The "Original Sin" is unbiblical

[jmdrake]

It's irrelevant. By the time anyone can even understand the argument on this page, we have all sinned. On our own. Arguing these nuances of doctrine is one reason people avoid and even condemn Christianity. Rather, why don't we just love one another, live life by example and point to the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ?

I would suspect millions of Christians have lived, died, and gone to be with the Lord without ever hearing, thinking about, or discussing "Original sin."

+rep! If you accept Christ's death for your sins, does it really matter if you believed you sinned before you even had a conscious thought?

 

[jmdrake]

He did not physically sit and eat with Jesus as did the Apostles who came just before him, but he did teach and maintain the Apostolic faith of those who actually did, including physically partaking of the Holy Eucharist. The point remains that we should be careful to think we know better about the faith of Christ 2000 years removed then those who were taught by the Apostolic Fathers.

If that's the definition of "apostle", then aren't you an apostle? Regardless, it's clear that some folks 2000 years ago got it wrong. (Gnostics for example, unless to the people who are gnostic). Good for Ireneaus that he was a Christian back when that was a hard thing to do. At the end of the day I believe I have to back to those who actually did eat and sit with Jesus, or the ones like Paul who were personally affirmed by them as having a direct revelation from Jesus. If Jesus appeared to Ireneus and if Paul, Peter, James, fill-in-the-blank affirmed that, I'd count him as an apostle. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I'm not assuming he's right just because he's from "long long ago". If I did, then that would mean re-thinking the gnostics he was disagreeing with. I don't agree with them because they don't line up with the "time of Jesus and before" writers that I already know about.

 

[TER]

If that's the definition of "apostle", then aren't you an apostle? Regardless, it's clear that some folks 2000 years ago got it wrong. (Gnostics for example, unless to the people who are gnostic). Good for Ireneaus that he was a Christian back when that was a hard thing to do. At the end of the day I believe I have to back to those who actually did eat and sit with Jesus, or the ones like Paul who were personally affirmed by them as having a direct revelation from Jesus. If Jesus appeared to Ireneus and if Paul, Peter, James, fill-in-the-blank affirmed that, I'd count him as an apostle. I'm not saying he's wrong, but I'm going giving deference to assuming he's right just because he's from "long long ago". If I did, then that would mean re-thinking the gnostics he was disagreeing with. I don't agree with them because they don't line up with the "time of Jesus and before" writers that I already know about.

The teaching authority St. Ireneaus has as an apostle of Christ (which I agree we are all called to be), is from God and is also outwardly expressed in the Church by the Holy Ordination he received as Bishop from the witness of the Church which acts as the bulwark to the truth of the faith. That he lived long ago is not what makes him right (though, more likely right then someone many years removed), but that he has defended the orthodox faith and been proclaimed by the Church as a saint of God and temple of the Holy Spirit. You do not accept Ordination jmdrake but St. John and St. Polycarb and St. Ireneus and the Church from the beginning has. It is because you deny this grace-filled office which is clearly described the Holy Scriptures which makes it hard for you to understand how Fathers can be Apostolic even in these days.

 

[jmdrake]

The teaching authority St. Ireneaus has as an apostle of Christ (which I agree we are all called to be), is from God and is also outwardly expressed in the Church by the Holy Ordination he received as Bishop from the witness of the Church which acts as the bulwark to the truth of the faith. That he lived long ago is not what makes him right (though, more likely right then someone many years removed), but that he has defended the orthodox faith and been proclaimed by the Church as a saint of God and temple of the Holy Spirit. You do not accept Ordination jmdrake but St. John and St. Polycarb and St. Ireneus and the Church from the beginning has. It is because you deny this grace-filled office which is clearly described the Holy Scriptures which makes it hard for you to understand how Fathers can be Apostolic even in these days.

I never said I didn't accept ordination. But I don't believe that ordination necessarily means apostleship in the Biblical sense. Here's an obvious example. Every priest in the Catholic church has been ordained by somebody who was ordained by somebody who was.........ordained by somebody who was ordained by someone that Jesus ordained. But is every priest, including those who are admitted pedophiles, an apostle? I think not. Do you?

 

[Daveforliberty]

Sigh...

 

[TER]

I never said I didn't accept ordination.

So, you do accept the sacrament of ordination as St. John, St. Polycarb, and St. Ireneus did?
Do you accept the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as St. John, St. Polycarb and St. Ireneus did?

But I don't believe that ordination necessarily means apostleship in the Biblical sense.

Then explain to me what you believe ordination means.

