My church defined your church's bible

[orthodox]

..........CONTINUED

Tradition is not necessary, because there are others scriptures that support the doctrine. I myself believe that the Johannine comma was a note that got added, and not part of the text (breaks the flow of what is being said), but there are other passages that support God as Father, Son and Spirit.

Well, you believe there are, which is great, but over time many people have believed otherwise.

Daniel Wallace, who is a bible scholar and also a fundamentalist evangelical Christian has said:

http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1496

"The list of passages which seem explicitly to identify Christ with God varies from scholar to scholar, but the number is almost never more than a half dozen or so. As is well known, almost all of the texts are disputed as to their affirmation—due to textual or grammatical glitches—John 1:1 and 20:28 being the only two which are usually conceded without discussion."

And of those two, John 20:28 is sometimes said to be referring to Jesus and the Father, which wipes that one out. And John 1:1's interpretation depends on whether you believe there to be one God or not, or in other words, it doesn't prove anything alone, and given John 10's discussion of "gods" has been disputed also.

In other words, you've got other verses, but they've all been disputed. That's great that you've come to the right conclusion, but there's a lot of other people out there who aren't as smart as you, and need help. But who to trust? Not just anybody, I'm sure you'll agree. We would say the same as what we said 1900 years ago when the gnostics were active - you trust the church the apostles built.

Just about all churches have someone overseeing with others under him. Many just don't use those titles. I myself would prefer the biblical words.\

Well no, not "just about all" churches actually. Presbyterians and many baptists claim there should not be someone overrseeing others, but rather there should be a group of elders, none of which has the others under him. And then there are the quakers who don't have any leaders at all. I think we're up to about 2000 churches now.

As to the "biblical words", I don't know about you, but I don't speak Greek, so I use a translation, one of which is "bishop". The Greek Orthodox I assume, continue to use the biblical words, because they speak... well Greek.

Because they read it through the lens of tradition and assumed it all came from the apostles, with no need for any further proof of it other than "we all believe this".

Of course if you were 100 years old in the year 180, you may be old enough to remember the apostles, so how it all supposedly got forgotten remains a mystery.

But let's say they were "reading it through the lens of tradition, and assumed they needed no more proof than "we all believe this".... Why did they do THAT??

Let me suggest to you why: Nothing in scripture says not to do that. Scripture says to hold to the traditions. Scripture doesn't say to hold only to scripture. Common sense would have dictated to them that anything which all the churches hold to is highly likely to be apostolic in origin.

Thus, they acted rationally, correct?

You may think this creates more unity, but then if it's wrong, what good is unity?

Well, according to you it doesn't matter if you've got a bunch of stuff wrong, as long as you have Jesus right? But Jesus' last prayer is that "they may be one, just as we are one". So Jesus cares if we are one, right?

So accept doctrines and practices we do not agree with just to have "unity"? (Didn't you quote someone earlier who spoke against that?) In that case, we might as well have the "jellyfish" concept.

You already have the jellyfish concept! You havn't yet torn down your denominational signs, but you are most of the way there in spirit.

You're still saying the church is not the institution or the leaders, or the traditions, but it seems to be all of those things that define what the true Church is to you.
If you say it's the people; I would agree, but say then that they do not have to be confined to one institution, distinguished by a peculiar set of doctrines and practices that could not be found in scripture, and have to be claimed to have been passed all the way down. That is definig the Church by the traditions, as their own self-evidence.
Let the Mormons and JW's go out and teach what they want.

But you already really agree that the church is defined by her traditions! JWs claim their doctrine only comes from scripture, but you don't accept them. Why? Because their traditions are too far different from your own traditions for you to accept. And Mormons have a different tradition of what is scripture. They believe in Jesus, but again their traditions are too different for you to come with.

In both cases, different tradition has led to different beliefs which leads you to exclude them from your understanding of the church. You're no different to us at all, it's just that we're a little more particular than you in how much variation we will tolerate. But hey, give it another 30 years and you may be calling the JWs and Mormons your brethren.

 

[Eric B]

I'm not contradicting the text. Obviously the Bereans could search the OT to see if it prophesised the overall message that Christ died to atone for sins etc, which was what Paul preached to them in the streets.

But once the Bereans joined the church that Paul started - if they chose to, then they would have been to exposed to a ton of teaching that were nowhere written down in the OT. Like baptism, communion, not having to keep the Law anymore, and so on and on with all the uniquely NT teachings.

There's no logical way you can point to the Bereans as any evidence of sola scriptura, because if the Bereans became Christians, they would have to immediately go beyond scripture with new covenant teachings. So how noble really were the Bereans, given that they weren't the sola scriptura adherants that you had hoped?

Because we KNOW that Paul was preaching... say baptism, and we KNOW that the NT wasn't written yet and we KNOW that baptism is not in the OT. Thus for the Bereans to become Christians they had to go beyond the scriptures.

Actually; I never used the Bereans to argue for Sola Scriptura, (though I believe they supports the principle). I first mentioned them comparing how I test things I hear by scripture.
So what you're saying is that they tested him with scripture in the beginning, but once he "got" them (into the Church) then they just had to take his word for everything. Actually, concepts like Baptism and Communion did have basis in the OT, and it was a matter of them trusting their interpretations of the OT to support Christ and these ordinances. Still, this says nothing about the "traditions" you are advocating.

If it referred to what they were reading there and then, why on earth tell them to hold to the oral, which according to you is plagued with the issues of reliability? And if all he said in the oral, was what was written in the rather short letter of the Thessalonians, why didn't he write it all down before he left, and save the reliability problems, not to mention arguments 2000 years later?

Remember, the example we have seen, which is a simple ethical teaching that was not spelled out there, but the people should have remembered it from the time he was there and taught it to them. So he gives them details of the principle in person, and then a specific example in the letter.

Here you go assuming, without any scriptural foundation, that a new-born baby is "unworthy". We believe that a new-born baby, being without sin, is worthy. And therefore, understanding is not a pre-requisite to receiving the benefit. You see, we are consistent in these matters.

We believe that a baby has a good conscience.

Here you go again with the extra-scriptural concepts that you need to support your traditions. And you complain about us!

Where in scripture does it even hint at any concept of an "age of accountability"?

Oh Really! Well "age of accountability" is just what you hinted at, when you said that the baby has a good conscience and without sin. They obvioulsy start being charged with ("accountable" for) sin later.
I didn't say a baby was "unworthy". Just that the fact that they do not even understand what is going on renders "worthy/unworthy" moot.

Because, as I said, baptism emparts a spiritual blessing that will assist the child in their coming life and walk with God. Remember the hankerchief? Remember the oil?

The handkerchief and oil supposedly bring physical healing. What is this "blessing" a newborn baby receives in baptism?

Ahh, the amazing differences that arise because of what we read into the silences, both in scripture and the rest of history. If all the church practices infant baptism, I assume that consistency is most likely because they were all taught the same by the apostles. You on the other hand assume it was because they all fell off the rails.

Your understanding? Is this your way of saying that you are importing your theology into the text?

Anyway, the text isn't about who is the source of the truth, it is about who is the custodian of the truth.

I've never heard EOC argue that it means "source". It means, as you say, pillar and support. The church is the one who supports the truth. The church is the one who upholds the truth. We support it, we uphold it. If you want to know the truth, wouldn't you go to whoever is upholding it?

