached in that light.  To me, I would rather read those who history and the Church have proclaimed to be apostolic both by grace and by their teachings being in conformity to the apostolic deposit of faith.


Yeah....except that apostolic succession disagrees with itself.  There are people within the apostolic succession that went to war with each other and who have perpetrated all manner of evil against all manner of peoples.  The pope that sacked Constantinople was in the line of apostolic succession.  Why should I take anything he has to save over John Wesley?  That, of course, is a rhetorical question.  You can talk all you want to to erowe1 about the Holy Spirit being transferred by the laying on of hands, but there are people in your church, in the RCC church and in other apostolic churches that had hands laid on them through apostolic succession who clearly do *not* have the Holy Spirit living in their lives.  And there are people outside the line of apostolic succession who *do* have the Holy Spirit.  Going by ritual, instead of by Spirit, is dangerous.





> All saints are fallible, and some less than others.


Right.  But the Holy Spirit isn't fallible at all.  Why do you have no comment on....

_James 1:5 If any of you lacks wisdom, you should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to you._

And further...

_1 John 2:27 As for you, the anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real, not counterfeit--just as it has taught you, remain in him._

And how about...

_Hebrews 8:11 No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest._

Do those verses mean nothing to you?  And do you have any verse that says "Make sure you don't try to interpret the Bible or yourself and instead let the church interpret it for you?"  




> I would strongly disagree with you, and the prayer of Christ in Gethsemane, the Acts of the Apostles described in the Bible, and the epistles for instructions in the NT would strongly counter your claim that it is 'not such a bad thing' for the churches to be divided in faith, worship and spirit.


Jesus never advocated unity for the sake of unity.  He prayed for His disciples to be one as they were on one accord.  He also told them not to lord over each other, a direct rebuke of your belief in hierarchy.  We have talked about this before.  You disagree strongly with certain positions of the RCC.  Let's assume you are right and the EO is the "true church."  Christians living in the west had no free access to the EO.  So the only way they had to correct those errors is to try to figure out the truth for themselves.  Now if you accept that error crept into the RCC, you should be able to at least accept the *possibility* of it creeping into the EO as well.  Jesus never said someone was bound to stay with a church that had departed from truth.  In fact Revelation declares "Come out of her my people" in reference to false religion.




> This is a tragedy.  Not a good thing.


It's reality.  Are you prepared to leave the EO church and go join the RCC church for the sake of unity?  If enough EO Christians did that the "schism" would heal itself.  Now you can say "Well they can come join us" but you only have control over yourself.




> I believe it to be the EOC.


I know you do.  So what?  The RCC believe it to be the RCC.  Every Christian of every church believes their church to be the one true church.  There can never be unity of churches.  There can be unity of beliefs.  That requires Christians of all churches to be willing to say "My church may be wrong.  I pray to God to be led of the Holy Spirit about what God's truth is."  It requires you to have more faith in the Holy Spirit than in your church.  And that's why that will never happen. Putting complete faith in God is a very difficult thing to do.





> No.  Many Catholics have joined the Orthodox Church.


But why should they do that?  They have, in doing that, violated the very "Subject yourself to the apostolic church" teaching that you are promoting.  The Catholic church has just as much of an apostolic claim as does the EO church.  To choose one over the other is to say that you are rejecting certain saints and church fathers that your church has promoted in favor of your own interpretation that the other church is really the true church. 




> Many Christians fell away and became Arians in the third century.  Many also fell away from Arianism and came back to the catholic Church.  Both used the same Scriptures to prove their point.  Why was one wrong and not the other?


You realize that you are proving my point for me?  No...I guess not.  The Catholics who fell away and those who came back and those who joined the Eastern Orthodox Church and those who joined the Baptist church and those who joined the Seventh Day Adventist church are all basically doing the same thing and that is finding out God's will for themselves.  And that's what *you* do whether you realize it or not.  You've stuck with the Eastern Orthodox church because you believe it.  (At least I hope that's what you did.)  If you studied Catholocism or any other sect and decided "That's not the truth" you have *made and interpretation*.  So it's disingenuous for you to sit on your high horse and judge others for interpreting spiritual things when that's what you do yourself.  You *have* to do it in order to confidently claim that the EO church is "the true church" when the RCC has the same (or similar) apostolic claim.





> I think if you study the history of Christianity, you will find many instances of the laity holding the clergy's feet to the fire in both Catholisicm and Orthodoxy.


Many people seem here reluctant to hold Pope Francis' feet to the fire for anything he says so I don't put much stock in that "history."  That said, some of those historical figures that held the feet of past Popes to the fire were fired (at the stake) themselves.  Huss and Jerome come immediately to mind.  The church visciously punishing those laity (Huss was actually a priest) who dared to speak out actually proves my point more than it does yours.  In fact Martin Luther didn't initially start out with the plan to leave the Catholic church and start a new church.  He was basically forced out.





> St. Paul clearly says were at to be one Body.  Our destination is tied in with the vehicle.  The early Christians risked much to become members of this United Body through baptism and Chrismation.  They often signed their death warrant in joining.  And the destination is to be in this Body, united with the believers through Christ.  It wasn't the mere vehicle, but the very eschatological destination of the Kingdom, even here in this world.  We have a very different understanding of what the Church is and how our salvation is tied to it through Christ.  You would do well instead of guessing what the Church Fathers write and actually read them.  Then you could better understand this.


St. Paul never endorsed conformity with error.  Huss and Jerome were burned at the stake for not conforming.  Luther took the next logical step of following the advice of St. John to "come out of her my people."  There are many definitions of the body of Christ given in the New Testament.  Jesus said "By this shall all men know you are my disciples, by your love for one another."  John said "Here is the patience of the saints.  Those that keep the commandments of God and have the faith of Jesus."  and later "Those who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus."  Nowhere does it say that the identity of Christians is wrapped up in apostolic succession.




> The major differences between Orthodoxy and Catholisicm is ecclesiological, not as much doctrinal (though they do exist, especially since ecclesiology and doctrinal theology are tied in together). The difference between Orthodox and Protestantism is much greater and much more profound.


I agree.  That doesn't change my point in the least though.  And Protestants didn't sack Constantinople.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *2nd Timothy 3:16-17
> 
> All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.*


Do you think it is a good work to pray to Mary?  Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that Mary was bodily assumed?  Do you think it is a good work to believe and teach that the pope is infallible?

Of course you do.  But the Scriptures no where teach these things.  So how can the man of God be thoroughly equipped for these tasks if the Bible doesn't equip Him?  Paul said that the Scriptures themselves were sufficient to equip a man for EVERY good work.

I wonder if I will ever get an answer to this?

----------


## pcosmar

> Do you think it is a good work to----
> *
> Of course you do.  
> *
> I wonder if I will ever get an answer to this?


To Whom was this accusation directed?

or was it just a random accusation thrown out in the tread?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> To Whom was this accusation directed?
> 
> or was it just a random accusation thrown out in the tread?


To the ones asserting the argument.

----------


## pcosmar

> To the ones asserting the argument.


So who decided what was Cannon?

The Counsel of Laodidea.  By what authority did they do so? How was it enforced?
These are all legitimate questions.

and no one has given a good reason,, or a concise response as to why scripture is or is not scripture.
Different folks just push one aspect,,or one writer,, and base all on that rather that letting the Spirit open all the books.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So who decided what was Cannon?
> 
> The Counsel of Laodidea.  By what authority did they do so? How was it enforced?
> These are all legitimate questions.
> 
> and no one has given a good reason,, or a concise response as to why scripture is or is not scripture.
> Different folks just push one aspect,,or one writer,, and base all on that rather that letting the Spirit open all the books.


No council in the history of Christianity decided what the canon was.  That is the Roman Catholic argument.

----------


## pcosmar

> No council in the history of Christianity decided what the canon was.  That is the Roman Catholic argument.





> *
> Books banned by the Council of Laodicea*
> Barnabas
> I Clement
> II Clement
> Christ and Abgarus
> The Apostles' Creed
> I Hermas-Visions
> II Hermas-Commands
> ...





> CANON LX.
> 
> THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read: 1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.
> 
> And these are the books of the New Testament: Four Gospels, according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; The Acts of the Apostles; Seven Catholic Epistles, to wit, one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; Fourteen Epistles of Paul, one to the Romans, two to the Corinthians, one to the Galatians, one to the Ephesians, one to the Philippians, one to the Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, one to the Hebrews, two to Timothy, one to Titus, and one to Philemon.


http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm

Yes, they did.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm
> 
> Yes, they did.


Pete,

Do you think a man can decide which book God has spoken in?

----------


## erowe1

> http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-of-laodicea.htm
> 
> Yes, they did.


Notice that that was just a local council. That had no effect on anyone's canon beyond those of the churches in that region. It's the equivalent of any local church having its own statement of faith saying which books it believes are scripture.

There were other believers in various faiths out there at that exact same time who didn't accept as scripture some of the books those people did and who accepted as scripture some of the books they didn't.

Notice that they don't include the book of Revelation. So obviously the Bibles you can go to any bookstore and buy today weren't made according to their prescriptions.

ETA:
Also notice here that it says that canon 60 (the one listing the books), is of most questionable genuineness. Notice also that nowhere do they list those books that your link claims they banned.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm

----------


## PierzStyx

> Notice that that was just a local council. That had no effect on anyone's canon beyond those of the churches in that region. It's the equivalent of any local church having its own statement of faith saying which books it believes are scripture.
> 
> There were other believers in various faiths out there at that exact same time who didn't accept as scripture some of the books those people did and who accepted as scripture some of the books they didn't.
> 
> Notice that they don't include the book of Revelation. So obviously the Bibles you can go to any bookstore and buy today weren't made according to their prescriptions.
> 
> ETA:
> Also notice here that it says that canon 60 (the one listing the books), is of most questionable genuineness. Notice also that nowhere do they list those books that your link claims they banned.
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3806.htm


Clearly not since I can flip open my Bible and read I and II Clement. But in reality, when you look at the history of the NT, there were many councils wherein people argued and voted about which books were canonical or not. The issue was completely settled until Luther started printing his German/populist bible. It was in fact no other luminary than St. Augustine of Hippo who championed Revelation/The Apocalypse of John's inclusion into canon. That of course though is just the problem. Repeatedly Christians fought over what books were authoritative and various leaders chose various books and promoted various causes. The idea that these people were united is illusion. It is something protestants who believe in sola scriptura have to force onto history in order to justify their worship of a book as perfect when only God is perfect.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Clearly not since I can flip open my Bible and read I and II Clement. But in reality, when you look at the history of the NT, there were many councils wherein people argued and voted about which books were canonical or not. The issue was completely settled until Luther started printing his German/populist bible. It was in fact no other luminary than St. Augustine of Hippo who championed Revelation/The Apocalypse of John's inclusion into canon. That of course though is just the problem. Repeatedly Christians fought over what books were authoritative and various leaders chose various books and promoted various causes. The idea that these people were united is illusion. It is something protestants who believe in sola scriptura have to force onto history in order to justify their worship of a book as perfect when only God is perfect.


So you as a Mormon, argue like Rome does...that there must be an infallible church to tell people what is and what isn't Scripture. 

But why is your church an infallible authority?   Doesn't Rome say they are?

That's quite a problem,  isn't it?

----------


## moostraks

> So you as a Mormon, argue like Rome does...that there must be an infallible church to tell people what is and what isn't Scripture. 
> 
> But why is your church an infallible authority?   Doesn't Rome say they are?
> 
> That's quite a problem,  isn't it?


This is different from how you operate how?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is different from how you operate how?


No Christian says that there is an infallible hierarchy that decides what the Scripture is.

----------


## erowe1

> The issue was completely settled until Luther started printing his German/populist bible.


In what sense did that completely settle the issue?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> This nutshells the basic idiocy of the "great" religions rather neatly.  Each claiming to be the one and only actual truth, ready to put to the sword all who say or merely appear to think otherwise.
> 
> Put 1000 people of the same "faith" into a room and I guarantee you will have no less than 1001 versions of that faith therein.
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me when I watch people argue this pointless nonsense back and forth, over and over again with the same clapped-out talking points, proving nothing, settling nothing, and changing nothing.  The root of this stupidity is the hell-bending will to convince another that one is right and the other wrong.  Who gives a mouse's $#@!?  Why care?  If you really hold to your faith, then you have no need to convince anyone else.  The fact that one attempts to, tells me everything I need to know about their non-existent faith, for it is nothing but a passel of vaporous lies to himself (the worse of the sins) and to others (the lesser).  When I think on this, my brain wants to turn to mush for the utter incomprehensibility of it.  I find things more sensible when listening to a man speak of the grand virtue of eating one's own head.
> 
> I don't give a tinker's damn what one chooses to believe.  Whatever makes you happy is OK with me.  But when one goes clearly out of his way to convince others of the rectitude of his views to the absolute and universal exclusion of all others, I cannot help but wonder what it is really about.  The only exceptions to this are those arguments that work at the most basic conceptual levels, e.g. the Cardinal Postulate that asserts all men hold equal claims to life.  Even _that_ has to be forwarded with care, respect, and some caveats with respect to its truth value.
> 
> These are the brands of arguments and attitudes that have fueled the rise of the atheist/materialist progressive scumbag who has murdered by the hundreds of millions during the twentieth century.  Being otherwise intelligent, those filth looked at the history of humankind under the dominion of the "great" churches and they said "$#@! that $#@!", and I do not blame them in the least.  Unfortunately, the progressive atheist proved every bit the raving, brachiating lunatic that those running the churches were, and in some ways are far worse. So we trade one set of disease-ridden scum who beat, lie, cheat, steal, rape, and murder their ways through the centuries, with another.  Someone please remind me once again the basis upon which we presume the human animal as being intelligent?
> ...


I'll agree on one thing.  When it comes to these subjects, your opinions are worthless, because here you are doing the very same thing you accuse others of doing.

Every viewpoint, every principle, is based on religion.  There are no exceptions to this.  You are a religious man to, realize it or not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Actually, that's a very easy argument.  Lew Rockwell, Tom Woods, et al can speak for Romanism better than I, but Catholics can definitely argue that States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God (per the Nicene Creed).  Since the civil authorities must live up to God's standard, the ancap can argue that this is an impossibility and the State should thus be abolished.  You would do well to study Catholicism seriously before leveling this sort of claim.


How do you leap from "The States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God" to "The States/civil authorities shouldn't exist."  That leap doesn't even make sense.  churches will never perfectly live up to God's standards, nor will families, nor will employers, should all of those things be abolished to?



> The Reformers I've read are quite Statist.  If you don't mind, elaborate on and prove your claim of:


I understand that many are, but unlike the RCC in relation to itself, Reformed theology doesn't claim the Reformers are always right.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How do you leap from "The States/civil authorities are limited to the role allowed by God" to "The States/civil authorities shouldn't exist."  That leap doesn't even make sense.  churches will never perfectly live up to God's standards, nor will families, nor will employers, should all of those things be abolished to?
> 
> 
> I understand that many are, but unlike the RCC in relation to itself, Reformed theology doesn't claim the Reformers are always right.



That's a good point FF.  During the Reformation, the motto was "Reformed,  and always Reforming", and sometimes it was shortened to "always reforming".  And what a Biblical concept that was because the man of God must always come back to the word of God, in every generation,  and measure himself and his traditions by that ultimate standard.

That is how a person who believes in sovereign grace can disagree with the Reformers and even condemn them....because the man of God takes every tradition and measures it by that sole rule of faith and practice,  the Scripture.

----------


## fisharmor

> That's a good point FF.  During the Reformation, the motto was "Reformed,  and always Reforming", and sometimes it was shortened to "always reforming".


Today it is "always fracturing".
When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable.  There is no reformed church.  Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.

Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion.  Religion is irrelevant.  He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
Is that also your position?  If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?

----------


## erowe1

> Today it is "always fracturing".
> When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable.  There is no reformed church.  Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.


Actually, you can divide it down beyond the gaggles. Each and every believer in Jesus is a unique individual with a unique way of understanding the Gospel. This isn't a new development since the Reformation. It has never been otherwise.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Today it is "always fracturing".
> When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable.  There is no reformed church.  Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.
> 
> Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion.  Religion is irrelevant.  He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
> Is that also your position?  If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?


There is no such thing in the Bible as "The Church", meaning a hierarchical authority that defines doctrines for Christians.  In the Bible, the word "church" or "ecclesia" or "called out ones" is always a description of the body of believers.   That's it.  The church in the Bible is simply the collection of individual people around the world whom God has elected. 

Secondly,  you cite division and fracturing as bad things.  It is the opposite. Divisions are good, because God's truth is often revealed in them.  This is explained several times and in several different ways in the Bible.

----------


## fisharmor

> Actually, you can divide it down beyond the gaggles. Each and every believer in Jesus is a unique individual with a unique way of understanding the Gospel. This isn't a new development since the Reformation. It has never been otherwise.


Do you place equal importance on PierzStyx's unique way of understanding the Gospel?
If not, then what is it about his understanding which makes it anything other than what you describe?




> There is no such thing in the Bible as "The Church", meaning a hierarchical authority that defines doctrines for Christians.


I see this idea pushed pretty constantly by atheists: this is the first time I've seen a believer cozy up so close to this claim....
There's an alternate interpretation of that hierarchy: that it's an expression of preexisting doctrines.  That there is a horse pulling the cart.




> Secondly,  you cite division and fracturing as bad things.  It is the opposite. Divisions are good, because God's truth is often revealed in them.


I understand your point, having previously subscribed to it.  However, there are two sides to every division.  On one side is the group which in earnest is trying to discover God's truth.
On the other side is the group which is plainly stating "This is quite simply something we have never understood to be the case, and is a totally unagreed-upon invention, unrecognized by history."

I imagine you'd say those exact words to Pierzstyx, right?

Those words also apply to Sola Scriptura.

----------


## erowe1

> Do you place equal importance on PierzStyx's unique way of understanding the Gospel?
> If not, then what is it about his understanding which makes it anything other than what you describe?


I prefer not to get personal about a member here like that.

But I'm not the judge. Neither is there some organization of human beings on this earth who is. Jesus is.

Are there people who think they have saving faith in Jesus when they really don't? Yes, I'm certain of that.

----------


## fisharmor

> I prefer not to get personal about a member here like that.


Who's getting personal?  He subscribes to a system of belief which has committed ideas to paper.  We can read those ideas and therefore get some idea what he as an individual also believes.  I'm not attacking him. I'm pointing out that if he subscribes to what has been written down about Mormonism, and we have a reasonable assurance that he does, then he subscribes to an interpretation of the Gospel which differs radically from yours.  I'm not making any value judgments on his beliefs, I'm simply pointing out that it's not the same.

But since you won't draw that line, let's just look at Islam.  Do you draw a line there?  That's nothing more than a different way of understanding the Gospel after all - it's an understanding which rejects it.

I'm having a hard time understanding how what you and Sola are saying doesn't just reduce to relativism.  I'm also having a hard time understanding how you guys don't see this: when you invent enough entirely new doctrines to draw 30,000 lines in the sand, of course nobody is going to be willing to make a call as to which square foot of the beach is the right one to stand on.  The lines become meaningless, as they have, the Church becomes meaningless, as it has, worship becomes meaningless, as it has, and even membership becomes meaningless, as it has.




> But I'm not the judge. Neither is there some organization of human beings on this earth who is. Jesus is.


Nobody here has claimed that there is an organization of human beings which is the judge of what Christianity is.  As I stated before, there is a difference between declaring that something exists by fiat, and recognizing the existence of something that predates your organization.




> Are there people who think they have saving faith in Jesus when they really don't? Yes, I'm certain of that.


What I've tapped into is the idea that a lot of people have been actively nurturing their faith for a long time in ways that are strictly verboten by Reformation doctrine.  (One of the only lines they'll actually respect.)  It's not a binary equation.  There are things one can do.

(I'm expecting that to be taken out of context by at least one person here...)

----------


## erowe1

> But since you won't draw that line, let's just look at Islam.  Do you draw a line there?  That's nothing more than a different way of understanding the Gospel after all - it's an understanding which rejects it.


Exactly. It rejects it.

----------


## moostraks

> No Christian says that there is an infallible hierarchy that decides what the Scripture is.


You have made yourself the infallibile hierarchy of one which judges others based upon how they mirror your personal vision.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Do you place equal importance on PierzStyx's unique way of understanding the Gospel?
> If not, then what is it about his understanding which makes it anything other than what you describe?
> 
> 
> I see this idea pushed pretty constantly by atheists: this is the first time I've seen a believer cozy up so close to this claim....
> There's an alternate interpretation of that hierarchy: that it's an expression of preexisting doctrines.  That there is a horse pulling the cart.
> 
> 
> I understand your point, having previously subscribed to it.  However, there are two sides to every division.  On one side is the group which in earnest is trying to discover God's truth.
> ...



The irony is that Mormonism and Rome have the exact same argument,  that they are the true infallible hierarchical church and they alone can define what the Scriptures are.  It's a circular argument.   They can't prove that they are the true church, they assume it as their first principle. 

A Biblical Christian has a circular argument too, but his final authority is God speaking in the Scriptures.   This is the same final authority that Jesus and the apostles appealed to.   But what it shows are the differences between the final authorities.  One final authority is the God of the universe who never changes,  and the other final authority is a group of fallible men in a church who always change.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Today it is "always fracturing".
> When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable.  There is no reformed church.  Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.
> 
> Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion.  Religion is irrelevant.  He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
> Is that also your position?  If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?


I find it amazing that someone can believe in freedom and believe in the absolute authority of "The Church" to define doctrine at the same time.

Its really a lot like people who argue for SCOTUS' absolute right to "interpret" the US Constitution "because otherwise there would be millions of different interpretations."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The irony is that Mormonism and Rome have the exact same argument,  that they are the true infallible hierarchical church and they alone can define what the Scriptures are.  It's a circular argument.   They can't prove that they are the true church, they assume it as their first principle. 
> 
> A Biblical Christian has a circular argument too, but his final authority is God speaking in the Scriptures.   This is the same final authority that Jesus and the apostles appealed to.   But what it shows are the differences between the final authorities.  One final authority is the God of the universe who never changes,  and the other final authority is a group of fallible men in a church who always change.


I think that circular arguments are inevitable at some point.  Maybe sometimes you can start with an agreed premise and prove a conclusion based on it, but at some point you either go circular or accept axioms.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think that circular arguments are inevitable at some point.  Maybe sometimes you can start with an agreed premise and prove a conclusion based on it, but at some point you either go circular or accept axioms.


At the starting point of every worldview that exists, there are unproven axioms that govern how the man sees all of the "evidence" (even what he accepts as evidence in the first place).

----------


## moostraks

> Today it is "always fracturing".
> When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable.  There is no reformed church.  Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.
> 
> Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion.  Religion is irrelevant.  He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
> Is that also your position?  If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?


Um, pretty sure Pete is not leaning upon himself but the Spirit. Why are you not addressing any of jmdrake's complaints toward the one, true church argument? Especially since TER seems to be unavailable to respond at the moment?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I find it amazing that someone can believe in freedom and believe in the absolute authority of "The Church" to define doctrine at the same time.
> 
> Its really a lot like people who argue for SCOTUS' absolute right to "interpret" the US Constitution "because otherwise there would be millions of different interpretations."