Here's an obvious example. Every priest in the Catholic church has been ordained by somebody who was ordained by somebody who was.........ordained by somebody who was ordained by someone that Jesus ordained. But is every priest, including those who are admitted pedophiles, an apostle? I think not. Do you?

I will not speak for the Catholic Church since I am not Roman Catholic, but as for the Orthodox Church, the grace of ordination is a real manifestation and work of the Holy Spirit. Using the examples of sinners does not negate this truth and those who have been ordained and committed such sins are under stricter judgement then either you or I.

 

[TER]

This conversation reminds of a little joke I have read:

There was a rabbi, a Catholic bishop, an Orthodox bishop, and an Anglican bishop responding to some point about which they had been asked. The rabbi said, ‘the Talmud says . . . ‘ The Catholic bishop said, ‘the Pope has said . . . ‘ The Orthodox bishop said, ‘we read in the Holy Fathers . . . ‘ The Anglican bishop leaned back in his chair, placed his fingers together and said, ‘it seems to me . . . ‘

 

[jmdrake]

So, you do accept the sacrament of ordination as St. John, St. Polycarb, and St. Ireneus did?
Do you accept the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist as St. John, St. Polycarb and St. Ireneus did?

I didn't say all that. I just said I accept ordination. I think it's fine for a church to say "We set apart so and so for the office of deacon and we will now ordain him and lay hands on him and pray for him." Deacon so and so could be a good man, or he could be a rat that's seeking the attention of being a deacon (kind of like Judas Iscariot).

Then explain to me what you believe ordination means.

See above.

I will not speak for the Catholic Church since I am not Roman Catholic, but as for the Orthodox Church, the grace of ordination is real. Using the examples of sinners does not negate this truth and those who have been ordained and committed such sins are under stricter judgement then either you or I.

To whom much is given, much is required. No doubt about any of that.

Okay. Tell me this. Do you, or don't you, believe that there is, or should be, a difference between how we view someone who physically walked and talked with Jesus like the disciples and/or had his encounter with confirmed by the disciples, and someone who sometime later was ordained by somebody in some chain of succession?

One more thing. The whole point of laying on of hands in the New Testament wasn't so much for "office" as it was for people to be filled with the Holy Spirit. There were those who were filled with the Holy Spirit who, by all recollection, never took on an office for which we today would expect that person to be "ordained". The people who were chosen in Acts to have positions were already filled with the Holy Spirit. In fact in Acts you had entire churches filled with the Holy Spirit.

So to sum up my belief, ordination should merely affirm the Holy Spirit that is already in the life of an officer of the church. Ordination itself doesn't "grace" anyone. God does. This is where I believe God wants to take His people.

Jeremiah 31:31-34
31 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord:

33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

and repeated in the New Testament at:

Hebrews 8:8-12
8 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah:

9 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.

I put parts in body for a reason. I believe God wants a personal relationship with all of His people where they are able to understand His will because He tells it to them. I don't believe God expects people to forever depend on this preacher or that saint to explain such and such to him. In the context of this thread, if Ireneus agrees with what's clearly in the Bible....great! But I'm not going to "defer" to him. I don't think God wants me to. That's not how I read Jeremiah 31 or Hebrews 8.

 

[jmdrake]

This conversation reminds of a little joke I have read:

There was a rabbi, a Catholic bishop, an Orthodox bishop, and an Anglican bishop responding to some point about which they had been asked. The rabbi said, ‘the Talmud says . . . ‘ The Catholic bishop said, ‘the Pope has said . . . ‘ The Orthodox bishop said, ‘we read in the Holy Fathers . . . ‘ The Anglican bishop leaned back in his chair, placed his fingers together and said, ‘it seems to me . . . ‘

LOL. But I have to wonder why nobody said "The Bible said"? Even the rabbi didn't quote the Torah?

 

[TER]

LOL. But I have to wonder why nobody said "The Bible said"? Even the rabbi didn't quote the Torah?

The Holy Fathers wrote the Bible.

 

[TER]

I didn't say all that. I just said I accept ordination. I think it's fine for a church to say "We set apart so and so for the office of deacon and we will now ordain him and lay hands on him and pray for him." Deacon so and so could be a good man, or he could be a rat that's seeking the attention of being a deacon (kind of like Judas Iscariot).



See above.

The sacrament of Ordination as understood, practiced, taught and defended by the first Christians is indeed a transference via the grace of the Holy Spirit into the Holy Order of the Priesthood. While this is indeed a mystery performed by God, Christ in His good pleasure established it in the order He willed it, namely by the laying of the hands as not only an outward physical demonstration and witness to this grace but spiritually as well.

