My church defined your church's bible

[Eric B]

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?

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.

I never really disputed orthodoxy being a "valid church". Once again, that's looking at a particular institution as "the church".
God may want more from us than what we are, but since you admit that it is people and not an institution or leaders, and that the Church has done things wrong, you cannot point to a particular institution as "the one true Church".
People may not be "copying" the ECF's, but what I meant is that they are being used as the ultimate proof of the assumption the NT was the same as the later Church, but their "agreement" on certain issues does not prove that, any more than the Church's agreement on those things done in the name of Orthodoxy you admit were not perfect.

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?

It's not as much as an inconsistency as you have thought, because then I have just realized it is not true that we "just accept" the canon wholesale, as you have been arguing. We do not accept all of it, so if we question you on the apocrypha, then it is consistent to question [what you are calling] the traditions. That mitigates the question of why we accept any of it (I.e. The NT).
Like every other area, we agree with your institution on some things, but not all, and since we do not credit the compilation of the NT to a particular institution (it only held councils pronouncing it official, and the Apocrypha remained with a question mark over it), we are not bound to agree with the rest of its practices.

 

[orthodox]

I never really disputed orthodoxy being a "valid church". Once again, that's looking at a particular institution as "the church".
God may want more from us than what we are, but since you admit that it is people and not an institution or leaders, and that the Church has done things wrong, you cannot point to a particular institution as "the one true Church".

No, I'm not pointing to an "institution" as the Church. The church in its infallible guise is the consensus of God's people throughout the ages. The main reason you are not in the Church proper is not because you don't belong to our organization, but because you have left the consensus of God's people. Or to use theological lanuguage, you have exited the communion of saints.

You walk along the street and you see a number of churches and picture them as institutions, with leaders and so forth. But we see the spiritual connection it has to the saints of all ages in all places. Because protestantism has neglected horizontal Christianity, the communion of the church, to focus entirely on vertical Christianity, the connection with God, it had become lob sided. "Me and my bible and Jesus under a tree". You do not aim to commune with believers in all ages, so you commune in a private cliche with individual beliefs and customs.

So again, it is not about the institution, it is about not acknowledging the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages, but rather you want to pick and choose which bits of the faith you like, and which bits you don't.

People may not be "copying" the ECF's, but what I meant is that they are being used as the ultimate proof of the assumption the NT was the same as the later Church, but their "agreement" on certain issues does not prove that, any more than the Church's agreement on those things done in the name of Orthodoxy you admit were not perfect.

It doesn't prove it, but neither does whatever agreement there was on the canon prove that they correctly transmitted the tradition of what was apostolic or not. Apostolicity was a criterion in determining the canon and you have to hope that those extra-biblical traditions that the church passed down outside of scripture about the authorship and apostolic approval was accurate.

You see, you are willing to follow the traditions when it is pragmatically necessary to support the foundations of your own extra-biblical sola-scriptura tradition, but you draw the line in an arbitrary place in excluding the extra-biblical traditions of interpretation.

Who gave you the authority to draw the line there? Is your own scepticism the only foundation of your authority?

Hey believe me, I understand. I didn't want to be orthodox either. I fought and struggled against it for years, and came there initially reluctantly.

It's not as much as an inconsistency as you have thought, because then I have just realized it is not true that we "just accept" the canon wholesale, as you have been arguing. We do not accept all of it, so if we question you on the apocrypha, then it is consistent to question [what you are calling] the traditions.

Hey, that's true. You are consistent in your application of inconsistency

But you've got an insurmountable problem now. Orthodoxy, which you acknowledge as a valid church, has for thousands of years held to its canon, but now you have come along later and created a different canon, based on who knows what critera. Basically, you have no authority at all, you are free to accept and reject not only any doctrine or interpretation, but any book of the bible also. You have no certain source of truth, only what seems good in your own eyes.

Do you see at all yet why the church is the pillar of the truth?

That mitigates the question of why we accept any of it (I.e. The NT).
Like every other area, we agree with your institution on some things, but not all, and since we do not credit the compilation of the NT to a particular institution (it only held councils pronouncing it official, and the Apocrypha remained with a question mark over it), we are not bound to agree with the rest of its practices.

I don't know that there is any council that Orthodoxy recognizes which actually defines the canon. There were some early councils which listed canons (which did include the apocrypha, with "no question marks" as you claim). However, the main authority for the canon is Holy Tradition. Not the fact that some council said something.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

It seems that some believe that God gave us Primary beliefs and Secondary beliefs. They say that we must believe these Primary beliefs in order to be a Christian, but we are at liberty to take or leave the Secondary beliefs.

