I'm becoming Orthodox

And yet nowhere in Scripture does it say that is is "sufficient".

However, I actually believe that Scripture is materially sufficient, just not formally sufficient. In other words, Scripture has all the "stuff" necessary for doctrine to be derived (whether implicitly or explicitly) but without the guidance of the Apostolic Tradition and Rule of faith, the "stuff" can be miscontrued and distorted to say anything, even given meanings opposite of what was ultimately intended.

For instance, it took the revelation of Christ and the preaching of the apostles to not only give the true interpretation of the Old Testament but also the specific details of the New Covenant. Those who refused to acknowledge the apostles as Christ's ministers of the New Covenant remained blind to the true meaning of the Old and to the fact of the arrival of the New.

Also, in the early fifth century, not too long after the NT canon was "finalized", we have these statements from Vincent of Lerins in his Commonitory, showing how the material sufficiency of Scripture is not enough to ensure sound doctrine:


"I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing 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. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, 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."

Just substitute: "Bapist...Lutheran...Methodist...Calvinist....Pentecostal...Adventist...Unitarian...Jehovah's witness...Campellite...Oneness..." for "Novatian...(through)....Nestorian" and one can see just how applicable his point is still today.

 

The scripture "ARE ABLE" and they result in the man of God "BEING ADQEQUATE" and indeed "SUFFICIENTLY" equipped for every good work!

A key point to deny if one wants to escape the accountability of scripture in exaulting the man made traditions of the Orthodox and Catholic faiths.

Wouldn't it be better to leave the practices of the dark ages and embrace the text of scripture instead?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I have not seen Pews - but they had folding chairs and an open section in the center.

I have to admit that if I had to stand through that entire service it would have been even more of an "endurance" proposition than it was.

I was very happy to see how that group worshipped and it was impressive that their entire 50 minute responsive reading section was so often repeated that everyone knew it by wrote.

I just prefer to have my mind more engaged in the service with a variety of songs, scripture, message, etc I tend not to think of worship attendance/participation as something to be "endured" or "achieved".

But that is just me.

In Chrit,

Bob

 

In this argument above it appears that these scriptures ALONE are "sufficient" to debunk the "swallow tradition if the one giving it claims to be an Apostles of some flavor".

Why are the denomintations steeped in "tradition" so adverse to these texts?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan
In Coptic Christianity it is not considered unusual to take crutches and walkingsticks to church to ease the burden of having to stand through the whole thing.

 

Doubting Thomas, all your arguments are arguments in your last post to me are from silence. The passage that states scripture is sufficient for the man of God was posted by another poster -- 2 Tim. 3.16, 17.

To believe that there are teachings outside the Bible that have equal validity to the Bible, or even are superior, is to believe that God left out stuff in his word he wants us to know. Why give us a canon of scripture that is incomplete? This seems to go against God's character, imo.

Extrabiblical teachings lead lead to belief in things like the assumption of Mary into heaven.

 

Doubting Thomas,

You asked for a scripture that makes clear that the scriptures are "sufficient"

I picked one of the multitudes, posted it, and commented thusly...

Which you quoted and then said...

Unbelievable.

Its responses of precisely that nature, that are so stunningly ridiculous, that causes so many of us who understand the truth regarding these matters to wonder whether some type of brainwashing is actually taking place in the highly liturgical, extra-biblical, tradition encrusted and idolatry laden groups such as the Catholic Church.(and others like it)

It just boggles the mind.

Its such an exceedingly sad thing to watch this taking place in what I am assuming is an otherwise very good mind.

Very sadly,

Mike

 

Nowhere in those verses does it say that Scripture is "sufficient". "Profitable"?, yes. "Sufficient"?, silence.
(Also if you note in my last post, I'm perfectly happy to admit a material sufficiency of scripture, not the formal sufficiency for reasons I already outlined. See especially the comments of Vincent of Lerins.)

The canon of scripture is not "incomplete". It is what it is. The impetus to even form, or delineated, a NT "canon" was in response to heretics like Marcion, who wanted to excise much of it (leaving only edited versions of Luke and the Pauline epistles), or others who wanted to justify their gnostic teachings in spurious writings ("gospels", "acts", and "epistles") falsely attributed to real apostles. Thus the canon as finalized contained the authentic apostolic writings--nothing more (spurious gospels/acts), nothing less (Marcion's truncated "canon"). This finalization of the canon did nothing to obviate the need for interpreting the canonical Scriptures with the equally canonical Apostolic rule of faith in the living, worshipping context of the Apostolic Church.