 I agree.  The worldview that says there is a central eartly authority who determines what is and what isn't right to believe about truth is one of the most contradictory mindsets to freedom, and is a direct corollary to statism.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> At the starting point of every worldview that exists, there are unproven axioms that govern how the man sees all of the "evidence" (even what he accepts as evidence in the first place).





> I agree.  The worldview that says there is a central eartly authority who determines what is and what isn't right to believe about truth is one of the most contradictory mindsets to freedom, and is a direct corollary to statism.


Yep.  Agreed on both counts.

----------


## jmdrake

> Today it is "always fracturing".
> When individuals are left to their own devices this is inevitable.  There is no reformed church.  Only gaggles of individuals who are held together only by the doctrine of Robert's Rules of Order.
> 
> Pete I can understand: he has taken Sola Scriptura to its logical conclusion.  Religion is irrelevant.  He can read, and therefore all he needs is himself.
> Is that also your position?  If not, where does the Church fit in to all of this?


Two simple questions.  One, what do you believe the apostle John meant by this?

_But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ._

Question two.  Do you believe that the one and only purpose of the church is to interpret the Bible for you?  Because if you believe there are other reasons for the church than that then you should where the "church fits into all of this" for those of us that don't believe God meant the church to take over the role of the Holy Spirit.

Here is the main purpose for the church.

Hebrews 10:23-25
_23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised

24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:

25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching._

----------


## moostraks

> I agree.  The worldview that says there is a central eartly authority who determines what is and what isn't right to believe about truth is one of the most contradictory mindsets to freedom, and is a direct corollary to statism.


You keep avoiding what others ask you on this issue. Since you make a point of telling others the state of their damnation why is this not just a chaotic infallible hierarchy of one?

You hold one interpretation. I talk to you and I must mirror your understanding or you damn me. Aggramatos (sp?) held another opinion. I talked to him, I must mirror his present enlightenment. So on and so forth because any disagreement to a favored position at the time results in me being accused of hating the Creator. It is constant turmoil to those who are conscientious about their faith.

So one says I will seek the historic position, but whose position? Personally I gave up on the historic search, at present, with the EO, because I felt like I was asking the wrong questions.

At present, the questions, for me, would be: 

Are you growing in the Spirit?
Is the evident by your fruits?

I don't have the ability to tend anyone's garden but my own and I shouldn't because who am I to say what is within the soul of another person? The one true church argument became just as mind numbing as which of the so called reformed paths were right. So I lean on the Spirit and am watchful for the next fork in the road...

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Two simple questions.  One, what do you believe the apostle John meant by this?
> 
> _But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ._
> 
> Question two.  Do you believe that the one and only purpose of the church is to interpret the Bible for you?  Because if you believe there are other reasons for the church than that then you should where the "church fits into all of this" for those of us that don't believe God meant the church to take over the role of the Holy Spirit.
> 
> Here is the main purpose for the church.
> 
> Hebrews 10:23-25
> ...


Hi Jm,   In simple terms, I believe church is for preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, and then for believers to witness to this in their families, homes, neighborhoods and bring others to the preacher for further instruction in God's Word.   This preaching does include doctrine, as Paul, Peter, Timothy, give us so beautifully and clearly.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Your questions :



> Are you growing in the Spirit?
> Is the evident by your fruits?


are not correct because doing good works is 1. Not the basis of salvation, and 2. Not the alone evidence of salvation. 

Atheists who hate God do "good works", does that mean they have fruits of the Spirit?  The Pharisees did good works.  We're they saved? No.

It's not good works alone that are key.  It is believing the gospel that is key.  If you believe that, then that is evidence God has chosen you and He gives you the good works.

----------


## jmdrake

> Hi Jm,   In simple terms, I believe church is for preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, and then for believers to witness to this in their families, homes, neighborhoods and bring others to the preacher for further instruction in God's Word.   This preaching does include doctrine, as Paul, Peter, Timothy, give us so beautifully and clearly.


No disagreement.  I would say that preaching the gospel falls under the category of "love and good works."  So does feeding the hungry, housing the homeless etc.  Church members are supposed to become perpetual employees rather than becoming perpetual students always learning but never coming into a knowledge of the truth.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No disagreement.  I would say that preaching the gospel falls under the category of "love and good works."  So does feeding the hungry, housing the homeless etc.  Church members are supposed to become perpetual employees rather than becoming perpetual students always learning but never coming into a knowledge of the truth.


The chapter where Paul says unsaved men are "ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth" is the same chapter where he says that the Scriptures are sufficient to equip a man for every good work (that includes the good work of learning the truth).

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> No disagreement.  I would say that preaching the gospel falls under the category of "love and good works."  So does feeding the hungry, housing the homeless etc.  Church members are supposed to become perpetual employees rather than becoming perpetual students always learning but never coming into a knowledge of the truth.


I would say that true believers are always learning, know the Truth by the power of Christ's Spirit, and are ever finding ways to bring this Truth to a dying world.

I am reading about the ways the early first century Christians lived.  They met daily to listen to the Word preached, to pray and then their whole day was spent in care of the needy, the widows and orphans.  It was hard, back-breaking work to feed and house so many who were coming to faith in Christ.  

How would our churches of today handle this number coming to faith?    Our churches are most focused on entertainment, even in liturgies.

----------


## moostraks

> Your questions :
> 
> 
> are not correct because doing good works is 1. Not the basis of salvation, and 2. Not the alone evidence of salvation. 
> 
> Atheists who hate God do "good works", does that mean they have fruits of the Spirit?  The Pharisees did good works.  We're they saved? No.
> 
> It's not good works alone that are key.  It is believing the gospel that is key.  If you believe that, then that is evidence God has chosen you and He gives you the good works.



This says nothing about good works from the efforts of man as any basis of salvation.

You are trying to twist my words to make it one of your select elect discussions again.

You ignored how your attacks on others are not a result of your infallible hierarchy of one in order to change the post I wrote to your favorite topic. Focus, if you can, on the question asked of you.

----------


## Jamesiv1

> Hi Jm,   In simple terms, I believe church is for preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ, and then for believers to witness to this in their families, homes, neighborhoods and bring others to the preacher for further instruction in God's Word.   This preaching does include doctrine, as Paul, Peter, Timothy, give us so beautifully and clearly.


I disagree.  I think church is foremost for worshiping God with a fellowship of like-minded believers.  It's through the acts of prayer and worship that we learn humility, which is a very good thing for human beans to learn.  Practice makes progress.

"Preaching" should be last on the list - if on the list at all.  Does any other faith "preach" at people the way Christianity does?

Helping and loving your neighbor - that's the best way to share God's love.  Especially the 'sinners' and downtrodden.  If they don't already belong to a spiritual fellowship, give them a hot meal and invite them to come to church with you and join the fellowship of man - starting with the fellowship you belong to.

Be a walking Bible - not a talking Bible.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I disagree.  I think church is foremost for worshiping God with a fellowship of like-minded believers.  It's through the acts of prayer and worship that we learn humility, which is a very good thing for human beans to learn.  Practice makes progress.
> 
> "Preaching" should be last on the list - if on the list at all.  Does any other faith "preach" at people the way Christianity does?
> 
> Helping and loving your neighbor - that's the best way to share God's love.  Especially the 'sinners' and downtrodden.  If they don't already belong to a spiritual fellowship, give them a hot meal and invite them to come to church with you and join the fellowship of man - starting with the fellowship you belong to.
> 
> Be a walking Bible - not a talking Bible.


Appreciate your thoughts.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I disagree.  I think church is foremost for worshiping God with a fellowship of like-minded believers.  It's through the acts of prayer and worship that we learn humility, which is a very good thing for human beans to learn.  Practice makes progress.
> *
> "Preaching" should be last on the list - if on the list at all.  Does any other faith "preach" at people the way Christianity does?*
> 
> Helping and loving your neighbor - that's the best way to share God's love.  Especially the 'sinners' and downtrodden.  If they don't already belong to a spiritual fellowship, give them a hot meal and invite them to come to church with you and join the fellowship of man - starting with the fellowship you belong to.
> 
> Be a walking Bible - not a talking Bible.


I don't think so, but that's one of the unique things about it.  Spreading the Good News (gospel) is simply part of Christian life.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> I don't think so, but that's one of the unique things about it.  Spreading the Good News (gospel) is simply part of Christian life.


Yes, it is mandatory.  We don't all have the gift or calling to preach, however, we are exhorted to tell others about our Lord.    The other day one of the kids said I sounded, "preachy".   So, I quieted down and remembered it is the Spirit's work in the heart of His sheep.

----------


## RJB

> I don't think so, but that's one of the unique things about it.  Spreading the Good News (gospel) is simply part of Christian life.


There's a quotation attributed to St. Francis Assissi:  "Always preach the Gospel.  Use words if necessary."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There's a quotation attributed to St. Francis Assissi:  "Always preach the Gospel.  Use words if necessary."


That sounds like irrationalism to me.

----------


## RJB

> That sounds like irrationalism to me.


Takes one to know one, I guess.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Takes one to know one, I guess.



lulz

----------


## fisharmor

> Two simple questions.  One, what do you believe the apostle John meant by this?
> 
> _But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ._




I believe it supports my heretofore (and likely thereafter) completely ignored multiple rebuttals to the idea that the Church is a hierarchy that dictates doctrine.
I believe it says very likely the same thing that you believe it says: that the Holy Spirit teaches believers.
The question then is "how?"




> Question two.  Do you believe that the one and only purpose of the church is to interpret the Bible for you?


A most emphatic no.




> Because if you believe there are other reasons for the church than that then you should where the "church fits into all of this" for those of us that don't believe God meant the church to take over the role of the Holy Spirit.


When I was a Lutheran I believed that the Holy Spirit moves believers to faith.  I still believe that.
What has changed (one thing, anyway) was that I now realize that the Holy Spirit does not work strictly through the Word.  We have tangible things we can do and experience.
On Sunday last when sunlight was coming through the window and illuminated the incense in the air, and my daughter blew it and watched the patterns swirl, I was able to bend down and say "You've heard us sing 'let my prayer arise in thy sight as incense, o Lord, and the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice'".

I believe that the Holy Spirit worked a little in both of us that morning, because _we were doing it_.  We weren't just reading Psalm 141, nor were we preaching it or even hearing it at the moment.  We were doing it.

In Church.

----------


## Ender

> There's a quotation attributed to St. Francis Assissi:  "Always preach the Gospel.  Use words if necessary."


St Francis was awesome- show the gospel in your actions and how you live and treat others.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> show the gospel in your actions and how you live and treat others.


Have you done that?   What about your sin?

----------


## TER

> Are you deliberately misrepresenting everything I said?


No, I am pointing out that your claims are without merit.  Can you show me anywhere in the Holy Scriptures where there was not some physical rite of action performed in the ordination of the priesthood?  Anywhere in the Old Covenant or the New Covenant?  The very fact of the matter which you keep belittling is that the clearly described apostolic tradition (of the very Apostles!) was to lay hands upon the recipient.  This happened before the transference of the Holy Spirit as revealed in the Acts of the Apostles.

Where is it the proof that you have that there was another way to ordain clergy according to the New Testament? 

You have none my dear friend.  Instead, you are adding to the apostolic tradition. 

And then on top of that, you go to great ludicrous heights and say that the laity were ordaining clergy!  Using absolutely no proof!  Wow!




> I never said, or implied, or came close to implying that the phrase, "lay hands on," used in Acts 8:17 and elsewhere, meant voting.
> 
> I made that remark about the word cheirotoneo, which is the word used in Didache 15:1. And I proved it.


No, you have proved nothing.  You have shown that the word cheirotoneo can mean select or voted.  Great!  It doesn't mean this at the exclusion of how it was understood by the Church and practiced in according to the Apostles which was in the laying of the hands in succession and sacramental unity back to the hands of the Apostles.  These are in fact the historical and Scriptural truths which the Apostles initiated and which the Church has held fast to from the very beginning and which are utterly being disregarded by you for convenience sake.




> ...How you somehow weave the Reformation into this I can't fathom.


Because it has everything to do with the OP and why many Reformers change traditions on their own authority.  There is not just one Pope!  There are millions, all deciding on truth, as if their relative understanding of truth automatically equates to the absolute truths as they really are in time and space and in the Holy Spirit of God.

I get it!  Your interpretation is the greatest authority for you!  Unfortunately, it is not the greatest authority for me.  I choose the witness of the Church to have more significance and power and weight than you erowe.  Not that I am something greater than you!  But because I can see that I am less and submit myself to those who are greater then me in my sober humility and acknowledgment of my sins.

  I can't just ignore Scripture and Holy Tradition so that I can agree with your personal ideas.  Especially when they are innovative traditions apart from the witness of the Church.  I am sure you are a very bright man, but I think you simply have lost the forest from the trees with regards to this topic.  Only the humble will enter into the Kingdom, and there is no humility in proclaiming things against the universal witness of the Saints (which you do often).   Lent is a perfect time for repentance and prayer for everyone.

St. Ignatius (the man whom you believe you know more than when it comes to the teachings of the Apostles) describes very clearly in his writings a monarchial episcopy, a phenomenon which was already established throughout Christendom, at a time where there were Bishops of entire cities.  In fact the greatest Christian city at that time at the turn of the first century was the city of Antioch, the city where St. Paul was groomed by the Apostles in anticipation of his Apostolic ministry to the Gentiles.  The Church of Antioch, filled with many first and second generation of Christians, and which was the shining city on the hill and the example to all the Christian world, was presided over by the God-bearing Martyr Saint of Christ Ignatius.  He constantly exhorted his addressees to respect their bishop and urged them to “defer to him, or, rather, not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of all men”. 

This comparison of the bishop with God the Father is found throughout the Epistles. _Christians are to follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, to follow the presbyters as though they were the Apostles, and to honor the deacons_ (Eph. 6, Trall. 3, Magn. 6-7, and elsewhere).* “Apart from these, there is no Church”*

Also exhorting the teachings of the Apostles:

Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church! He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself.… Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God. (Eph. 5)
The work of the Church included not only the care and instruction of those who were to be baptized, but also the take care of the widows and the orphans and beggars and travelers.  They gave themselves over as a community in faith, at times enemies of the State because they worshiped Christ as the true and only Lord and King.  They worshiped in eucharistic liturgies from the beginning, sharing in the Body and Blood of Christ and grew into the magnificent and enduring form that it is today.  The entire Church is centered around the Sacrament of the Church which is the Holy Eucharist.  This is the very entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven and the realization of the Church for what it is -  a communion of believers united to one another and with God.  For in this sacred time, symbols manifest the very realities they are symbolizing, time is suspended, and there is entrance into the Heavenly Kingdom in unity of faith, mind, praise, and glory, not as mere individuals (for the individual lacks personhood) or in intellectual pride, but in true and fulfilled communion with God and His beloved saints.  In the image of the Trinity, which is communal love - self-giving and self-sacrificing.  So too in the image of the Cross.  Then we can share in the Heavenly Glory as described in the Book of Revelation, praying before angels and amongst the Saints.  

There is One Bride and One Body and there is One Church just as the there is One Christ and One Father.  These are the teachings of the Apostles and of those who they ordained by the laying of the hands, such as St. Ignatius, who were leaders of the catholic Church sharing in eucharistic communion and espousing the orthodox practice and teachings of the Apostles.  The truths of his writings are proven by the 'amen' of the Church, of the perseverance and great accomplishments of the same Church in proclaiming the Gospel, of the working of the Holy Spirit within the community, and of the glory and grace given to God to and through His Church, who praise Him and glorify Him with offers and prayers, in unity of mind and faith and spirit.  In divine love.

Resonating closer to the truth and given true life by the very Body and Blood of Christ Who nourishes the members, strengthens them, and indeed, unifies them, to be one with the Father and the Son through the Holy Spirit, just as Christ prayed the night He was arrested and His Apostles have taught in the Church's establishment of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.  The forms established in the New Testament and continued after the last page of Acts of the Apostles.  

You see, erowe, the Acts of the Apostles is not the end of the Church, but just the beginning.  The Holy Spirit has never stopped guiding the Church.  Out of convenience sake, you stop at the Acts of the Apostles (unless of course you are trying to show that laity ordained clergy!  Then you play word tricks to justify a new tradition apart from the Scriptures.   

If one approaches the doctrines and traditions of the Church through a Solo Scriptura standpoint, then they have to make a liar of MANY MANY people, including some of the most beloved and revered Saints in the history of the Christian Church.  I simply believe St. Ignatius had a much better idea of the Apostolic truths than you and the witness of the Church to have more authoritative interpretations then either you or me.  Nothing personal.  Just what I find to be rational and logical.

----------


## TER

> Hi Jm,   In simple terms, I believe church is for preaching the Good News of Jesus Christ


That is a very Protestant understanding which is extremely incomplete compared to how the early Christians who you are reading about understood the Church to be, which according to their writings was a community striving to be in one faith and one Spirit around the heavenly worship of God in the Holy Eucharist.  The Church was not just a vehicle for evangelism, it was the very Body of Christ and their  salvation was as members of this Body United to one another and in Christ, as branches on a vine finding life through Him Who is the Tree.

----------


## TER

> Clearly not since I can flip open my Bible and read I and II Clement. But in reality, when you look at the history of the NT, there were many councils wherein people argued and voted about which books were canonical or not. The issue was completely settled until Luther started printing his German/populist bible. It was in fact no other luminary than St. Augustine of Hippo who championed Revelation/The Apocalypse of John's inclusion into canon. That of course though is just the problem. Repeatedly Christians fought over what books were authoritative and various leaders chose various books and promoted various causes. The idea that these people were united is illusion. It is something protestants who believe in sola scriptura have to force onto history in order to justify their worship of a book as perfect when only God is perfect.


Some things they were united upon, friend.  And the real history of what those were are revealed in the life of the Church as it truly was, contending within the world.  The Church never disappeared.  It instead has survived and endured, yet not apart from history, but within it, even as it also lived above it and outside of it.

----------


## TER

> Actually, you can divide it down beyond the gaggles. Each and every believer in Jesus is a unique individual with a unique way of understanding the Gospel. This isn't a new development since the Reformation. It has never been otherwise.


What is characteristic though not unique since the Reformation is the habitual ignoring of the traditional understanding of the Gospel and instead equating one's own unique interpretation and experience to have the same or even greater authority as the truth, even if this 'truth' go squarely against the intepretations, practices and teachings of the saints going all the way back to the first centuires!

----------


## TER

> The laying on of hands does not make one a "Bishop" as the EO/RCC defines it.


I am not saying that the laying hands makes one a Bishop, I am saying that according to the Scriptures and the writings and experience of the Christian Church since the beginning, to become a Bishop required the laying of the hands. I am just trying to establish the point that to deny this fact is a rather recent phenomenon born from Solo Scriptura.




> A former church we attended spent a whole day in fasting, prayer and laying on of hands before sending out two holy women who were called to help in a dangerous region.


That is great!  I am not going to straight away deny the Holy Spirit was at work!  I hope they served Christ well!  I am simply stating that the Apostolic practice in the ordination of the ministers and clergy of the Church employed sacramental laying of hands, just as the Scriptures describe, and that there very much truly indeed existed a cognizant appreciation and reverence of the direct and uniform grace-filled succession from the Apostles which Christ chose to establish His Church.  Indeed, this was a marker for authenticity and apostolic grace.




> The action of laying on of hands is for the whole church. IMHO.


Yes, indeed, and for the ordination of the clergy as described, understood, and practiced in the first centuries and since, it required a sacramental unity with the saints before them all the way back to the Holy Apostles and sealed and realized through the shared Body and Blood of Christ, which is the Holy Eucharist.  This is how St. Paul and every Christian saint of the early centuries approached the Church according to the writings we have available.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> That is a very Protestant understanding which is extremely incomplete compared to how the early Christians who you are reading about understood the Church to be, which according to their writings was a community striving to be in one faith and one Spirit around the heavenly worship of God in the Holy Eucharist.  The Church was not just a vehicle for evangelism, it was the very Body of Christ and their  salvation was as members of this Body United to one another and in Christ, as branches on a vine finding life through Him Who is the Tree.


How more complete could it be to gather daily to read the Word of God, break bread (not Eucharist as you believe it to be) and then begin the toil of just trying to stay alive.  The one, holy, catholic and apostolic church was alive and well and growing.  They had to learn from Paul what it meant to be united.  They came from many races, regions and "creeds" to learn what their Savior meant for them.  Their salvation was in their Savior, not in the church.

Ter, I think there is much we find agreement with in loving and being loved by our Lord, Jesus Christ.  I won't go back and forth with you any further.

----------


## osan

> Two simple questions.  One, what do you believe the apostle John meant by this?
> 
> _But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you everything you need to know, and what he teaches is true--it is not a lie. So just as he has taught you, remain in fellowship with Christ._


I know this was not addressed to me, but I will toss in my plugged kopek.  The quote tells me what I have believed since about age 10: I am born with everything I need to lead the proper life of a man.  My instincts of right and wrong have been with me since I can remember and I still recall when I was 2, perhaps a little younger.  It tells me there is no third-party intervention required for this, though it does not suggest that such external influences are of necessity bad or wrong - only unnecessary.  It suggests to me, in the context of my experience, that much of the interdependence we have come to believe to be a necessary part of the "human condition" is, in fact, an induced perception, the product of teaching and not of absolute nature.

I was given everything I need to know and thereby to live well; to know truth when I encounter it and, by extension, falsity.  As my life experience confirms, all of my problems have arisen through the falsity of things others endeavored to have me accept but which, under closer scrutiny, have demonstrated themselves to be erroneous and misleading in point of practical fact.

"Fellowship with Christ" suggests to me nothing more than treading a fundamentally equivalent path as per the rest of my understanding that arise from the so-called "holy spirit".  That removes all things superfluous and what I perceive as profoundly misleading.

One of the stupendous failures of the Christian "church" (I quote the term because it holds many different meanings and is, therefore, a tricky word of which to make such use) has been the strategy of promotion over that of attraction in terms of seeking converts.  Promotion reeks of everything that is worst in peddling - ulterior motives, dishonesty, fraud, and ultimately force.  Attraction is its diametric opposite, though it, too, can be maliciously applied and force being its ultimate endgame tactic. But the honest and well-applied use of attraction is underpinned in the main with leading by example, vis-à-vis attempting to ram something down one's throat, which is a very common Christian tactic, and one which never works as one would wish it.  Force leads to nothing better than fear and resentment. People may outwardly toe your line, but inwardly - inaccessibly - they reside in difference to your wishes.  Fear and anger have their ways of bringing this result.




> Question two.  Do you believe that the one and only purpose of the church is to interpret the Bible for you?  Because if you believe there are other reasons for the church than that then you should where the "church fits into all of this" for those of us that don't believe God meant the church to take over the role of the Holy Spirit.


Depends on the definition of "church" at play here.  If I assume you mean the formal organization that owns the buildings and administers the ceremonies, then no.  Were I to consider this in my own way using that word, I would call the "holy spirit" the real church, which for the priests and the rest I am sure would be viewed as heresy worthy of the stake even today, given how egregiously such a suggestion pisses in the ecclesiastic cornflakes of their vested personal interests.