Where is this idea of Primary and Secondary beliefs contained within the Bible? I can currently find no such thing to exist. Maybe I don't have the right Bible?

 

[Eric B]

No, I'm not pointing to an "institution" as the Church. The church in its infallible guise is the consensus of God's people throughout the ages. The main reason you are not in the Church proper is not because you don't belong to our organization, but because you have left the consensus of God's people. Or to use theological lanuguage, you have exited the communion of saints.

You walk along the street and you see a number of churches and picture them as institutions, with leaders and so forth. But we see the spiritual connection it has to the saints of all ages in all places. Because protestantism has neglected horizontal Christianity, the communion of the church, to focus entirely on vertical Christianity, the connection with God, it had become lob sided. "Me and my bible and Jesus under a tree". You do not aim to commune with believers in all ages, so you commune in a private cliche with individual beliefs and customs.

So again, it is not about the institution, it is about not acknowledging the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages, but rather you want to pick and choose which bits of the faith you like, and which bits you don't.

Hey believe me, I understand. I didn't want to be orthodox either. I fought and struggled against it for years, and came there initially reluctantly.

If it was about a "consensus of people" or "communion of saints", only, then why was there a struggle about joining an institution?

It seems this "consensus" and "communion' all lies in the institution! If the Church is not just one true institution, why come then and tell us we are wrong just because we have our own institutions (which as I keep pointing out, I do not agree with). I walk down the street and see a number of churches, and think it is a shame they have formed these institutions around them, when we are all supposed to have that spiritual connection you speak of. And many of us do, though the institutions often get in the way.
Yet you are coming with yet another institution saying "this one is it", thus dividing that spiritual connection just as much as all the others. And your only proof that this is the only one that holds "the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages" is some relatively obscure references to some of your practices in a group of leaders from one particular age. (and later leaders who followed them, of course) Then, you define "the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages" purely by that, and accuse me of "leaving" that or "picking and choosing what I like". I'm sorry, but we today are just as much apart of the communion of saints as they were, and they are no more necessarily correct than us just because they were earlier. If we can be wrong on some issues (hence the division) then so could they.
There is also the witness of the Holy Spirit, and He did not stop with ECF's so that we have to follow what they agreed on, and He apparently is not infusing everyone with absolute doctrinal correctness or perfect unity, as even you mention not everything in the Church was right.
So to answer the other person's question; no, there is no scripture speaking of primary and secondary beliefs, but clearly, faith in Christ is a bit more essential than what age you baptize a baby, and that is where the Spirit is aiming to lead us to unity. But we resist Him with these other doctrines elevated to "essential", and institutions built around them; especially those who come with the "we're the one true group" mentality! THAT is what creates all the disunity.

According to you, we outside of that institution are saved, but only missing out on some "blessing" by not baptizing our babies and praying before icons, so it doesn't make sense to try to push people (even if through verbal persuasion) into what you think is the truth. However, bringing us all under EOC authority does increase its power and cash flow, as well as the proclamation that one is in the true group puff up their own pride. (Oneupmanship). THAT is the number one cause of schism, and this contributes to it just as much as anyone else. If you acknowledge we're saved, this is all fruitless.

It doesn't prove it, but neither does whatever agreement there was on the canon prove that they correctly transmitted the tradition of what was apostolic or not. Apostolicity was a criterion in determining the canon and you have to hope that those extra-biblical traditions that the church passed down outside of scripture about the authorship and apostolic approval was accurate.

You see, you are willing to follow the traditions when it is pragmatically necessary to support the foundations of your own extra-biblical sola-scriptura tradition, but you draw the line in an arbitrary place in excluding the extra-biblical traditions of interpretation.

Who gave you the authority to draw the line there? Is your own scepticism the only foundation of your authority?

Hey, that's true. You are consistent in your application of inconsistency

But you've got an insurmountable problem now. Orthodoxy, which you acknowledge as a valid church, has for thousands of years held to its canon, but now you have come along later and created a different canon, based on who knows what critera. Basically, you have no authority at all, you are free to accept and reject not only any doctrine or interpretation, but any book of the bible also. You have no certain source of truth, only what seems good in your own eyes.

Do you see at all yet why the church is the pillar of the truth?

I don't know that there is any council that Orthodoxy recognizes which actually defines the canon. There were some early councils which listed canons (which did include the apocrypha, with "no question marks" as you claim). However, the main authority for the canon is Holy Tradition. Not the fact that some council said something.