Or give us an idea of what happened to the apostles in history that wasn't recorded in the book of Acts. (Such historical happenings are thus, technically, "extrabiblical"). Or how early Christians in fact worshipped when such wasn't always specifically spelled out in the epistles (though hinted at) because these were not exhaustive church manuals. Just because such wasn't exhaustively recorded in Scripture doesn't make such any less historical and true. To deny this is to not only deny the historical nature of Christianity and the Church, but is also to deny the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

The NT wasn't written in a vacuum. It was written the context of already existing and worshipping Churches and was to be interpreted within this context. This context, as well the canonical sciptures and the authentic apostolic interpretation thereof, is the tradition of the Apostles.

 

Nobody's arguing that these things are "apostolic tradition" equal with the written Word.

Yeah, an unfortunate side effect, but I'd rather have the freedom we have now, then be back 1000 years ago, when the Church would burn people at the stake for saying that the earth was round or not in the center of the earth, and all the other abuses common!
(Tauf; I will get to your objections next).

No I wouldn't. But then I do not follow "Mosaic oral tradition" either. But to a Jew, who places that on an equal level with the written word; it doesn't matter what miracles one performs. (People in demonic religions could perform miracles too). But this should show you how dangerous claims of "oral tradition" can be. It blinds you to the truth.

Then with all your talk of our schism, you have to explain the rift between the East and West. Are you saying that only the East is the church? And also, there iare differing perceptions of what a "church" is. You, as well as many others are focused on an ORGANIZATION; and since we have so many organizations, we are so "divided". What you are calling the "visible church" is what we call the "invisible" church, which you also criticize. The "entire Church" is a visible body of individuals and an invisible organization. That's how we break it down. All the individuals and little organizations may not agree on everything, but on the essentials of Christ and His death, resurrection and salvation, they basically agree. All that other stuff you mention, such as Calvinism vs. Arminianism, etc. are not as essential as you think, though they seem like it, and some act like they are. Because there is such disagreement on it, most "agree to disagree". And your Church takes sides on it as well. (hyper-Arminianism going into Pelagianism, for example, with the Church gradually changing positions from an Augustinian influence), so you are apart of the game, and cannot sit back and look at us and all our dissension. We cannot control people's minds and beliefs, so trying to have an all powerful organization or magesterium dictate what is truth is no soulution, when they are just as much apart of the problem.

But issues like those kinds of liturgy would definitely develop problems, mispractice, etc., and would come up in the epistles. The way you're making it sound, is if these were some secret practices that were deliberately left out and committed to oral transmission exclusively, (as if to hide). Basically, you can speculate on these practices, and who can prove or disprove any of it? IT looks to me like just a way to pass off any unbiblical teaching without scriptural authority; just like the Jews and their Mosaic traditions with all of its additions to the Law.

That doesn't say who or even exactly when this was from. In synagoges even? Any image was strictly forbidden by the Jews, so these were obviously paganized groups who had compromised. (There were various groups of both Jews and Christians and even hybrids of both, who had all sorts of beliefs and practices. This monolithic "Tradition" is not as solid and free from schism as you think!) There is no proof such things were ever authorized either orally or written by the spostles.

So later people; including some Proestants, agreed with this interpretation. Now; I have to bring up one of DHK's old type points: Is Jesus literall a lamb or a tree with branches? Are we as the Church literally a woman?
People basically made up some new type of "spiritual presence" even though the only spiritual presence shown in scripture is the Holy Spirit that indwells us, especially "whenever two or three are gathered in My name". THAT is what the "spiritual presence" of Comunion is! But the Church of the post-apostolic era had to go amd make a new idol out of material substance, as it did in many other areas. I'm surprised they didn't make those other things lteral as well and chuck it all up to some "spiritual mystery".

So you assume because some early fathers said things people interpret as real presence and baptismal regeneration that ALl of the early Christians, and therefore all of the apostles agreed on these things. We see in the issue of quartodecimanism, that a majority believed in Sunday, but there were some, closely connected to the last surviving apostle who kept the Hebrew practice. (And actually, the link of Polycarp to John is much stronger than the link of Rome and other places to Peter and Paul, because that was only a claim, or basically a legend, after those apostles hed been dead for decades already.)
So you admit that was just some thing only one apostle did, and not an "apostolic tradition", and that it was the later Church that determined what the "true" practice was, in contradiction to what at least one apostle did. But once again, if the small body of evidence for quartodecimanism had been lost or even overlooked, you would be saying that Easter Sunday was another one of those "universal" practices "agreed by the apostolic body as a whole". But this should should show you how practices did change, no matter how close to the apostles they were.