Now of course as you mentioned, this does not mean one needs to be ordained into the clergy to be a holy and God-pleasing saint, in fact some of the greatest saints were lay people and monks. Indeed, we are all called to be priests over creation as recipients of the Holy Spirit by the grace of Baptism, which is why Christian have since the beginning crossed themselves and blessed those around them. Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that Christ did in fact establish a Church and instill shepherds of His Church in the form of bishops, deacons and presbyters, in a hierarchical structure of apostolic authority where He Himself is Head. This is undeniable even to the casual reader of the writings of the early saints and has been lost to much of the Christian world since the days of the Reformation when the blowback against the Papal abuses caused a whole new generation of Christians to throw the baby out with the bathwater and forsake certain very foundational teachings and traditions of the Apostolic Church.

 

[jmdrake]

The Holy Fathers wrote the Bible.

Well while I'm not an Anglican, I would say "I read in the words inspired by the Holy Spirit and written down by mean who either lived before Jesus or where he contemporaries".

 

[TER]

Well while I'm not an Anglican, I would say "I read in the words inspired by the Holy Spirit and written down by mean who either lived before Jesus or where he contemporaries".

And knowing you my friend, I know you believe the Holy Spirit is just as active today in the world as He was in the very first days of the Church when these books of the New Testament were written, read, copied and compiled.

 

[TER]

Well while I'm not an Anglican, I would say "I read in the words inspired by the Holy Spirit and written down by mean who either lived before Jesus or where he contemporaries".

And knowing you my friend, I know you believe the Holy Spirit is just as active today in the world as He was in the very first days of the Church when these books of the New Testament were written, read, copied and compiled.

 

[jmdrake]

The sacrament of Ordination as understood, practiced, taught and defended by the first Christians is indeed a transference via the grace of the Holy Spirit into the Holy Order of the Priesthood. While this is indeed a mystery performed by God, Christ in His good pleasure established it in the order He willed it, namely by the laying of the hands as not only an outward physical demonstration and witness to this grace but spiritually as well.

We've discussed this before. But the new testament did not establish an "order of the priesthood". Rather the entire membership is called to be a part of the priesthood.

5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.

6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,

8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.

9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;

10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

And that fits in with the "new covenant" truth taught in Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8. The idea that the entire church is supposed to be priests is reiterated in Revelation.

Revelation 1:6
And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

Revelation 5:10
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Revelation 20:6
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years

Now of course as you mentioned, this does not mean one needs to be ordained into the clergy to be a holy and God-pleasing saint, in fact some of the greatest saints were lay people and monks. Indeed, we are all called to be priests over creation as recipients of the Holy Spirit by the grace of Baptism, which is why Christian have since the beginning crossed themselves and blessed those around them. Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that Christ did in fact establish a Church and instill shepherds of His Church in the form of bishops, deacons and presbyters, in a hierarchical structure of apostolic authority where He Himself is Head.

Nope. Jesus didn't establish a hierarchy.

Luke 22:24-27 24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

Even if you believe the church in Acts was hierarchical (and I do not believe that it was), that doesn't mean that's how Jesus set it up. Look at how the early Christian church was communal. Does that mean that is a requirement for Christianity? I don't think anyone would argue that.

This is undeniable even to the casual reader of the writings of the early saints and has been lost to much of the Christian world since the days of the Reformation when the blowback against the Papal abuses caused a whole new generation of Christians to throw the baby out with the bathwater and forsake certain very foundational teachings and traditions of the Apostolic Church.

The "baby" that has been thrown out is the new covenant teaching that was prophesied in Jeremiah, confirmed by Jesus, and reconfirmed in Hebrews. There is no hierarchy under the new covenant. The whole point is to reach a place where Jesus is not only the priest, but the teacher. Remember your joke about the Anglican? While I don't think that's an accurate portrayal of Anglicanism, how do you square the implicit criticism of the Anglican teaching in that joke with the clear teaching of Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8?

And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord:

 

[jmdrake]

And knowing you my friend, I know you believe the Holy Spirit is just as active today in the world as He was in the very first days of the Church when these books of the New Testament were written, read, copied and compiled.

Of course. And I believe the activity of the Holy Spirit is based on the individual and not on the church office. I do not believe that those who claim "apostolic succession" have any more of a connection to the Holy Spirit than those who do not. So, the hypothetical Anglican could say "The Holy Spirit led me to such and such revelation in the Bible and He gave me this understanding that I didn't realize before."