> Here is the main purpose for the church.
> 
> Hebrews 10:23-25
> _23 Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised
> 
> 24 And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works:
> 
> 25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching._



These lines may or may not be problematic in terms of properly understanding the writer's actual and true meaning.  But if allow myself the risky indulgence of assumption in accord with my own take on things, I would say that it confirms my personal view (how surprising!) that the "church" is me.  And the "church" is _us_, in voluntary congregation, leaving us as the ultimate arbiters of faith and action when made in accord with that which the "holy spirit" has imparted unto each of us.  This speaks to me of open and proper human freedom, the gift of "God" which no man may put assunder.  Proper freedom, guided and sustained by the "holy spirit" leads to proper human relations, which in turn lead to optimum prosperity and worthiness in the lives of each man in accord with his ideas and desires for such.  There is no force with which to be reckoned, save where one man breaches faith with his fellows by violating the boundaries of others where no authority to do so exists.

The principles of proper human relations were born into us.  Call it the gift of "God", "holy spirit", or "the kitchen sink", it matters not; for this is all mystery beyond our _human_ ken.  We were given the tools for navigating the lives of men, but not to sitting down to dinner with "God" as his equal.  The principles of proper human relations are simple and well summarized by the Golden Rule.  It is the ambition of the corrupt; those who wish to take by stealthy fraud or by overt force that which is not theirs to possess, that brings woe to men.  Such men violate the "holy spirit" in not only their fellows, but most pointedly in themselves through their thoughts, words, and deeds.  Perhaps their greatest transgressions are the ones committed against themselves by polluting and contaminating the greatest gift, the receipt of which came at no cost to them.  It is that of their lies and rationalizations they make to themselves, justifying the evils which they commit against their fellows.  Such lies, etc., are necessary precisely because at the bottom of all things the "holy spirit" lives on and therefore they know that what they do is wrong.  But so strong is their avarice that they tell themselves what they must in order to support the greed that drives them to nefarious states of being, ignoring the true voice within.

My personal term for what I take to be the "holy spirit" is "radiating spirit" - something I coined long ago when in some sort of flash the true nature of what we are was revealed to me, albeit faintly from the farthest corners of my mind's eye.  The radiating spirit lives in all of us, no matter how misguided or evil we may devolve into filth. It cannot be killed, but rather only masked with layers of that which morbidly contravenes the most fundamental of all human nature as described by the notion of that gift of which we speak.  You can cover it in feces, but you cannot destroy it, for it is beyond you.  Imagine that - _you are beyond yourself._  I believe that is something with which Jesus would have agreed, laughing with delight in the process of experiencing its truth.

----------


## TER

> Their salvation was in their Savior, not in the church.


I am not saying their salvation was not in their Savior, so your insistence on creating this false dichotomy makes little sense to me, especially in the light of what the Scriptures and the Church Fathers say.  Our salvation is in Christ as grafted members of His Body, the Church.  See how there is no dichotomy there, but rather the one is the actualization of what the other is?  You have a nontraditional and ahistorical understanding of the Church which is borne out of the extremes of the Reformation and you can choose this understanding if you will.  But this doesn't mean it was the understanding of the early Church, and indeed the writings of those early Christians and history of the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' witness against you in this regard.  Again, you would have to make all the great Saints to be liars and fools so that you can justify your position.  I simply cannot do that.  

If you find peace in your religious path, then may it be blessed!  While I cannot place your traditions and beliefs above the teachings and traditions of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, I do not wish you ill-will.  I just simply believe after studying the Scriptures and the writings of the Church Fathers that the Orthodox faith is the greater and more assured path to the truth, and I can do this not at the expense of the Saints, but in very sacramental communion with them in unity of faith and love as baptized members of the same Body, which is the Church.  This is not to the exclusion of anyone, but open to all who are willing.  Neither is this an automatic judgment on your eternal soul.  God will save Whom He will and graft whomever He wants upon His Body, and we won't know until the Final Day the fullness of this Body.

----------


## jmdrake

> [/I]
> 
> I believe it supports my heretofore (and likely thereafter) completely ignored multiple rebuttals to the idea that the Church is a hierarchy that dictates doctrine.


It doesn't.  But you are certainly free to believe that it does.




> I believe it says very likely the same thing that you believe it says: that the Holy Spirit teaches believers.
> The question then is "how?"


Let me guess.  You believe the Holy Spirit teaches the believers through the priests even when some of the priests clearly lack the Holy Spirit?  Okay.  You can believe that.  It's wrong, but you can believe it.  The role of the church is to introduce the sinner and then the new Christian to the Holy Spirit.  At some point the Holy Spirit is supposed to actually live in the believer and not be bound up at the church.  It's interesting that you and osan take such polar extremes.  One extreme is that the person is the church.  Not true because Biblically you can't be a church of one.  You seem to believe that the church is the vessel of the Holy Spirit. Not true because the Bible teaches that *your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit*.  




> A most emphatic no.


Good.  Well then you are on your way to Sola Scriptura.  




> When I was a Lutheran I believed that the Holy Spirit moves believers to faith.  I still believe that.
> What has changed (one thing, anyway) was that I now realize that the Holy Spirit does not work strictly through the Word.  We have tangible things we can do and experience.
> On Sunday last when sunlight was coming through the window and illuminated the incense in the air, and my daughter blew it and watched the patterns swirl, I was able to bend down and say "You've heard us sing 'let my prayer arise in thy sight as incense, o Lord, and the lifting up of my hands be an evening sacrifice'".
> 
> I believe that the Holy Spirit worked a little in both of us that morning, because _we were doing it_.  We weren't just reading Psalm 141, nor were we preaching it or even hearing it at the moment.  We were doing it.
> 
> In Church.


The Holy Spirit moves everywhere.  In church.  In nature.  The Holy Spirit has been known to knock a man off his horse when he as on his way to kill Christians.  The Holy Spirit has been known to show up at a drunken party and write the doom of a nation on a wall using a disembodied hand.  Nobody is claiming that the Holy Spirit can't reach someone in church.  He can reach someone in a Baptist church, a Seventh Day Adventist Church, an Eastern Orthodox Church, a Roman Catholic church and even in churches that don't acknowledge Jesus.  Sometimes the message of the Holy Spirit to the person in church is "Come out of her my people."  

I don't believe that Lutherans in general teach that the only moving of the Holy Spirit is in the Word of God.  You might have been taught that I don't know.  Certainly Protestants in general don't believe that.  If they did there wouldn't be a Pentacostal movement.  The question is, does the church *control* the Holy Spirit?  I say no.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

May God be praised, in His name and in His gift of salvation.  May true believers carry on the teachings of the apostles, in the name of Christ.  

Solo Christo (through Christ alone)

----------


## jmdrake

Okay.  Thank you for your reply.  There's one thing I really want to respond to.  You said "the church is me" then you elaborated to "the church is us."  You can't have a church of one.  Jesus said "Where two or three are gathered I am there in the midst of them."  The very nature of Christianity is community.  Also the Bible says "There is wisdom in a multitude of council."  Christians need to fellowship with each other, read scripture together, learn from each other etc.  I'm sure you had a guiding voice when you were very young.  That's called your conscience at it is, or should be, guided by the Holy Spirit.  But when we are born there is much about the world we do not know.  We learn from our community and that includes our Christian community.  The question, for me anyway, is that at what point to Christians start self learning?  Learn from as many sources as possible.  Evaluate everything.  The problem comes in when a source becomes the authority because it says it's the authority.  As the Declaration of Independence states, certain truths should be "self evident."




> I know this was not addressed to me, but I will toss in my plugged kopek.  The quote tells me what I have believed since about age 10: I am born with everything I need to lead the proper life of a man.  My instincts of right and wrong have been with me since I can remember and I still recall when I was 2, perhaps a little younger.  It tells me there is no third-party intervention required for this, though it does not suggest that such external influences are of necessity bad or wrong - only unnecessary.  It suggests to me, in the context of my experience, that much of the interdependence we have come to believe to be a necessary part of the "human condition" is, in fact, an induced perception, the product of teaching and not of absolute nature.
> 
> I was given everything I need to know and thereby to live well; to know truth when I encounter it and, by extension, falsity.  As my life experience confirms, all of my problems have arisen through the falsity of things others endeavored to have me accept but which, under closer scrutiny, have demonstrated themselves to be erroneous and misleading in point of practical fact.
> 
> "Fellowship with Christ" suggests to me nothing more than treading a fundamentally equivalent path as per the rest of my understanding that arise from the so-called "holy spirit".  That removes all things superfluous and what I perceive as profoundly misleading.
> 
> One of the stupendous failures of the Christian "church" (I quote the term because it holds many different meanings and is, therefore, a tricky word of which to make such use) has been the strategy of promotion over that of attraction in terms of seeking converts.  Promotion reeks of everything that is worst in peddling - ulterior motives, dishonesty, fraud, and ultimately force.  Attraction is its diametric opposite, though it, too, can be maliciously applied and force being its ultimate endgame tactic. But the honest and well-applied use of attraction is underpinned in the main with leading by example, vis-à-vis attempting to ram something down one's throat, which is a very common Christian tactic, and one which never works as one would wish it.  Force leads to nothing better than fear and resentment. People may outwardly toe your line, but inwardly - inaccessibly - they reside in difference to your wishes.  Fear and anger have their ways of bringing this result.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## erowe1

> What is characteristic though not unique since the Reformation is the habitual ignoring of the traditional understanding of the Gospel and instead equating one's own unique interpretation and experience to have the same or even greater authority as the truth, even if this 'truth' go squarely against the intepretations, practices and teachings of the saints going all the way back to the first centuires!


I don't pretend to be as knowledgable about the Reformation as you, and how that has anything at all to do with this.

But what you call "the traditional understanding of the Gospel" and "the intepretations, practices and teachings of the saints going all the way back to the first centuires," are still nothing more than the ideas of millions of unique individuals, no two of whom had identical understandings of the Gospel. There has never been a point in Church history where there wasn't one Church made up of all true believers in Jesus united with one another by the Holy Spirit, and where this church could be divided countless ways into subgroups of believers who were in some kind of outward organizational communion with each other, and then subgroups within those, and so on, right down to the smallest division, which is the individual believer.

----------


## erowe1

> I am not saying that the laying hands makes one a Bishop, I am saying that according to the Scriptures and the writings and experience of the Christian Church since the beginning, to become a Bishop required the laying of the hands.


You're still saying this after your own search of the scriptures turned up nothing at all suggesting that becoming a bishop required a laying on of hands?

----------


## TER

> I don't pretend to be as knowledgable about the Reformation as you, and how that has anything at all to do with this.
> 
> But what you call "the traditional understanding of the Gospel" and "the intepretations, practices and teachings of the saints going all the way back to the first centuires," are still nothing more than the ideas of millions of unique individuals, no two of whom had identical understandings of the Gospel. There has never been a point in Church history where there wasn't one Church made up of all true believers in Jesus united with one another by the Holy Spirit, and where this church could be divided countless ways into subgroups of believers who were in some kind of outward organizational communion with each other, and then subgroups within those, and so on, right down to the smallest division, which is the individual believer.


Wrong erowe.  The work of the Apsotles and those they layed hands on to continue their ministry was to keep unified the Church as one Body centered around the faith delivered once by the saints.  This is a great and recurrent theme in the epistles of St. Paul and those who followed the Apostles such St. Ignatius.  Those numerous indivual branching off from the Body was at the early time those who fell into the gnostic heresies which proclaimed similar ides which you have, espousing salvation to come from one's own mind and personal understanding apart from the communion of the saints.

True personhood is not found in the individual, but in the relation we have with others, in the image of the Holy Trinity which men were created in.  Being truly human involves our communion with others in love, and this love is borne from humility and growing in Christ in one faith and one mind and in one worship.  This is why the faithful strived to be in one accord as St. Paul described.

----------


## TER

> You're still saying this after your own search of the scriptures turned up nothing at all suggesting that becoming a bishop required a laying on of hands?


Can you show me how the Apostles ordained the deacons, which were one of the ministries of the clergy?

----------


## Ronin Truth

I say 17,246 angels can fit on the head of a pin.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...88.kJRJpMIsHfU

----------


## TER

Acts 14:23New King James Version (NKJV)

23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.

23 *χειροτονησαντες δε αυτοις πρεσβυτερους* κατ εκκλησιαν προσευξαμενοι μετα νηστειων παρεθεντο αυτους τω κυριω εις ον πεπιστευκεισαν

This literally says 'so when they *had layed hands upon the presbyters* in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."

----------


## TER

Erowe, you claimed earlier that the laity were ordaining bishops.  Can you proved any Scriptural support for this?

----------


## erowe1

> Wrong erowe.  The work of the Apsotles and those they layed hands on to continue their ministry was to keep unified the Church as one Body centered around the faith delivered once by the saints.  This is a great and recurrent theme in the epistles of St. Paul


Paul did write about the unity of the church. But he never connected that idea to any laying on of hands. For Paul, it was that the Church, which is made up of all who have faith in Jesus, IS unified. This unity is not a matter of any outward organizational hierarchy connecting people through a network of bishops or some such thing. Ideas like that didn't develop until later. It was a de facto unity created by the Holy Spirit's indwelling of all true believers.




> Those numerous indivual branching off from the Body was at the early time those who fell into the gnostic heresies


It's true that there are boundaries to true Christianity, and perversions of the Gospel such that what results is no Gospel at all, and that groups have split off from the true Church. But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about all of the subgroups within the one true church that have always existed, social networks and organizations connecting some believers more closely to one another than to certain others.




> which proclaimed similar ides which you have


Which ideas that I espouse do you think are similar to those espoused by early Gnostic heretics? Please provide quotes from both me and them.

My intent is always to follow the faith of the apostles, and never any later perversions of it.

----------


## erowe1

> Erowe, you claimed earlier that the laity were ordaining bishops.  Can you proved any Scriptural support for this?


No. Remember, I showed you how that happened in the Didache. It was a historical claim, not a scriptural one.

However, what we do see in scripture is the extent of the Church spreading more quickly than the apostles could keep up with in their travels. The Bible is silent about the ways those early churches that did not have apostolically appointed bishops were organized. But it is clear that they were genuine churches of God in Christ.

----------


## erowe1

> Acts 14:23New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
> 
> 23 *χειροτονησαντες δε αυτοις πρεσβυτερους* κατ εκκλησιαν προσευξαμενοι μετα νηστειων παρεθεντο αυτους τω κυριω εις ον πεπιστευκεισαν
> 
> This literally says 'so when they *had layed hands upon the presbyters* in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."


No it does not literally say that. Literally is says, "so when they had appointed presbyters...." There's no mention of laying on of hands.

Granted, it's possible that they did lay hands. But nowhere does the Bible mention that in the case of appointing bishops.

Also, does this mean that you now acknowledge that in the NT the terms presbyter and bishop are synonyms?

----------


## erowe1

> Acts 14:23New King James Version (NKJV)
> 
> 23 So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.
> 
> 23 *χειροτονησαντες δε αυτοις πρεσβυτερους* κατ εκκλησιαν προσευξαμενοι μετα νηστειων παρεθεντο αυτους τω κυριω εις ον πεπιστευκεισαν
> 
> This literally says 'so when they *had layed hands upon the presbyters* in every church and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed."


No it does not literally say that. Literally is says, "so when they had appointed presbyters...." There's no mention of laying on of hands. In fact, if you mean to bring out the etymological meaning of "stretching out the hand" that the word used there had entailed in earlier Greek, then it would mean, "so when they had elected presbyters by a show of hands...."
See here:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...Dxeirotone%2Fw

Granted, it's possible that they did lay hands. But nowhere does the Bible mention that in the case of appointing bishops.

Also, does this mean that you now acknowledge that in the NT the terms presbyter and bishop are synonyms?

----------


## Eagles' Wings

I love how the apostles and the laity came together and decided who would be deacons in Acts, chapter 6.   The deacons would follow Christ's example in becoming servants.  Back then, their main job was quite practical in helping to house and feed both the Hebrew and the Hellenist's widows.  

The laying on of hands was a gift, not a mandate, from the Spirit of God.

----------


## TER

> No. Remember, I showed you how that happened in the Didache. It was a historical claim, not a scriptural one.


I see, and what are the Scriptural facts regarding ordinations which are revealed in the Scriptures?  Does the Scriptures not describe the Apostles as laying hands in the appointment of deacons and presbyters?  Can we at least agree that the limited information provided in the Scriptures reveal this fact?

----------


## TER

> No it does not literally say that. Literally is says, "so when they had appointed presbyters...." There's no mention of laying on of hands.
> See here:
> http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/...Dxeirotone%2Fw
> 
> Granted, it's possible that they did lay hands. But nowhere does the Bible mention that in the case of appointing bishops.
> 
> Also, does this mean that you now acknowledge that in the NT the terms presbyter and bishop are synonyms?


Yes, I acknowledge that the terms presbyter and bishop is synonymous, which is why I am still confused why you cannot see the above quote from Acts is describing the laying hands of the Apostles in ordaining the bishops.  As a Greek, when I read the original a Greek, it is clear as day that the words χειροτονησαντες means to literally lay their χειρia (hands) upon the presbyters.

----------


## erowe1

> Can you show me how the Apostles ordained the deacons, which were one of the ministries of the clergy?


The Bible doesn't say.

----------


## TER

> I love how the apostles and the laity came together and decided who would be deacons in Acts, chapter 6.   The deacons would follow Christ's example in becoming servants.  Back then, their main job was quite practical in helping to house and feed both the Hebrew and the Hellenist's widows.  
> 
> The laying on of hands was a gift, not a mandate, from the Spirit of God.



A gift which transferred the Holy Spirit and gave them sacramental authority within the ministry of the Church!  God gave the gift, and it was done through the physical laying of the hands of those who had been ordained into the ministry leading back to the Apostles.

----------


## erowe1

> Yes, I acknowledge that the terms presbyter and bishop is synonymous, which is why I am still confused why you cannot see the above quote from Acts is describing the laying hands of the Apostles in ordaining the bishops.  As a Greek, when I read the original a Greek, it is clear as day that the words χειροτονησαντες means to literally lay their χειρia (hands) upon the presbyters.


That's not true. That Greek word does not mean that. And we've already been over this exact point. Are you deliberately lying?

----------


## erowe1

> Does the Scriptures not describe the Apostles as laying hands in the appointment of deacons and presbyters?


No. The Bible doesn't mention that.

But even if it did, how would that negate the historical fact that there were also other churches out there that had bishops that were not appointed that way?

Do you deny that such things happened? Or do you honestly believe that the only bishops that existed were those appointed by apostles or by a succession of bishops going back to the apostles?

Obviously it would take a lot more than the mere fact that the apostles appointed some bishops (whether by laying on hands or any other method) to prove such a claim.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, I acknowledge that the terms presbyter and bishop is synonymous, which is why I am still confused why you cannot see the above quote from Acts is describing the laying hands of the Apostles in ordaining the bishops.  As a Greek, when I read the original a Greek, it is clear as day that the words χειροτονησαντες means to literally lay their χειρia (hands) upon the presbyters.


You acknowledge that "presbyter" and "bishop of Rome" are synonymous?

----------


## TER

> That's not true. That Greek word does not mean that. And we've already been over this exact point. Are you deliberately lying?


Lol, I was born and raised in a Greek household!  My first language I spoke was Greek!  I went to eight years of Greek school twice a week while my friends were playing baseball!  My priest reads the Gospel lesson every week in the original Koine Greek!  And you are somehow more of an expect of what the word χειροτονησαντες means in Greek?

----------


## erowe1

In addition to the Liddel, Scott, and Jones lexicon, whose definition of cheirotoneo I linked to above, you can look over this list of all these dozens of English translations of Acts 14:23. None of them, as in zero, translate that word as "lay hands" or anything close to it. Some do, however, bring out the aspect of having a vote.
https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Acts%2014:23

----------


## erowe1

> Lol, I was born and raised in a Greek household!  My first language I spoke was Greek!  I went to eight years of Greek school twice a week while my friends were playing baseball!  My priest reads the Gospel lesson every week in the ordinal Koine Greek!  And you are somehow more of an expect of what the word χειροτονησαντες means in Greek?


You've said this line before. I don't know about your upbringing. Maybe you do know some modern Greek. But every time you talk about biblical Greek here you make it clear that you actually don't know what you're talking about. I don't claim to be an expert, but for what it's worth, I have taught ancient Greek to college and graduate students at a seminary and major university.

In your home, did your parents ever use the word cheirotoneo? And when they did, did it mean to lay hands on?

Rather than laughing out loud and expecting everyone to take your word for it, can you provide any evidence at all that the word means what you say, rather than what lexicons of ancient Greek and the consensus of all English translations of Acts 14:23 say?

----------


## TER

> Can you show me how the Apostles ordained the deacons, which were one of the ministries of the clergy?





> The Bible doesn't say.


Act 6

5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, *they laid hands on them.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Lol, I was born and raised in a Greek household!  My first language I spoke was Greek!  I went to eight years of Greek school twice a week while my friends were playing baseball!  My priest reads the Gospel lesson every week in the ordinal Koine Greek!  And you are somehow more of an expect of what the word χειροτονησαντες means in Greek?


One time I asked you what John 3:16 said in the Greek, and I didn't get much of a response from you.

----------


## erowe1

> Act 6
> 
> 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude. And they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and the Holy Spirit, and Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas, a proselyte from Antioch, 6 whom they set before the apostles; and when they had prayed, *they laid hands on them.*


Where does it mention deacons there?

----------


## TER

> No. The Bible doesn't mention that.
> 
> But even if it did, how would that negate the historical fact that there were also other churches out there that had bishops that were not appointed that way?
> 
> Do you deny that such things happened? Or do you honestly believe that the only bishops that existed were those appointed by apostles or by a succession of bishops going back to the apostles?
> 
> Obviously it would take a lot more than the mere fact that the apostles appointed some bishops (whether by laying on hands or any other method) to prove such a claim.


I am not doubtng the possibility of other churches which lacked apostolic ordination of arising in the years of rapid growth of the Church.  I am simply pointing out there there was indeed an apostolic sacrament of the laying of hands to transfer the Holy Spirit which they used to ordain men into the service and leadership of the Church.  What I find strange is that you would deny this Scriptural fact and use the Didache to try and prove that laity appointed bishops when neither the Scriptures nor the Didache state that.  
But if you do use the Didache as an authoritative historical source, do you accept everything in it, or just the parts you think justify your position even as it screams against the witness and tradition of the Church?

----------


## TER

> Where does it mention deacons there?


What were these seven men then?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am not doubtng the possibility of other churches which lacked apostolic ordination of arising in the years of rapid growth of the Church.  I am simply pointing out there there was indeed an apostolic sacrament of the laying of hands to transfer the Holy Spirit which they used to ordain men into the service and leadership of the Church.  What I find strange is that you would deny this Scriptural fact and use the Didache to try and prove that laity appointed bishops when neither the Scriptures nor the Didache state that.  
> But if you do use the Didache as an authoritative historical source, do you crept everything in it, or just the parts you think justify your position even as it screams against the witness and tradition of the Church?


Why would you discount the historical church?  Isn't your entire apologetic based on the historical church?

----------


## TER

2 Timothy

1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,

2 To Timothy, a beloved son:

Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.

3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 *Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.* 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.