OK, it may not have been a council, but the whole notion of "canon" is something made "official" at some point.
The OT canon we accept was the one the majority of the Jews accepted. They may have made some references to the Apocrypha at times (but then Paul quoted pagan poets as well to make a point), but these books have always been in question, and it is not us who just made that up out of nowhere like you are charging. (You should know better than that, if you know the history of it). And once again, we are apart of the Church, so if we disagree, rather than casting us out of "the Church" [universal], maybe you should take into consideration that the books are questionable, and earlier leaders fallible, as you admit they were in other areas. The validity of a Church does not rest on 100% errorlessness, as even you have said.

"Skepticism"? Our object of faith is Christ, not Constantinople. This line of argumentation calls into question faith itself, like agnosticism. (what "certain source" of proof do we have, as the agnostics taunt?) If you want to take it there, none of this matters anyway. "Who gave you the authority"--this shows this argument is all about control, but we are told not to try to be lords over God's heritage, and false leaders such as the one John mentions got around this by denying that those who wouldn't follow them were apart of God's heritage.

 

[orthodox]

If it was about a "consensus of people" or "communion of saints", only, then why was there a struggle about joining an institution?

What struggle are we talking about?

It seems this "consensus" and "communion' all lies in the institution! If the Church is not just one true institution, why come then and tell us we are wrong just because we have our own institutions (which as I keep pointing out, I do not agree with).

As I said, the primary problem is not multiple institutions, because Orthodoxy is multiple institutions. The primary problem is doctrine, and your abandonment of the historic Christian teachings.

I walk down the street and see a number of churches, and think it is a shame they have formed these institutions around them, when we are all supposed to have that spiritual connection you speak of. And many of us do, though the institutions often get in the way.

All you can have is a hotch potch of unity, because you have no foundation for specifying what is beyond the pale. Some thing Jehovah's witnesses are good Christian people, while others think pentacostals are too way out. One church will be ultra liberal, the next one so conservative they think they are the only ones saved. And in between is the entire range! You may think it is acceptable to commune with people in churches A, B and D. Your friend in church B thinks church A has sunk into liberalism. Your friend in church D thinks C is ok, but has major reservations about B.

This is not unity! This is not the communion of saints.

Yet you are coming with yet another institution saying "this one is it", thus dividing that spiritual connection just as much as all the others.

I don't know how you can call institutions which all held doctrinal communion with each other for 2000 years, before anybody had even conceived the idea that you could set up new churches as "yet another institution".

If you'd lived in say Corinth in the year AD 50, and decided to abandon the church the apostles set up to go create a competing church, wouldn't that be breaking the spiritual connection? Of course it would be. As 1 John 2:19 says: "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." He doesn't say "they went out from us because they wanted to form a competing church".

And your only proof that this is the only one that holds "the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages" is some relatively obscure references to some of your practices in a group of leaders from one particular age. (and later leaders who followed them, of course) Then, you define "the communion of saints in all ages, and the faith they held to in all ages" purely by that, and accuse me of "leaving" that or "picking and choosing what I like".

Uh yeah, where is the dispute? Yes, I define the faith held in all ages as those things that were factually and historically held in all ages. What criteria would _you_ use? There were no baptist like groups in all ages, and not in any ages at all prior to the late middle ages.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "relatively obscure references". The early church has bequeathed to us vast numbers of volumes of writings from people who clearly were in a position to know what the church was teaching. In our little thread here we havn't even scratched the surface of doctrinal issues and writings that exist.

I'm sorry, but we today are just as much apart of the communion of saints as they were,

How can you be just as much a part of the communion when you don't agree with the beliefs of the people of God of the first thousand years, and can't agree among yourselves what doctrines are right or wrong, important or unimportant?

and they are no more necessarily correct than us just because they were earlier.

So then, the truth keeps changing. Everyone is free to reinvent the faith, maybe even the canon too. For 1500 years people didn't have the truth, we had to wait for some new "me and my bible under a tree" group to discover it. Except that the me and my bible group can't agree on a darned thing.

If your predecessors couldn't discover the truth in 1500 years, how can you recover it? They read the same bible you are reading. It's very new agey. There's your truth, my truth, any everybody else's private truth.

If we can be wrong on some issues (hence the division) then so could they.

The assertion doesn't follow, because the Church doesn't follow the newly invented sola scriptura doctrine, it also holds to the traditional understandings of what scripture means, passed down in the culture of the church.

I know you don't believe this, but you have to at least admit the possibility that the church could pass down understandings, thus calling into doubt your blanket statement that just because you can be wrong, we can be wrong. If you are mistaken, and the church was capable of passing down apostolic understandings for a hundred years, then you have to admit we could be right. Only blatant bias would say flat out that it could just not be possible to do this. The fact that even protestants agree Orthodoxy has not changed in 1700 years would put pay to the claim it is impossible.