Anyway, this is getting way off track. My initial point was to get clarification from you as to why you thought Ireaneus sat and ate with Jesus. It turns out....he didn't. At least not any more than you do when you take communion and you don't consider yourself an apostle. I guess you would consider yourself an apostle if you became a priest?

I do believe in giving deference to Jesus "lived during his lifetime" disciples and the prophets that came before Jesus. I don't give that kind of deference to those who came after. And I give no greater deference to someone who is a spiritual person who came within the line of apostolic succession than I do to one who did not. If you were a Baptist or a Methodist or an fill in the blank and you wrote a good spiritual book, I'd read it. Where it agreed with my understanding of scripture I would accept that as truth. Where it disagreed....well I would further investigate and see if it agreed or not. I don't agree with gnosticism because it disagrees with the writings of John, Paul, (George and Ringo?), Peter etc. That Ireneaus disagreed as well is nice additional information, but not the basis for what I believe.

 

[TER]

And here you are doing the same thing you have accused others of doing, namely taking verses from the Scriptures and applying your own interpretation on it. The reality is that it doesn't matter what jmdrake's interpretation is, nor mine. The truth does not rest on either of our interpretation. You should be aware however that you take an interpretation of ordination, the priesthood, the sacraments and other important foundational Christian teachings which is in complete contradiction to the writings and witness of the Christian Church for the first 1500 years of it's existence. You have instead chosen to interpret those verses in ways which you feel most comfortable with. But indeed, the violent take it by force. And blessed are those who have had the courage to humble themselves and cast away those false teachings they have been fed and submit their whole lives to Christ our God and His Body, the Church.

How is what you are doing different then others who do the same by picking certain lines from Scripture and come up with vastly different conclusions? There is no difference.

Show me anywhere in the writings of the first 1500 years of the Church which agrees with your understanding of the priesthood and ordination? Show me in the first millenium of Christian writings where your view of the Holy Eucharist is shared? You believe there is no hierarchy of the Church and cherry pick certain lines from Scripture which you have applied your own interpretations which is in complete contradiction with the witness, practice, and faith of the Christians from the first recorded writers. The impetus is not on me to defend the witness of the Church expressed and defined by the witness of the Church Fathers. The proof is easy enough for anyone who makes the effort to read the writings of the saints. For theirs is a single witness through the passage of time and in all places with regards to the points being raised in our current discussion. The impetus rather is on you to defend your interpretations of the Scriptures and the Holy Church which find no 'basis' until 1500 years later. I am sure you wouldnt be so presumptious to say as your defense that your interpretation is correct because it is from the Holy Spirit and that the witness of the countless saints over the past 2000 years were not. Such ignoring of history and of the witness of the Church tarnishes your understanding and weakens your argument. You can say all day long this is what you believe and this is how you interpret things, but it means nothing when it is in contradiction to the Mind of the Church of which Christ is the Head.

If I had to choose between your interpretation (or mine) over the interpretation and teachings of the Church, you (and I) would lose every time, for we are not baptized into the church of jmdrake or the church of TER, but the Church of Jesus Christ, Who is Head of this Church, and He has established His Church by the Holy Spirit to be the bulwark of the faith and the spiritual hospital of the faithful, appointing teachers and bishops and presbyters and deacons (which is CLEARLY described in the New Testaments writings and the writings of the saints for as far back as they are known) in order to instruct the faithful in Christ, to loosen and bind sins, to shepherd His flock and feed His sheep His Body and Blood and to anoint in Holy Oil those who are sick in spirit and body.

As we move on in this discussion, if we are going to just go back and forth without you giving me any proof of authority to your interpretations of Scripture, especially in regards to your personal interpretations which go squarely against the interpretations and understandings of 2000 years of holy saints and martyrs, then any further discussion would frankly be a big waste of time. It would show that any meaningful dialogue is impossible because you are not willing or ready to accept that your personal interpretation may not be correct and are not willing to change and learn from it. I am not looking for a pissing contest, I am looking for the truth. Not jmdrake's truth, not truth according to me, but truth as it is and has been safeguided by the Holy Spirit. Learning such truth requires humility, and this is exactly the first step we must take towards Christ and His Body the Church. Willing to accept that we may be wrong and our interpretation incorrect is the necessary requirement for such humility, and that is why I do not rest my faith on what my mind thinks or what makes me most comfortable in my skin but what has the been the defended witness and apostolic teaching from the beginning. I am not swayed by jmdrake's interpretation or the interpretations of men apart from the Church 1500 years later whom you have chosen to have as your interpreters of Scriptures and teachers of the faith when what they teach are innovations and distortions of the faith and finds no support or foundation in the prior 1500 year history of the Church.