Fine, but the way it is being used sometimes did seem to try to prove one was necesarily "one who was upholding it" based on "well, we're the Church, and we are the pillar and ground of truth", which makes it sould like "this is true because we say so". (And I then go on and admit the first thought was my own misunderstanding).

Well no, not "just about all" churches actually. Presbyterians and many baptists claim there should not be someone overrseeing others, but rather there should be a group of elders, none of which has the others under him. And then there are the quakers who don't have any leaders at all.

As to the "biblical words", I don't know about you, but I don't speak Greek, so I use a translation, one of which is "bishop". The Greek Orthodox I assume, continue to use the biblical words, because they speak... well Greek.

Most baptists I have seen have a "pastor", and if the church is big enough, there will be a bunch of people under him, often called "deacons", or I think also "elder"? (I'm not baptist, as you have seemed to assume). Some small church of 20 people (like the IFCA and EFCA I was in before) won't have enough people to need that.
When I said "biblical words", I meant "bishop" and "deacon", as opposed to the other words Churches have come up with).

But who to trust? Not just anybody, I'm sure you'll agree. We would say the same as what we said 1900 years ago when the gnostics were active - you trust the church the apostles built.

Ahh, the opposition of your baptist brethren. I guess we are up to 512 churches now.

I think we're up to about 2000 churches now.

Of course if you were 100 years old in the year 180, you may be old enough to remember the apostles, so how it all supposedly got forgotten remains a mystery.

But let's say they were "reading it through the lens of tradition, and assumed they needed no more proof than "we all believe this".... Why did they do THAT??

Let me suggest to you why: Nothing in scripture says not to do that. Scripture says to hold to the traditions. Scripture doesn't say to hold only to scripture. Common sense would have dictated to them that anything which all the churches hold to is highly likely to be apostolic in origin.

Well, according to you it doesn't matter if you've got a bunch of stuff wrong, as long as you have Jesus right? But Jesus' last prayer is that "they may be one, just as we are one". So Jesus cares if we are one, right?

But you already really agree that the church is defined by her traditions! JWs claim their doctrine only comes from scripture, but you don't accept them. Why? Because their traditions are too far different from your own traditions for you to accept. And Mormons have a different tradition of what is scripture. They believe in Jesus, but again their traditions are too different for you to come with.

In both cases, different tradition has led to different beliefs which leads you to exclude them from your understanding of the church. You're no different to us at all, it's just that we're a little more particular than you in how much variation we will tolerate. But hey, give it another 30 years and you may be calling the JWs and Mormons your brethren.

Well, according to the logic you seem to be using, it doesn't matter if a bunch of stuff might turn out to be actually wrong (unbeknownst to us); just as long as the Church agrees on it, we can just assume it was the truth.
(A person 100 years old in 180 could have remembered only John, vaguely from his childhood. Knowing an apostle is no guartantee that you will carry out all his teachings perfectly. One person can tell someone something right now, and the person get things mixed up along the way).
We don't call the differences in the way we interpret scripture "traditions". An interpretation can become a tradition, but when it comes to the Mormons and JW's, most of their interpretations come from theological agendas (such as making God only one person because it makes more sense). That is not fair to first mock the division of organizations in Protestantism by rairing the number of "churches" by the next power of 2 as you have been doing, (when an organization is not the Church, remember, so more than one organization is not more than one "church"), and then claim we will join with groups who deny the essence of who God is. Liberal mainliners might, and sometimes it seems the RCC (which holds to "tradition" like you) comes closer to that, as is being discussed right now in the "Billy Graham" thread.

 

[orthodox]

Actually; I never used the Bereans to argue for Sola Scriptura, (though I believe they supports the principle). I first mentioned them comparing how I test things I hear by scripture.
So what you're saying is that they tested him with scripture in the beginning, but once he "got" them (into the Church) then they just had to take his word for everything. Actually, concepts like Baptism and Communion did have basis in the OT, and it was a matter of them trusting their interpretations of the OT to support Christ and these ordinances. Still, this says nothing about the "traditions" you are advocating.

Whatever OT scriptures you refer to must have had a fairly tenuous relationship to Paul's teachings on communion and baptism. A sola-scriptura position on the OT, would not have you arriving at the NT church. However yes, OT plus Paul's oral instruction on interpretation may get you some way there.

That's a lot of what I'm saying. The OT scriptures for example make use of icons. You may not get to the Orthodox position with purely sola-scripture, but scripture plus the assistence of the apostolic tradition of interpretation does get you there.

Since you understand this, why do you still rail against the apostolic church?

Remember, the example we have seen, which is a simple ethical teaching that was not spelled out there, but the people should have remembered it from the time he was there and taught it to them. So he gives them details of the principle in person, and then a specific example in the letter.

Even that verse, it says to withdraw from a brother who walks disorderly AND not according to the tradition he received from us. It doesn't tell us what "walking disorderly" means. You don't know that without referring to the tradition. If walking disorderly was self-explanatory, he wouldn't have mentioned the tradition.

Oh Really! Well "age of accountability" is just what you hinted at, when you said that the baby has a good conscience and without sin. They obvioulsy start being charged with ("accountable" for) sin later.

No, the reason they are without sin is not because they are sinning, yet unaccountable. The reason they are without sin is because they havn't sinned!

I didn't say a baby was "unworthy". Just that the fact that they do not even understand what is going on renders "worthy/unworthy" moot.

How can it be moot? You're either worthy, or not worthy. There's no option for "inapplicable".

The handkerchief and oil supposedly bring physical healing. What is this "blessing" a newborn baby receives in baptism?

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/guidech3.pdf

Fine, but the way it is being used sometimes did seem to try to prove one was necesarily "one who was upholding it" based on "well, we're the Church, and we are the pillar and ground of truth", which makes it sould like "this is true because we say so". (And I then go on and admit the first thought was my own misunderstanding).

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. That doesn't mean something is true "because we say so", unless we are the Church. Your mission is to find out if we are the Church, because the Church is that which has ever upheld and supported the truth. There is no option of saying that the church stopped upholding the truth at some point.

Most baptists I have seen have a "pastor", and if the church is big enough, there will be a bunch of people under him, often called "deacons", or I think also "elder"? (I'm not baptist, as you have seemed to assume).

Some baptists have a pastor and some deacons. That's not the 1st century model Ignatius presents, where there is a bishop, some elders and some deacons. Some baptists have a number of elders and a number of deacons. That is not the 1st century model either.

Some small church of 20 people (like the IFCA and EFCA I was in before) won't have enough people to need that.

The usual reason there are churches so small they (supposedly) "don't need that" is because of the hundreds of denominations in protestantism. If there was one church in a city, even if it had multiple meeting places or congregations, then there could be one bishop, as there was in the 1st century. And otherwise, you could have a bishop in another city, which also was a common thing in the early church if your church was too small.

Of course, the other point is that some small 20 person group with a single leader lacks accountability. In the Orthodox church, everybody is accountable. Even the Patriarch has a spiritual consultant, and of course each Orthodox church is accountable to all the others at pain of loss of fellowship.

When I said "biblical words", I meant "bishop" and "deacon", as opposed to the other words Churches have come up with).