There is also the witness of the Holy Spirit, and He did not stop with ECF's so that we have to follow what they agreed on, and He apparently is not infusing everyone with absolute doctrinal correctness or perfect unity, as even you mention not everything in the Church was right.

How do you know that any given person has the witness of the Spirit, or for that matter, how do you know that the Spirit will witness to people who already are capable of getting the truth? To paraphrase Lk 16:31, if you won't listen to the Church and bod of Christ of the Apostles, you won't believe with some supernatural witnessing.

So to answer the other person's question; no, there is no scripture speaking of primary and secondary beliefs, but clearly, faith in Christ is a bit more essential than what age you baptize a baby, and that is where the Spirit is aiming to lead us to unity. But we resist Him with these other doctrines elevated to "essential", and institutions built around them; especially those who come with the "we're the one true group" mentality! THAT is what creates all the disunity.

According to you, we outside of that institution are saved, but only missing out on some "blessing" by not baptizing our babies

You seem to think everything except faith is dispensible, even if it was taught by the apostles. What IF the blessings of the sacraments of the Church are important in building up the faith of our children. Havn't you then negligently contributed towards the corruption of your children?

But I guess you don't believe this because you have the anti-supernatural tendances of protestant land. Why you bother praying for your children I don't know.

and praying before icons, so it doesn't make sense to try to push people (even if through verbal persuasion) into what you think is the truth. However, bringing us all under EOC authority does increase its power and cash flow, as well as the proclamation that one is in the true group puff up their own pride.

What makes you think anybody in the EOC cares about cash flow, I don't know. I think that was an uncalled for claim.

As for pride, the EOC is always careful to say that it is the Church in all humility that we have received the truth from our forebears. Since you think you have found the truth from the cleverness of your intellect over and above 2000 years of Christianity, who is the proud one?

(Oneupmanship). THAT is the number one cause of schism, and this contributes to it just as much as anyone else. If you acknowledge we're saved, this is all fruitless.

I don't acknowledge you're saved. We know there is salvation inside the Church. What there is outside, we have no idea.

OK, it may not have been a council, but the whole notion of "canon" is something made "official" at some point.
The OT canon we accept was the one the majority of the Jews accepted.

There is no evidence that your canon is the one the majority of Jews accepted. That's pure speculation. Nor is it even relevant for that matter. Like Revelation took a while to get majority consensus among the people of God, so can other books.

They may have made some references to the Apocrypha at times (but then Paul quoted pagan poets as well to make a point), but these books have always been in question, and it is not us who just made that up out of nowhere like you are charging. (You should know better than that, if you know the history of it).

ALWAYS been in question? Please state which centuries you think is was in question.

And once again, we are apart of the Church, so if we disagree, rather than casting us out of "the Church" [universal], maybe you should take into consideration that the books are questionable, and earlier leaders fallible, as you admit they were in other areas. The validity of a Church does not rest on 100% errorlessness, as even you have said.

By what criteria do you question them? Why not question Revelation, or 2 Peter or the pastoral epistles, or Hebrews or any other number of books that people have questioned and supposedly claim are questionable? Where will the relativism end?

CONTINUED.....

 

[orthodox]

..... CONTINUED

"Skepticism"? Our object of faith is Christ, not Constantinople.

Which Christ do you have faith in? The one you imagine with your own personal truth, or the one that the church has always believed in? Do you believe in the Christ of the Nicean-Constantinopolitan creed, or can't you bring yourself to agree with any council?

This line of argumentation calls into question faith itself, like agnosticism. (what "certain source" of proof do we have, as the agnostics taunt?) If you want to take it there, none of this matters anyway. "Who gave you the authority"--this shows this argument is all about control, but we are told not to try to be lords over God's heritage, and false leaders such as the one John mentions got around this by denying that those who wouldn't follow them were apart of God's heritage.

I'm not sure what false leader you are talking about, but the main problem is you are ignoring God's heritage. Some of the most revered people in the Orthodox world, whether today or in the past are not leaders at all. It's not all about the leaders who have really little power in the church anyway, they are just servants of the body. It is about following the historic teachings of Christianity in unity of mind with the body of Christ.

 

[Eliyahu]

I see the KJVO debate rages on here.

As an Orthodox Christian, I have to ask the question to KJVOs. Since my church proclaimed and declared the NT canon that you now accept... if there's any proclaiming to be done about an authoritative version of the bible, for consistency's sake, aren't you going to have to wait until my church declares that too?