----------


## erowe1

> I am not doubtng the possibility of other churches which lacked apostolic ordination of arising in the years of rapid growth of the Church.


But that is the entirety of my claim that you found so objectionable.




> I am simply pointing out there there was indeed an apostolic sacrament of the laying of hands to transfer the Holy Spirit which they used to ordain men into the service and leadership of the Church.


Notice how many different things you're combining here. The apostles did appoint some bishops. But were these the only bishops that existed? The Bible doesn't tell us. Did they do this by laying on hands? The Bible doesn't tell us. If they did lay on hands, did this transfer the Holy Spirit to these bishops? Most definitely not. The only people who would be ordained bishops would be believers who already were indwelled by the Holy Spirit.




> What I find strange is that you would deny this Scriptural fact and use the Didache to try and prove that laity appointed bishops when neither the Scriptures nor the Didache state that.


But the Didache does say that. And the only way you could still claim something like this is by deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. I never denied anything in the Scripture.




> But if you do use the Didache as an authoritative historical source, do you accept everything in it, or just the parts you think justify your position even as it screams against the witness and tradition of the Church?


I don't know. As a historical source I read it critically. Off hand I can't think of anything that it indicates was going on among the Christian communities it represents where I would say that such a thing never really happened. But given that it talks about laity appointing bishops over themselves, how could I say that such a thing never happened? What possible reason would I have to say that it didn't? And how could I explain the Didache mentioning it?

----------


## erowe1

> 2 Timothy
> 
> 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
> 
> 2 To Timothy, a beloved son:
> 
> Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
> 
> 3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 *Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.* 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.


But notice that there's no mention there of ordaining bishops.

----------


## erowe1

> What were these seven men then?


I don't know. The Bible doesn't give them any title.

----------


## TER

> You've said this line before. I don't know about your upbringing. Maybe you do know some modern Greek. But every time you talk about biblical Greek here you make it clear that you actually don't know what you're talking about. I don't claim to be an expert, but for what it's worth, I have taught ancient Greek to college and graduate students at a seminary and major university.
> 
> In your home, did your parents ever use the word cheirotoneo? And when they did, did it mean to lay hands on?
> 
> Rather than laughing out loud and expecting everyone to take your word for it, can you provide any evidence at all that the word means what you say, rather than what lexicons of ancient Greek and the consensus of all English translations of Acts 14:23 say?


All the proof I need is what the Church holds as the understanding, since the Church is the bulwark and the foundation for the truth, and not some English Protestant scholars with an agenda.

From the beginning until now, the Church has ordained its clergy by the laying of the hands, which is the biblical and apostolic tradition.  Rather, you introduce falsehoods and make claimed that the laity were ordaining bishops when there is no writing which gives credence to that (except of course if you twist the wording to mean what you want it to men t the exclusion of how the Church has understood it and carried it down).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> * All the proof I need is what the Church holds as the understanding, since the Church is the bulwark and the foundation for the truth, and not some English Protestant scholars with an agenda.*
> 
> From the beginning until now, the Church has ordained its clergy by the laying of the hands, which is the biblical and apostolic tradition.  Rather, you introduce falsehoods and make claimed that the laity were ordaining bishops when there is no writing which gives credence to that (except of course if you twist the wording to mean what you want it to men t the exclusion of how the Church has understood it and carried it down).



There you go. All the proof you need is what your church tells you.  Why even debate Erowe about this?  You've declared what your final authority is.

----------


## erowe1

TER, notice how far away you are from finding support for your position, even if ever passage of the Bible you point to said what you thought it did.

What you want to prove is, not only that the apostles appointed bishops by laying on hands, but that this was the only means of someone becoming a bishop in any church anywhere in the world at that time, and that no true bishops can exist except for those whose bishoprics can be traced back by a succession of bishops appointing their successors by a laying on of hands going back to those original bishops appointed by the apostles laying on of hands.

You have Acts 14:23, which makes no mention of laying on of hands.
You have Acts 6:6, which makes no mention of deacons, much less bishops.
You have 2 Timothy 1:6, which makes no mention of bishops, nor of appointing anyone to anything.
And so on.

And I don't even object to the claim that the apostles probably did appoint bishops by laying on hands. The problem is, even if they did, you can't leap from that to your belief that no other bishops existed outside that and have no way of accounting for the historical likelihood that many did and the mention of that fact in the Didache.

----------


## TER

> But that is the entirety of my claim that you found so objectionable.


My whole point of this discussion with you these past few days has not even started to get to the main point because we cannot get past the simple observation clearly expressed in the Bible of an apostolic ritual of laying of hands to those whom they ordained as ministers of the Word. 





> Notice how many different things you're combining here. The apostles did appoint some bishops. But were these the only bishops that existed?


The only ones that received the Holy Spirit through the hands of the Apostles. This doesn't mean that the Holy Spirit may not have worked in those others (I m not putting limits on the Holy Spirit), but rather tht there was indeed a real succession starting from the Apostles which existed.




> Did they do this by laying on hands? The Bible doesn't tell us.


 The Bible doesn't say that the laity ordained Bishops.  But you make that claim, no?




> If they did lay on hands, did this transfer the Holy Spirit to these bishops? Most definitely not.


Says you.  The Scriptural accounts and teachings of the Church Fathers would disagree.




> The only people who would be ordained bishops would be believers who already were indwelled by the Holy Spirit.


Yes, of course, as baptized AND Chrismated members of the Church, the Holy Spirit oreads indwelled in them.  What was different in ordination was that theough the laying of the hands, they had been given authority by the Holy Spirit to be leaders and teachers of the Church. 




> But the Didache does say that. And the only way you could still claim something like this is by deliberately misrepresenting what I've said. I never denied anything in the Scripture.


It seems to me you keep ignoring certain parts you don't like.





> I don't know. As a historical source I read it critically. Off hand I can't think of anything that it indicates was going on among the Christian communities it represents where I would say that such a thing never really happened. But given that it talks about laity appointing bishops over themselves, how could I say that such a thing never happened? What possible reason would I have to say that it didn't? And how could I explain the Didache mentioning it?


 Well, you can start by learning abou the Traditon and understanding of the Church...

----------


## erowe1

> From the beginning until now, the Church has ordained its clergy by the laying of the hands,


You claim this. But you don't have any actual reason for believing it.

You might resort to a circular argument and say that those clergy who weren't appointed this way don't belong to what you call the Church, and so don't count. But the truth is, you can't even support this claim for those you do call the Church. You have no proof that there really exists a succession of your church's bishops going back to the apostles by a series of laying on of hands generation after generation. You have no way to account for all those bishops in the earliest generations of the Church who did not receive their bishoprics that way, and who would go on to be the forebears of bishops in your denomination.

----------


## erowe1

> My whole point of this discussion with you these past few days has not even started to get to the main point because we cannot get past the simple observation clearly expressed in the Bible of an apostolic ritual of laying of hands to those whom they ordained as ministers of the Word.


If your main point can't be gotten to until you first get people to concede something that you can't prove to begin with, then you're out of luck.




> The only ones that received the Holy Spirit through the hands of the Apostles.


I don't know how you meant to complete this sentence fragment. The only ones that received the Holy Spirit through the hands of the apostles were what? Were bishops? No. That's not true.




> there was indeed a real succession starting from the Apostles which existed.


Probably. And there were also bishops outside that.

And in none of these cases did it involve a transference of the Holy Spirit.




> The Bible doesn't say that the laity ordained Bishops.  But you make that claim, no?


Yes. We've been over this.




> Says you.  The Scriptural accounts and teachings of the Church Fathers would disagree.


This is false. You have had many chances to provide support for this claim, and as of yet you haven't been able to come up with any.




> Yes, of course, as baptized AND Chrismated members of the Church, the Holy Spirit oreads indwelled in them.  What was different in ordination was that theough the laying of the hands, they had been given authority by the Holy Spirit to be leaders and teachers of the Church.


But that's not what you said before. You said it transferred the Holy Spirit to them.




> It seems to me you keep ignoring certain parts you don't like.


You've had opportunities to show these to me and you still can't come up with any.




> Well, you can start by learning abou the Traditon and understanding of the Church...


Thanks. I tend to do that. In fact, that's often how I know that a lot of what you say is false and can prove it.

----------


## TER

> TER, notice how far away you are from finding support for your position, even if ever passage of the Bible you point to said what you thought it did.


I m not finding it hard at all to find support.  It is you who are ignoring Scripture, twisting words around, and ignoring the Tradition of the Christian Church and the teachings of the Church Fathers.




> What you want to prove is, not only that the apostles appointed bishops by laying on hands, but that this was the only means of someone becoming a bishop in any church anywhere in the world at that time, and that no true bishops can exist except for those whose bishoprics can be traced back by a succession of bishops appointing their successors by a laying on of hands going back to those original bishops appointed by the apostles laying on of hands.


I'm sure the gnostics appointed their leaders in varying ways as well.  I am simply saying that the practice of the Apostles were to lay hands on those who they ordained as ministers and leaders of the Church.




> You have Acts 14:23, which makes no mention of laying on of hands.
> You have Acts 6:6, which makes no mention of deacons, much less bishops.
> You have 2 Timothy 1:6, which makes no mention of bishops, nor of appointing anyone to anything.
> And so on.


Lol, word games while missing the forest from the trees.  This is honestly getting tiring.




> And I don't even object to the claim that the apostles probably did appoint bishops by laying on hands. The problem is, even if they did, you can't leap from that to your belief that no other bishops existed outside that.


I m simply saying that by the time St. Ignatius became bishop ovr all of Antioch, there did indeed exist a Church which had developed from the succesion of laying of hands by the Apostles.  Did other communities exist?  Probably!  But that still does not deny the fact that there did indeed exist one Church traced directly back to the Apostles, of whom St. Ignatius was a member of and defended against the various gnostics churches who were distorting the faith.

----------


## erowe1

> I m not finding it hard at all to find support.  It is you who are ignoring Scripture, twisting words around, and ignoring the Tradition of the Christian Church and the teachings of the Church Fathers.


Such as?




> I'm sure the gnostics appointed their leaders in varying ways as well.


Source?




> I am simply saying that the practice of the Apostles were to lay hands on those who they ordained as ministers and leaders of the Church.


They probably sometimes did. But you're saying a lot more than that.




> Lol, word games while missing the forest from the trees.  This is honestly getting tiring.


How is it word games? You keep saying that all those texts say things they don't. If your position is so well supported, why can't you find anything in the Bible that actually supports it without changing or adding ideas to what it actually says?




> I m simply saying that by the time St. Ignatius became bishop ovr all of Antioch, there did indeed exist a Church which had developed from the succesion of laying of hands by the Apostles.


But even this you can't prove. Some bishops in Ignatius's day may have come from a succession going back to the apostles, others may have had a succession going back to bishops who were first appointed some other way by some other people besides the apostles. You have no way of knowing.

We have these later succession lists that were made up saying that before Ignatius was Evodius, who was supposedly ordained as the bishop of all of Antioch by Peter. But we know for sure that these claims are false, since, as you concede, in the apostles' day, the terms bishop and presbyter were synonyms, and in the apostles' generation there was never a single one over a whole city, but always a multitude. So what succession really did lie behind Ignatius? Did it go back to the apostles? Nobody knows.




> there did indeed exist one Church traced directly back to the Apostles


I agree. It's just that a succession of bishops has nothing to do with defining the limits of this church. This apostolic lineage is a lineage of like faith passed down generation after generation and indwelling of the Holy Spirit in all true believers from the time of the apostles on.

----------


## TER

Well then, we agree to disagree!  

I would like to apologize for all the spelling mistakes above as I am typing on an iPad with a cracked screen!

Good luck with you erowe.  Lent is approaching and I will not be indulging in these circular arguments with you, for the sake of both of us.    You believe as you will.  When the time is right, we can debate these things again.  Right now, I have said all I have to say on this topic.  May the Lord bless you.

----------


## Eagles' Wings

> Where does it mention deacons there?


What is your definition of a deacon?   Is there such an office today, as you envision it?   When reading Acts 6, it seems to me that what is termed deacon, for this specific was purpose, was someone who served the needs of the faithful as a kind of administrator or manager of goods and services.  A much needed task and a holy one as well.

----------


## jmdrake

//

----------


## Ronin Truth

Whew!

And the final answer is, was, shall be, never will be, who knows, who cares, a tie, game called on account of the weather, etc., etc., ad nausem, ad infinitum?

----------


## erowe1

> What is your definition of a deacon?   Is there such an office today, as you envision it?   When reading Acts 6, it seems to me that what is termed deacon, for this specific was purpose, was someone who served the needs of the faithful as a kind of administrator or manager of goods and services.  A much needed task and a holy one as well.


It's not bad to call them deacons, from the Greek diaconoi, which means servants. But Acts 6 doesn't use that term. It uses the term diakonia (service) for what they were to do (serving tables for widows), just as it uses that same word for what the apostles did (service of the word).

The books of Philippians, 1-2 Timothy, and Titus do refer to an office in the church by the title deacon (diakonos), and these books don't give strict definitions delimiting what they are and are not to do. Nor do these books say anything about certain requirements for a ritual to be done in appointing them to the office. I would say that, using the Bible as their guide, churches today have some freedom in how this office functions in them. Acts 6 may give us a picture of the kind of thing that is appropriate for deacons. But there's no reason given in the text to see it as relating specifically to this church office or to make it normative for it.

----------


## fisharmor

> Whew!
> 
> And the final answer is, was, shall be, never will be, who knows, who cares, a tie, game called on account of the weather, etc., etc., ad nausem, ad infinitum?


I'd still like to see more on the seemingly pedantic issue of the meaning of χειροτονησαντες.

And I admit that erowe1 makes a convincing argument.  It's not convincing _me,_ but there's a reason why.

I've been a computer programmer for a while now, and I know when to back out of trying to understand a million lines of code and take a look at what the program is actually doing.
And I'm not afraid to recognize a program that kicks people in the nuts, call it out, and scrap it.

By your fruits you shall know them.  I knew Sola Scriptura Christians for 40 years.
Got kicked in the nuts more than a few times, too.
Opened up the code, and discovered that the code there is its own purpose.

A program which doesn't produce valid output is just taking up hard drive space.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I'd still like to see more on the seemingly pedantic issue of the meaning of χειροτονησαντες.
> 
> And I admit that erowe1 makes a convincing argument. It's not convincing _me,_ but there's a reason why.
> 
> I've been a computer programmer for a while now, and I know when to back out of trying to understand a million lines of code and take a look at what the program is actually doing.
> And I'm not afraid to recognize a program that kicks people in the nuts, call it out, and scrap it.
> 
> By your fruits you shall know them. I knew Sola Scriptura Christians for 40 years.
> Got kicked in the nuts more than a few times, too.
> ...


Retired 40+ year programmer here, so I understand, and pretty much agree.

Odds are 20% of the code does 80% of the work.  Optimize and top down inline that 20%.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'd still like to see more on the seemingly pedantic issue of the meaning of χειροτονησαντες.
> 
> And I admit that erowe1 makes a convincing argument.  It's not convincing _me,_ but there's a reason why.
> 
> I've been a computer programmer for a while now, and I know when to back out of trying to understand a million lines of code and take a look at what the program is actually doing.
> And I'm not afraid to recognize a program that kicks people in the nuts, call it out, and scrap it.
> 
> By your fruits you shall know them.  I knew Sola Scriptura Christians for 40 years.
> Got kicked in the nuts more than a few times, too.
> ...


I'm a programmer too.  One thing to note is that just because you found a bug in one program doesn't mean a similar or worse bug isn't in another program.  Sorry that you had a bad experience in your Lutheran church.  And I would say the same if you had a bad experience in the Eastern Orthodox church.  But there are people in every church that do not represent their church well.  A while back I posted a video of two EO priests leading a crowd to vandalize a display table set up by Seventh Day Adventists.  I was happy to see TER distance himself from them.  And yes there are some SDAs who are just as bad.  You will find slime in every church.  That is why I put my faith is Jesus alone.  Churches are great resources for Christians.  But they are the vehicle, not the destination.

Edit: One more thing.  That two priests who had hands laid on them through "apostolic succession" would do something like that says one of two things.  Either the laying on of hands in apostolic succession does not guarantee the transfer of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit actually does encourage religious persecution.  Now it's clear to me from reading my Bible that God's true New Testament church is persecuted but never engages in persecuting.  Jesus said "Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake."  And Jesus told his disciples when they came to a town that wouldn't receive their message they were to "wipe the dust" off their feet and move on.  Once the church under Constantine began to persecute dissenters, it no longer matched the New Testament description of the church.

----------


## Ronin Truth

*K.I.S.S.*


There are several very valid reasons that Jesus really loves the children.

----------


## TER

> Churches are great resources for Christians.  But they are the vehicle, not the destination.


Being a member of Christ's Body is indeed the destination.  Our salvation is tied to being united with Him and our entrance into the Kingdom.  Again, that does not mean that those who are not baptized Orthodox Christians will not find salvation, but rather to correct you that the Church is not a mere vehicle, it is indeed a major part of the destination.  At least, that is how it was understood by the Christian teachers and saints of the first few centuries.




> Edit: One more thing.  That two priests who had hands laid on them through "apostolic succession" would do something like that says one of two things.  Either the laying on of hands in apostolic succession does not guarantee the transfer of the Holy Spirit or the Holy Spirit actually does encourage religious persecution.  Now it's clear to me from reading my Bible that God's true New Testament church is persecuted but never engages in persecuting.  Jesus said "Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake."  And Jesus told his disciples when they came to a town that wouldn't receive their message they were to "wipe the dust" off their feet and move on.  Once the church under Constantine began to persecute dissenters, it no longer matched the New Testament description of the church.


That is pure baloney, my friend.  You mean to tell me that people who are ordained by the laying of hands in apostolic succession can still sin!  Shocking!  Of course they can!  This isn't some kind of news flash.  Was not Judas also given the Holy Spirit before he betrayed Christ?  What those two Russian priests did in that video tearing down the info booth of the SDA (who happened to be parked on a Sunday morning right outside of an Orthodox Church in an Orthodox country, IOW, a provocative thing to do in the first place by the SDAs), the priests probably thought they were imitating Christ's actions towards the moneylenders in the Temple.  

Right or wrong (and I think what they did was wrong), they thought they were doing it to protect the faithful and for the glory of God, much as how many people try to justify themselves in their actions.  It was their Bishop who reprimanded them for doing what they did against the SDAs and disciplined them, which just underscores the necessity of the Bishop and the reason why by the end of the first century AD the Apostles had established Bishops as heads of communities and cities.  Not because it wasn't needed, but because it was.  And this process has been the way for 2000 years, even when individual clergy or Emperors (who are neither leaders of the Church or ordained into the priesthood or clergy) did things which were sinful.

Constantine was not a priest or a bishop.  He was a fallible politician who was not baptized until his deathbed yet who actually stopped _much_ more persecution then he had inflicted and who _single handedly_ saved more Christian lives from persecution than any other person born from a mother and father.  So, this pointing at Constantine to put a knife in the side of the catholic Church is without merit.  Of course you may provide a long lawerly response to this post which you often do, but you do so having read little of the Church fathers of the early centuries (therefore lacking much knowledge about the life and the challenges of the Church around that time) and demonstrating a completely ill-informed, slanted and prejudiced understanding of the time period and the risks Constantine took to defend Christianity. In other words, your opinions on this matter leave a lot to be desired and should be taken with a grain of salt.

----------


## jmdrake

> Being a member of Christ's Body is indeed the destination.


Wrong.  The destination is heaven.  The church is merely a vehicle to help you get there.  There will be many people who are members of every church who will not make the final destination.




> Our salvation is tied to being united with Him and our entrance into the Kingdom.  Again, that does not mean that those who are not baptized Orthodox Christians will not find salvation, but rather to correct you that the Church is not a mere vehicle, it is indeed a major part of the destination.  At least, that is how it was understood by the Christian teachers and saints of the first few centuries.


That's nice. You basically just said the church is the vehicle and not the destination without realizing it.  





> That is pure baloney, my friend.  You mean to tell me that people who are ordained by the laying of hands in apostolic succession can still sin!  Shocking!  Of course they can!  This isn't some kind of news flash.  Was not Judas also given the Holy Spirit before he betrayed Christ?  What those two Russian priests did in that video tearing down the info booth of the SDA (who happened to be parked right outside of an Orthodox Church in an Orthodox country, IOW, a provocative thing to do in the first place by the SDAs), the priests probably thought they were imitating Christ's actions towards the moneylenders in the Temple.


No it's not "baloney."  And here's what you missing.  Did you notice the crowd following them?  That's because they were connected to the church and not to Jesus.  A connection to Jesus means you think for yourself and you don't let some pastor, priest, bishop, pope think for you.  As for Judas being filled with the Holy Spirit, I went back and checked and there is no record of that.  Remember that Jesus told the disciples to wait in Jerusalem after His ascension and tarry for the Holy Spirit.  And when Jesus breathed on the disciples and said "receive the Holy Spirit", Judas was not there.  I know Jesus went out when the disciples went out earlier two by two healing and such.  That suggests that God sometimes makes temporary use of people who are not Spirit filled, at least in the way the disciples were filled on the day of Pentacost.  Note that when Saul was seeking to kill David, the Bible says that at one point the Spirit fell on Saul and Saul began to prophesy.  That didn't make Saul a prophet the same way that Samuel and Nathan were prophets.  

Also I never say that people filled with the Holy Spirit do not fall into sin.  But that act was premeditated and it was an act of leaders misleading an entire crowd of people.  There is no example of any apostle post the day of Pentacost doing anything like that.  That said, let's go back to Judas.  Let's assume that Judas really was filled with the Holy Spirit.  I assume you believe that, at the very least, the Spirit left him before He betrayed Christ and ultimately hung himself right?  So take a Judas like figure you continued pretending after the New Testament church was established.  Imagine if such a figure laid hands on someone else.  What does that mean for that person's apostolic succession to have hands laid on him by someone he *thought* had the Holy Spirit but really didn't?

And blaming the SDAs for the "provocative" act of having a booth set up in a parking lot near a church?  That sounds like Islamofascist reasoning.  That religious people would feel provoked by other religious people evangelizing on public property is the very mentality that leads to persecution.  If the SDAs had up a Charlie Hebdo type graphic that would be one thing.  If they were blaring across the loudspeaker that all EO Christians were going to hell I would consider that provocative too.  But just a display booth on public land?  That's what Christians are *supposed* to do.  I guess Muslims are right to feel provoked by someone preaching the gospel within site of a mosque?




> Right or wrong (and I think what they did was wrong), they thought they were doing it to protect the faithful and for the glory of God, much as how many people try to justify themselves in their actions.  It was their Bishop who reprimanded them for doing what they did against the SDAs and disciplined them, which just underscores the necessity of the Bishop and the reason why by the end of the first century AD the Apostles had established Bishops as heads of communities and cities.  Not because it wasn't needed, but because it was.  And this process has been the way for 2000 years, even when individual clergy or Emperors (who are neither leaders of the Church or ordained into the priesthood or clergy) did things which were sinful.