Ok, not sure if there is some criticism coming at Orthodoxy here or not.

Well, according to the logic you seem to be using, it doesn't matter if a bunch of stuff might turn out to be actually wrong (unbeknownst to us); just as long as the Church agrees on it, we can just assume it was the truth.

Actually, you seem to be the one who is saying it doesn't matter what you believe, thus your advocacy of the jellyfish church. What I said was, as long as you don't seem too particular what you believe, why do you continue in the disunity of protestantism which has split the church, which previously had a tragic 2 way split, into a 10,000-way split?

(A person 100 years old in 180 could have remembered only John, vaguely from his childhood.

Not necessarily, depends when John died. Anyway, the point is, why was there never controversy in the 2nd century, when there would have been people old enough to contradict anybody who would change things?

Knowing an apostle is no guartantee that you will carry out all his teachings perfectly. One person can tell someone something right now, and the person get things mixed up along the way).

Strangely, I don't see baptists getting mixed up and baptizing babies, or Presbyterians getting mixed up and refusing to baptize babies.

We don't call the differences in the way we interpret scripture "traditions". An interpretation can become a tradition, but when it comes to the Mormons and JW's, most of their interpretations come from theological agendas (such as making God only one person because it makes more sense).

Some would say we have a theological agenda to uphold the tradition of a Nicean creed, which supposedly, some would argue, was unduly influenced by secular concerns.

That is not fair to first mock the division of organizations in Protestantism by rairing the number of "churches" by the next power of 2 as you have been doing, (when an organization is not the Church, remember, so more than one organization is not more than one "church"), and then claim we will join with groups who deny the essence of who God is. Liberal mainliners might, and sometimes it seems the RCC (which holds to "tradition" like you) comes closer to that, as is being discussed right now in the "Billy Graham" thread.

You say it isn't fair, but from an Orthodox perspective, protestantism is losing its trinitarian doctrine. Go to an Orthodox liturgy sometime, everything is in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. You could stay in protestand land for decades and never even hear about the trinity. There's a shift going on, that unless you are standing in a position that is not changing (Orthodoxy), you won't even be aware of it.

As far as the RCC is concerned, we don't believe they hold to tradition. I think I've pointed out they've changed many things - age of receiving communion, leavened vs unleavened bread, the papacy, the filoque, laity not receiving the cup, indulgences and so on and so forth. We don't claim that tradition is good, unless it is the tradition of the Church, which is the church that doesn't change tradition. We claim to be the Church, thus we claim to be the ones who hold to the traditions. And again, we don't ask people to just trust us, we ask they should investigate the claims by reading about the early church.

If you ever decide to investigate Orthodoxy further, may I suggest "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware and "Becoming Orthodox" by Peter Gillquist. The latter book is the story of a protestant pastor of over a thousand people who converted the whole church en-masse over to Orthodoxy.

 

[Eric B]

A sola-scriptura position on the OT, would not have you arriving at the NT church. However yes, OT plus Paul's oral instruction on interpretation may get you some way there.
That's a lot of what I'm saying. The OT scriptures for example make use of icons. You may not get to the Orthodox position with purely sola-scripture, but scripture plus the assistence of the apostolic tradition of interpretation does get you there.

Since you understand this, why do you still rail against the apostolic church?

Even that verse, it says to withdraw from a brother who walks disorderly AND not according to the tradition he received from us. It doesn't tell us what "walking disorderly" means. You don't know that without referring to the tradition. If walking disorderly was self-explanatory, he wouldn't have mentioned the tradition.

Not necessarily, depends when John died. Anyway, the point is, why was there never controversy in the 2nd century, when there would have been people old enough to contradict anybody who would change things?

Strangely, I don't see baptists getting mixed up and baptizing babies, or Presbyterians getting mixed up and refusing to baptize babies.

Actually, you seem to be the one who is saying it doesn't matter what you believe, thus your advocacy of the jellyfish church. What I said was, as long as you don't seem too particular what you believe, why do you continue in the disunity of protestantism which has split the church, which previously had a tragic 2 way split, into a 10,000-way split?

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth. That doesn't mean something is true "because we say so", unless we are the Church. Your mission is to find out if we are the Church, because the Church is that which has ever upheld and supported the truth. There is no option of saying that the church stopped upholding the truth at some point.

You say it isn't fair, but from an Orthodox perspective, protestantism is losing its trinitarian doctrine. Go to an Orthodox liturgy sometime, everything is in the name of the Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. You could stay in protestand land for decades and never even hear about the trinity. There's a shift going on, that unless you are standing in a position that is not changing (Orthodoxy), you won't even be aware of it.

We don't claim that tradition is good, unless it is the tradition of the Church, which is the church that doesn't change tradition. We claim to be the Church, thus we claim to be the ones who hold to the traditions. And again, we don't ask people to just trust us, we ask they should investigate the claims by reading about the early church.

If you ever decide to investigate Orthodoxy further, may I suggest "The Orthodox Church" by Timothy Ware and "Becoming Orthodox" by Peter Gillquist. The latter book is the story of a protestant pastor of over a thousand people who converted the whole church en-masse over to Orthodoxy.

Uh, When have I "railed" against your church? I'm stating my disagreement with some of its concepts, that's all. Still, you try to get icons in there, and I don't see wht they should be speculated on, and the same question can be asked; of why there was not enough controversy and uncertainty over them for them to ever be mentioned in the epistles. You have gentiles coming out of paganism (which used idolatry) which they are being taught against, yet now here is a practice that is similar, yet supposedly different and used in the OT. That would raise many questions. (And there were debates in the second century over something as serious as Easter Sunday vs. Jewish Passover Communion (quartodecimanism), with the direct line from the apostle favoring the latter, and the "orthodox" Church going behind the Bishop of Rome with the former).
The context of the chapter DOES tell us what "walking disorderly" was: "eating any man's bread for nought" (v.8) and then in v11, he goes on and spells it out: "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but which are busybodies". This is much more clear than speculating that Paul "must have" taught the Bereans icons because all of his traditions weren't in the OT, but icons are.
The situtation is very different now from the second century, as we have the scriptures, and groups have formed organizations around their understanding of the scripture, with consititutions, statements of faith, etc. That's why these groups today are set in their doctrine. It was all still being formed in the Second century.
Perhaps more liberal, watered down churches are losing the Trinity, but in serious churches, you hear about it all the time, and many condemn popular teachers like TD Jakes for being modalist. Most of the other doctrines division has been caused over are not really essential like that, and the division I'd from people's own pride. We cannot be blamed for people slacking off in doctrine or dividing over lesser issues, and coming under the EOC institution won't help, as even the article you link mentions many such problems over here in that body.

No, the reason they are without sin is not because they are sinning, yet unaccountable. The reason they are without sin is because they havn't sinned!

How can it be moot? You're either worthy, or not worthy. There's no option for "inapplicable".

