Are the Greek/Russian orthodox Valid Christian Churches?

Your point is rediculous absurd! Do you really think if a Canaanite comits idoltry it is not "strict idolatry" any more than a Jew doing the same thing? Idolatry does not change due to who is committing it! It is idolatry regardless who commits it. It does not matter what context you place idolatry in - it is still "strict idolatry" as there is not anything regarded as non-strict idolatry.

The common response from those who cannot overturn or refute an argument with evidence! What I said and the distinction I made is clearly scriptural and just plain COMMON SENSE! God's design for those things was clearly instructive and never as objects of worship. Idols by the very nature of the term are objects of worship.

The written record supports my claim and you cannot dispute the written record. Whatever Jesus may or may not have said that was not recorded cannot be used to contradict what was recorded. He condemned the oral traditions of the elders (Mt. 5:21-46). He NEVER based doctrine and practice on "Rabbi so and so said this" as did the Jews and as do Roman Catholics. He ALWAYS either spoke authoritatively directly establishing doctrine or said "It is WRITTEN."

The Apostolic record NEVER refers to the Oral Traditions of the elders. You NEVER read where they said "rabbi so and so said this" - NEVER! Like Christ they spoke authoritatively directly establishing their doctrine or quoted the WRITTEN scriptures as their authority.

Rome copies the Pharisees method of intepreting scriptures by quoting "rabbi so and so said" or "This ECF says...."

You got to be kidding me???? "the scrolls" are the WRITTEN scriptures not ORAL traditions of the fathers! The oral traditions were never written until the second century and their written form is called the Mishnah!

Moses wrote and recorded and selected what he wrote under INSPIRATION, he was a prophet. In Genesis chapter one he did not say "Adam reported that God said..." but wrote "And God said....." This is the standard found throughout the Old Testament Scriptures because "ALL scripture was given by inspiration."

Moreover, when the inspired written record was given it supeseded any oral traditions as Peter confirms that the written record is "MORE SURE" than any oral traditions regardless of their source.


2 Tim 2:2
And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

1 Cor 11:2
...praise you for remembering me in everything and for holding to the teachings as I passed them on to you.

1 Thess 2:13
13And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.

2 John 1:12
12 I have much to write to you, but I do not want to use paper and ink. Instead, I hope to visit you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete.

2 Thess 2:15
15 So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

These statements are necessary during the development of the New Testament canon - even common sense dictates that. However, after the written record has been established Peter's commentary takes precedence that the written record supersedes oral traditions regardless of the source of that oral tradition as the written record is "MORE SURE" than Peter's own oral report. Rome says ORAL and WRITTEN are equally valid whereas Peter says the written is "MORE SURE" for obvious reasons. Just look at what happened to the oral traditions of the Jews - they corrupted and were not valid for doctrine and practice and that is why Christ and the apostles NEVER ONCE quoted them as a source of authority.

 

That's just your take on it - and one not borne out by the evidence.

 

you are defeating your own position! If oral traditions were dependable there would NEVER BE NEED for adding the written record. However, Peter realized the weaknesses of oral tradition and that is precisely why the written record was added because it is "MORE SURE." Like all "oral traditions" they eventually get corrupted over and are worthless.

You got to be kidding?? The apostles were commissioned by Christ to record and explain his doctrine and that is precisely what John is doing here under inspiration! What do you think is the purpose of inspired scritpure???? It is to reveal, explain and defend the truth as it is given to the writer by God. It is not a record of personal opinions by the writer but the express will of God being revealed through the writer (2 Pet. 1:19-20).

Peter claims that written scripture is "MORE SURE" than any oral tradition even if it is coming from a LIVING apostle. Why is it "MORE SURE"? Because it endures and preserves the exact words whereas oral tradition may change from person to person. What Peter conveyed about his personal experience in person to one church may be conveyed differently to another church or person.