I am sorry if what I am saying seems offensive to you or insensitive or abrasive, I assure you that is not my intention. I am simply trying to have you understand that our dialogue must be based on more then what my mind thinks or your mind thinks, but what has been the Christian witness from the beginning, otherwise we will never find agreement and are simply wasting our time.

 

[jmdrake]

And here you are doing the same thing you have accused others of doing, namely taking verses from the Scriptures and applying your own interpretation on it. The reality is that it doesn't matter what jmdrake's interpretation is, nor mine.

How so? Be specific. If you notice I never simply disagree with the interpretation of someone else. I give a biblical reason for my disagreement. I either show that the verses were taken out of context or I show how parallel verses prove there is a disagreement. So either show by context or by parallel verse what is wrong with my interpretation.

Edit: And for the record I see parallels between your approach at that of Sola_Fide. While he doesn't say "Read this from the ancient fathers" he will say "Read this from Calvin or Spurgeon". And when I find things in Calvin and Spurgeon that he disagrees with, he'll say "Well look at this sermon from James White (or some other Calvinist preacher). This will prove why I'm right on such and such."

If I had to choose between your interpretation (or mine) over the interpretation and teachings of the Church, you (and I) would lose every time, for we are not baptized into the church of jmdrake or the church of TER, but the Church of Jesus Christ, Who is Head of this Church, and He has established His Church by the Holy Spirit to be the bulwark of the faith and the spiritual hospital of the faithful, appointing teachers and bishops and presbyters and deacons (which is CLEARLY described in the New Testaments writings and the writings of the saints for as far back as they are known) in order to instruct the faithful in Christ, to loosen and bind sins, to shepherd His flock and feed His sheep His Body and Blood and to anoint in Holy Oil those who are sick in spirit and body.

How about the interpretation that you can get from the Bible itself? What do you have against letting the Bible be its own interpreter?

As we move on in this discussion, if we are going to just go back and forth without you giving me any proof of authority to your interpretations of Scripture, especially in regards to your personal interpretations which go squarely against the interpretations and understandings of 2000 years of holy saints and martyrs, then any further discussion would frankly be a big waste of time.

Look at the scripture itself. Don't take my word for anything. And let's look at how we got here. You made a claim about St. Ireaneus that I didn't think was true. I looked up information on St. Ireaneus from church history. It turns out that I was right. St. Ireaneus was not physically around when Jesus walked the earth. He did not eat with Jesus. He did not sit down with Jesus. He was not a contemporary of Jesus. Okay, he was an important figure in the early Christian church. Just say that!.

Now you've taken personal offense to the fact that I see there is a distinction between people who were actual contemporaries of Jesus and those who were not. My question for you is why don't you see the distinction? That's a serious question. This isn't about your personal beliefs in your church or what you believe the interpretation of scripture is or anything. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you believe that everybody who's been ordained through apostolic succession is an apostle regardless of how many years they are removed from the apostolic era and regardless of whether or not their lives line up with someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit e.g. pedophile priests? And if you believe they are all apostles, do you believe they are on the same level as contemporaries of Jesus? Because I simply don't believe that. I don't even think the Catholic church teaches that. In fact I'm sure they don't. See: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm They make a clear distinction between "greater" and "lesser" apostles. Maybe the Eastern Orthodox church teaches that everyone who's an ordained priest has "physically sat down with and eaten with Jesus" in the same sense as Jesus contemporaries, but I don't think you can justify that view from even the church history you love so much. And if you can, well I disagree with such a belief and I've laid out my reasons why. Whether you accept my reasoning or not isn't important. I can no more convert you than I can a Calvinist or a gnostic or an atheist. And Jesus never asked me to prove anything to anyone. All I am asked to do is this:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

It would show that any meaningful dialogue is impossible because you are not willing or ready to accept that your personal interpretation may not be correct and are not willing to change and learn from it.

Are YOU WILLING to accept that your church's interpretation may be wrong and be willing to change and learn from it? If not, then there is not reason for meaningful dialog. I'm not a cultist. I don't believe in following what some organization says just because it says it. The Bible teaches that those who study the scriptures for themselves are the ones who are "more noble". That's taken straight from Acts. If you have a point to make, make it from scripture. Paul did not want his listeners to just "take his word for it". He wanted them to go back and compare what he said to scripture. In other words "Does this writing correspond with what you already know to be true in the rest of scripture." Are you saying that Paul was wrong?