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/guidech3.pdf

Actually, this site says:
Infant Baptism. Because of the transforming power which
resides in the Mystery of Baptism, Orthodox Christians seek to
have their children Baptized very young, usually after the child is
forty days old. The purpose of child Baptism, too, is the regeneration
of the individual, for sin is not just a set of "wrong
acts," but a condition which besets human beings from the very
moment of birth. Children, too, are stained by the ancestral sin
of Adam and Eve and need the enlightenment of the Mystery of
Baptism.
In the West, where heterodox sects and cults have proliferated,
infant Baptism is often condemned. It is argued that a
child is either without sin and not in need of Baptism--a clearly
wrong teaching
Then it later says:
A child who is Baptized is enlightened and thus grows in Christian knowledge, benefited by the good guidance of his Christian parents.
That would be more the answer to what I was asking. But still, does every child who is baptized automatically grow in Christian knowledge and stay that way? If not, you might as well let them come and request baptism when they make their own choice for Christ.

Some baptists have a pastor and some deacons. That's not the 1st century model Ignatius presents, where there is a bishop, some elders and some deacons. Some baptists have a number of elders and a number of deacons. That is not the 1st century model either.

The usual reason there are churches so small they (supposedly) "don't need that" is because of the hundreds of denominations in protestantism. If there was one church in a city, even if it had multiple meeting places or congregations, then there could be one bishop, as there was in the 1st century. And otherwise, you could have a bishop in another city, which also was a common thing in the early church if your church was too small.

Of course, the other point is that some small 20 person group with a single leader lacks accountability. In the Orthodox church, everybody is accountable. Even the Patriarch has a spiritual consultant, and of course each Orthodox church is accountable to all the others at pain of loss of fellowship.

In the case of a small independant church with a pastor and deacons the "pastor" would be like the bishop. And there was accountability in the small Churches that I was in, because you had denominational leaders who came and checked on us. In that case, those would technically be the "bishops", though once again, many of these bodies are influenced by the secular business model, and didn't use those titles, and perhaps they should.

 

[orthodox]

Still, you try to get icons in there, and I don't see wht they should be speculated on, and the same question can be asked; of why there was not enough controversy and uncertainty over them for them to ever be mentioned in the epistles.

There wasn't enough controversy, because there wasn't controversy! The Jews were used to the use of icons, and the Christians merely carried on the tradition. Furthermore, you've got the same problem on your hands, because icons from the 2nd century Christians have been found. So why is there no controversy in the 2nd and 3rd century fathers? You are forced to admit there is no controversy. You can't complain about lack of controversy in the NT scriptures but then have no reason for the lack of controversy later on when even you have to admit icons were in use.

See also this link:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/cherub_arks.aspx

You have gentiles coming out of paganism (which used idolatry) which they are being taught against, yet now here is a practice that is similar, yet supposedly different and used in the OT. That would raise many questions.

It doesn't raise "many" questions, it raises one question which would have been quickly dispensed by pointing to a Jewish synagogue and distinguinging the two.

(And there were debates in the second century over something as serious as Easter Sunday vs. Jewish Passover Communion (quartodecimanism), with the direct line from the apostle favoring the latter, and the "orthodox" Church going behind the Bishop of Rome with the former).

The exact date to celebrate festivals is not a matter of doctrine, and there may well have been no agreement between the apostles or churches from the beginning. It arose out of a fundamental conflict between the Jewish method of calculation and the new consideration of the day Christ was risen. It can't be compared.

The context of the chapter DOES tell us what "walking disorderly" was: "eating any man's bread for nought" (v.8) and then in v11, he goes on and spells it out: "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but which are busybodies". This is much more clear than speculating that Paul "must have" taught the Bereans icons because all of his traditions weren't in the OT, but icons are.

So you think the "walking disorderly" or in other translations "an unruly life" is purely about not working and wasting time being a busybody? I can only say I disagree, that is only one part of it, and Paul says that those unruly are those who don't "follow my example", and I hardly think the only visible sign of Paul's lifestyle was that he wasn't lazy.

The situtation is very different now from the second century, as we have the scriptures, and groups have formed organizations around their understanding of the scripture, with consititutions, statements of faith, etc. That's why these groups today are set in their doctrine. It was all still being formed in the Second century.

We would disagree. We would say the doctrine and the faith was formed by the apostles in the 1st century. There may have been some clarification and development in a sense, but not any wholesale resetting of doctrine because nobody knew anything until they sat down and tryed to figure out the scriptures. The apostles didn't drop the scriptures out of the sky onto the church, and left them to figure it out. Rather the apostles taught the church the faith, and wrote the epistles to supplement their oral instruction.

Perhaps more liberal, watered down churches are losing the Trinity, but in serious churches, you hear about it all the time, and many condemn popular teachers like TD Jakes for being modalist.

That hasn't been my experience. Even otherwise "serious" churches don't really talk about the trinity. Of course, with your advocated jellyfish church, your "serious" church will be dragged down to the lowest denominator.

Actually, this site says:
Infant Baptism. Because of the transforming power which
resides in the Mystery of Baptism, Orthodox Christians seek to
have their children Baptized very young, usually after the child is
forty days old. The purpose of child Baptism, too, is the regeneration
of the individual, for sin is not just a set of "wrong
acts," but a condition which besets human beings from the very
moment of birth. Children, too, are stained by the ancestral sin
of Adam and Eve and need the enlightenment of the Mystery of
Baptism.
In the West, where heterodox sects and cults have proliferated,
infant Baptism is often condemned. It is argued that a
child is either without sin and not in need of Baptism--a clearly
wrong teaching

You're reading it with the Western mindset, and not the Orthodox mindset, which is understandable. But if you read it more carefully, especially in conjunction with other Orthodox instruction, you will understand.

First notice the definition of sin given - it isn't just sin as in "I've done the wrong thing". This was how I was using the word "sin", because I'm talking to you, a protestant, with your protestant definitions. But the definition given here: sin is "a condition". It does NOT mean that the baby is guilty. What it means is the baby inherits a propensity to sin, as well as the effects of sin from being in a fallen world. It doesn't mean the baby has inherited some kind of "original sin" which it needs immediate atonement for. But it does benefit from the blessings and graces of baptism because of the effects of sin, both in the environment and its own propensity to sin.

Then it later says:
A child who is Baptized is enlightened and thus grows in Christian knowledge, benefited by the good guidance of his Christian parents.
That would be more the answer to what I was asking. But still, does every child who is baptized automatically grow in Christian knowledge and stay that way? If not, you might as well let them come and request baptism when they make their own choice for Christ.

Because pragmatically, that's not how children work, and theologically, that's not how salvation works.

Pragmatically, young children believe what they are told by their parents. It's only when they get older that they gain the ability to reject what their parents tell them.

Theologically, children are not born guilty, they are born innocent (albeit, with a nature that will give them a propensity to sin). Since they are born innocent, the choice they need to make is not "for Christ" as you put it, rather the choice is "against Christ". It was the same with Adam, he started out in harmony with God, and the error was choosing against God. Since they are born as God's children, we baptise them into God's people, and we instruct them on how to stay there.

This is where Orthodoxy would kick up a fuss about the West's error with regards to original sin.

In the case of a small independant church with a pastor and deacons the "pastor" would be like the bishop. And there was accountability in the small Churches that I was in, because you had denominational leaders who came and checked on us. In that case, those would technically be the "bishops", though once again, many of these bodies are influenced by the secular business model, and didn't use those titles, and perhaps they should.

Well, some denominations would have some similarities. Of course, in your independent church scenario, it also differs from the early church in that the early church bishops were all communicating with each other and keeping each other accountable in the unity of the faith, as you see in Ignatius writing to all the other bishops.