Which church are you talking about? Your local church ?
It seems that you attend the local church in Australia, which must have been founded after 18 century.
Roman Catholic ?
When was it formed ?
"From a child thou has known the Holy Scripture" ( 2 Tim 3:15)
Was Paul talking about the Bible defined by Roman Catholic?
Are you talking about New Testament only?

All the NT Bible were written before the formation of Roman Catholic.
What did the believers read until Roman Catholic was formed after Constantine after the Resurrection of Jesus and the Early Church?

Maybe Roman Catholic canonization was the Monday Quarterback after Super Bowl.

 

[orthodox]

Which church are you talking about? Your local church ?

No, the universal church.

It seems that you attend the local church in Australia, which must have been founded after 18 century.
Roman Catholic ?

Eastern Orthodox

When was it formed ?

On the day of pentacost

"From a child thou has known the Holy Scripture" ( 2 Tim 3:15)
Was Paul talking about the Bible defined by Roman Catholic?

He was probably talking about the OT. Your point?

Are you talking about New Testament only?

Mainly the NT.

All the NT Bible were written before the formation of Roman Catholic.

I'm not Roman Catholic, but the Roman church was founded by Paul and Peter.

What did the believers read until Roman Catholic was formed after Constantine after the Resurrection of Jesus and the Early Church?

Not sure what you're talking about "Roman Catholic being formed". Never heard of this event.

Maybe Roman Catholic canonization was the Monday Quarterback after Super Bowl.

???

 

[Eric B]

What struggle are we talking about?

"Hey believe me, I understand. I didn't want to be orthodox either. I fought and struggled against it for years, and came there initially reluctantly."

As I said, the primary problem is not multiple institutions, because Orthodoxy is multiple institutions. The primary problem is doctrine, and your abandonment of the historic Christian teachings.

All you can have is a hotch potch of unity, because you have no foundation for specifying what is beyond the pale. Some thing Jehovah's witnesses are good Christian people, while others think pentacostals are too way out. One church will be ultra liberal, the next one so conservative they think they are the only ones saved. And in between is the entire range! You may think it is acceptable to commune with people in churches A, B and D. Your friend in church B thinks church A has sunk into liberalism. Your friend in church D thinks C is ok, but has major reservations about B.

This is not unity! This is not the communion of saints.

I don't know how you can call institutions which all held doctrinal communion with each other for 2000 years, before anybody had even conceived the idea that you could set up new churches as "yet another institution".

If you'd lived in say Corinth in the year AD 50, and decided to abandon the church the apostles set up to go create a competing church, wouldn't that be breaking the spiritual connection? Of course it would be. As 1 John 2:19 says: "They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us." He doesn't say "they went out from us because they wanted to form a competing church".

Uh yeah, where is the dispute? Yes, I define the faith held in all ages as those things that were factually and historically held in all ages. What criteria would _you_ use? There were no baptist like groups in all ages, and not in any ages at all prior to the late middle ages.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "relatively obscure references". The early church has bequeathed to us vast numbers of volumes of writings from people who clearly were in a position to know what the church was teaching. In our little thread here we havn't even scratched the surface of doctrinal issues and writings that exist.

How can you be just as much a part of the communion when you don't agree with the beliefs of the people of God of the first thousand years, and can't agree among yourselves what doctrines are right or wrong, important or unimportant?

So then, the truth keeps changing. Everyone is free to reinvent the faith, maybe even the canon too. For 1500 years people didn't have the truth, we had to wait for some new "me and my bible under a tree" group to discover it. Except that the me and my bible group can't agree on a darned thing.

You seem to think everything except faith is dispensible, even if it was taught by the apostles. What IF the blessings of the sacraments of the Church are important in building up the faith of our children. Havn't you then negligently contributed towards the corruption of your children?

But I guess you don't believe this because you have the anti-supernatural tendances of protestant land. Why you bother praying for your children I don't know.

As for pride, the EOC is always careful to say that it is the Church in all humility that we have received the truth from our forebears. Since you think you have found the truth from the cleverness of your intellect over and above 2000 years of Christianity, who is the proud one?

You admit that there were unresolved controversies such as the date of the Resurrection celebration (Easter or Passover). Because we see that that was a conflict, yet you find some references regarding nfant baptism and icons and no such conflict preseved over them, you claim that the former was a dispensible issue, and the latter defined the "communion of saints" or assumed to be "what was taught by the apostles", but now again, you are speaking as if "communion of the saints" means 100% agreement on every issue. This is cyclical. We are not anti-supernatural because we don't agree with that one practice, which you have elevated as the definition of the faith.
It is not humble the way you are coming here telling us we are not the Church, only you are.