Good for the bishop.  (I never saw the follow up story to that.)  But that also exposes the weakness of the system.  Say if one of these men rose to the position of bishop?  It's great that modern bishops realize persecution is wrong.  But clearly that was not always the case.  What happens when a man like these priests rises to the position of bishop?  In the structure Jesus set up, where nobody lords over anybody but everyone a servant, someone doesn't have to be "over" someone to reprimand him for doing wrong.  Why do men feel the need to improve on what Jesus set up?




> Constantine was not a priest or a bishop.  He was a fallible politician who was not baptized until his deathbed yet who actually stopped _much_ more persecution then he had inflicted and who _single handedly_ saved more Christian lives from persecution than any other person born from a mother and father.  So, this pointing at Constantine to put a knife in the side of the catholic Church is without merit.  Of course you may provide a long lawerly response to this post which you often do, but you do so having read little of the Church fathers of the early centuries (therefore lacking much knowledge about the life and the challenges of the Church around that time) and demonstrating a completely ill-informed, slanted and prejudiced understanding of the time period and the risks Constantine took to defend Christianity. In other words, your opinions on this matter leave a lot to be desired and should be taken with a grain of salt.


I don't need to be "lawyerly" and you're kind of proving my point.  While Constantine wasn't "the church", he did what he did with the church's blessing then and continued blessing now.  Saddam Hussein did a lot of good to protect Christians in Iraq.  I still don't consider him a saint.  (I would consider Tariq Aziz for sainthood though if I was into that.  There is no record of Aziz ever participating in any of Saddam's crimes except for suppressing a particular Shiite Islamic terrorist group that tried to kill him.  That terrorist group is now in power in Iraq.)  This is the point.  The church, if it was following what Jesus laid out, should have told Constantine straight up "We appreciate what you are doing to protect us, but you cannot use the power of the state to suppress heresy.  We can deal with heresy through the power of the gospel."  That's what Jesus would have done.  When His disciples asked Him if they could call down fire on a town that rejected them, He flatly refused.

Edit: Final point.  You've missed the main reason I brought this story up to fisharmour.  He said he left the Lutheran church because of the "fruits" he saw in the members.  Why then discount bad fruit in your own church as "just bad apples?"  There is good and bad fruit in every church.  If the fact that there are people in church X that give you a "kick in the nuts" is itself a reason to leave then frankly you can't join any church.

----------


## TER

I would have to disagree with many of your points jmdrake.  When you actually put a little effort and read the writings of the Church Fathers about what the Church is, about the difficulties they had to encounter and deal with in their specific day and age, and the age old understanding of the episcopy and how the Holy Spirit guides the Church in a Church full of sinners and in a world which contends against them, then we might find more things to agree upon.  But you choose to ignore the writings and experience of the saints of the first several centuries to justify your opinions and your Church's ahistorical and unapostolic interpretaions and traditions.  If you wish to teach me about the origins of Seventh Day Adventists and the lives and writings of Ellen White, then do so, and I will submit to your knowledge and authority on the matter having assummed you have studied these things and actually read their writings and the difficulties they were going through.  But when you start mentioning things about the early century Christians and the Nicene period of the Church when you are obviously lacking much knowledge about it, I unfortunately cannot place much value on it.  Erowe is very misguided but at least he makes the effort to learn about the early Church and the writings of the Church Fathers.  Blinded as your are with Solo Scriptura, he at least makes an effort to truly understand how the early Church worshipped and lived to learn what the apostolic faith is.  Rather, you ignore this important facet and submit to the authority of Ellen White and the founders of your Church and then past judgement on me because I submit to authorities that predate her by 1700 years and a Church which has been around and can trace itself back to the very beginning.  We all can say and think that it is God Who is our only authority, but God too has placed authorities over us in this world and established teachers and prophets and leaders and clergy.  You have chosen your leaders and I have chosen mine.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Almost everything "institutional" just finally ends up being really creepy and the exact opposite of the original intentions.

----------


## jmdrake

TER, I will keep this short.  Not every conversation about religion or church requires a historical dissertation.  Fishamour made a very simple point that as a Lutheran he felt some other Lutherans (leaders I presume) did not have the fruits to back up their believes.  I gave an example of the same problem in the Orthodox church.  That should have been the discussion.  Any honest person can admit that in whatever church they belong there are bad apples.  I readily admit that about the Seventh Day Adventist church.

The greater problem is that you put an emphasis on pedigree.  That makes it harder to accept that bad apples for what they are.  It's not just a question of whether or not you love and accept the church fathers, but whether you love and accept the apostolic process in its entirety.  Instead of a house built on a strong foundation, you have a chain with a lot of weak links in it.  

Trying to explain the action of some clearly out of control priests by the inane suggestion that they were "provoked" by people with a booth across the street on private property containing information that any sane person would not find offensive?  Sorry, but I don't need to read the church fathers to realize that's wrong.  If from your reading of the church fathers you think that's right, then please do some more reading because I tend to think they would disagree with you.  Then again, maybe they wouldn't.  I recall you saying that St. Nicholas once punched a man for "speaking heresy."  I would call that a failure as a Christian.  I see no justification for that anywhere in the New Testament.  And if someone showed me where Ellen White or James White (her husband, not the modern Calvinist), or J.N. Andrews or any other Adventist pioneer physically assaulted someone for that person's speech, I would call that a failure in Christianity on their part as well.

Lastly, I didn't follow your entire exchange with erowe1 about deacons, but I will add this if he didn't already.  When deacons were chosen, the apostles looked for men *who were already filled with the Holy Spirit*.  The process of ordaining deacons (or elders, or bishops) was never meant to convey the Holy Spirit.  If someone didn't have the Holy Spirit already then they weren't supposed to be chosen. 





> I would have to disagree with many of your points jmdrake.  When you actually put a little effort and read the writings of the Church Fathers about what the Church is, about the difficulties they had to encounter and deal with in their specific day and age, and the age old understanding of the episcopy and how the Holy Spirit guides the Church in a Church full of sinners and in a world which contends against them, then we might find more things to agree upon.  But you choose to ignore the writings and experience of the saints of the first several centuries to justify your opinions and your Church's ahistorical and unapostolic interpretaions and traditions.  If you wish to teach me about the origins of Seventh Day Adventists and the lives and writings of Ellen White, then do so, and I will submit to your knowledge and authority on the matter having assummed you have studied these things and actually read their writings and the difficulties they were going through.  But when you start mentioning things about the early century Christians and the Nicene period of the Church when you are obviously lacking much knowledge about it, I unfortunately cannot place much value on it.  Erowe is very misguided but at least he makes the effort to learn about the early Church and the writings of the Church Fathers.  Blinded as your are with Solo Scriptura, he at least makes an effort to truly understand how the early Church worshipped and lived to learn what the apostolic faith is.  Rather, you ignore this important facet and submit to the authority of Ellen White and the founders of your Church and then past judgement on me because I submit to authorities that predate her by 1700 years and a Church which has been around and can trace itself back to the very beginning.  We all can say and think that it is God Who is our only authority, but God too has placed authorities over us in this world and established teachers and prophets and leaders and clergy.  You have chosen your leaders and I have chosen mine.

----------


## TER

> TER, I will keep this short.  Not every conversation about religion or church requires a historical dissertation.


Jmdrake, the topic I was discussing with erowe for the past few pages has everything to do with historical truths.  The topic was about the apostolic tradition of ordaining clergy and how this was continued by the early Church.  Studying the Scriptures AND the historical writings and practices of the early Church play an important role in the discussion.  




> Fishamour made a very simple point that as a Lutheran he felt some other Lutherans (leaders I presume) did not have the fruits to back up their believes.  I gave an example of the same problem in the Orthodox church.  That should have been the discussion.  Any honest person can admit that in whatever church they belong there are bad apples.  I readily admit that about the Seventh Day Adventist church.


Have I ever not admitted that there are bad apples in the EOC?  Why are you therefore making the implication that I am not an honest person?  Why even bring that up?  This is a distraction to the topic of this thread.  Does it bother you so much that Fisharmor has found his home in Orthodoxy that you need to stir up distracting things like what two priests did to a SDA booth in Russia?  Have I not agreed with you that what they did was wrong?  Have I not explained to you that they were disciplined by their Bishop? Then why harp on it?  Yes, I think what the SDAs did WAS provocative.  Doesn't mean they deserved the treatment they received.  But all of this seems like a sideshow distraction to possibly instill doubt into Fisharmor or to justify your beliefs which counter to the historical truths you wish us to ignore.  Perhaps you should study more historical dissertations so that you might come to find how much different your Church's teachings are from the teachings handed down by the Apostles which the Church Fisharmor has joined has faithfully maintained.




> The greater problem is that you put an emphasis on pedigree.  That makes it harder to accept that bad apples for what they are.  It's not just a question of whether or not you love and accept the church fathers, but whether you love and accept the apostolic process in its entirety.  Instead of a house built on a strong foundation, you have a chain with a lot of weak links in it.


This frankly is quite remarkable a statement you make here.  Because as I see it, it is you who do not love or accept the aposotlic process in its entirety and have a house built on an extremely weak foundation, namely the personal interpretations of Ellen White.  

 Yes, there are weak links in the chain of the OC, but the Holy Spirit keeps the chain secure in spite of that.  With the SDA, there doesn't even exist a chain!  There is instead a new religion started about 150 years ago teaching things that have no link at all other then Ellen White's Solo Scriptura interpretations!  Where is the chain or the link to many of her teachings in the second century?  Or the third?  Or the fourth?  What is different from her and say Joseph Smith in this regard?  But perhaps that is why you don't like to discuss or study historical facts because they demonstrate truths you are unwilling to accept?




> Trying to explain the action of some clearly out of control priests by the inane suggestion that they were "provoked" by people with a booth across the street on private property containing information that any sane person would not find offensive?  Sorry, but I don't need to read the church fathers to realize that's wrong.  If from your reading of the church fathers you think that's right, then please do some more reading because I tend to think they would disagree with you.  Then again, maybe they wouldn't.  I recall you saying that St. Nicholas once punched a man for "speaking heresy."  I would call that a failure as a Christian.  I see no justification for that anywhere in the New Testament.  And if someone showed me where Ellen White or James White (her husband, not the modern Calvinist), or J.N. Andrews or any other Adventist pioneer physically assaulted someone for that person's speech, I would call that a failure in Christianity on their part as well.


Again, a distraction.  It is reported that St. Nicholas smacked Arius in the face for speaking blasphemy at the First Ecumenical Council.  In his righteous indignation and zeal to defend the divinity of Christ, he lost his cool and smacked the greatest arch heretic of the fourth century.  I guess we can ignore the remaining truths about his holy life and call him a failure!  Well, I still think him to be much greater Christian than Ellen White in spite of this incident you are fixated upon and often bring up.  I know St. Nicholas was not infallible.  I also know him to be one of the greatest Christian saints of all time.




> Lastly, I didn't follow your entire exchange with erowe1 about deacons, but I will add this if he didn't already.  When deacons were chosen, the apostles looked for men *who were already filled with the Holy Spirit*.  The process of ordaining deacons (or elders, or bishops) was never meant to convey the Holy Spirit.  If someone didn't have the Holy Spirit already then they weren't supposed to be chosen.


Except the explanation is quite clear in the Hoy Scriptures that the laying of hands transfers the Holy Spirit.  So too with the examples of the early Church through the first centuries!  Ooh, those pesky facts again!

Because of your Protestant upbringing, lack of study of the theological writings of the early Christians, and poor understanding of sacramental theology, you do not understand how a person who was already 'filled with the Holy Spirit' could be ordained and receive the Holy Spirit in ordination.  Their being graced by the Holy Spirit through baptism, Chrismation, and living holy lives did not make them officially acknowledged clergy in the Church.  Their ordination was sealed and realized by the work of the Holy Spirit, and apparently the Apostles taught and practiced that this required a physical act of laying of the hands.  There involved a rite of ordination.  Not that the Holy Spirit cannot work upon a man otherwise, but rather that this was the process which was pleasing to God and instructed by His Apostles and carried on after the time period of the book of Acts was finished.  Now you can say until the cows come home that 'this process was never meant to convey the Holy Spirit', but the historical proofs, the traditional practices and teachings of the 2000 year old Church, and the Scriptural examples you all ignore prove you to be incorrect.

----------


## erowe1

> Except the explanation is quite clear in the Hoy Scriptures that the laying of hands transfers the Holy Spirit.


No it isn't. And this should be clear by the fact that in all your trying, you haven't been able to turn up a shred of evidence for this.

As you admitted before, there are various occasions in which hands were laid on people. There's one case where it was done in appointing certain people to wait on tables (which you refer to as ordaining deacons). There's one instance where it involved the Holy Spirit entering the people hands were laid on.

But the instance that you call the ordaining of deacons did not involve any transference of the Holy Spirit. And the instance that did involve transference of the Holy Sprit didn't involve any appointment of anyone to anything.

There's no conceivable way to make the transference of the Holy Spirit into some grand unifying theme of all laying on of hands.

----------


## TER

> 2 Timothy
> 
> 1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,
> 
> 2 To Timothy, a beloved son:
> 
> Grace, mercy, and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.
> 
> 3 I thank God, whom I serve with a pure conscience, as my forefathers did, as without ceasing I remember you in my prayers night and day, 4 greatly desiring to see you, being mindful of your tears, that I may be filled with joy, 5 when I call to remembrance the genuine faith that is in you, which dwelt first in your grandmother Lois and your mother Eunice, and I am persuaded is in you also. 6 *Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands.* 7 For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.





> No it isn't. And this should be clear by the fact that in all your trying, you haven't been able to turn up a shred of evidence for this.


The evidence is from the teachings of the Church, which is the bulwark and foundation for the truth, not what erowe's reading comprehension or wisdom tells him.




> As you admitted before, there are various occasions in which hands were laid on people. There's one case where it was done in appointing certain people to wait on tables (which you refer to as ordaining deacons).


LOL!  The entire history of the Christiantiy including the Reformers like Martin Luther understood that this verse describes the ordaining of deacons.  This fanciful conjecture on your part of saying that these seven were simple waiters instead of ordained deacons flies in the face of the history of the Church.  But what do you care!  The Church of erowe thinks otherwise!




> There's one instance where it involved the Holy Spirit entering the people hands were laid on.


No my friend.  That is the instance where it is spelled out for people like you who doubt the power of the laying of hands.  For the rest of the Christians, it was understood what it meant in the laying of hands.  I wish the New Testament writers mentioned it in every instance so that you might believe and understand, but unfortunately they didn't.  Luckily we have the Church to  provide us the correct interpretation and understanding.  Unluckily for you, you have already established yourself as the ultimate authority of your Church.




> But the instance that you call the ordaining of deacons did not involve any transference of the Holy Spirit. And the instance that did involve transference of the Holy Sprit didn't involve any appointment of anyone to anything.


Says so you (against the testimony of the Church Fathers)




> There's no conceivable way to make the transference of the Holy Spirit into some grand unifying theme of all laying on of hands.


Well, actually, there is.  Unfortunatley the book of Acts finished too soon in the history of the growing Church and did not clearly explain it enough for you to understand.  That is the problem of Solo Scriptura.  I thank God He established a Church which can fill the gaps and give the true meaning and traditions.

----------


## erowe1

> No my friend.  That is the instance where it is spelled out for people like you who doubt the power of the laying of hands.


Are you talking about Acts 8:17?




> 14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. 15 When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16 because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.


That's the only passage where laying on of hands is connected with people receiving the Holy Spirit, and it has nothing at all to do with ordaining anyone for any office.

----------


## erowe1

> Says so you (against the testimony of the Church Fathers)


Which Church fathers say that the laying on of hands in Acts 6 involved transferring the Holy Spirit to those 7 men, whom that very passage explicitly says were already full of the Holy Spirit before that happened?

----------


## TER

> Are you talking about Acts 8:17?
> 
> That's the only passage where laying on of hands is connected with people receiving the Holy Spirit, and it has nothing at all to do with ordaining anyone for any office.


Well at least you acknowledge their is a transference of the Holy Spirit!  That is progress erowe!  Keep working at it!

"Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands."

Here St. Paul is addressing Timothy which Church tradition reveals was made Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul in the year AD 65.  The Church understands the gift of God St. Paul is referring to is the Holy Spirit in the grace of ordination as episkopos of the city. What erowe thinks means very little frankly to me, but I am happy to see he is progressing!  Baby steps!

----------


## TER

> Which Church fathers say that the laying on of hands in Acts 6 involved transferring the Holy Spirit to those 7 men, whom that very passage explicitly says were already full of the Holy Spirit before that happened?


Ooh!   A fishing expedition!  I'll go put on my boots!  

Actually, on second thought, why don't you go fishing without me.  Perhaps you might learn something.

----------


## erowe1

> Well at least you acknowledge their is a transference of the Holy Spirit!  That is progress erowe!  Keep working at it!


Are you deliberately lying? Did you not just a couple posts ago quote me saying that there is one passage where the laying on of hands involves transference of the Holy Spirit?

----------


## erowe1

> Ooh!   A fishing expedition!  I'll go put on my boots!  
> 
> Actually, on second thought, why don't you go fishing without me.  Perhaps you might learn something.


Why would a fishing expedition be needed? You just asserted that my claim about Acts 6 went against the testimony of the Church Fathers. If you already know that to be the case, as you would have to in order to say that, you should be able to tell me which fathers without having to look.

Were you really just making things up?

----------


## TER

> Are you deliberately lying? Did you not just a couple posts ago quote me saying that there is one passage where the laying on of hands involves transference of the Holy Spirit?


What was the gift of God which St. Paul gave Timothy by the laying of hands?   A shiny watch?

----------


## TER

> Why would a fishing expedition be needed? You just asserted that my claim about Acts 6 went against the testimony of the Church Fathers. If you already know that to be the case, as you would have to in order to say that, you should be able to tell me which fathers without having to look.
> 
> Were you really just making things up?


No.  It's just that I have no interest doing your homework.  You should do the homework though.  It might be good for you.

----------


## erowe1

> No.  It's just that I have no interest doing your homework.  You should do the homework though.  It might be good for you.


Gotcha. So you made that claim pretending to know it to be true, when in fact it was entirely baseless.

As for me doing homework, I never pass up a chance to learn something new about early Christian literature. So I will check this out and get back to you.

----------


## erowe1

> What was the gift of God which St. Paul gave Timothy by the laying of hands?   A shiny watch?


The text doesn't say. Nor does it say anything about Timothy being a bishop/presbyter or deacon.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well at least you acknowledge their is a transference of the Holy Spirit!  That is progress erowe!  Keep working at it!
> 
> "Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands."
> 
> Here St. Paul is addressing Timothy which Church tradition reveals was made Bishop of Ephesus by St. Paul in the year AD 65.  The Church understands the gift of God St. Paul is referring to is the Holy Spirit in the grace of ordination as episkopos of the city. What erowe thinks means very little frankly to me, but I am happy to see he is progressing!  Baby steps!


But the text doesn't say that.  Your tradition says that.  And what did Jesus say about the traditions of men?

----------


## TER

> Gotcha. So you made that claim pretending to know it to be true, when in fact it was entirely baseless.


I see your reading comprehension problems are not just limited to the Scriptures.  I am not pretending and neither what I am saying is baseless.  That is you infering because I don't want to do your homework. 




> As for me doing homework, I never pass up a chance to learn something new about early Christian literature. So I will check this out and get back to you.


Hallelujah!  I knew this labor of love I put up with you would eventually pay off!

----------


## TER

> The text doesn't say. Nor does it say anything about Timothy being a bishop/presbyter or deacon.


I see.  Sucks to be a follower of Solo Scriptura, eh?  You can't even figure out if it was the Holy Spirit or a shiny new watch St. Paul is talking about because the Scriptures don't say.  Tragic.  I'm gonna go with my gut feeling (oh, and what the Church teaches) that this was the Holy Spirit St. Paul is talking about and refers to him ordaining Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus.  You keep guessing...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I see.  Sucks to be a follower of Solo Scriptura, eh?  You can't even figure out if it was the Holy Spirit or a shiny new watch St. Paul is talking about because the Scriptures don't say.  Tragic.  I'm gonna go with my gut feeling (oh, and what the Church teaches) that this was the Holy Spirit St. Paul is talking about and refers to him ordaining Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus.  You keep guessing...


How do you know that your church teaches the truth if this practice is not found in the word of God?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> How do you know that your church teaches the truth if this practice is not found in the word of God?


That sacred infallible human institution tells him so. (And also what's to be in the book).

----------


## erowe1

> I see.  Sucks to be a follower of Solo Scriptura, eh?  You can't even figure out if it was the Holy Spirit or a shiny new watch St. Paul is talking about because the Scriptures don't say.  Tragic.  I'm gonna go with my gut feeling (oh, and what the Church teaches) that this was the Holy Spirit St. Paul is talking about and refers to him ordaining Timothy as Bishop of Ephesus.  You keep guessing...


Can you quote me ever once claiming to be a follower of Sola Scriptura?

It's safe to say that it wasn't a shiny new watch. But, no, it doesn't suck to be honest. I feel no obligation to write into the text something that isn't there. I accept that if it were necessary for Paul to spell it out more specifically the, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he would have. I do know that Timothy was a believer who was already active in ministry before he joined Paul in Acts 16. I also know that Paul says a lot about the Holy Spirit giving spiritual gifts, which are not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit himself. I also know that Paul sometimes talks about imparting some spiritual gift (as in Romans 1), where the idea seems to be more vague referring to ministry in general, and given other passages of that epistle can't possibly be talking about transferring the Holy Spirit to them.

It's also perfectly clear that Paul is not talking about Timothy being the bishop of Ephesus, since the pastoral epistles, like every other book in the New Testament, use the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably, and refer to there being a multitude of holders of this office in Ephesus.

You keep claiming that everything you believe is what the Church teaches, but when pressed on that, you never seem to be able even to show that that's the case.

Doe the Church claim that this passage in 2 Timothy is about Paul transferring the Holy Spirit to Timothy? Can you back up that claim and provide sources?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Can you quote me ever once claiming to be a follower of Sola Scriptura?
> 
> It's safe to say that it wasn't a shiny new watch. But, no, it doesn't suck to be honest. I feel no obligation to write into the text something that isn't there. I accept that if it were necessary for Paul to spell it out more specifically the, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, he would have. I do know that Timothy was a believer who was already active in ministry before he joined Paul in Acts 16. I also know that Paul says a lot about the Holy Spirit giving spiritual gifts, which are not the same thing as receiving the Holy Spirit himself. I also know that Paul sometimes talks about imparting some spiritual gift (as in Romans 1), where the idea seems to be more vague referring to ministry in general, and given other passages of that epistle can't possibly be talking about transferring the Holy Spirit to them.
> 
> It's also perfectly clear that Paul is not talking about Timothy being the bishop of Ephesus, since the pastoral epistles, like every other book in the New Testament, use the terms bishop and presbyter interchangeably, and refer to there being a multitude of holders of this office in Ephesus.
> 
> You keep claiming that everything you believe is what the Church teaches, but when pressed on that, you never seem to be able even to show that that's the case.
> 
> Doe the Church claim that this passage in 2 Timothy is about Paul transferring the Holy Spirit to Timothy? Can you back up that claim and provide sources?


https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=

----------


## erowe1

I have done as much as I can with what's presently available to me in searching for early references to Acts 6:6. There aren't very many up through AD 400, and I didn't go beyond that.