 

[Eric B]

There wasn't enough controversy, because there wasn't controversy! The Jews were used to the use of icons, and the Christians merely carried on the tradition. Furthermore, you've got the same problem on your hands, because icons from the 2nd century Christians have been found. So why is there no controversy in the 2nd and 3rd century fathers? You are forced to admit there is no controversy. You can't complain about lack of controversy in the NT scriptures but then have no reason for the lack of controversy later on when even you have to admit icons were in use.

See also this link:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/cherub_arks.aspx

It doesn't raise "many" questions, it raises one question which would have been quickly dispensed by pointing to a Jewish synagogue and distinguinging the two.

We would disagree. We would say the doctrine and the faith was formed by the apostles in the 1st century. There may have been some clarification and development in a sense, but not any wholesale resetting of doctrine because nobody knew anything until they sat down and tryed to figure out the scriptures. The apostles didn't drop the scriptures out of the sky onto the church, and left them to figure it out. Rather the apostles taught the church the faith, and wrote the epistles to supplement their oral instruction.

The exact date to celebrate festivals is not a matter of doctrine, and there may well have been no agreement between the apostles or churches from the beginning. It arose out of a fundamental conflict between the Jewish method of calculation and the new consideration of the day Christ was risen. It can't be compared.

I thought it was about practice, as well as doctrine. If something like this (no less the very high point of the Christian Calendar) was OK for them to disagree on, what is the problem with us not baptizing babies, or using icons, or some of the things that divide Protestants amongst each other? And wouldn't there have been a "tradition" to settle it? Since the side closely connected to John favored Quartodecimanism, using your system of determining this, that would have been the apostolic tradition. But the Church went with the opposing practice.
The Jews would not have trusted any other icons besides the ones authorized by the Law of Moses, and perhaps their own oral tradition. Pictures of Mary would have surely created an uproar.

That hasn't been my experience. Even otherwise "serious" churches don't really talk about the trinity. Of course, with your advocated jellyfish church, your "serious" church will be dragged down to the lowest denominator.

I don't know which churches you are referring to as "serious". Many wouldn't let them get dragged down, so they would't join, and I realize that this "jellyfish" concept is a pipe dream. So it all of these people being unified under the EOC.

So you think the "walking disorderly" or in other translations "an unruly life" is purely about not working and wasting time being a busybody? I can only say I disagree, that is only one part of it, and Paul says that those unruly are those who don't "follow my example", and I hardly think the only visible sign of Paul's lifestyle was that he wasn't lazy.

That is the example given there, and the example pertinent to the situation, that the person wasn;t following (it doesn't say he failed to follow every single element of Paul's lifestyle). Or do you think the person was also guilty of refusing to use icons or baptize babies, and just was omitted here, again?

But it does benefit from the blessings and graces of baptism because of the effects of sin, both in the environment and its own propensity to sin.

Because pragmatically, that's not how children work, and theologically, that's not how salvation works.

Pragmatically, young children believe what they are told by their parents. It's only when they get older that they gain the ability to reject what their parents tell them.

Theologically, children are not born guilty, they are born innocent (albeit, with a nature that will give them a propensity to sin). Since they are born innocent, the choice they need to make is not "for Christ" as you put it, rather the choice is "against Christ". It was the same with Adam, he started out in harmony with God, and the error was choosing against God. Since they are born as God's children, we baptise them into God's people, and we instruct them on how to stay there.

This is where Orthodoxy would kick up a fuss about the West's error with regards to original sin.

This assumes their parents taught them about Christ. Many go through all the motions ang et their chindren "christened", and then the person grows up thinking that gives him some sort of merit. But if they are innocent and "God's children", why do they need to be baptized to be put "into God's people"?

 

[orthodox]

I thought it was about practice, as well as doctrine. If something like this (no less the very high point of the Christian Calendar) was OK for them to disagree on, what is the problem with us not baptizing babies, or using icons, or some of the things that divide Protestants amongst each other? And wouldn't there have been a "tradition" to settle it? Since the side closely connected to John favored Quartodecimanism, using your system of determining this, that would have been the apostolic tradition.

Remember, not every tradition is Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the catholic faith - the faith that the early church held universally. If you could prove that the early church universally held to something about the calendar, then maybe we'd have something to talk about.

But the Church went with the opposing practice.
The Jews would not have trusted any other icons besides the ones authorized by the Law of Moses, and perhaps their own oral tradition. Pictures of Mary would have surely created an uproar.

The Jews allowed pictures that reflected what was happening in heaven. Since the whole foundation of Christianity was that Christ died to release the souls from Hades into heaven, then there was no controversy that pictures of heaven now included the saints. If you disputed that, you disputed Christianity itself.

I don't know which churches you are referring to as "serious".

All those I attended in my protestant days. Maybe if I'd hung around a little longer in a presbyterian church I would have come across something...maybe

Many wouldn't let them get dragged down, so they would't join, and I realize that this "jellyfish" concept is a pipe dream. So it all of these people being unified under the EOC.

Protestantism is moving towards the jellyfish.

That is the example given there, and the example pertinent to the situation, that the person wasn;t following (it doesn't say he failed to follow every single element of Paul's lifestyle). Or do you think the person was also guilty of refusing to use icons or baptize babies, and just was omitted here, again?

It says to beware of those who don't walk according to the traditions, so yes it includes all the traditions.

This assumes their parents taught them about Christ.

Sure, and that is what you must promise to have your child baptized.

Many go through all the motions ang et their chindren "christened", and then the person grows up thinking that gives him some sort of merit.

Which is obviously bad, but it isn't what we teach.

But isn't the "once saved always saved" attitude of protestantism worse? I walked down at the alter call, so now I'm ok?

But if they are innocent and "God's children", why do they need to be baptized to be put "into God's people"?

Because they have a propensity to sin, and thus are benefited by the graces and blessings that come from baptism.

 

[Eric B]

Remember, not every tradition is Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the catholic faith - the faith that the early church held universally. If you could prove that the early church universally held to something about the calendar, then maybe we'd have something to talk about.

The Jews allowed pictures that reflected what was happening in heaven. Since the whole foundation of Christianity was that Christ died to release the souls from Hades into heaven, then there was no controversy that pictures of heaven now included the saints. If you disputed that, you disputed Christianity itself.

It says to beware of those who don't walk according to the traditions, so yes it includes all the traditions.

So it's a sin if a person or church doesn't use icons or baptize their baby when newborn instead of waiting a few years? (While something as significant as the annual celebration of Christ's resurrection was not a holy tradition?) This alone is enough to denounce all of Protestantism as ooutside "the true Church"? In the example we see, what Paul was criticizing was a more serious offense. The practices we are discussing Paul tended to relegate to "if one does so, let him keep it to the Lord" (which also included things like holy days). That's the biggest reason why I don't believe the rest of those "traditions" are what you think they are. The examplle given is the clue as to the types of things he was talking about.

All those I attended in my protestant days. Maybe if I'd hung around a little longer in a presbyterian church I would have come across something...maybe

Many Presbyterians are apart of what are known as the "liberal mainliners", and not what I meant by "serious Churches".