I am not looking for a pissing contest, I am looking for the truth. Not jmdrake's truth, not truth according to me, but truth as it is and has been safeguided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm looking for truth too. And the truth is, Ireaneus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. Okay, that's not what you meant. Fine. Glad we could clarify it. That should have been the end of the discussion. But to claim the Bible is somehow "jmdrake's truth" goes against the teaching of Paul. Paul, Peter and other apostles clearly taught that it was the believer's duty not to take their word for it, but to compare what they wrote with already accepted scripture. And that's what I do. That offends you? Well when we both get to heaven you can find Peter and Paul and complain to them about the path they set me on. And note, I haven't even disagreed with Iraneus' view on original sin. I'm not even 100% sure what that view is yet. You haven't really talked about that. You've instead chosen to rehash old disagreements that you should already know we will never disagree on. From what I gather from Wikipedia, Iraneus' view is somewhere between the gnostics and the Calvinists. That appears to be the Catholic view which is original sin doesn't mean you are born having already sinned but that you are born with a propensity towards sin. Well...I agree with that. I just don't agree that the Eucharist means Ireaneus is somehow the same as Peter or John or even Paul. I bet Ireaneus would agree with me on that. Maybe he wouldn't.

I am sorry if what I am saying seems offensive to you or insensitive or abrasive, I assure you that is not my intention. I am simply trying to have you understand that our dialogue must be based on more then what my mind thinks or your mind thinks, but what has been the Christian witness from the beginning, otherwise we will never find agreement and are simply wasting our time.

Okay. I have put your problem in bold. Your problem is that you are wasting time trying to force me to your understanding while you have never taken the time to understand me! My position is not that truth is based on what I think it is. My position is that truth is based on the Bible, that the Bible is its own interpreter and that while I can read other people's ideas to see what they are thinking, they are ultimately NOT my standard! The Bible teaches clearly that Christians should study the Bible for themselves!

Really, your issue isn't with me. It's with Peter, Paul, Jeremiah and the writer of Hebrews. All of those Biblical writers clearly teach that self study of the scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the paramount way to learn about God. Of course you can't understand my position on this because you reject apriori that the Bible can be its own interpreter, so when I give you Biblical evidence that this is true you don't accept the Biblical evidence and wrongly say I'm just giving "my opinion" or "my interpretation.

 

[jmdrake]

And a reminder of how this thread got where it is.

Re

St. Ireneus is most certainly an Apostolic Father. We should be careful not to sit here in judgment of them, as if we knew Jesus Christ better then they did, those who ate with Him and sat with Him and were fed to the lions. There is no need to put apostrophes around the word Apostolic. That is exactly who they were. Even history reveals it.

Have you ever read the works of St. Ireneus? This man was amongst the greatest of saints.

Had you simply said "St. Ireneus was an important figure in the early church and therefore his views on the beliefs of original sin should at least be taken into consideration" I wouldn't have any disagreement with you. Better yet "Here's the scriptural references St. Ireneus used to support his views on original sin." I sincerely doubt Ireneus would want you simply taking his word on an issue as opposed to reading the scriptural references he gave to support his position.

 

[TER]

How about the interpretation that you can get from the Bible itself? What do you have against letting the Bible be its own interpreter?

The Bible does not interpret itself, it is a book of words which people read and interpret themselves. That is why there are so many churches, because people read the same words and interpret different things.

Look at the scripture itself. Don't take my word for anything. And let's look at how we got here. You made a claim about St. Ireaneus that I didn't think was true. I looked up information on St. Ireaneus from church history. It turns out that I was right. St. Ireaneus was not physically around when Jesus walked the earth. He did not eat with Jesus. He did not sit down with Jesus. He was not a contemporary of Jesus. Okay, he was an important figure in the early Christian church. Just say that!.

I made a mistake to say that St. Ireneus sat and ate with Jesus and I admit it here now. Nevertheless, his spiritual grandfather was St. John who indeed sat with Christ. He, like his predecessors, believed in the sacramental life of the Church including Holy Ordination and the Holy Eucharist. This is the teachings and practices passed down to him from the saints who were taught by the Apostolic Fathers. Why do you feel your interpretation of the faith is more accurate then his? You say that you use your own interpretation, but that is only partially correct. You approach the Holy Scriptures not like the first Christians but instead use the formulas and doctrines of men 1500 years removed from the time of Christ, for example, the doctrine and tradition of Sola Scriptura. St. John didn't teach this. St. Polycarb didn't teach this. And neither did St. Ireneus. Why do YOU believe this? Do you believe you know more about the teachings of the faith then these men? If you answer one question I have proposed to you in this post, please make it this one.