It is briefly alluded to in the Ascension of Isaiah and Eusebius's Church History. Neither say anything about transferring the Holy Spirit. The only fairly extensive reference I could find is in Crysostom's homily on that passage, which you can read here:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210114.htm

He also makes no mention of any transference of the Holy Spirit in that incident.

I can't say for sure that no church father ever might have taught that the laying on of hands in Acts 6 involved a transference of the Holy Spirit. After all, all the Church fathers had their own minds and differed from one another on any given idea all the time. But I can say for sure that this idea that they all uniformly viewed all instances of laying on hands as transferrals of the Holy Spirit, particularly the one in Acts 6, is bunk.

----------


## erowe1

> https://www.google.com/search?q=Paul...gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=


Are you just doing this to be funny now?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That sacred infallible human institution tells him so. (And also what's to be in the book).


What do mean by that?  I might agree with you.  Could you explain?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> What do mean by that? I might agree with you. Could you explain?


His church and bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> His church and bible.


I think it's his church in rejection of the Bible.   Can't you see that in the preceding exchange?

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I think it's his church in rejection of the Bible. Can't you see that in the preceding exchange?


I've thought for some time now that TER seems to be waaaay too much into, and even obsessed by his church.

----------


## fisharmor

> I'm a programmer too.  One thing to note is that just because you found a bug in one program doesn't mean a similar or worse bug isn't in another program.  Sorry that you had a bad experience in your Lutheran church.


Back that up, jmdrake: it wasn't a problem with _my_ Lutheran church.  Nobody in this conversation should assume I was the target of the bad experience (I was not), nor that I did not take it to levels above the congregation (I did, in a team along with others), nor that it was a minor matter (it was over an excommunication done for reasons which were never openly stated, even to those who were excommunicated), nor that I was not actually defending Sola Scriptura at the time (I was).

I did not leave because one Lutheran church did something horrible.  I am well familiar with the fact that individual congregations do horrible things on a regular basis.
I left because when I took this to higher levels, I got told by the higher levels exactly what we are telling you is the primary problem with Sola Scriptura: _Every congregation is free to work out their own issues, because ultimately there is no authority to judge anything they are doing._

If that means that individual congregations are going to have clown communion, or give the Eucharist to dogs, then that's A-OK.
If that means that individual congregations are going to elect abortion doctors as their president, then that's A-OK.
If that means that individual congregations are going to excommunicate people who speak their minds in meetings, then that's A-OK.

And when someone patiently confronts them with Scripture to point out that these things are abhorrent, they can fall back on the exact thing you guys have done in this thread: _Well, everyone has a different interpretation of the Gospel, and I'm sorry yours doesn't line up with ours._




> And I would say the same if you had a bad experience in the Eastern Orthodox church.


And if something truly awful happens to someone in my parish, and if I take it up the chain of command, and I get politely told to go $#@! myself again, then I will leave Orthodoxy, too.
But the difference is, Sola Scriptura doesn't ask anything of its adherents.  You can be on any particular side of the predestination debate, but the bottom line is, if you're in the Sola Scriptura crowd, then your faith asks precisely nothing of you.
It does not ask you for repentance.
It does not ask you to forgive.
It does not ask you to love.

Oh, of course it pays lip service to all these things, but when the rubber meets the road, it all goes out the window and things get real Earthly and pragmatic, because taking a stand on any of that means putting the Jesus-themed social club in jeopardy.

You can't go from Jesus-themed social club to an organization that takes forgiveness and repentance seriously in the snap of your fingers.  If you're not doing it every Sunday, at the very least, then it is quite simply a foreign concept.  This is why people get chewed up and spit out of protestant congregations.  This is why there are 30,000 protestant denominations and counting.

So yeah, if it happens in my parish, I'll leave.  But I have more faith in Orthodoxy than to assume it will happen.  Because it is a faith which involves practice, taming of the flesh, taming of the passions, multiple somatic components - it asks us to do something.  So I can but assume that when asked to forgive, or to repent, its adherents will react a bit differently than Sola Scriptura Christians, who have been told their whole lives that they are the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong, and that there is no authority over them.




> Churches are great resources for Christians.  But they are the vehicle, not the destination.


And as I've already insinuated, vehicles are really only good ideas if they are capable of moving.

----------


## fisharmor

I also want to see that video, jmdrake, so if you could PM it to me that would be great.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've thought for some time now that TER seems to be waaaay too much into, and even obsessed by his church.


Most people who call themselves "Christians" today believe their traditions rather than the Word of God.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *I think it's his church in rejection of the Bible.  * Can't you see that in the preceding exchange?


You think wrong.  The preceding exchange is about why sola scriptura is wrong, not the Bible.  Why haven't you actually learned something about the EOC like I told you to the last time we talked?  It seems you're resisting doing basic comparative religion research just so you can blather on for dozens of pages with your opinion and wild speculation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You think wrong.  The preceding exchange is about why sola scriptura is wrong, not the Bible.  Why haven't you actually learned something about the EOC like I told you to the last time we talked?  It seems you're resisting doing basic comparative religion research just so you can blather on for dozens of pages with your opinion and wild speculation.


In what post did TER show that the Bible taught that the apostles laid hands on bishops to transfer the Holy Spirit to them?

I'll wait for your answer.

----------


## TER

> I have done as much as I can with what's presently available to me in searching for early references to Acts 6:6. There aren't very many up through AD 400, and I didn't go beyond that.
> 
> It is briefly alluded to in the Ascension of Isaiah and Eusebius's Church History. Neither say anything about transferring the Holy Spirit. The only fairly extensive reference I could find is in Crysostom's homily on that passage, which you can read here:
> http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210114.htm
> 
> He also makes no mention of any transference of the Holy Spirit in that incident.


You know, unfortunately, there isn't much written commentary about the Epistles in the early Church history, and Chrysostom is about the earliest Church Father we have of homilies on the writings of St. Paul to the Apostle Timothy.  He does, of course, teach the orthodox faith, and for this reason the Church has called him a Saint since the fourth century.  He didn't change everybody's mind and start his own Church!  He wasn't inventing things against the testimony of the fathers before him!! If he tried that, they would have rejected him like they did with Marcion of Sinope!  Or as they did with Montanus!  He is a Saint BECAUSE he followed the apostolic Church!  You see, it was already known by the Church that sinful and haughty men would invent new doctrines and try to change the traditions and teachings of the Apostles, even the very faith itself!  Pride and egoism has always existed, and men have made their own minds to be a god, and place the limits of God according to their own mind's logic and reason.  

The Church Fathers don't mention much how evil it is to cheat on someone's wife.  They didn't have to.  It was already understood.  And this is exactly how it was with the laying of hands in the rite of ordination and grace of the Holy Spirit.  You hum and haw about lack of evidence, but that is because you pick and choose what is according to the Scriptures and what is not.  You don't want to say you are a Sola Scripturist, but you certainly are!  (I don't call myself a jackass either, but I can be that way too!)

You choose St. John Chrysostom as an early witness.  This is good.  Tell me then, do you consider him orthodox?  Was he part of the New Testament Church?  Or will you use him as a dumb tool to justify your position, picking and and choosing whatever verses you think supports your position while ignoring other ones?  Just as you do the Holy Scriptures, which is a sure sign my friend that you are a Sola Scripturist whether you call yourself that or not!

There was no need for St. John Chrysostom to explain something that the catholic Church already understood and was aware of. THAT is how established the tradition of laying of the hands on ordination into the clergy was by the fourth century.  The culmination of what we see finding final form in the later first and beginning second century.  

But of course, those men didn't get it right.  You have a much better idea than them what Christ taught His Apostles.  After all, you have a graduate degree and can click on Google!

And then to top it all of, you say there is no mention of the transference of the Holy Spirit!

Well, let the people read the entire verse in case your summation missed anything.  You know, that dirty little habit of Sola Scripturists to ignore or belittle verses...

Ver. 6. "Wherefore I put you in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in you by the putting on of my hands."

You see how greatly dispirited and dejected he considers him to be. He almost says, "Think not that I despise you, but be assured that I do not condemn you, nor have I forgotten you. Consider, at any rate, your mother and your grandmother. It is because I know that you have unfeigned faith that I put you in remembrance." For it requires much zeal to stir up the gift of God. As fire requires fuel, so grace requires our alacrity, that it may be ever fervent. "I put you in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, that is in you by the putting on of my hands," *that is, the grace of the Spirit, which you have received, for presiding over the Church, for the working of miracles, and for every service. For this grace it is in our power to kindle or to extinguish;* wherefore he elsewhere says, "Quench not the Spirit." 1 Thessalonians 5:19 For by sloth and carelessness it is quenched, and by watchfulness and diligence it is kept alive. For it is in you indeed, but do thou render it more vehement, that is, fill it with confidence, with joy and delight. Stand manfully.

Ver. 7. "For God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

That is, we did not receive the Spirit, that we should shrink from exertion, but that we may speak with boldness. For to many He gives a spirit of fear, as we read in the wars of the Kings. "A spirit of fear fell upon them." Exodus 15:16? That is, he infused terror into them. But to you He has given, on the contrary, a spirit of power, and of love toward Himself. This, then, is of grace, and yet not merely of grace, but when we have first performed our own parts. For the Spirit that makes us cry, "Abba, Father," inspires us with love both towards Him, and towards our neighbor, that we may love one another. For love arises from power, and from not fearing. For nothing is so apt to dissolve love as fear, and a suspicion of treachery.
Thank you bringing up this writing erowe.  I truly love reading St. John Chrystostom.  Did I ever tell you that I venerated his skull?  It was a beautiful spiritual moment.  Perhaps one day if we sit down for tea I can tell you about it.

----------


## erowe1

> You know, unfortunately, there isn't much written commentary about the Epistles in the early Church history, and Chrysostom is about the earliest Church Father we have of homilies on the writings of St. Paul to the Apostle Timothy.  He does, of course, teach the orthodox faith, and for this reason the Church has called him a Saint since the fourth century.  He didn't change everybody's mind and start his own Church!  He wasn't inventing things against the testimony of the fathers before him!! If he tried that, they would have rejected him like they did with Marcion of Sinope!  Or as they did with Montanus!  He is a Saint BECAUSE he followed the apostolic Church!  You see, it was already known by the Church that sinful and haughty men would invent new doctrines and try to change the traditions and teachings of the Apostles, even the very faith itself!  Pride and egoism has always existed, and men have made their own minds to be a god, and place the limits of God according to their own mind's logic and reason.  
> 
> The Church Fathers don't mention much how evil it is to cheat on someone's wife.  They didn't have to.  It was already understood.  And this is exactly how it was with the laying of hands in the rite of ordination and grace of the Holy Spirit.  You hum and haw about lack of evidence, but that is because you pick and choose what is according to the Scriptures and what is not.  You don't want to say you are a Sola Scripturist, but you certainly are!  (I don't call myself a jackass either, but I can be that way too!)
> 
> You choose St. John Chrysostom as an early witness.  This is good.  Tell me then, do you consider him orthodox?  Was he part of the New Testament Church?  Or will you use him as a dumb tool to justify your position, picking and and choosing whatever verses you think supports your position while ignoring other ones?  Just as you do the Holy Scriptures, which is a sure sign my friend that you are a Sola Scripturist whether you call yourself that or not!
> 
> There was no need for St. John Chrysostom to explain something that the catholic Church already understood and was aware of. THAT is how established the tradition of laying of the hands on ordination into the clergy was by the fourth century.  The culmination of what we see finding final form in the later first and beginning second century.  
> 
> But of course, those men didn't get it right.  You have a much better idea than them what Christ taught His Apostles.  After all, you have a graduate degree and can click on Google!
> ...


I was talking about Acts 6:6, which was the verse that you had insisted I was going against the Church fathers.

But notice that even in the case of Timothy, even in the words you bolded, Chrysostom doesn't claim that the gift Timothy received by the laying on of hands was the Holy Spirit, but rather a grace of the Spirit for certain ministries.

Does this mean that, according to you, he disagreed with the Church?

----------


## Sola_Fide

John Chrysostom was a heretic.  He taught the heresy of purgatory:
http://justifiedbychristalone.com/20...-of-purgatory/

----------


## TER

And let us see what else this Church Father (regarded a Saint by every Church which can trace itself back to the Apostles) had to say about Acts 6:6...

"There arose a murmuring," etc. to—"And a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.— There arose murmuring against the Hebrews"— for that description of people seemed to be more honorable— "because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." Acts 6:1-7 

So then there was a daily ministration for the widows. And observe how he calls it a "ministration" (διακονία), and not directly alms: extolling by this at once the doers, and those to whom it was done. 

"Were neglected." This did not arise from malice, but perhaps from the carelessness of the multitude. And therefore he brought it forward openly, for this was no small evil. Observe, how even in the beginning the evils came not only from without, but also from within. For you must not look to this only, that it was set to rights, but observe that it was a great evil that it existed. 

"Then the twelve," etc. Acts 6:2 Do you observe how outward concerns succeed to inward? They do not act at their own discretion, but plead for themselves to the congregation. So ought it to be done now. "It is not reason," says he, "that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." First he puts to them the unreasonableness of the thing; that it is not possible for both things to be done with the same attention: just as when they were about to ordain Matthias, they first show the necessity of the thing, that one was deficient, and there must needs be twelve. And so here they showed the necessity; and they did it not sooner, but waited till the murmuring arose; nor, on the other hand, did they suffer this to spread far. And, lo! They leave the decision to them: those who pleased all, those who of all were honestly reputed, them they present: not now twelve, but "seven, full of the Spirit and of wisdom: well reported of" for their conversation. Acts 6:3

 Now when Matthias was to be presented, it was said, "Therefore must one of these men which have companied with us all the time" Acts 1:21: but not so here: for the case was not alike. And they do not now put it to the lot; they might indeed themselves have made the election, as moved by the Spirit: but nevertheless, they desire the testimony of the people. The fixing the number, and the ordaining them, and for this kind of business, rested with them: but the choice of the men they make over to the people, that they might not seem to act from favor: just as God also leaves it to Moses to choose as elders those whom he knew. Numbers 11:16 

"And of wisdom." For indeed there needs much wisdom in such ministrations. For think not, because he has not the word committed unto him, that such an one has no need of wisdom: he does need it, and much too. "But we," says he, "will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word." Acts 6:4 

Again they plead for themselves, beginning and ending with this. "Will give ourselves continually," he says. For so it behooved, not just to do the mere acts, or in any chance way, but to be continually doing them. "And the saying," we are told, "pleased the whole multitude." (v. 5, 6.) This too was worthy of their wisdom. All approved of what was said so sensible was it.

 "And they chose," it says (again it is the people (_αὐτοί_) that choose,) "Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: whom they set before the Apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them."

*They separated them from the multitude*, and it is the people (_αὐτοί_) that draw them, not the Apostles that lead them. Observe how he avoids all that is superfluous:_ he does not tell in what way it was done, but that they were ordained_ (_ἐ χειροτονήθησαν_) with prayer: for this is the meaning of _χειροτονία_, (i.e. "putting forth the hand,") or ordination: *the hand of the man is laid upon (the person,) but the whole work is of God, and it is His hand which touches the head of the one ordained, if he be duly ordained.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

John Chrysostom was not a Christian.   Why do you quote him?   Do you believe in purgatory,  TER?  He taught it:
http://justifiedbychristalone.com/20...-of-purgatory/

----------


## TER

> John Chrysostom was not a Christian.   Why do you quote him?   Do you believe in purgatory,  TER?  He taught it:
> http://justifiedbychristalone.com/20...-of-purgatory/


First they ignore you, ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> First they ignore you, ...


Do you believe in purgatory, TER?

----------


## TER

> Do you believe in purgatory, TER?


Lets look at the 2 selections of verses you linked to above (apparently it was too difficult for you to copy/paste...)

Let us help and commemorate them. If Jobs sons were purified by their fathers sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them.(Homilies on First Corinthians 41:5) [A.D. 392]
He doesn't teach purgatory, but nice try.  He is simply expressing the Apostolic tradition of praying for the dead, which St. Paul did in the New Testament but you ignore/twist that verse as well.  


Weep for those who die in their wealth and who with all their wealth prepared no consolation for their own souls, who had the power to wash away their sins and did not will to do it. Let us weep for them, let us assist them to the extent of our ability, let us think of some assistance for them, small as it may be, yet let us somehow assist them.

 But how, and in what way? By praying for them and by entreating others to pray for them, by constantly giving alms to the poor on their behalf. Not in vain was it decreed by the apostles that in the awesome mysteries remembrance should be made of the departed. They knew that here there was much gain for them, much benefit. When the entire people stands with hands uplifted, a priestly assembly, and that awesome sacrificial Victim is laid out, how, when we are calling upon God, should we not succeed in their defense? But this is done for those who have departed in the faith, while even the catechumens are not reckoned as worthy of this consolation, but are deprived of every means of assistance except one. And what is that? We may give alms to the poor on their behalf.(Homilies on Philippians 3:910) [A.D. 402]
And here he is expressing the Apostolic tradition of almsgiving and the eschatological significance of works of good deeds.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> “Let us help and commemorate them. If Job’s sons were purified by their father’s sacrifice [Job 1:5], why would we doubt that our offerings for the dead bring them some consolation? Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and to offer our prayers for them”.


Are saying that this does not teach that the ones who have died go through a purification?

----------


## TER

> But notice that even in the case of Timothy, even in the words you bolded, Chrysostom doesn't claim that the gift Timothy received by the laying on of hands was the Holy Spirit, but rather a grace of the Spirit for certain ministries.



Wow.  I don't even know what to say...

----------


## TER

> Are saying that this does not teach that the ones who have died go through a purification?


Sola, if you wish, please start a thread on purgatory or soul sleep or whatever else you want to argue about.  Please stop derailing this thread.  Thanks!

----------


## Sola_Fide

Also, the Bible condemns praying for the dead:



> Leviticus 19:31
> 
> “Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.

----------


## TER

> Also, the Bible condemns praying for the dead:


Tell that to St. Paul.

Now please, stop derailing this thread.  Thanks for the second time!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Tell that to St. Paul.
> 
> Now please, stop derailing this thread.  Thanks for the second time!


Paul did not pray for the dead.  There is no evidence that Onesiphorus was dead.

----------


## erowe1

> And let us see what else this Church Father (regarded a Saint by every Church which can trace itself back to the Apostles) had to say about Acts 6:6...
> 
> "There arose a murmuring," etc. to—"And a great company of the priests were obedient to the faith.— There arose murmuring against the Hebrews"— for that description of people seemed to be more honorable— "because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration." Acts 6:1-7 
> 
> So then there was a daily ministration for the widows. And observe how he calls it a "ministration" (διακονία), and not directly alms: extolling by this at once the doers, and those to whom it was done. 
> 
> "Were neglected." This did not arise from malice, but perhaps from the carelessness of the multitude. And therefore he brought it forward openly, for this was no small evil. Observe, how even in the beginning the evils came not only from without, but also from within. For you must not look to this only, that it was set to rights, but observe that it was a great evil that it existed. 
> 
> "Then the twelve," etc. Acts 6:2 Do you observe how outward concerns succeed to inward? They do not act at their own discretion, but plead for themselves to the congregation. So ought it to be done now. "It is not reason," says he, "that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables." First he puts to them the unreasonableness of the thing; that it is not possible for both things to be done with the same attention: just as when they were about to ordain Matthias, they first show the necessity of the thing, that one was deficient, and there must needs be twelve. And so here they showed the necessity; and they did it not sooner, but waited till the murmuring arose; nor, on the other hand, did they suffer this to spread far. And, lo! They leave the decision to them: those who pleased all, those who of all were honestly reputed, them they present: not now twelve, but "seven, full of the Spirit and of wisdom: well reported of" for their conversation. Acts 6:3
> ...


Notice that he didn't interpret that laying on of hands as transferring the Holy Spirit.

----------


## TER

> Notice that he didn't interpret that laying on of hands as transferring the Holy Spirit.

----------


## TER

From an earlier source, the *Apostolic Constitutions*

THAT THE DEACON MUST NOT MAKE ANY DISTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BISHOP, BECAUSE THAT WILL TURN TO THE REPROACH OF THE BISHOP.

XXXII. If therefore, O deacon, thou knowest any one to be in distress, put the bishop in mind of him, and so give to him; but do nothing in a clandestine way, so as may tend to his reproach, lest thou raise a murmur against him; for the murmur will not be against him, but against the Lord God: and the deacon, with the rest, will hear what Aaron and Miriam heard, when they spake against Moses: "How is it that ye were not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" And again, Moses says to those who rose up against him: "Your murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord our God." 

 For if he that calls one of the laity Raka, or fool, shall not be unpunished, as doing injury to the name  of Christ, how dare any man speak against his bishop,* by whom the Lord gave the Holy Spirit among you upon the laying on of his hands*, by whom ye have learned the sacred doctrines, and have known God, and have believed in Christ, by whom ye were known of God, by whom ye were sealed with the oil of gladness and the ointment of understanding, by whom ye were declared to be the children of light, by whom the Lord in your illumination *testified by the imposition of the bishop's hands*, and sent out His sacred voice upon every one of you, saying, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?"  By thy bishop, O man, God adopts thee for His child. Acknowledge, O son,* that right hand which was a mother to thee*. Love him who, after God, is become a father to thee, and honour him.

----------


## TER

Some more from the *Apostolic Constitutions*

AFTER WHAT MANNER WE OUGHT TO RECEIVE A PENITENT; HOW WE OUGHT TO DEAL WITH OFFENDERS, AND WHEN THEY ARE TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE CHURCH.

XLI. But if any one returns, and shows forth the fruit of repentance, then do ye receive him to prayer, as the lost son, the prodigal, who had consumed his father's substance with harlots, who fed swine, and desired to be fed with husks, and could not obtain it. This son, when he repented, and returned to his father, and said, "I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son;"  the father, full of affection to his child, received him with music, and restored him his old robe, and ring, and shoes, and slew the fatted calf, and made merry with his friends. Do thou therefore, O bishop, act in the same manner. And as thou receivest an heathen after thou hast instructed and baptized him, so do thou let all join in prayers for this man, *and restore him by imposition of hands* to his ancient place among the flock, as one purified by repentance; and that imposition of hands shall be to him instead of baptism:* for by the laying on of our hands the Holy Ghost was given to believers.*

----------


## TER

And some more...

AFTER WHAT MANNER FALSE ACCUSERS ARE TO BE PUNISHED.

XLIII. Thou shalt therefore cast him out of the congregation as a murderer of his brother. Some time afterwards, if he says that he repents, mortify him with fastings, and afterwards *ye shall lay your hands upon him* and receive him, but still securing him, that he does not disturb anybody a second time. But if, when he is admitted again, he be alike troublesome, and will not cease to disturb and to quarrel with his brother, spying faults out of a contentious spirit, cast him out as a pernicious person, that he may not lay waste the Church of God. For such a one is the raiser of disturbances in cities; for he, though he be within, does not become the Church, but is a superfluous and vain member, casting a blot, as far as in him lies, on the body of Christ.