Because they have a propensity to sin, and thus are benefited by the graces and blessings that come from baptism.

And exactly how are they benefitted?

 

[orthodox]

So it's a sin if a person or church doesn't use icons or baptize their baby when newborn instead of waiting a few years?

As far as icons, well it would depend what you mean by "use icons". If you'd gone into the Jewish synagogue and shut your eyes during the whole service to avoid seeing the Cherabim, I think we'd have to say yes, you are walking unruly and making controversy in the community of god. As far as baptism, yes it would be a sin not to baptise your child into the Church, just like it would be a sin not to circumcise your child if you were a Jew.

(While something as significant as the annual celebration of Christ's resurrection was not a holy tradition?)

Why would that be a Holy Tradition? I mean, they didn't even understand that there was 365.25 days in a year, so calendars back then were all over the place. As I said, not everything is a Holy Tradition.

This alone is enough to denounce all of Protestantism as outside "the true Church"? In the example we see, what Paul was criticizing was a more serious offense. The practices we are discussing Paul tended to relegate to "if one does so, let him keep it to the Lord" (which also included things like holy days).

The problem is not so much whether minor things can keep you out of the true church. The problem is that there can only be one church, because there is only one truth. And the Church, being the pillar and support of the truth, must be one. That doesn't mean you're not a Christian outside the true church. But it does mean you have no authority to say what the truth is. You and your church didn't copy the scriptures through the ages. You and your church didn't take part in confirming the canon. You and your church didn't pass on the apostolic interpretations and context and traditions. That which you didn't receive, you can't pass on with authority, you can only pass on with your personal opinion.

The church is one, not merely in space, but also in time. The church must be one in doctrine, not only with those alive today, but also with those alive yesterday and throughout the centuries. The church must be one with all the Christians from the 1st century through to the present day. They are all there in heaven looking down as a great crowd of witnesses (Heb 12:1), and we refuse to break fellowship with either the living or the dead.

Many Presbyterians are apart of what are known as the "liberal mainliners", and not what I meant by "serious Churches".

Depends what part of the world you are in. In my part of the world, the "liberal mainliners" broke of from presbyterianism and a number of other denominations and renamed themselves. The presbyterians who were left are fundamentalist, Westminster confession-quoting, Nicean creed speaking, serious folk.

And exactly how are they benefitted?

They receive blessing. It's hard briefly to explain the Orthodox concept of blessings and sacrament. If an Orthodox person sees a priest, they will ask them for a blessing.

This idea has been resurrected in modern day protestantism, where frequently at the end of a service people will go up for prayers, or laying on of hands, and so forth. I guess protestants won't do it if they thought there was no point, right?

Baptism is a special blessing that assists the child in its future walk with God, assisting its learning and discernment in the kingdom.

 

[Eric B]

As far as icons, well it would depend what you mean by "use icons". If you'd gone into the Jewish synagogue and shut your eyes during the whole service to avoid seeing the Cherabim, I think we'd have to say yes, you are walking unruly and making controversy in the community of god. As far as baptism, yes it would be a sin not to baptise your child into the Church, just like it would be a sin not to circumcise your child if you were a Jew.

Why would that be a Holy Tradition? I mean, they didn't even understand that there was 365.25 days in a year, so calendars back then were all over the place. As I said, not everything is a Holy Tradition.

The problem is not so much whether minor things can keep you out of the true church. The problem is that there can only be one church, because there is only one truth. And the Church, being the pillar and support of the truth, must be one. That doesn't mean you're not a Christian outside the true church. But it does mean you have no authority to say what the truth is. You and your church didn't copy the scriptures through the ages. You and your church didn't take part in confirming the canon. You and your church didn't pass on the apostolic interpretations and context and traditions. That which you didn't receive, you can't pass on with authority, you can only pass on with your personal opinion.

The church is one, not merely in space, but also in time. The church must be one in doctrine, not only with those alive today, but also with those alive yesterday and throughout the centuries. The church must be one with all the Christians from the 1st century through to the present day. They are all there in heaven looking down as a great crowd of witnesses (Heb 12:1), and we refuse to break fellowship with either the living or the dead.

But it can be argued that if one is not agreed on the date for a holy day such as the resurrection celebration (which was not recknoned by the solar 365.25 day calendar anyway), then that wouldn't be one Church. That seems to be a bigger thing than one church or group using icons and another not.
And to elevate infant baptism to the level of circumcision just on the basis ultimately, of "there is evidence the fathers did it, and no controversy about it", is quite a stretch, when circumcision was a clear command, not just something they gave "evidence of allowing".

Again, Paul left issues like this to be between the person and the Lord, and not to judge each other on them (which would surely include "you and your church aren't..." Type statements)
And you're saying that we wouldn't necesarily be outside the Church, yet, "you and your church didn't copy the scriptures" etc.; but you are there putting the rest of us outside the Church, as if, once again, "the one church" is just a particular institution formed around certain doctrines or a particular history. The Church is the Body of Christ, and I don't see how you can have people as "true Christians" outside of Christ's body.

 

[orthodox]

But it can be argued that if one is not agreed on the date for a holy day such as the resurrection celebration (which was not recknoned by the solar 365.25 day calendar anyway), then that wouldn't be one Church. That seems to be a bigger thing than one church or group using icons and another not.

Are you plotting the schism for the 4096th church? :laugh:

Fortunately, what is Holy Tradition, and what is mere tradition, is not decided by mere opinion of what seems good.

I understand what you want to say - why should you care about icons if we don't care about the dates of holy days.

What we say is that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth. What you want to say is, why can't protestants be the church too, since they are the pillar and ground for 80% of the truth. What we say, is if you are the pillar and ground for 80% truth, 10% falsehood and 10% of the truth absent without trace, then you are not the pillar and ground of the truth, and thus not the Church in its full sense.

It's the same as if someone set up a church that only believed say Matthew, John and Peter from the New Testament is scripture, because only they were only ones written by members of the 12 disciples. Now what happens when someone comes along wanting to know the truth? Will they find such a church to be the pillar and ground of the truth? I don't think so. They may be trying to follow Christ, but they would lack the fullness of truth, and not be a completely legitimate church of God. We believe there is a place where someone can turn to find the whole truth - the church. We don't believe there is nobody out there able to present them with the whole truth.

You can't really claim that anybody in protestant land has the truth available for people to come and get. Sure, you have the bible. But if the bible was the fullness of truth, then Jehovah's witnesses have the fullness of truth too. Do you typically find people getting the fullness of truth from them? The same goes for Anglicans, Presbyterians and who knows who else, because you think they got it wrong on baptism, and lots of other stuff besides. If someone went to them for the fullness of truth, they would be led astray according to you. Should it be this tough to get at the whole truth?

You want to say, maybe not everything we teach is so important. Obviously, not everything is of equal importance. I mean, I could say the same thing to you. Is baptism really as important as living a holy life and loving your brother as yourself? Of course not. Does that mean we are free to abandon baptism? We would say no. The Salvation Army would say 'yes'.

And to elevate infant baptism to the level of circumcision just on the basis ultimately, of "there is evidence the fathers did it, and no controversy about it", is quite a stretch, when circumcision was a clear command, not just something they gave "evidence of allowing".