Do a little test which will show the weakness of oral tradition. Have all your church members stand in a line and whisper a story consisting of a hundred words in the ear of the first person and tell them to relay it to next person in the same manner and see what kind of story comes out with the last person. This is a perfect analogy of what happens to oral traditions over a period of years of transmission. What you end up is the mess of Jewish oral traditions at the time of Christ which were not trustworthy and had to be rebuked by Christ and that is the mess you find in the so-called ETF records.

 

Prove me wrong then? I see your mouth but where is your evidence? I placed before you a contextually based exposition with evidence. Put up or shut up!

 

Below is my exposition of Isaiah. It is brief and yet it is exegetically defendable and I would be more than happy to expand and defend my interpretation of this text.

If you object and think I am wrong please point out where my expositon is exegetically incorrect - give the facts not your opinions!

 

You can say the same with regard to copyists' errors re Biblical MSS.

And we're not talking about a game of Chinese whispers when we're talking about oral Tradition either. We are talking about:

(a) What the Apostles taught consistently to their successors and what those successors consistently taught to their successors and so on; and

(b) What the Church consistently did eg: in Her liturgies (lex orandi, lex credendi and all that), in Her customs and practices, rituals and their meanings etc, which were done in the same way week after week so that all the participants in the Divine Liturgy had it engrained into their spiritual DNA, as it were.

Rather different from Chinese whispers, then...

[CP with two further posts from Walter]

 

I have it, but what is the point - you will just dismiss it as 'Romanism' (whatever that means; you're like Humpty Dumpty in that regard). If you will accept patrsitic evidence then there is plenty and I will cite it but, like Zenas, I have a business to run and don't want to waste my time coming up with material which you will just ignore.

So, which is it to be?

 

I guess it makes you feel good to have such a nasty mouth on the BB ... but it certainly detracts from any witness you may have. I am surprised you are allowed to post such entries continually.

 

It is clear by this statement that you blindly read over the part where I said. Traditions and Scriptures overlap giving a full account of what is being said as I quoted in John. Obviously the Pharisees in that passage wanted to believe Jesus was talking about the stone temple they looked at. But John Makes it clear what Jesus said was to be understood as his body not the stone temple. If it were left up to writen text excluding the tradition John gave us the pharisees would have a reasonable expectation of being right. However, It was the tradition that John Passed on the makes it clear they were wrong.

Yes and that is called TRADITION.

Yes combining the writen text and his tradition for a full understanding of that passage.

Yes understood in the context of the greater whole. If not it is easily misinterpreted as we see pharisees doing with Jesus' own words. Without John's explanation (oral tradition) we could easily come to the same conclusion.

Oral Traditions such as John passed on in the gospel of John are also inspired. Do you believe what Jesus taught the disciples after his resurrection was inspired?

that is not what peter says in 2 peter 1:19-20. He actually says

Not by the prophets own interpretation but what he was taught to say by the Lord as the Lord Taught the Apostles.

and writen words can be misinterpreted as scriptures often are without its other aspect: Tradition. Note Tradition is not maliable. Opinions are. And what you get with just a writen text is what the pharisees got. Their own opinion of what Jesus was talking about. Thankfully we have John who explains it with the tradition he passed on.

That is a poor experiment. It doesn't acurately portray Tradition. This is a better test. Have every service the exact same and have all the people say the same response over a period of a month. Don't change a thing. Then have some one at the end of the Month come in and give a different responce and see how the congregation responds to them.

 

Spot on! Lex orandi, lex credendi in action!:thumbsup:

 

Dr Walter, I'd be interested in how you would suggest one deals with the following problem which is as self-evident today as it was in the 5th century when these words were written by Vincent de Lerins:

 

You must attack the validity of the scriptures themselves in order to undermine my interpretation that is based upon the scriptures. Let the reader consider what Romanists are forced to do in order to defend their oral traditions.

However, even the most liberal Biblical critics admit that 99.8% of the scritpures are without question representative of the original manuscripts. No book in human history has this kind of certainty. This is because we have thousands of copies that confirm this fact. Hence, the Bible is the most dependable ancient book in history. Inspiration would be meaningless apart from such divine preservation.