----------


## erowe1

> Some more from the *Apostolic Constitutions*
> 
> AFTER WHAT MANNER WE OUGHT TO RECEIVE A PENITENT; HOW WE OUGHT TO DEAL WITH OFFENDERS, AND WHEN THEY ARE TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE CHURCH.
> 
> XLI. But if any one returns, and shows forth the fruit of repentance, then do ye receive him to prayer, as the lost son, the prodigal, who had consumed his father's substance with harlots, who fed swine, and desired to be fed with husks, and could not obtain it. This son, when he repented, and returned to his father, and said, "I have sinned against Heaven, and before thee, and am no more worthy to be called thy son;"  the father, full of affection to his child, received him with music, and restored him his old robe, and ring, and shoes, and slew the fatted calf, and made merry with his friends. Do thou therefore, O bishop, act in the same manner. And as thou receivest an heathen after thou hast instructed and baptized him, so do thou let all join in prayers for this man, *and restore him by imposition of hands* to his ancient place among the flock, as one purified by repentance; and that imposition of hands shall be to him instead of baptism:* for by the laying on of our hands the Holy Ghost was given to believers.*


Notice that that is not talking about ordaining anyone to any kind of office within the Church.

----------


## erowe1

> And some more...
> 
> AFTER WHAT MANNER FALSE ACCUSERS ARE TO BE PUNISHED.
> 
> XLIII. Thou shalt therefore cast him out of the congregation as a murderer of his brother. Some time afterwards, if he says that he repents, mortify him with fastings, and afterwards *ye shall lay your hands upon him* and receive him, but still securing him, that he does not disturb anybody a second time. But if, when he is admitted again, he be alike troublesome, and will not cease to disturb and to quarrel with his brother, spying faults out of a contentious spirit, cast him out as a pernicious person, that he may not lay waste the Church of God. For such a one is the raiser of disturbances in cities; for he, though he be within, does not become the Church, but is a superfluous and vain member, casting a blot, as far as in him lies, on the body of Christ.


Notice that that is not about ordination for any office in the Church and that it also doesn't mention and transference of the Holy Spirit.

----------


## erowe1

> From an earlier source, the *Apostolic Constitutions*


Earlier than what?

The Apostolic Constitutions, despite the name, are not very early.

----------


## TER

> Notice that that is not talking about ordaining anyone to any kind of office within the Church.


Yes, I understand that the laying of the hands served more than one purpose. In fact, when I was married it happened, when I go to confession it happens.  I am simply trying to explain to you that in the ordaining of the clergy, it happens through the rite of ordination requiring the laying of the hands.  You, still, somehow, are not convinced and honestly no matter how many writings I can find from the limited ones we have in the first centuries you will not be convinced!

I mean, St. Ignatius who was the Bishop of Antioch while Apostles still lived speaks about the three ordained orders of clergy, namely the Bishop, the Priest, and the Deacon.  But that is too late for you!  And plus, his writings are not part of the Canon!  That only shows you to have made an idol of the Scriptures (or better yet, your mind's interpretation of the Scriptures) and know little about the Church's goal with regards to the Canon of the Holy Bible.

----------


## TER

> Notice that that is not about ordination for any office in the Church and that it also doesn't mention and transference of the Holy Spirit.


Notice how you ignore this verse above:

From an earlier source, the *Apostolic Constitutions*

THAT THE DEACON MUST NOT MAKE ANY DISTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BISHOP, BECAUSE THAT WILL TURN TO THE REPROACH OF THE BISHOP.

XXXII. If therefore, O deacon, thou knowest any one to be in distress, put the bishop in mind of him, and so give to him; but do nothing in a clandestine way, so as may tend to his reproach, lest thou raise a murmur against him; for the murmur will not be against him, but against the Lord God: and the deacon, with the rest, will hear what Aaron and Miriam heard, when they spake against Moses: "How is it that ye were not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" And again, Moses says to those who rose up against him: "Your murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord our God."

For if he that calls one of the laity Raka, or fool, shall not be unpunished, as doing injury to the name of Christ, h*ow dare any man speak against his bishop, by whom the Lord gave the Holy Spirit among you upon the laying on of his hands*, by whom ye have learned the sacred doctrines, and have known God, and have believed in Christ, by whom ye were known of God, by whom ye were sealed with the oil of gladness and the ointment of understanding, by whom ye were declared to be the children of light, by whom the Lord in your illumination testified by the imposition of the bishop's hands, and sent out His sacred voice upon every one of you, saying, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?" By thy bishop, O man, God adopts thee for His child. Acknowledge, O son, that right hand which was a mother to thee. Love him who, after God, is become a father to thee, and honour him. 


Can't wait to see some more of your mental gymnastics!!

----------


## TER

> Earlier than what?
> 
> The Apostolic Constitutions, despite the name, are not very early.


Perhaps to you! 

  What is definitely early, however, are many if not most of the traditions they are referencing or building upon.  

But because you suffer from Sola Scripturianism (a deadly form of dementia), you reject it because it wasn't written by St. Luke in the Book of Acts.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Notice how you ignore this verse above:
> 
> From an earlier source, the *Apostolic Constitutions*
> 
> THAT THE DEACON MUST NOT MAKE ANY DISTRIBUTIONS WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE BISHOP, BECAUSE THAT WILL TURN TO THE REPROACH OF THE BISHOP.
> 
> XXXII. If therefore, O deacon, thou knowest any one to be in distress, put the bishop in mind of him, and so give to him; but do nothing in a clandestine way, so as may tend to his reproach, lest thou raise a murmur against him; for the murmur will not be against him, but against the Lord God: and the deacon, with the rest, will hear what Aaron and Miriam heard, when they spake against Moses: "How is it that ye were not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?" And again, Moses says to those who rose up against him: "Your murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord our God."
> 
> For if he that calls one of the laity Raka, or fool, shall not be unpunished, as doing injury to the name of Christ, h*ow dare any man speak against his bishop, by whom the Lord gave the Holy Spirit among you upon the laying on of his hands*, by whom ye have learned the sacred doctrines, and have known God, and have believed in Christ, by whom ye were known of God, by whom ye were sealed with the oil of gladness and the ointment of understanding, by whom ye were declared to be the children of light, by whom the Lord in your illumination testified by the imposition of the bishop's hands, and sent out His sacred voice upon every one of you, saying, "Thou art my son, this day have I begotten thee?" By thy bishop, O man, God adopts thee for His child. Acknowledge, O son, that right hand which was a mother to thee. Love him who, after God, is become a father to thee, and honour him. 
> ...



Here's my gymnastics:  None of this garbage is mentioned in the Scriptures,  so it means less than nothing.   In my humble opinion, it shows how the devil is so intent upon bringing the traditions of man into the religion of the world, and tearing men away from the pristine words of God.

----------


## TER

> Here's my gymnastics:  None of this garbage is mentioned in the Scriptures,  so it means less than nothing.   In my humble opinion, it shows how the devil is so intent upon bringing the traditions of man into the religion of the world, and tearing men away from the pristine words of God.


Yes, I understand Sola.  You are a Solo Scripturist.  I get it.  I'm am speaking with erowe now who claims to not be one (even though he is one).  So please leave and go start a thread on how 'world doesn't mean world' or 'all doesn't mean all' if you haven't done so yet this week.

----------


## TER

This* one is from the year 215 AD

The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus*

1 We have set forth as was necessary that part of the discourse which relates to the 
spiritual gifts, all that God, right from the beginning, granted to people according to his will, 
bringing back to himself this image which had gone astray.

2Now, driven by love towards all the saints, we have arrived at the essence of the tradition 
which is proper for the Churches. 3This is so that those who are well informed may keep the 
tradition which has lasted until now, according to the explanation we give of it, and so that 
others by taking note of it may be strengthened 4(against the fall or error which has recently 
occurred because of ignorance and ignorant people), 5with the Holy Spirit conferring perfect 
grace on those who have a correct faith, and so that they will know that those who are at the 
head of the Church must teach and guard all these things.

2 *He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people,* must be irreproachable. 
2When his name is announced and approved, the people will gather on the Lord's day with the 
council of elders and the bishops who are present. 3With the assent of all, *the bishops will place 
their hands upon him*, with the council of elders standing by, quietly. 4Everyone will keep silent, 
praying in their hearts *for the descent of the Spirit*. 5After this, one of the bishops present, at the 
request of all, *shall lay his hand upon him who is being ordained bishop*, and pray, saying,


3 God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Father of mercies and God of all consolation,
you who live in the highest, but regard the lowest,
you who know all things before they are,
2you who gave the rules of the Church through the word of your grace,
who predestined from the beginning the race of the righteous through Abraham,
who instituted princes and priests,
and did not leave your sanctuary without a minister;
who from the beginning of the world has been pleased
to be glorified by those whom you have chosen,
3pour out upon him the power which is from you, the princely Spirit,
which you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ,
which he gave to your holy apostles,
who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary,
for the glory and endless praise of your name.

4Grant, Father who knows the heart,
to your servant whom you chose for the episcopate, that he will feed your holy flock,
that he will wear your high priesthood without reproach,
serving night and day, incessantly making your face favorable,
and offering the gifts of your holy church;
5in the spirit of high priesthood having the power to forgive sins according to your command;
to assign lots according to your command;
to loose any bond according to the authority which you gave to the apostles;
to please you in mildness and a pure heart, offering to you a sweet scent,
6through your son Jesus Christ,
through whom to you be glory, power, and honor,
Father and Son,
with the Holy Spirit,
in the Holy Church,
now and throughout the ages of the ages.
Amen.

----------


## TER

erowe, I want to thank you publicly for this discussion.  It has been, admittedly, tense at times, but I think profitable.  You are a worthy and clever debate partner who makes me work harder to learn the truth.  You are a teacher to me and I thank you.

I don't want to go into Lent (in a few hours) with negative energy existing between us.  

If you insist on debating this topic some more, than I will oblige out of duty to the Church and my love for the truth, but I am happy to let it rest for now and let us focus our attention to repentance this Lenten season.  I hope and pray in time we might grow in the unity of the faith and of the mind of the Church.  Every road is different, and some take sharp turns, but God is with us always and His Spirit there to guide us.  All we must do is love Him and our neighbor and in humility, faith, and obedience, pray for the unity of all.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> erowe, I want to thank you publicly for this discussion.  It has been, admittedly, tense at times, but I think profitable.  You are a worthy and clever debate partner who makes me work harder to learn the truth.  You are a teacher to me and I thank you.
> 
> I don't want to go into Lent (in a few hours) with negative energy existing between us.  
> 
> If you insist on debating this topic some more, than I will oblige out of duty to the Church and my love for the truth, but I am happy to let it rest for now and let us focus our attention to repentance this Lenten season.  I hope and pray in time we might grow in the unity of the faith and of the mind of the Church.  Every road is different, and some take sharp turns, but God is with us always and His Spirit there to guide us.  All we must do is love Him and our neighbor and in humility, faith, and obedience, pray for the unity of all.



Where does the Bible say to celebrate "lent"?

----------


## Olaf

> Where does the Bible say to celebrate "lent"?


Where does the Bible say you should post on internet forums?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where does the Bible say you should post on internet forums?





> Mark 16:15
> He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.


Now, where is the command to celebrate lent?

----------


## Olaf

> Now, where is the command to celebrate lent?


I don't see you preaching, just putting words in others mouths. What does the Bible say about lying?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't see you preaching, just putting words in others mouths. What does the Bible say about lying?


Why do people come in to the religion threads when they have no idea what is going on?  I intentionally stay out of threads where I have no idea what is going on.  I just read them and hold my tongue.  Why is this different?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Now, where is the command to celebrate lent?


Where is the command (or even suggestion) to celebrate Christmas?

----------


## Olaf

> Why do people come in to the religion threads when they have no idea what is going on?  I intentionally stay out of threads where I have no idea what is going on.  I just read them and hold my tongue.  Why is this different?


Why don't you intentionally stay out of threads and hold your tongue where the only posts you're going to make are putting words into another person's mouth and giving their post a meaning contrary to what they were trying to say? (this is usually called lying)

----------


## Olaf

> Where is the command (or even suggestion) to celebrate Christmas?


Sola Fide isn't found in the Bible yet he seems to follow that dogma (I assume that because of his screen name). So I don't get why he's criticizing people for celebrating Lent, which perhaps not explicitly talked about in the Bible doesn't go against its teachings the way Sola Fide (the dogma, not the forum member) does.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Where is the command (or even suggestion) to celebrate Christmas?


I'm pretty sure Sola thinks that celebrating Christmas at all is immoral, because it was originally a pagan holiday and the regulative principle and so forth.  Its one of his positions that I believe is legalistic.

And really, I probably think the same about lent.  I don't celebrate it, I wasn't brought up in that tradition, but I know other people who do (even some Bible believing Protestants) and its really not an issue for me so long as you don't judge others on matters that don't matter, per Romans 14:5 and Christian liberty.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake, the topic I was discussing with erowe for the past few pages has everything to do with historical truths.  The topic was about the apostolic tradition of ordaining clergy and how this was continued by the early Church.  Studying the Scriptures AND the historical writings and practices of the early Church play an important role in the discussion.


That has *absolutely no relevance* to the discussion I was having with fishamour.  Sorry, but it makes no sense for you to inject yourself into a sub-thread that had nothing to do with history and then talk about "Well you don't understand the history."  Again, fisharmour was talking about his bad experience in the Lutheran church and why he left it to go to the Eastern Orthodox church and he implied that his bad experience was because the Lutheran church was "Sola Scriptura."  Now if you will check yourself, and take a breather, you will understand why nothing else you have said in response to me makes any sense.

As for my "Protestant upbringing" making me not understand the "pesky facts", the "pesky fact" that you refuse to even acknowledge is that the apostles looked for men who were already filled with the Holy Spirit as opposed to finding men that didn't have the Holy Spirit and laying hands on them to give them the Spirit in the process of them becoming deacons.  You can't erase one "pesky fact" by adding in other "pesky facts."  Sorry to break that to you.

And note that I never said that St. Nickolas entire life was a failure.  How bales of straw did you use to build that man?  I said *that* particular act was a failure.  And, as I recall, you seemed to praise him for doing it when you brought it up.  If I'm wrong about that, I apologize, but that's the way you came across.  Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the high priests servant's ear.  Most Christians look at that as a failure on Peter's part, even though it was one that Jesus immediately forgave him for doing.

And lastly, the idea that someone having a table up with books about their faith on public property is "provocative" is asinine.  That is the very spirit that leads to persecution in the first place.  I agreed with Pope Francis that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons were provocative in that they portrayed Mohammed as being a gay porn star.  But if this had been Christians attacked for merely having Christian books on display across the street from a mosque I do not think any reasonable person would call that a provocation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where is the command (or even suggestion) to celebrate Christmas?


There isn't one.  A Christian shouldn't celebrate the Christ Mass.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why don't you intentionally stay out of threads and hold your tongue where the only posts you're going to make are putting words into another person's mouth and giving their post a meaning contrary to what they were trying to say? (this is usually called lying)


Sir, you don't know what you are talking about.  Not only did I not put words into anyone's mouth, but I quoted the person who said what I said they said.

----------


## pcosmar

> Where is the command (or even suggestion) to celebrate Christmas?


Nowhere.




> A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one's birth.





> The end of a matter is better than its beginning, and patience is better than pride.


Christmas is full of distortion and lies. 
I do remember the Birth of Christ,, and participate in Christmas out of respect for others.. But it is nothing really.

----------


## jmdrake

> Back that up, jmdrake: it wasn't a problem with _my_ Lutheran church.  Nobody in this conversation should assume I was the target of the bad experience (I was not), nor that I did not take it to levels above the congregation (I did, in a team along with others), nor that it was a minor matter (it was over an excommunication done for reasons which were never openly stated, even to those who were excommunicated), nor that I was not actually defending Sola Scriptura at the time (I was).
> 
> I did not leave because one Lutheran church did something horrible.  I am well familiar with the fact that individual congregations do horrible things on a regular basis.
> I left because when I took this to higher levels, I got told by the higher levels exactly what we are telling you is the primary problem with Sola Scriptura: _Every congregation is free to work out their own issues, because ultimately there is no authority to judge anything they are doing._


First off, when I said "your Lutheran church" I wasn't meaning "your local congregation".  I know enough about Lutherans to know that in the U.S. thre are at least two branches, Lutheran church Missouri Synod and Evangelical Lutherans.  And there are multiple versions of the Orthodox church, (Russian, Greek, Ethiopian etc), and they don't believe the exact same things.  Also you are mistakenly equating sola scriptura with lack of hierarchy.  Or rather lack of a result in a particular instance.  From what you described there was indeed hierarchy, as you took it to a higher branch, but you didn't get the result you wanted.  Guess what?  That happens in churches that don't subscribe to sola scriptura.  I didn't bring this example up since you Orthodox and not Catholic, but since you are making this about sola scriptura, and EO and RCC believe the same on this regard, the example fits.  With the pedophile priest scandal the problem was taken up the hierarchy all the way to the Vatican and *nothing was done*.  Priests were transferred to other parishes where the molested other children.  So simply "appealing to hierarchy" is not enough.

By contrast, at least in the Seventh Day Adventist church, there is a check and balance going up the hierarchy.  While I'm not a fan of hierarchy in general, it does exist.  We had a situation where a conference president (over churches in several states) put the entire conference in legal and financial difficulty due to some unfortunate decisions he made.  He ended up resigning after a no confidence vote from the representatives sent from each local church.  Each church was able to send delegates that included the pastor and a number of regular members based on the membership size.  Yes there was someone there from higher up the hierarchy (North American Division), but his attendance was not at all determinate of the outcome.  Something like the pedophile priest, where major crimes are committed and the hierarchy is notified and nothing is done, simply can't happen in some churches because the regular members would revolt and they have the tools to do so.




> 1. If that means that individual congregations are going to have clown communion, or give the Eucharist to dogs, then that's A-OK.
> 2. If that means that individual congregations are going to elect abortion doctors as their president, then that's A-OK.
> 3. If that means that individual congregations are going to excommunicate people who speak their minds in meetings, then that's A-OK.


I took the liberty of numbering the above list for better discussion.  Do you have any example of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod allowing 1 and 2?  If so please provide a reference.  Note that I didn't say the evangelical Lutherans because that's a much more liberal organization.  As for point #3, Lutheranism got started because Luther was excommunicated.  And Huss and Jerome were Catholics that the Catholic church burned at the stake for speaking their mind.  So....I'm not at all sure why you are linking that to sola scriptura.




> And when someone patiently confronts them with Scripture to point out that these things are abhorrent, they can fall back on the exact thing you guys have done in this thread: _Well, everyone has a different interpretation of the Gospel, and I'm sorry yours doesn't line up with ours._


If that's what you think then you have grossly misunderstood this thread and grossly misunderstood the history of the very non sola scriptura tradition you now love so much.  I'm pointing *to* scripture when I say that Stephen was already filled with the Holy Spirit *before* he was ordained as a deacon.  TER apparently believes it is the laying on of hands at ordination that imparts the Holy Spirit.  And he's appealing to "church history" to make that case.  It's not that everyone thinks every interpretation of scripture is okay.  It's that those of us that don't agree with you don't believe that scripture can be turned on its head simply because of some argument made, not from scripture, but from "church history."  Church history is fine for filling in the gaps for things we don't know about.  The Bible doesn't say what happened to Paul, but I accept that he was beheaded in Rome.  That bit of church history doesn't go against scripture.  





> And if something truly awful happens to someone in my parish, and if I take it up the chain of command, and I get politely told to go $#@! myself again, then I will leave Orthodoxy, too.


Cool.  I'm glad the hierarchy that you are in so far hasn't pissed you off.  (Seriously).  But that has nothing to do with sola scriptura.  




> But the difference is, Sola Scriptura doesn't ask anything of its adherents.  You can be on any particular side of the predestination debate, but the bottom line is, if you're in the Sola Scriptura crowd, then your faith asks precisely nothing of you.
> It does not ask you for repentance.
> It does not ask you to forgive.
> It does not ask you to love.


That is simply not true.  Not unless you believe the Bible doesn't teach you to repent or to forgive or to love.  It was a non sola scriptura tradition that allowed Catholics to kill Orthodox Christians during one of the crusades and believe they were doing God a favor.




> Oh, of course it pays lip service to all these things, but when the rubber meets the road, it all goes out the window and things get real Earthly and pragmatic, because taking a stand on any of that means putting the Jesus-themed social club in jeopardy.
> 
> You can't go from Jesus-themed social club to an organization that takes forgiveness and repentance seriously in the snap of your fingers.  If you're not doing it every Sunday, at the very least, then it is quite simply a foreign concept.  This is why people get chewed up and spit out of protestant congregations.  This is why there are 30,000 protestant denominations and counting.


No it's not.  But feel free to believe what you wish to believe.  That said, from what you've described you would have left the Catholic Church after the pedophile priest scandal broke (and I wouldn't blame you), so you would have left a non sola scriptura church for the same reason you left a sola scriptura church.  As I said from jump, you're mistaking your own personal experience for a bigger picture that may or may not exist.  




> So yeah, if it happens in my parish, I'll leave.  But I have more faith in Orthodoxy than to assume it will happen.  Because it is a faith which involves practice, taming of the flesh, taming of the passions, multiple somatic components - it asks us to do something.  So I can but assume that when asked to forgive, or to repent, its adherents will react a bit differently than Sola Scriptura Christians, who have been told their whole lives that they are the ultimate arbiters of right and wrong, and that there is no authority over them.
> 
> 
> And as I've already insinuated, vehicles are really only good ideas if they are capable of moving.


True.  And there are people in every church that are moving in the direction of heaven and people who are not.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There isn't one.  A Christian shouldn't celebrate the Christ Mass.


Romans 14:5.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 14:5.


Do you know what the Mass means?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Do you know what the Mass means?


I'm not talking about the Roman Catholic Mass (though I suspect you are.)  I'm talking about Christmas as a holiday.  Most Protestants who celebrate Christmas are doing so in order to celebrate the birth of Christ.  It has nothing to do with the mass.  While the Bible certainly does not command celebration of Christmas, it does not condemn it either, so its up to the individual whether they want to celebrate or not.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> And there are multiple versions of the Orthodox church, (Russian,  Greek, Ethiopian etc), and they don't believe the exact same things


This is incorrect.  All the Patriarchates are in communion with one another and hold all important matters in common (doctrine, dogma, etc).  You'll find differences in hymnody (some use Russian style, others Byzantine, etc) and general style of speaking pastors use, but that's it.  My godmother, for example, occasionally attends a local Russian Orthodox Church, even though her primary/home church is Antiochian.

 Hence, it is called "catholic"-in the literal sense-"universal".  The only exception I can think of is the Oriental Orthodox Church, which is schismatic.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> What does the Bible say about lying?



Speaking of that--why don't you share why you're on this site posting all kinds of trolling nonsense.

----------


## Olaf

> Speaking of that--why don't you share why you're on this site posting all kinds of trolling nonsense.


So supporting scientific progress which benefits mankind and saves million of lives is trolling?

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> So supporting scientific progress which benefits mankind and saves million of lives is trolling?


Oh, so THAT's why you're here.  Don't know how I missed that.

----------


## Olaf

> Oh, so THAT's why you're here.  Don't know how I missed that.