There is an extremely clear command called "hold to the traditions". You want to say you can escape from the command because you don't believe the traditions are of God. The trouble is, that isn't what scripture says. Scripture never says to compare the traditions to scripture to check if you should follow them. It says to hold to them, end of story.

Again, Paul left issues like this to be between the person and the Lord, and not to judge each other on them (which would surely include "you and your church aren't..." Type statements)

This is not a matter of judging the salvation of individuals. It's making a righteous judgment on where the truth lies. And I never said "you aren't....", I said "your church isn't....". You've already admitted you're not doctrinally in line with your own church, because you may be willing to baptise a small child. So is your church the pillar and ground of 95% of the truth? Does the verse say the church is the pillar and ground of 95% of the truth?

And you're saying that we wouldn't necesarily be outside the Church, yet, "you and your church didn't copy the scriptures" etc.; but you are there putting the rest of us outside the Church, as if, once again, "the one church" is just a particular institution formed around certain doctrines or a particular history. The Church is the Body of Christ, and I don't see how you can have people as "true Christians" outside of Christ's body.

Christianity is a religion grounded in history. Christ lived. The 12 apostles lived. They set up a church. They appointed leaders. They told the leaders to hold to the traditions. The leaders appointed successors. All this is in scripture and in history, as is the finalization of the canon. So would Christians who don't follow the whole truth be the true church contrary to scripture's claim that the church is the pillar of the truth?

 

[Eric B]

What I have jkust said above still hods. Once again, you have not proven that your church institution has maintained 100% of the truth, to judge our churches as having a lesser percentage in comparison, with the only proof of your traditions that some ECFs showed signs of them. You just assume it based on "succession", and right away, one can ask since it seemed every time an apostle was eliminated, he was replaced, so there would still be 12. Yet you do not still have 12, so your "sucession" fell off to some extent right there.

 

[Eric B]

Was in a rush, before, so let me redo:

What I have just said above still holds. Once again, you have not proven that your church institution has maintained 100% of the truth, to judge our churches as having a lesser percentage in comparison, You presume we are neglecting some tradition, in spite of the evidence of the example of the type of issue that was Paul' tradition we are given, and that religious practices such as the ones in question were generally left more up to conscience, like you even claim for Easter. The only proof you offer your traditions being the ones Paul was talking about was the "history" argument that some ECFs showed some evidence of them in their writings. You just assume it based on "succession", (and right away, one can ask since it seemed initially, in the beginning, whenever an apostle was eliminated, he was replaced, so that there would still be 12. Yet you do not still have 12, so your absolute "succession" fell off to some extent right there. My point here is, the "100% truth" is not proven on a claim of direct "succession").

 

[orthodox]

You just assume it based on "succession", (and right away, one can ask since it seemed initially, in the beginning, whenever an apostle was eliminated, he was replaced, so that there would still be 12. Yet you do not still have 12, so your absolute "succession" fell off to some extent right there. My point here is, the true church is not proven on a claim of direct "succession").

Initially there were twelve, but very soon after we see more than 12. We see Paul of course, and Barnabas (Acts 14:14), possibly Andronicus and Junias (Ro 16:7).

The fact is, the apostles set up both a church an a means for carrying on the church through successors. Just as the apostles told their succesors to hold to the traditions, so they told their successors. The pattern established was that bishoprics should have successors. (Acts 1:20 let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. )

Was in a rush, before, so let me redo:

What I have just said above still holds. Once again, you have not proven that your church institution has maintained 100% of the truth, to judge our churches as having a lesser percentage in comparison, You presume we are neglecting some tradition,

As I said, doubt is an option for you. You trust that we maintained 100% of the canon, rather than 80% or 120%, but strangely you can't bring yourself to admit the rest.

in spite of the evidence of the example of tradition we are given, and that religious practices were left more up to conscience.

I'm not sure what religious practices examples you refer to. In your private life there is a great deal of latitude. But in corporate worship, even apparently minor things were ruled very specifically, with no contention allowed. (1Cor 11:16).

The only proof you offer your traditions being the ones Paul was talking about being that some ECFs showed some evidence of them in their writings.

If you won't accept as valid evidence the writings of those who knew the apostles, what evidence would you accept? For some strange reason, the evidence of Mark and Luke who knew apostles is good enough for you, but when I started talking about Ignatius who knew the apostle John, suddenly you doubt and claim that he was innovating.

 

[Eric B]

You're argument is still generalizing. Just because we believe the canon you are laying claim to doesn't automatically prove that everything else your one particular institution said was right. Just like everything else Peter said and did wasn't right. What you're argung is like saying that because I agree with the JW's that JEsus of Nazareth is the Messiah, "why can't I bring myself to admit the rest" of what they teach. People knowing apostles doesn't guarantee perfect doctrine either. Else, why aren't Ignatius and the rest canonized? The object of the faith is Christ, so beyond that, it is not about the men who set the canon; and everything else men did after God used them to write and establish the canon is not guaranteed to be correct.
The "religious practices" I was talking about were the ones that your whole case against us is about: icons, infant baptism, etc. Easter certainly was an issue of "corporate worship". Don't fall back on the issue of "holy tradition" versus "mere tradition" "not being decided upon by opinion of what seems good", as I am using your own criteria.

 

[orthodox]

You're argument is still generalizing. Just because we believe the canon you are laying claim to doesn't automatically prove that everything else your one particular institution said was right.

Okay, then you're going to have to explain according to what authority as well as what cause we got the canon right, and yet the same authority and cause did not allow us to get the rest right too. Take a consistent position on how this can be.

Just like everything else Peter said and did wasn't right.

Peter was an individual, not the church. If Peter got things wrong, why believe 1 Peter and 2 Peter? I'll tell you my answer: Because it is recognized by the universal church as without error.

What you're argung is like saying that because I agree with the JW's that Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, "why can't I bring myself to admit the rest" of what they teach.

The JWs had no annointing to declare the canon either. They had to follow our authority. I agree obviously, that getting one thing right doesn't prove you have everything right. On the other hand, if you trust someone to get something right purely based on their authority, then why don't you trust the rest of their authority? You don't trust the Mormon authority on the canon, thus you don't trust the Mormon teachings. But if one day you decided the Mormon canon was right, wouldn't you be trusting Joseph Smith's teachings too?

People knowing apostles doesn't guarantee perfect doctrine either. Else, why aren't Ignatius and the rest canonized?

When I asked you how it could be that Paul said to hold to the traditions, even though many Christians would have joined the church after Paul left and wouldn't have seen him in person, you were talking about how it was supposedly different back then, because at least people in the church were eyewitnesses to what Paul said, so at least they could pass it on directly.

Now when I refer to the teachings of someone who DID receive the traditions first hand, you still don't want to hold to them.

Basically, you cannot seem to make any sense out this verse. What you're telling me is that anybody who joined the church in Thessalonica in between when Paul came, and when they received the epistles much later, had nothing at all to work with, because even somebody who had seen the apostles could not be trusted to pass it on.

This is the Western obsession with the question "is it infallible", which is led in Rome to papal infallibility, and outside Rome to ignoring everything in history and tradition outside the bible, leading to endless innovations that were hitherto unknown in Christianity.