However, again, notice that Rome must attack the credibility of the scriptures to defend oral traditions.

Your argument is your defeat! The fact is that there is a wide divergence in liturgies, customs and practices, in so much, counsels had to be called to determine which is right and which is wrong. This is the very nature of the division between Roman and Orthodox practices. This is because there is a wide range of differences found in the WRITTEN record of the so-called ECF. Wide differences of interpetations of scripture and practices.

Moreover, Peter confirms my position and trumps your whole argument when he demands that the written scriptures are "MORE SURE" than oral traditions by a LIVING apostle! The EFC is proof of Peter's comments. The Jewish "oral traditions of the elders" is proof of Peter's comments. Finally the apostate condition of Rome and of the orthodox church is proof of Peter's comments.

 

The root of all heresies and differenes of opposing interpretations of scripture boils down to one thing - eisgesis instead of exegesis. When common sense princples of exegesis are ignored because of one's own bias then the result is contradictions between scholars.

However, God the Holy Spirit has a contextual based specific interpretation for every word in every text that never contradicts any other text when properly viewed in its own context.

 

'Apostate' is merely your opinion - the tradition of man!

The Divine Liturgies, though they may differ in form, do not differ in substance one jot. You can compare the Liturgy of St James form c 60AD used in the Jerusalem Church with our own Church of England Eucharistic Prayers and see the similarity - nearly 2000 years of faithfully upholding the Gospel. Praise be to God for that faithful witness!

[ETA - cross-post: yeah, that's what they all say! It takes us forward no further at all. You'll have to do better than that.]

 

Nope! The Bible and Romanism are antithetical in almost every conceivable substantial way!

That is your unsubstantiated personal opinion based upon a biased interpetation of scripture which is simply not true historically.

There is a drastic difference between the simplicity of service in the New Testament and apostolic fathers versus the antenicene and Post-Nicene fathers. Drastic differrence in church officers (bishops and deacons) versus (Pope, Bishops, archbishops, pastors, deacons, cardinals, etc.). There is a vast differences in church government (simple congregational where no member is greater than another) versus a sophisticated heiarchy and the list of vast differences goes on and on.

Again, I have provided exegetical based evidence that the Biblical canon was finished and superior to oral traditions and final in authority for doctrine, correction, instruction that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY FURNISHED without mention of oral traditions and that oral traditions are INFERIOR to written scriptures even when the Apostle is still living (2 Peter. 1:17-19).

 

Again, if you are serious about this debate below is the exposition of Isaiah 8:16 I have provided to substantiate my position. Please show where I am in error by pointing out exegetical fallacies in my interpretation. No personal opinions please - just exegetical based facts!

Originally Posted by Dr. Walter
Isaiah 7:14-9:6 is Messanic in nature. That is not personal opinion based upon tradition that is factual as the beginning text (Isa. 7:14) and the concluding text (Isa. 9:6) are recognized by nearly all scholars in all denominations as Messanic texts.

Isaiah 8:16-20 is found within this Messanic prophetic framework. For example, Isaiah 8:14-15 is directly quoted in the New Testament and applied to Jesus Christ. Isaiah 8:18 is directly quoted in Hebrews 2 and applied contextually within Hebrew 2 to the apostles of Christ.

Exegetically "my disciples" in Isaiah 8:16 is the same persons in Isaiah 8:18 as "the children" which is directly applied by the writer of Hebrews to the apostles of Christ.

Isaiah 8:16 is immediately preceded by Messanic prophecy (vv. 14-15) and immediately followed by Messanic prophecy (v. 18) and furthermore exegetically inseparable from both in regard to "my disciples" and "the children."

So the accusation that my intepretation of Isaiah 8:16 is based upon "tradition" or my own personal opinion is false! It is based upon sound principles of exegesis and confirmed by New Testament writers to be Messanic in nature.