If your predecessors couldn't discover the truth in 1500 years, how can you recover it? They read the same bible you are reading. It's very new agey. There's your truth, my truth, any everybody else's private truth.

The assertion doesn't follow, because the Church doesn't follow the newly invented sola scriptura doctrine, it also holds to the traditional understandings of what scripture means, passed down in the culture of the church.

I know you don't believe this, but you have to at least admit the possibility that the church could pass down understandings, thus calling into doubt your blanket statement that just because you can be wrong, we can be wrong. If you are mistaken, and the church was capable of passing down apostolic understandings for a hundred years, then you have to admit we could be right. Only blatant bias would say flat out that it could just not be possible to do this. The fact that even protestants agree Orthodoxy has not changed in 1700 years would put pay to the claim it is impossible.

Actually, I never said "we discovered the truth". We rediscovered some truths, such as breaking out of the universal state Church mold, but not that there was NO truth at all before that, as others might exaggerate.

How do you know that any given person has the witness of the Spirit, or for that matter, how do you know that the Spirit will witness to people who already are capable of getting the truth? To paraphrase Lk 16:31, if you won't listen to the Church and bod of Christ of the Apostles, you won't believe with some supernatural witnessing.

That's not talking about the Church, ("Moses and the Prophets") that's talking about Jews (who largely did not have the witness of the Spirit).

I don't acknowledge you're saved. We know there is salvation inside the Church. What there is outside, we have no idea.

You acknowledged we could be saved. Same difference.

There is no evidence that your canon is the one the majority of Jews accepted. That's pure speculation. Nor is it even relevant for that matter. Like Revelation took a while to get majority consensus among the people of God, so can other books.

ALWAYS been in question? Please state which centuries you think is was in question.

The Jews today do not use those books.

By what criteria do you question them? Why not question Revelation, or 2 Peter or the pastoral epistles, or Hebrews or any other number of books that people have questioned and supposedly claim are questionable? Where will the relativism end?

Because the entire Church today (not just one group) agrees on them and they are no longer in question.

Which Christ do you have faith in? The one you imagine with your own personal truth, or the one that the church has always believed in? Do you believe in the Christ of the Nicean-Constantinopolitan creed, or can't you bring yourself to agree with any council?

So one's "Christ" is determined by which Church group they are in?

I'm not sure what false leader you are talking about, but the main problem is you are ignoring God's heritage. Some of the most revered people in the Orthodox world, whether today or in the past are not leaders at all. It's not all about the leaders who have really little power in the church anyway, they are just servants of the body. It is about following the historic teachings of Christianity in unity of mind with the body of Christ.

3 John 9. Diotrophes.
Still, you seem to be defining "God's heritage" by being under this one institution, whether it is abotut the leaders or not. That's what Dioptrophes did.

 

[orthodox]

"Hey believe me, I understand. I didn't want to be orthodox either. I fought and struggled against it for years, and came there initially reluctantly."

Oh, why did I struggle against joining Orthodoxy? Because I was attached to my own traditions and preconceptions and was unwilling to consider the mind of the Church as wiser than my own personal opinion.

You admit that there were unresolved controversies such as the date of the Resurrection celebration (Easter or Passover). Because we see that that was a conflict, yet you find some references regarding nfant baptism and icons and no such conflict preseved over them, you claim that the former was a dispensible issue, and the latter defined the "communion of saints" or assumed to be "what was taught by the apostles", but now again, you are speaking as if "communion of the saints" means 100% agreement on every issue.

No, the communion of saints is not 100% agreement on every issue, it is agreement on dogmatic issues. And what is dogmatic is not determined by mere agreement. There are lots of things that Orthodoxy everywhere does the same and yet are not dogmatic. As Holy Scripture says, when a difficult issue of dogmatic importance needs to be agreed on, the church meets in council to define it.

You didn't say yet whether you hold to or don't hold to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.

This is cyclical. We are not anti-supernatural because we don't agree with that one practice, which you have elevated as the definition of the faith.

Well you seemed to dismiss a blessing as a nothing of no consequence. Are you pulling back from that position?

It is not humble the way you are coming here telling us we are not the Church, only you are.

We cannot sacrifice the truth to cater to others' faux understanding of humility.

Actually, I never said "we discovered the truth". We rediscovered some truths, such as breaking out of the universal state Church mold, but not that there was NO truth at all before that, as others might exaggerate.

You don't have any monopoly over not being the state church. Whether it was the earliest days of persecution, or millions who died under Soviet communism, or Orthodoxy living under the Muslim Caliphs, Orthodoxy has only sometimes enjoyed the status of official church. You have rediscovered nothing on that score.