I believe the Spirit gave a special leading in the Church for determining the canon. (over the centuries; not saying that the Spirit directly directed the councils). That does not mean the entire Church always completely followed the Spirit in all areas. Else, then how could there be all the schoisms today? The Spirit guided the church until 1054, or the 1500's, and then stepped back and let everyone do as they pleased. Or do we just blame the almighty Enlightenment (just as the Fundamentalists and many of the other "schisms" you criticize do!), which apparently overpowered the Holy Spirit after all those centuries and allowed the one church to lose its sole power?
No, mean always went about their own way, and where one body tried to control everone (but still had errors of its own; some grievous ones at that), it got to the point where the world got tired of that and opted for religious freedom instead. So everyine then could indulge in whatever they thought was the truth, and form an organization around it. And here we are today. Still does not mean the former way was right.

But you forget that if all these other groups are wrong, then you are just taking one group and exalting it over the others because of seniority: it is the oldest organization But it is just as human as all the others, and just as prone to misinterpreting not only the written word, but even its "oral tradition". Once again, if a written word is so easy to misinterpret, then how much more will somehting that is not even written? In fact, in light of the doctrines such as baptism and Communion; we see that these "oral traditions" are nothing more than just more interpretation of that some written word everyone else supposedly gets wrong.
No matter what you say, it all comes down to which body of fallen men you will choose to trust in. The only things yours has over the others is that it was older.

 

Eric B,

A better question is name ONE person who did NOT agree with them? Just ONE would be fine.

 

Orthodoxy was not as bad as Roman Catholicism, plus did not hold the power it had; so it was spared all the accretions and stuff and the dissension that the RCC faced. It still agreed with many of the RCC's positions, and particularly the chief oned being discussed here. You all keep talking about "one true Church", but the RCC makes the same claim, based ont he same claim of "apostolic tradition" over the same doctrines/practices, and also for the ones that you disagree with them over (which they can lump you in with "all the factions and divisions" like Protestantism that stem from rejecting tradition). And you all do lump Baptists and SDA's into the same pot together with every other "Protestant" group, as a bunch of rationalistic schismatics who refuse to submit to the "true Church"! After all, aren't these discussions basically "Protestantism vs. Catholicity"?

 

How about someone who didn't mention them? I would have to go look through all of them, but I'm sure some did not go into these things (unless their writings were the so-called "instruction manuals" on liturgy and other details that the NT were not supposed to be).
We cannot just jump what some others said over to them, and then assume this "universal consensus".

 

I am not exactly sure what you are saying here, but you seem to be saying that things that happened outside recorded scripture are true, too. Yes, but being true does not put it on a par with scripture. God's word is way beyond just some recorded facts and instructions. God's word is alive (Heb. 4.12) and convicts us - it has the power of salvation in it.

Recorded acts of history or church worship, etc., outside of scripture can be useful and helpful, but those are not mandates nor can we be sure they are always the best things to model on or do because they are not given to us by God in his word.

The NT was written in the context of the very early church that was still being planted. It was not developed yet but in embryo stage, and I suppose will continue to develop until Jesus comes back. I am not sure what your point with this is.

What interpretation and by whom? Are you talking about interpretation of scripture after the completed canon? Where is the authority for that?

 

Hey, I met ArchBishop Dmitri years ago I think at St. Seraphim in Dallas. I went with a Russian friend. We went to lunch and everthing.

Look Bob, I am Baptist myself, and I'll tell you, the service was absolutely beautiful. What I saw was more Scripture reading and worship and symbolism than I have seen in any of the churches I attend in the Baptist world. Sounds like you had an attitude and missed the real worship they were having. Unless you are smug enough to think only those of your way of thinking can really 'comprehend' or have Jesus. Give it up bro, there will be more than us Baptists in heaven....really sorry to break the news to you, you heard it from me first.

Now regarding the differences between Orthodox and RCC, to a Baptist, not much difference, almost the same theology, same interpretations, same sotierology. The differences between the two such as the filioque and papal authority and the uses of icons are so minor to an Evangelical that we could hardly seperate the two or see how they are really different.

As far as becoming Orthodox, brother, just follow Jesus there and believe in your heart with all sincerity that it is Jesus you are following. You will find him there.

 

Tauf, which Patriarchate are you going to come under? Antioch?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yet you commit the fallacy of assuming that only what is written down qualifies as "God's word". Yet Paul commended the Thessalonians for receiving his oral preaching (which they "heard")as what it in fact was--the word of God (1 Thess 2:13). Christ Himself is the Word of God in the ultimate sense, yet not everything He ever said or did was written down as John attests (John 21:25).