I admit I rely on the witness of the Fathers of the Church for the correct interpretation and not on my own fallible mind because these men were much holier then me and much more knowledgeable about the faith than I. I use them for understanding just as the Ethiopian eunuch relied on St. Phillip to explain the Holy Scriptures to him. (Have you ever wondered why St. Luke included this event in the Holy Scriptures? Read it again and think about it outside the lens of the traditions you hold and instead with the tradition of the early Church which contended for the faith and passed on the faith with steadfastness and fidelity to the apostolic teachings.)

You use the doctrines of men far removed from the time of Christ and far removed from the faith He taught and rather rely on your own mind's interpretation. This is the great difference between the way you and I approach the Holy Scriptures. (forgive me for using 'you' so much, as this is conversation is not directly solely at you, but to anyone reading this who may have interest in such debates about the Christian faith. Jmdrake, I know you are a faithful servant of Christ and I do not question your love for Him and your earnest desire for the truth. What I am trying to do is have you expand your knowledge about things you were probably never introduced to likely because of when, where and how you were raised, things which were beyond your control, but things which are real nonetheless.)

Now you've taken personal offense to the fact that I see there is a distinction between people who were actual contemporaries of Jesus and those who were not.

There is nothing you have written in this thread which I have taken personal offense.

My question for you is why don't you see the distinction? That's a serious question. This isn't about your personal beliefs in your church or what you believe the interpretation of scripture is or anything. It's a simple yes or no question. Do you believe that everybody who's been ordained through apostolic succession is an apostle regardless of how many years they are removed from the apostolic era and regardless of whether or not their lives line up with someone who is filled with the Holy Spirit e.g. pedophile priests?

No, I don't believe that.

And if you believe they are all apostles, do you believe they are on the same level as contemporaries of Jesus?

Here is a short list of saints who have been called 'Equal to the Apostles':

Mary Magdalene (1st century)
Photine, the Samaritan Woman at the Well (1st century)
Thekla (1st century)
Abercius of Hieropolis (2nd century)
Nino of Georgia (ca. 296 – ca. 338 or 340)
Patrick of Ireland (5th century)
Cyril (827 – 869)
Methodius (826 – 885)
Boris I of Bulgaria (died 907)
Olga of Kiev (ca. 890 – 969)
Vladimir (ca. 958 – 1015)
Stephen I of Hungary (969 – 1038)
Sava I of Serbia (1175 – 1235)
Cosmas of Aetolia (1714 – 1779)
Innocent of Alaska (1797 – 1879)
Nicholas of Japan (1836 – 1912)

Maybe the Eastern Orthodox church teaches that everyone who's an ordained priest has "physically sat down with and eaten with Jesus" in the same sense as Jesus contemporaries, but I don't think you can justify that view from even the church history you love so much.

No, I do not mean that. But like those contemporaries of Jesus, they did partake of the Holy Eucharist and to the sacramental life of the Church. This is not me making things up. This is the history of the Church which some have ignored.

And if you can, well I disagree with such a belief and I've laid out my reasons why.

Your reason which you state is actually you taking bits of Scriptures, applying your own 2012 interpretation to it, and then ignoring the 2000 year history of Christian saints. This is a very modern Christian thing to do. It does not make it right however.

Whether you accept my reasoning or not isn't important. I can no more convert you than I can a Calvinist or a gnostic or an atheist. And Jesus never asked me to prove anything to anyone. All I am asked to do is this:

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

1 Peter 3:15

15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

Jesus also said "I tell you the truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Picking up pieces of Scripture while ignoring the rest is also a very modern Christian thing to do, and just because someone can do it doesn't make it right.

Are YOU WILLING to accept that your church's interpretation may be wrong and be willing to change and learn from it?

Of course. Now, show me how my Church's interpretation is wrong, and please do not use the writings of men 1500 years later who were apart from the Church or use your own interpretive skills, as good as they may be. I want you to show me where in the first 1500 years of the Christian Church the sacrament of Ordination and the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist confers with your interpretation and not the interpretation of the Eastern Orthodox Church. I am still waiting for this response and I know my wait is in vain because you will have no answer or instead answer that 1500 years of saints (including the very Apostles and first Christians) were wrong!