That's not talking about the Church, ("Moses and the Prophets") that's talking about Jews (who largely did not have the witness of the Spirit).

Same principle. The Spirit is not going to witness to each individual Christian on each individual doctrinal issue when there is a perfectly good church that Christ set up to accomplish that purpose.

The Jews today do not use those books.

What has that got to do with the price of fish? Firstly, the Jews are not the people of God any longer. Secondly, the structure of Judaism was turned on its head after the destruction of the temple and can't be used to infer anything that was going on prior to that.

Because the entire Church today (not just one group) agrees on them and they are no longer in question.

Neither were the so-called apocryphal books in question in between, oh say 500AD and 1500AD (at least). But if some group in 1500AD can bring up the old debates, why not bring up the debates about the NT books too?

So one's "Christ" is determined by which Church group they are in?

Is the Mormon or JW Christ the same as your Christ?

3 John 9. Diotrophes.
Still, you seem to be defining "God's heritage" by being under this one institution, whether it is abotut the leaders or not. That's what Dioptrophes did.

The motto of Diotrophes is "it is better to reign in a small church than to serve in a large one".

That sounds like the protestant creed to me.

 

[El_Guero]

Sounds like you want to be convinced about becoming a Baptist . . . Why else would you ask these questions on a Baptist Board?

Repent, in a real Baptist Church!, and be Baptized!!!

 

[Inquiring Mind]

The Jews today do not use those books.

Yes this is true. That is the one Truth that Satan want syou to know concerning the Council of Jamina of around 90 AD. But he also wants to keep some truth hidden as well.

Some history is needed:

Temple of Jerusalem destroyed around 70 AD.
Jews were being heavily persecuted.
Jews blamed it on the Christians.
They convened a council at Jamina around 90 AD.
They needed to combat Paul's teachings since he was one of them(Pharisees). They did want his writings to recognized as inspired later.

The Primary reason the books were left out because originals in Hebrew could not be found. But in 1947, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls renders this reason invalid because scrolls of these books were also found. The classifications of the Scrolls are Biblical(Hebrew Canon) and non-bibical(others). Also to note, not one single copy or fragment of the Book of Esther was found.

Back to the issue that Jews don't recognize them as inspired?

Truth #2 Well if you must insist on the Judgement of Jews on what the measure of the OT canon is then you must also insist on their Judgement of what the NT canon contains. And that is ZERO books.

Truth #3 This is when the Christain Jews(Yeshume Jews) were expelled from the synagogues and the distinction was declared between Jews and Christians.

Truth #4 They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:

Officially called the "Shemoneh Esreh" or "Amidah" or "Birkat ha-minim"

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

These Jews condemn Christians, but you want to rely on their judgement of Canon, when they can not even rightly discern whom the Messiah is. Does that make sense to you?

 

[Eric B]

Oh, why did I struggle against joining Orthodoxy? Because I was attached to my own traditions and preconceptions and was unwilling to consider the mind of the Church as wiser than my own personal opinion.

So my point remains that it was all about an institution, and accepting whatever wisdom it holds just because it holds it. This still presumes that only that group was the Church.

No, the communion of saints is not 100% agreement on every issue, it is agreement on dogmatic issues. And what is dogmatic is not determined by mere agreement. There are lots of things that Orthodoxy everywhere does the same and yet are not dogmatic. As Holy Scripture says, when a difficult issue of dogmatic importance needs to be agreed on, the church meets in council to define it.

All along, you've been using the "agreement" as proof of what the "communion" or dogmatic truth is to begin with, now you're making dogma a separate "true" criteria from agreement!

Well you seemed to dismiss a blessing as nothing of no consequence. Are you pulling back from that position?

It is not enough to declare we are not apart of Christ's Church, and that IF we happen to be wrong on it, which you have not proven, but only presumed by the circular reasoning, above.

We cannot sacrifice the truth to cater to others' faux understanding of humility.

But we can make up faux "truth" in order to separate ourselves from others, in order to be "better" through claims of sole truth bearing, just like the scripture you cited from 1 John says.

Same principle. The Spirit is not going to witness to each individual Christian on each individual doctrinal issue when there is a perfectly good church that Christ set up to accomplish that purpose.

The church is comprised of its individuals. You seem to be affirming that
The Spirit did all of His witnessing in the beginning, and then subsequently stopped, leaving the Early postapostolic Church as setting the standards, and the institution that grew from their teachings as the sole definition of "the Church".

What has that got to do with the price of fish? Firstly, the Jews are not the people of God any longer. Secondly, the structure of Judaism was turned on its head after the destruction of the temple and can't be used to infer anything that was going on prior to that.