My point was that the various writings of the NT were never meant to be exhaustive church manuals or systematic catechisms but were written at various times for very specific purposed with a specific audience in mind.

What interpretation and by whom? Are you talking about interpretation of scripture after the completed canon? Where is the authority for that? </font>[/QUOTE]In the church founded by Christ, the pillar and ground of truth. (1 Tim 3:15).

 

Eric B
"Orthodoxy was not as bad as Roman Catholicism"
"
Roman Catholicism and Protestantism at least share the same notion of Salvation and Original Sin even if they differ on the practical applications of Grace.
Eastern-Orthodoxy went a completely different direction on all of that.

You might want to reread the following.

"Eastern Orthodoxy's assertion that humanity's ultimate goal is theosis, or participation in the Divine life, has informed and shaped their doctrine of the Fall. Their understanding of original sin differs from that of Western theologians in that Adam and Eve are not responsible, through their sin, for universal guilt, but for universal mortality. Adam's personal sin did not bring condemnation upon all people, it brought death upon all people. The experience of mortality leads otherwise guiltless individuals to sinful acts [12], but the Orthodox maintain that each person's sin is the result of his or her own choice and not the choice of Adam [13].

Given this idea that humanity's basic problem is mortality, the Orthodox view of redemption is much broader than that of the Western church. Western theological tradition emphasizes the judicial aspect of salvation, asserting that in salvation, God is primarily concerned with the remission of sin [14]. The Orthodox view is that the gospel is not primarily the solution to man's problem with personal sin. It is God's provision of divine life in Christ, the beginning of theosis. A residual benefit of beginning the process of deification is the remission of sins. Baptism is the means by which the believer enters into this new life. John Meyendorff summarizes the idea of redemption in Eastern Orthodox theology well. He says,


Communion in the risen body of Christ; participation in divine life; sanctification through the energy of God, which penetrates the humanity and restores it to its "natural" state, rather than justification, or remission of inherited guilt--these are at the center of Byzantine understanding of the Christian Gospel [15]. "
http://www.leaderu.com/isot/docs/orthdox3.html



"plus did not hold the power it had"
"
Riiight....
Before Islam stomped on it. The Head of Eastern-Orthodoxy was the Byzantine emperor who was both the worldly and the religious leader of the empire.

 

These things we have added do not distort the gospel or syncretize religion, as deep mystic ritual with icons and other things do. Of course, some aise issues like the Campbelliests with instruments, using the same logic as you regardng the early fathers. (showing that your line of argumentation is just as much apart of the game of sectarianism). To me, those things are non-essential, (I can take them or leave them, and I agree somewhat with the EOC's point on pews) and I don't accuse people who do not use them of not following the apostolic tradition.

And you are still asuming that these "oral" traditions were a totally different set of teachings isolated from everything else.

The NT warns us of error creeping in right as they wrote.

It's the concept of organizations and magisteriums that were foreigh to the scripture. Whether the Church sets up one of these institutions or a multitude of them is nto the point. The solution is not just to choose one over the others becase it is the oldest, or whatever.

That's why I basically limited the criterion to "Christ and His death, resurrection and salvation". If other men want to rise up and make these other issues (which I criticize in my writings as "one-upmanship, anyway), then that's on them. (that's what started the problem int he first place. There is nothign I can do about them. Once again, joining your group that also adds its own list of other "essentials" will not help the situation.

No, you're side is the one who starts speculating on the oral tradition, and projecting them back to the NT because you see some of your ideas were believed by some early fathers. (and even they could be misinterpreted) "give them the benefit of the doubt"? That is really giving you the benefit of the doubt. That is not how we build doctrine and practice. That is not what the Bereans did. They could see the apostles doctrine substatiated, even if they may not have seen it in a different light before. There was no speculation, but then, we'll just give then the benefit of the doubt and take their word for it. That's how people are tricked into error, not how they find truth.
And if you appeal to the Holy Spirit, then once again, there has to be some cuoff period where the Church was led into all truth, and then when it stopped and fractuured into all the denominations. Being that man were men all along, and most would not follow the Spirit's guidance, we cannot blame just the docetists or enlightenment, as if they were all powerful influences that quelched the Spirit. The Spirit is gentle and lets men go their way, and they would begin to fall away right away.

No, those are later interpretations of both the NT and the early writings. And remember, the Jews mistook christ's words about His flesh and blood the same way, and were offended. So something like that was a deep truth that could easily be misunderstood by those not led by the Spirit. Still, I bring that up, because the rationale you are using would lead one to take those other things literally.