It prophetically predicts that the Biblical canon consisting of "the law" or the Old Testament prophets beginnng with Moses and ending with Malichi along with the "testimony" which in Messanic context refers to the written "testimony"of the apostles (Rev. 1:3) given them by Jesus Christ will be completed, or to "bind up and seal" and it will be done "among my disciples" which are contextually identified by the writer of hebrews as the apostles.

Jesus predicted the same thing in the upper room discourse when he said that the Holy Spirit would lead his apostles into "all truth" and that it would be through their WRITTEN "words" as "scripture" (Jn. 17:17) future generations would come to know Christ (Jn. 17:20).

The Apostles recognized this task and recognized each others writings as "scripture" (2 Pet. 3:15-17; 1 Thes. 2:19; 2 Tim. 3:16-17).

The last living apostle began his final written epistle with recognition that he was providing the FINAL END TIME revelation of the "testimony" (Rev. 1:2) provided by Jesus Christ and when finishing it sealed it in obedience to Isaiah 8:16.

In Isaiah 8:16 with the prediction of the completed written revelation the next anticipated revelation after the sealing of scripture is the revelation of Christ from heaven:

16 ¶ Bind up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples.
17 And I will wait upon the LORD, that hideth his face from the house of Jacob, and I will look for him.

John the one who sealed it up and bound it up with his final written scripture conveys the very same thing as Isaiah 8:16-17 in regard to the next anticipated revelation from heaven:

18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
20 ¶ He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Moreover, with the final addition of Revelation the Bible reads as you would expect a FINISHED revelation would read.

Genesis provides the beginning of all things
Revelation provides the end of all things

Sin is introduced in Genesis and sin is no more in Revelation

The garden of eden is introduced in Genesis and appears again in Revelation

Satan enters the world in Genesis and Satan is cast out forever in Revelation

Creation of the first world in genesis and a new creation in Revelation

The Sun and moon are introduced in Genesis the sun and moon no more in Revelation

Genesis provides the complete record of origins while Revelation provides the complete record of endings.

It reads as a finished book would expect to read.


Paul was a prophet, spoke and wrote under inspiration and in his final epistle he anticipated the completion of the Biblical canon and thus could say that written scripture was SUFFICIENT for ALL RIGHTOUSNESS, for correction, for instruction, for reproof that the man of God may be THOROUGHLY FURNISHED UNTO ALL GOOD WORKS and yet he did not include or mention anything or any need for ORAL TRADITIONS. This is precisely why Peter in his final epistle claimed that WRITTEN prophetic scripture SUPERSEDES his own oral tradition as He claims the written scripture is "MORE SURE" than his own oral traditions:

16 ¶ For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
17 For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
18 And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
19 ¶ We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

 

Just re-phrasing your opinion doesn't make it any more true!

Er...no. You obviously have never actually read any liturgies from the 1st century. Try the Liturgy of St James (qv) or the Liturgy of St Mark used by the Alexandrian Church.

Again, read the Liturgies of the NT era and you will see how very wrong you are.

You missed out presbyters, but never mind

Not so vast - the church by the end of the Apostolic period was clearly episcopal in governance not congregational. There's no record of 'one member, one vote' as practised by modern Baptist congregations in the NT or indeed subsequently prior to the Reformation.

But, hey, don't let the facts distract you!

It's already been shown that you've misinterpreted that Scripture. In other words, I don't think it means what you think it means...

 

It should be patently obvious to any reader that you have already been proven wrong multiple times in this thread alone, without the need to argue over your "exposition" of Isaiah 8:16.

WM!

 

For example, please provide such "proven" evidences???

You can't deal with the exposition and so you just mouth it.

 

Quoting traditon to sustain tradition????? I referred to the Biblical record not some uninspired traditions.

No I didn't! Acts 20:17,28 proves that "presbyters" and "bishops" are one and the same office in New Testament churches.

It is not the end or tradition I am concerned with but the Biblical pattern. I am not defending tradition - you are!

For example, provide what has been "shown" to be misinterpretation of Isaiah 8:16?

LIke other Romanists you cannot answer so you play word games and make unsubstantiated accusations.