If not, then there is not reason for meaningful dialog. I'm not a cultist. I don't believe in following what some organization says just because it says it.

I am a sinful servant of God and my aim is to be a member of His Body, the Church, the same Body St. Paul was a member of, wrote about and was beheaded for. The same Body St. Peter was a member in, partook of the Holy Eucharist in, ordained Bishops in and was crucified upside down for. The same Body St. John, St. Polycarb and St. Ireneus all defended with the threat of torture and death.

The Bible teaches that those who study the scriptures for themselves are the ones who are "more noble".

Of course we are to study the Scriptures ourselves, but we are to humble ourselves and learn from those who have lived the true Christian life and are more spiritual knowledgeable then ourselves, lest we study the Scriptures incorrectly or interpret things falsely. That is precisely why the verse about the Ethiopian eunuch was included in Acts by St. Luke, and such a teachings as yours (self study without the witness of the Church as our guide) is found nowhere anywhere in the history of the Christian Church until 1500 years later as a reaction to the abuses of the Pope. Notice how the Ethipoian eunuch first humbles himself, and then he learned the true meanings of the words he was reading through the wisdom of St. Philip who immediately batpized him afterwards. We should not arrogantly claim to know what we read, we who sin daily, but in humility seek the truth in what we read by testing it against the witness of those who have come before us and have run the race and earned the crowns of victory by the Holy Spirit.

If you have a point to make, make it from scripture. Paul did not want his listeners to just "take his word for it". He wanted them to go back and compare what he said to scripture. In other words "Does this writing correspond with what you already know to be true in the rest of scripture." Are you saying that Paul was wrong?

No, I am saying you are taking one piece of Scripture and ignoring everything else. St. Paul also said 'word or epistle'. St. Paul also partook of the Holy Eucharist every Lord's day and Ordained Bishops and presbyters. Some moderns Christian don't. Was St. Paul wrong and these modern Christians right?

And nothing I have written above contradicts the Scriptures, indeed, it was the Church which wrote down the Scriptures, spread the Scriptures, and compiled and canonized the Scriptures. And the traditions these saints of the Church passed down 'whether in word or epistle' predate even the writings of the Scriptures themselves.

I'm looking for truth too. And the truth is, Ireaneus wasn't a contemporary of Jesus. Okay, that's not what you meant. Fine. Glad we could clarify it. That should have been the end of the discussion. But to claim the Bible is somehow "jmdrake's truth" goes against the teaching of Paul. Paul, Peter and other apostles clearly taught that it was the believer's duty not to take their word for it, but to compare what they wrote with already accepted scripture. And that's what I do. That offends you?

Again, nothing you have written has offended me. What you have described as your interpretation of the Holy Eucharist and Holy Ordination is against the teachings of St. Paul and the Church from its infancy. Why doesn't this offend you?

Okay. I have put your problem in bold. Your problem is that you are wasting time trying to force me to your understanding while you have never taken the time to understand me! My position is not that truth is based on what I think it is. My position is that truth is based on the Bible, that the Bible is its own interpreter and that while I can read other people's ideas to see what they are thinking, they are ultimately NOT my standard! The Bible teaches clearly that Christians should study the Bible for themselves!

Again, the Bible does NOT interpret itself. If it did, there wouldn't be 30,000 Protestant denominations all ascribing to Sola Scriptura and with 30,000 different interpretations of the same Book. Such irony would be funny if it wasn't so sad. And again, you are relying too much on your own mind in interpreting the Scriptures when the attitude we should approach such holy work is one of humility.

Really, your issue isn't with me. It's with Peter, Paul, Jeremiah and the writer of Hebrews. All of those Biblical writers clearly teach that self study of the scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, is the paramount way to learn about God. Of course you can't understand my position on this because you reject apriori that the Bible can be its own interpreter, so when I give you Biblical evidence that this is true you don't accept the Biblical evidence and wrongly say I'm just giving "my opinion" or "my interpretation.

Again, taking a snip of the Scriptures and ignoring the witness and life of the Church so that you can make your own interpretation to be correct (and claim instead that it is the Bible itself which is interpreting itself! How convenient!) is a very modern Christian thing to do which finds no basis in the greater history of the Church. If you are okay with that, then best of luck with you and your interpretation. I personally do not think myself to be so knowledgeable or full of grace to put myself, my understanding and my meager mind above the Body of Christ and the Mind of the Church which He is Head of.