Once again; there is only one spiritual presence of Christ, and that is the Holy Spirit. What you are suggesting would necessitate a fourth person of the Godhead. (Just like the "parousia" of the preterists). Or you can try to say that the Holy Spirit inhabits bread and wine. But that is also foreign to the scriptures. The Holy Spirit inhabits US as we sit and partake of the elements.
Your final court of appeal is always what the church believed and saw no controversy with. But these still are just men, who believed other wrong things (Antisemitism was on the rise, and explains the rejection of the semiapostolic Passover Communion), and quashed things a majority (often centered in almighty Rome) disagreed with. Once again, minus the scant evidence we have for the quartodeciman debate, we would think that was no controversy as well.
Please pardon us if we do not want to place so much faith in men. Once again, you acknowledge men went astray, and on a wide scale, and it had to begin somwhere.

They change who Christ is. With all of the different doctrines of all of the different denominations, they stll share the ortodox concept of Christ. Groups like those are not considered "denominations", but cults. Are you accusing all of the denominations of worshipping a false Christ?

That's the post-apostolic Church. We cannot project this back to the NT. Power bases were forming that quickly quashed and buried dispute. And once again, the doctrine was very prone to misunderstanding.

All those who mentioned it. Giving you your benefit of the doubt that this is not being misunderstood, you cannot project this on all those who didn't mention it (including NT writers). Those trying to bring in new understandings of things gained a lot of influence, and more fervently used writings (which we see warned about by Paul), and eventually buried those that did not agree. It is known by historians that a lot was lost in the period between Peter and Paul and the earliest fathers, by which time the church was very different. People even wonder where the writings of some of the apostles helpers are.

Once again, you're looking at a council where it was "officially decided" as the "consensus" of the "canon". While there may have been some question about some books; had a general idea of which books were genuine. And then if you insist that other books were recognized before that, then some of these interpretations of doctrines could be coming form these other sources, rather than those sources coming from apostolic tradition.

They didn't change. The difference was that the Roman Church had gotten so corrupt (with its indulgences and other abuses) that people en-masse began leaving, and the advent of printing led to the widespread publication of the scriptures (which had been kept away from the laity. I wonder if the Eastern Church did this as well), so now, people began forming new organizations. Originally, Luther and others did not intend this, but aimed to reform the Catholic church. But Rome was set in her ways and expelled the Reformers. Riught there is anpother reason Rome was just as much to blame for all the schisms. Theyc ouldn;t admit error, and then herself separated those who could no longer go long with it.
All along, since the first Milennium, the Spirit was not being followed, for things to get this bad in the first place. So that 1000 years, when you had this all powerful organization, and its sister int he East, were not as homogenous as you make it sound like; only controlled by the institution. But hat institution was composed of men, and they did and taught many things wrong, and appealing to apostolic tradition is no justification. So that is not what we are to go back to.

But once again, if your application of this were true, then no part of the Church would have ever gone into error. The leaders' humanity would be overridden in spite of thesmselves, and any abues we saw are just right, regardless. And then all the schisms remain unexplained. Either they were a result of the enlightenment overpowering the Spirit, or the Spirit stepped away and allowed men to do what they want. But if it's that, then this could have occurred much earlier than the Reformation period.
Or perhaps the problem is once again looking at the Church as the visible "organization", and thus identifying that organization as the "divine-human organism". The organism is the invisible body of those who trust in christ as their Lord, regardless of the organization they are nominally afiliated with. Together, they make up the visible Church. But we must not confuse this with an organization formed around it. This is what you consistently focus on, to be comparing your "one true Church" with "all the schmistatic denominations". Those are orgnizations you are looking at. They are all based on control; whether one magisterium controls all, or people break away from it, but then maintain their own circle of control. Forget the organizations for a moment, and you will see the real divine-human organism!

 

It seems the Fall affected both man's physical ife (leading to mortality) as well as his spiritual life (spiritual death). Notice Adam ran and hid from God after sinning. This was an effect that passed down. This new sin nature is what led Cain to murder Abel, not some reaction to the fact that they were no longer physically immortal. Denial of this point is the same error as both Judaism and Islam, which feel that man is basically good, and the goal is to get him to follow more laws, and when we see men do evil, something is really wrong with them, and they should be eliminated (hece Islamist terrorism. Judaism is more passive having lost their power, but we can see it in the zeal of the leaders in Jesus' time when they had the power, plus the separationism of some groups today).
And not only is our sin nature not to be denied, but even after sanctification, we are still not perfect, and thus not completely restoed to our "original" state.
We still sin, and we still die physically. I hope the Orthodox do not walk around thinking they are literally perfect.
But sin has to be [legally] remitted to recieve the power of God unto sanctification. It is not just some fringe benefit.