No, I'm here because I support Rand. Unlike his kooky father, he's a smart and rational man with an amazing ability to unite people from across the political and demographic spectrum behind the cause of liberty. He has a great chance of becoming the next POTUS and I want to he part of that.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> No, I'm here because I support Rand. Unlike his kooky father, he's a smart and rational man with an amazing ability to unite people from across the political and demographic spectrum behind the cause of liberty. He has a great chance of becoming the next POTUS and I want to he part of that.






Well, it looks like your support of this forum's second most dubious character ain't been a good start for you:




> Wow, PRB completely owned this thread. Great posts!

----------


## Olaf

> Well, it looks like your support of this forum's second most dubious character ain't been a good start for you:


PRB, from what I've seen, is a fantastic poster.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> PRB, from what I've seen, is a fantastic poster.


LOL.  That's because you ARE prb.  Don't forget to continue to + rep your new account every five minutes like you've been doing.

----------


## Olaf

> LOL.  That's because you ARE prb.  Don't forget to continue to + rep your new account every five minutes like you've been doing.


No, I'm not him.

And what is + rep?

----------


## Traditionalist

> It was a non sola scriptura tradition that allowed Catholics to kill Orthodox Christians during one of the crusades and believe they were doing God a favor.




The Crusades against the East were in response to the Byzantines persecuting Western Christians. Ironically, if the West had been successful in keeping Constantinople it may have never fallen into Islamic hands.

----------


## NorthCarolinaLiberty

> PRB, from what I've seen, is a fantastic poster.


Seeing as how you both have negative rep bars now--I'll just consider the source.

----------


## jmdrake

> This is incorrect.  All the Patriarchates are in communion with one another and hold all important matters in common (doctrine, dogma, etc).  You'll find differences in hymnody (some use Russian style, others Byzantine, etc) and general style of speaking pastors use, but that's it.  My godmother, for example, occasionally attends a local Russian Orthodox Church, even though her primary/home church is Antiochian.
> 
>  Hence, it is called "catholic"-in the literal sense-"universal".  The only exception I can think of is the Oriental Orthodox Church, which is schismatic.


The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has books in its cannon that the Greek Orthodox church does not.  So that's not the same belief even if you want to believe that it is.  Their core beliefs may be the same, but again this thread is "Sola Scriptura" and for these churches to be the same on this point they would have to have the same cannon.

----------


## Olaf

> The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has books in its cannon that the Greek Orthodox church does not.  So that's not the same belief even if you want to believe that it is.  Their core beliefs may be the same, but again this thread is "Sola Scriptura" and for these churches to be the same on this point they would have to have the same cannon.


The Ethiopian and Greek Churches are not in communion with one another and haven't been since the 4th century. they don't claim to believe the same things or have the same canon because they don't!

----------


## jmdrake

> The Ethiopian and Greek Churches are not in communion with one another and haven't been since the 4th century. they don't claim to believe the same things or have the same canon because they don't!


Thanks!  And now you know what a +rep is because I just gave you one.    Click the "*" next to "Blog this post" if you want to give a plus rep (or a neg rep).

----------


## erowe1

> The Crusades against the East were in response to the Byzantines persecuting Western Christians. Ironically, if the West had been successful in keeping Constantinople it may have never fallen into Islamic hands.


Yeah, if Constantinople had just tolerated being ruled by a distant regime it wouldn't have ended up being ruled by a distant regime.

----------


## Ronin Truth

Is the splintering and fragmentation a clue and a hint to the Satanic corruption?

----------


## jmdrake

> The Crusades against the East were in response to the Byzantines persecuting Western Christians. Ironically, if the West had been successful in keeping Constantinople it may have never fallen into Islamic hands.


So basically you'res saying the Eastern Orthodox church was just as corrupt as the Roman Catholic church.  Okay.  Protestantism FTW!

----------


## jmdrake

> Yeah, if Constantinople had just tolerated being ruled by a distant regime it wouldn't have ended up being ruled by a distant regime.


And that's the basic thinking behind western imperialism today.  We had to destroy that village in order to save it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is the splintering and fragmentation a clue and a hint to the Satanic corruption?


Yes, on both sides.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> So basically you'res saying the Eastern Orthodox church was just as corrupt as the Roman Catholic church.  Okay*.  Protestantism FTW*!


lolz

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The Ethiopian Orthodox Church has books in its cannon that the Greek Orthodox church does not.  So that's not the same belief even if you want to believe that it is.  Their core beliefs may be the same, but again this thread is "Sola Scriptura" and for these churches to be the same on this point they would have to have the same cannon.


Yup, I didn't claim otherwise.  The Ethiopian Church is Oriental.  Nobody claims it to be a patriarchate of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches



> *Oriental Orthodox* 			 			 			 								 				 				 								 				(Redirected from Oriental Orthodox Churches)
>  				 																 				 				 								 				The term _Oriental Orthodox_ refers to the churches of Eastern Christian traditions that keep the faith of only the first three Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church—the councils of Nicea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus.  The Oriental Orthodox churches rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451). 
> Thus, despite potentially confusing nomenclature, Oriental  Orthodox churches are distinct from the churches that collectively are  referred to as _Eastern Orthodoxy_. 
> The Oriental Orthodox churches came to a parting of the ways with the remainder of Christianity in the 5th century.  The separation resulted in part from the Oriental Orthodox churches' refusal to accept the Christological dogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus Christ is in two natures — one divine and one human, although these were inseparable.  To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, this was tantamount to accepting Nestorianism.  In response, they advocated a formula that stressed unity of the Incarnation  over all other considerations, that being "one nature of God the Word  Incarnate", "of/from two natures" in and after the union.  The Oriental  Orthodox churches are therefore often called "Monophysite" churches, although they reject this label, which is associated with Eutychian Monophysitism, preferring the term _non-Chalcedonian_ or _Miaphysite_ churches.  Oriental Orthodox Christians anathematize the Monophysite teachings of Eutyches.  They are sometimes also known as _anti-Chalcedonians_. 
> In the 20th century, a number of dialogues have occurred between  the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian Orthodox which revealed that  both communions now share a common Christology with differing terminology. As yet, full communion has not been restored. There have also been some agreed Christological statements issued in conjunction with the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) family (Ecumenical Patriarchate and official representatives of other Eastern Orthodox Churches) [1]. 
> *Oriental Orthodox Churches* 
> *Churches of the Oriental
> Orthodox Communion* 
> 
> ...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yup, I didn't claim otherwise.  The Ethiopian Church is Oriental.  Nobody claims it to be a patriarchate of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
> http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox_Churches


Who cares?  Why not reject this churchianity and turn to the Lord and be saved by trusting in Him ALONE for salvation?   You care about being saved from God's wrath against your sin right?

----------


## TER

> [COLOR=#111111]
> 
> The Crusades against the East were in response to the Byzantines persecuting Western Christians. Ironically, if the West had been successful in keeping Constantinople it may have never fallen into Islamic hands.


That's a remarkable thing to say, when it was Byzantium that kept the Muslims at bay for almost a thousand years from coming in from the East and taking over the West.  In fact, many historians believe it was the sacking of Constantinople which paved the way for the eventual Ottoman Empire to make headway into Europe from the East.

It's unfortunate that as a Catholic you do not see how disproportionate the two tragedies are.  But at least your Popes in recent time have acknowledged it and asked for forgiveness on behalf of the Catholic Church.  Those are the Christians who will help heal the scars left over by the 4th Crusades, not the ones going around trying to justify the sacking of the greatest Christian city at the time as you are trying to do.  For shame that you chose the first day of Orthodox Lent to pick at scabs, and it has revealed more about your disposition than any of the other posts you have made here so far.

With that, I am finished discussing the 4th Crusade with you and you may have the last word.

----------


## TER

> Is the splintering and fragmentation a clue and a hint to the Satanic corruption?


If Christ prayed on the night He was betrayed for the unity of all in God, so that they may be one, then it is very reasonable to say that splintering and fragmentation is a clue and hint to Satanic corruption.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's a remarkable thing to say, when it was Byzantium that kept the Muslims at bay for almost a thousand years from coming in from the East and taking over the West.  In fact, many historians believe it was the sacking of Constantinople which paved the way for the eventual Ottoman Empire to make headway into Europe from the East.
> 
> It's unfortunate that as a Catholic you do not see how disproportionate the two tragedies are.  But at least your Popes in recent time have acknowledged it and asked for forgiveness on behalf of the Catholic Church.  Those are the Christians who will help heal the scars left over by the 4th Crusades, not the ones going around trying to justify the sacking of the greatest Christian city at the time as you are trying to do.  For shame that you chose the first day of Orthodox Lent to pick at scabs, and it has revealed more about your disposition than any of the other posts you have made here so far.
> 
> With that, I am finished discussing the 4th Crusade with you and you may have the last word.


Look at these worldly disputes about war.  Can you imagine something farther away from Christianity than fights about what church did what thing in some war?

The Bible rejects this worldly, murderous charade.   Jesus said if His kingdom was from this world then his followers would fight as the world fights.  Christianity rejects all of this.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's a remarkable thing to say, when it was Byzantium that kept the Muslims at bay for almost a thousand years from coming in from the East and taking over the West.  In fact, many historians believe it was the sacking of Constantinople which paved the way for the eventual Ottoman Empire to make headway into Europe from the East.
> 
> It's unfortunate that as a Catholic you do not see how disproportionate the two tragedies are.  But at least your Popes in recent time have acknowledged it and asked for forgiveness on behalf of the Catholic Church.  Those are the Christians who will help heal the scars left over by the 4th Crusades, not the ones going around trying to justify the sacking of the greatest Christian city at the time as you are trying to do.  For shame that you chose the first day of Orthodox Lent to pick at scabs, and it has revealed more about your disposition than any of the other posts you have made here so far.
> 
> With that, I am finished discussing the 4th Crusade with you and you may have the last word.


For what it's worth, I actually watched Traditinalists video and it doesn't back up his claims.  The cliff notes of the video is that the 4th crusade was a result of the crusaders choosing to back a supposedly legitimate claim to the Byzantine throne for which the claimant promised to provide money and soldiers for the crusade against Egypt but that all went to hell in a handbasket when their Byzantine ally was killed after being briefly installed on the throne.  IMO that's just the natural results of trying to use war to further the Lord's work.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

~withdrawn due to error~

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Could be.  Could also be intended to be by God.


Ahhhhh...now you're on the right track HB.

----------


## TER

> Could be.  Could also be intended to be by God.


The sword Christ is mentioning has to do with our warfare against Satan and evil, and the division and persecutions which would occur on account of people following Christ and joining His Body, the Church.  It does not mean it is God's good will that there be schisms and divisions amongst the Churches, but rather, as Christ prayed in Gethesemane, the Lord's will (which is too the Father's will) is that they would all be one.  Likewise, St. Paul and the other Apostles traveled far and wide to instruct the churches to be of one mind and one faith, that there may not be divisions amongst them, and to hold onto the teachings and traditions handed down to them by Apostles.  Splintering and schisms are on account of the evil in this world and the devil trying to destroy the unity of the baptized Body of Christ.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> The sword Christ is mentioning has to do with our warfare against Satan and evil, and the division and persecutions which would occur on account of people following Christ and joining His Body, the Church.  It does not mean it is God's good will that there be schisms and divisions amongst the Churches, but rather, as Christ prayed in Gethesemane, the Lord's will (which is too the Father's will) is that they would all be one.  Likewise, St. Paul and the other Apostles traveled far and wide to instruct the churches to be of one mind and one faith, that there may not be divisions amongst them, and to hold onto the teachings and traditions handed down to them by Apostles.  Splintering and schisms are on account of the evil in this world and the devil trying to destroy the unity of the baptized Body of Christ.


I just checked my study bible, and you're right.  Previous comment withdrawn. ~hugs~

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The sword Christ is mentioning has to do with our warfare against Satan and evil, and the division and persecutions which would occur on account of people following Christ and joining His Body, the Church.  It does not mean it is God's good will that there be schisms and divisions amongst the Churches, but rather, as Christ prayed in Gethesemane, the Lord's will (which is too the Father's will) is that they would all be one.  Likewise, St. Paul and the other Apostles traveled far and wide to instruct the churches to be of one mind and one faith, that there may not be divisions amongst them, and to hold onto the teachings and traditions handed down to them by Apostles.  Splintering and schisms are on account of the evil in this world and the devil trying to destroy the unity of the baptized Body of Christ.


There's no division among Christians.    Every Christian believes the same thing about Jesus and salvation.   The warring man made churches you defend have nothing to do with Christianity or Jesus.

----------


## fisharmor

> I know enough about Lutherans to know that in the U.S. thre are at least two branches, Lutheran church Missouri Synod and Evangelical Lutherans.


By "Evangelical Lutherans" I take it you mean the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), which is the largest "Lutheran" body in the US.  It is the most liberal.  I previously belonged to LCMS which is the second largest.
There are at least dozens in total and probably hundreds, and each exists for the very reason I'm highlighting: there is no doctrinal oversight of any of the Lutheran bodies.
When a disagreement occurs, there is no teaching on the matter other than perhaps what can be done in a standard 2-minute presentation at a voters' assembly. Then it's put to a show of hands, and the majority wins.  The minority can suck eggs or take a hike.  So they either suck eggs, join one of the other synods, form a new one if they're feeling industrious, or, once in a while, they wise up and realize that this is a systemic problem within protestantism in general, which is not isolated to Lutheranism.

For your edification, the third largest is the Wysconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) which is known as being the most "conservative", and by "conservative" it is meant that they don't allow women to vote in their assemblies.  In other words, the false holy tradition they follow (each church has one whether you want to recognize it or not) manifests itself in ways that are ugly to the casual observer who isn't carrying any of the group's baggage.




> From what you described there was indeed hierarchy, as you took it to a higher branch, but you didn't get the result you wanted.  Guess what?  That happens in churches that don't subscribe to sola scriptura.  I didn't bring this example up since you Orthodox and not Catholic, but since you are making this about sola scriptura, and EO and RCC believe the same on this regard, the example fits.  With the pedophile priest scandal the problem was taken up the hierarchy all the way to the Vatican and *nothing was done*​.  Priests were transferred to other parishes where the molested other children.  So simply "appealing to hierarchy" is not enough.


I understand what argument you're making, but I need to state outright that I do not carry Rome's baggage, that I am a casual observer, and that I therefore can see this for what it is.

I will simply say that no, the two are not the same, because there is no Orthodox Vatican.




> By contrast, at least in the Seventh Day Adventist church, there is a check and balance going up the hierarchy.


Ok I get where you're going (I would point out that your SDA issue seems to be poor money skills, which AFAIK is not really a sin, let alone a bad one) and I will refine my position.  I am not arguing in favor of hierarchy per se.  What I'll point out is that
1) There is always some hierarchy, even if it's just the church council or whoever it is who organizes keeping the lights on
2) The question then becomes how good a job that hierarchy does at nurturing and defending the true faith.

This was the real point of my earlier post.  Lutheranism does a horrible job at nurturing and defending faith (ELCA was where the abortion doctor welcomed with open arms: he may not have been the congregation president, it's been six years since I was reading on him).  I don't see Anglicanism doing a good job (clown and dog communion), nor Presbyterianism, nor Methodism, nor any other group claiming itself to be a church.  I see all of them flushing the faith down the toilet.  The point of my "list" of abuses was to show that this flushing of the faith is not isolated to LCMS.  It is pervasive within groups that claim Sola Scriptura - and also as I've already said, this is also why there are 30,000 denominations and counting.  Any one of these offenses will lead to other offenses, or will lead to a new fracture, or very likely both.




> As for point #3, Lutheranism got started because Luther was excommunicated.  And Huss and Jerome were Catholics that the Catholic church burned at the stake for speaking their mind.  So....I'm not at all sure why you are linking that to sola scriptura.


Again, not carrying Rome's baggage.  But none of them was excommunicated as the first response, none of them was not given a reason for their excommunication, and (again not carrying Rome's baggage, just calling it like it was) each of them would have been welcomed back to the RC if they recanted.  Excommunication is not and never was intended to be a permanent action (at least not until protestants got a hold of it).  It is simply withholding the Sacraments from those who refuse to recant a heresy.  

Again, not carrying Rome's baggage here.  I know there is plenty to pick apart in the preceding paragraph.  I already said we shall know them by their fruits.




> It's that those of us that don't agree with you don't believe that scripture can be turned on its head simply because of some argument made, not from scripture, but from "church history."


You should at some point recognize that you can't turn Holy Tradition on its head in order to make it into something that contradicts Scripture.




> Cool.  I'm glad the hierarchy that you are in so far hasn't pissed you off.  (Seriously).  But that has nothing to do with sola scriptura.


As I've already explained, yes, it has everything to do with Sola Scriptura.
The problem isn't the Scriptura - it's the Sola!
The common thread with all those protestant groups who ask nothing of their adherents is this.  They don't need to do any of it, as long as they have the Scriptures.
I'm not saying you believe this.  I'm not saying Sola Fide or FF believes this.  I'm just calling it like it is.
Its manifestation has already come up from Sola's keyboard in the last few days.  Lent?  LENT?  Works-righteousness devil worship, that is!
Can't possibly be useful.  Can't possibly teach anything about abstinence or help us focus our minds on what really matters.
It's a work, so to hell with it.




> That is simply not true.  Not unless you believe the Bible doesn't teach you to repent or to forgive or to love.  It was a non sola scriptura tradition that allowed Catholics to kill Orthodox Christians during one of the crusades and believe they were doing God a favor.


So, let me ask you a question: can you play the piano?
If not, I challenge you: go read a book on how to play the piano but _don't actually touch a piano._  Let me know how well your piano playing goes at your first recital.

You have a binary option there: either playing the piano is not something that the contents of that book alone can convey, or, the unthinkable - that playing the piano is something intangible and outside that book.  Playing the piano is not the contents of that book.  You actually have to do something to make it happen.

I've known an awful lot of people in the Sola Scriptura tradition (again, IT IS A TRADITION) who thought a lot about playing piano, owned more than a few books on playing piano... and stood up in front of a group of voters and took their two minutes to tell them that it was time to put things to a vote so we could all get past this proximate issue and get started on the next fracture.  The pianos were all banned some time between 1530 and 1600 or so, and it shows.




> so you would have left a non sola scriptura church for the same reason you left a sola scriptura church.  As I said from jump, you're mistaking your own personal experience for a bigger picture that may or may not exist.


And I repeat - none of this was my personal experience.  I would like to type more but I need to go back to work now.

----------


## Traditionalist

> So basically you'res saying the Eastern Orthodox church was just as corrupt as the Roman Catholic church.  Okay.  Protestantism FTW!



If by defending Western civiilization by attacking an invading Islamic force is "corrupt" then I would be glad to sit in that category. You can prefer a world full of conspiracy-tards and Libertardian Christians who live under Islamic rule, but I don't see the logic in that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If by defending Western civiilization by attacking an invading Islamic force is "corrupt" then I would be glad to sit in that category. You can prefer a world full of conspiracy-tards and Libertardian Christians who live under Islamic rule, but I don't see the logic in that.


"Libertardian"?  I reject your worldview of force and the Bible rejects it also:




> Christ said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now my kingdom is not from here.” 
> 
> It follows from this statement that those who fight to establish some earthly religious kingdom are not of Christ’s kingdom. 
> 
> The servants of Muhammad fight, just as Muhammad did, because his kingdom is of this world. The servants of the papacy fight, just as the popes do, for their kingdom is of this world. The servants (not children) of Abraham fight, just as the Maccabees fought, for their kingdom is of this world. 
> 
> - See more at: http://www.trinityfoundation.org/jou....FFhKGXtb.dpuf

----------


## Traditionalist

> "Libertardian"?  I reject your worldview of force and the Bible rejects it also:


Thankfully the Protestant empires of the colonial era didn't have such a pacifistic attitude, otherwise this nation itself wouldn't be formed. But I guess we're stepping into politics now.

----------


## Traditionalist

> That's a remarkable thing to say, when it was Byzantium that kept the Muslims at bay for almost a thousand years from coming in from the East and taking over the West.  In fact, many historians believe it was the sacking of Constantinople which paved the way for the eventual Ottoman Empire to make headway into Europe from the East.


I'm a Romanist, and I mean that in the sense of being a big fan of the Roman Empire. The Byzantine civilization was great, probably one of my favorite ever. But that doesn't deny the corruption and mismanagement that took place. I don't see what Byzantines holding off Muslims has to do with the massacre of the latins.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thankfully the Protestant empires of the colonial era didn't have such a pacifistic attitude, otherwise this nation itself wouldn't be formed. But I guess we're stepping into politics now.


You're right.  But you are assuming that "Protestant" means "Biblical Christian".  Also, you are assuming that all of the colonists were Christians to begin with, and that is obviously not true as well.

But to get it back to the question of the Bible, what do you think Jesus meant when He said this:



> *John 18:36
> 
> Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”*

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Thankfully the Protestant empires of the colonial era didn't have such a pacifistic attitude, *otherwise this nation itself wouldn't be formed.* But I guess we're stepping into politics now.


Sure it would've.  The US already existed with its own distinctive culture.  The "Founder Worshippers", as I call them over-romanticize that era and most of the people alive at the time.  When you look at it objectively, it's not nearly so pretty.  What the "Revolutionaries" did to Loyalists during the war was the kind of stuff we RPFers routinely criticize as war crimes and general crimes against humanity.

----------


## TER

> I'm a Romanist, and I mean that in the sense of being a big fan of the Roman Empire. The Byzantine civilization was great, probably one of my favorite ever. But that doesn't deny the corruption and mismanagement that took place. I don't see what Byzantines holding off Muslims has to do with the massacre of the latins.


I don't think I have seen anyone here defending the massacres of the Latins or proclaiming that the Eastern Roman Empire was not corrupt or mismanaged, so I don't think we have to think someone is denying it.  I just find it in bad taste to try to justify the Fourth Crusade and don't believe we should minimize the evils perpetrated in them, evils which were made possible by the actions of the Pope.  Pope John Paul II asked for forgiveness because, while the sacking of the Constantinople may have not been directly ordered by Pope Innocent III, it was facilitated by the Papal promises of glory, indulgences and forgiveness of monetary debts, tactics which he campaigned for and used to attract enlistees into the ranks who were not there for a holy cause and defend Christendom, but as a means to rape, pillage, and destroy.  The Pope played with fire, and Constantinople burned for it. The Bishop should be proclaiming the Gospel as the shepherd of the flock and not playing the role of Commander and Chief of armies.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> I don't think I have seen anyone here defending the massacres of the Latins or proclaiming that the Eastern Roman Empire was not corrupt or mismanaged, so I don't think we have to think someone is denying it. I just find it in bad taste to try to justify the Fourth Crusade and don't believe we should minimize the evils perpetrated in them, evils which were made possible by the actions of the Pope. Pope John Paul II asked for forgiveness because, while the sacking of the Constantinople may have not been directly ordered by Pope Innocent III, it was facilitated by the Papal promises of glory, indulgences and forgiveness of monetary debts, tactics which he campaigned for and used to attract enlistees into the ranks who were not there for a holy cause and defend Christendom, but as a means to rape, pillage, and destroy. The Pope played with fire, and Constantinople burned for it. The Bishop should be proclaiming the Gospel as the shepherd of the flock and not playing the role of Commander and Chief of armies.


*"By their fruits, ye shall know them."*

----------