The object of the faith is Christ, so beyond that, it is not about the men who set the canon; and everything else men did after God used them to write and establish the canon is not guaranteed to be correct.
The "religious practices" I was talking about were the ones that your whole case against us is about: icons, infant baptism, etc. Easter certainly was an issue of "corporate worship". Don't fall back on the issue of "holy tradition" versus "mere tradition" "not being decided upon by opinion of what seems good", as I am using your own criteria.

All I can say again, is you want to differentiate what should be Holy Tradition, and what is mere local practice based on your own opinion, and not based on the catholic faith. This is what schism is based on. You seem to think your own opinion has weight in these matters, but they were decided long ago by the church, just like the definition of the trinity, and so forth. If every generation has to decide every item of faith all over again, then Jesus' prayer for unity was really a no-hope proposition.

 

[Eric B]

Once again, it was not my opinion; you're the one who made the criteria "corporate worship", so don't pit "my opinion" against the "catholic faith"; you're the one trying to categorize what is important against what the church made important. And yea, it is double standards like that that cause much schism!
Your argumentation boils down to a presumption that "we are the true church, because we hold to the traditions, which we know are the ones passed on by the apostles, because the ECF's held them, and they didn't get them wrong because they agreed on them, and because you accept the rest of the canon, meaning the rest of our teachings are the perfect truth, so we are that church, because we hold the traditions...etc. Etc. Etc."
I'm sorry, but that is not enough to support the extravagant presumptions you are making. Blaming the West won't help either, and where Peter was an individual, so does the Church consist of individual men, and what a group of individuals believed in common was not always right, and that is not what was promised. (how about the Church's reign of persecution of heretics? Or was that the West only also?) God is free to use men to write or establish the canon without making every single thing they do afterward perfect. The Jews established the OT canon before the Church, hen am I obligated to follow the rest of their traditions which reject Christ? The faith is about Christ, not about the later Church and its leaders.

 

[orthodox]

(how about the Church's reign of persecution of heretics? Or was that the West only also?)

Uh yeah, that was the west, both Catholics and protestants

God is free to use men to write or establish the canon without making every single thing they do afterward perfect, since we agree the church has categories in which is does both.

Well, we agree of course. We also agree that some things the church did were, well pretty much perfect, or close enough - i.e. copying of scripture. Another area I think we agree on where the church is perfect is in its recognition of canon. The issue of dispute is where to draw the line between the perfect and the imperfect.

Now there isn't any scripture that says the church can be infallible indiscerning canon, but the church would fall apart if people started doubting it. Nor is there a verse that says the church will be able to with sufficient accuracy preserve the scriptures, and yet without this belief the church cannot stand. These things are fairly obvious to most fair minded people who apply common sense.

What I'm saying is that if we apply common sense to what has happened in protestantism in 500 years, and we look also at the implications of the apostolic commands to hold to the traditions, we would see that the church falls apart when the bible is interpreted outside of the traditions it was born into, just as Paul's command to "hold to the traditions I taught you by word of mouth" is meaningless to the person outside Thessalonica who has no knowledge of what he had said.

Now as I said, yes, the option is available to doubt these things and assume the church spent 50 or 100 years in the truth and then all with one voice plunged into1900 years in apostasy, just as the option is available to doubt the canon, the aposticity or the transmission of scripture.

But I'm saying the more logical, sensible and let's face it ' Christian approach is to see God as a bit more in control of disseminating his truth than that.

The Jews established the OT canon before the Church, hen am I obligated to follow the rest of their traditions which reject Christ?

Firstly, because, to quote Paul, not all who are Israel are Israel. Secondly, because not every tradition is holy tradition.

You see, it's not a proposition of having to accept every tradition as infallible. But even so, as I already demonstrated, Christ, Peterw Matthew and Paul all made use of extra-biblical traditions. My suggestion to you is to be open to the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is a sub-category of tradition that is Holy Tradition, and that it ought to be believed, just like Paul shows evidence of believing extra-biblical traditions.

The faith is about Christ, not about the later Church and its leaders.

The church is the mystical body of Christ remember. Orthodoxy, unlike protestantism, isn't totally focused on the up down relationship between you and God, it also has a healthy side to side balance in the relationship between you and the body of Christ, both the living and those who had fallen asleep. Because as Christ prayed that we would be one with each other just as he is with us and he is with the Father.

 

[Eric B]

Since you acknowledge that the church that would not fail is the people not the institution (or a succession of leaders), there has always been a body of people believing in Christ, regardless of what other 'traditions' the leaders added to that.
That's why I believe the institution and its leaders could go into error on some issues without it meaning that "the gates of hell prevailed". To insist that everything the Church taught (or certain select issues) must be pure truth (and thus this mysterious "tradition") in order for the promise to be fulfilled, is to define the Church by/as/in terms of the ECF's (who first mentioned them more clearly), with "the people" along with subsequent leaders simply following them.

One point that just occurred; since you use the canon so much as one of the main proofs of the reliability of "tradition", then what about the dispute over the Apocrypha, which we don't accept? (Mojoala for one argued over this. It seemed all of you dropped off for the past week, so I was surprised you came back). Or is it only the RCC that accepts that?

Also, just curious, there was persecution of groups before the split, and this may have centered in the West, but did the East oppose it or go along with it?

 

[orthodox]

Since you acknowledge that the church that would not fail is the people not the institution (or a succession of leaders), there has always been a body of people believing in Christ, regardless of what other 'traditions' the leaders added to that.
That's why I believe the institution and its leaders could go into error on some issues without it meaning that "the gates of hell prevailed".

Since you believe that, then logically you have to admit at least, that the Orhtodox church was at least a valid church for those 1000 years it was the only church, and by extension has been a valid church for 2000 years. Ok, so you've logically deducted Orthodoxy is a valid church, can you be equally certain about other churches since they lack a proof Orthodoxy has? Are you 100% certain that the fullness of what God wanted the church to be is just a theoretical invisible mathematical set of all those who hold to a certain minimal set of propositions? Is it just possible God wanted more?

To insist that everything the Church taught (or certain select issues) must be pure truth (and thus this mysterious "tradition") in order for the promise to be fulfilled, is to define the Church by/as/in terms of the ECF's (who first mentioned them more clearly), with "the people" along with subsequent leaders simply following them.

Well not really. Orthodoxy has never sat around reading ECFs to find new things to obey. The ECFs are evidence that our beliefs come from the early church, and they are instruction just like a bishop today is instruction. We can take instruction from any age in the church because we acknoledge all ages as being Orthodox and the same. But it's not like one ECF mentioned something and then you find everybbody copying it. There are many things that are non-protestant you can find many ECFs teaching at the same early date.

One point that just occurred; since you use the canon so much as one of the main proofs of the reliability of "tradition", then what about the dispute over the Apocrypha, which we don't accept?

Yes we accept the so-called apocrypha, which is another inconsistency in your position, because you accept our NT, but have excised some books from the OT. How can you trust our judgement in one and not the other?

Also, just curious, there was persecution of groups before the split, and this may have centered in the West, but did the East oppose it or go along with it?

If you can be more specific, we can talk about it. But I'm not saying everything done in the name of Orthodoxy has been perfect. I would say though that after the split and the West went its own way, that's when things went really wacky over there. I mean, the Muslims treated infidels with much greater respect than the West treated each other. That is a strong indicator to us that there was serious problems over there.