Neither were the so-called apocryphal books in question in between, oh say 500AD and 1500AD (at least). But if some group in 1500AD can bring up the old debates, why not bring up the debates about the NT books too?

Regardless, It may not have been in question in the RCC/EOC, but the point was, we did not make up our OT canon as you claimed. There was apparently reason enough for them to be questioned; especially when the people who authored them questioned them, and examples include the Maccabees containing contradictions, or something.

You didn't say yet whether you hold to or don't hold to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan creed.

Is the Mormon or JW Christ the same as your Christ?

Not because of their group, but because of what they teach about Christ. And I do not hold my view of Christ because of what the Creed says. I believe the creed captures the basic scriptural truth against the other positions it was formulated against, but even then, I believe its language is often overformulated, which causes problems (e.g. "One substance, three persons")

The motto of Diotrophes is "it is better to reign in a small church than to serve in a large one".

That sounds like the protestant creed to me.

That's not what it says in the text. It says nothing about size, and at that point, the true Church was still relatively small, scattered and persecuted. Clearly, it is about trying to gain control, over as many people as possible by defining "the Church" by your own rule, and that has been more the "catholic" mindset than the mainstream protestant.

 

[Eric B]

Yes this is true. That is the one Truth that Satan want syou to know concerning the Council of Jamina of around 90 AD. But he also wants to keep some truth hidden as well.

Some history is needed:

Temple of Jerusalem destroyed around 70 AD.
Jews were being heavily persecuted.
Jews blamed it on the Christians.
They convened a council at Jamina around 90 AD.
They needed to combat Paul's teachings since he was one of them(Pharisees). They did want his writings to recognized as inspired later.

The Primary reason the books were left out because originals in Hebrew could not be found. But in 1947, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls renders this reason invalid because scrolls of these books were also found. The classifications of the Scrolls are Biblical(Hebrew Canon) and non-bibical(others). Also to note, not one single copy or fragment of the Book of Esther was found.

Back to the issue that Jews don't recognize them as inspired?

Truth #2 Well if you must insist on the Judgement of Jews on what the measure of the OT canon is then you must also insist on their Judgement of what the NT canon contains. And that is ZERO books.

Truth #3 This is when the Christain Jews(Yeshume Jews) were expelled from the synagogues and the distinction was declared between Jews and Christians.

Truth #4 They added to their daily blessings which all Jews are required to read everyday this curse of Christians:

Officially called the "Shemoneh Esreh" or "Amidah" or "Birkat ha-minim"

"For the Apostates let there be no hope and the arrogant government be speedily uprooted in our days, Let the Nazarenes(Christians)and the minim(Heretics) be destroyed in a moment. Let them be blotted out of the Book of Life and not inscribled together with the Righteous. Blessed art thou oh Lord, who humblest the Proud."

These Jews condemn Christians, but you want to rely on their judgement of Canon, when they can not even rightly discern whom the Messiah is. Does that make sense to you?

So you're trying to suggest that the reason the Jews rejected those books was to combat Paul and the Christians? Why would they choose those books, and not all of the other ones that prophesy of Jesus?
If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)

Could I be right that you are really a Catholic or Orthodox, and that that whole "why the local Church" thread was supposed to be spoofing our views? You do seem to otherwise argue like an orthodox.

 

[orthodox]

Sounds like you want to be convinced about becoming a Baptist . . . Why else would you ask these questions on a Baptist Board?

Been there, done that, got the tee shirt. Now I've moved on to better things.

 

[orthodox]

So you're trying to suggest that the reason the Jews rejected those books was to combat Paul and the Christians? Why would they choose those books, and not all of the other ones that prophesy of Jesus?

Who knows? Who cares? The Jews did lots of things against Christians that didn't make sense. The rejected the Septuagint because that is what Christians used. It may be that by this time they had physically lost these books in Hebrew. But the bottom line, why should we care? Various Jewish sects had different canons anyway. Saducees had only the Pentatuch. Who knows what Qumran had. We don't know what tradition the leadership of later Jews inherited.

If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)

No, you should follow the Tradition of the Church and not go into rampant speculations.

Could I be right that you are really a Catholic or Orthodox, and that that whole "why the local Church" thread was supposed to be spoofing our views? You do seem to otherwise argue like an orthodox.

I have to say that even when I was a protestant I was sympathetic to the idea that maybe protestants got it wrong in changing the canon. Then again, all the early protestant bibles included the books, but protestantism has changed yet again and is now unwilling to even include them.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)

With regard to the Council of Jamina:

You rely on their OT canon.
You don't rely on their NT canon.
You don't rely on their curse against Christians.
You don't rely on their rejection of who the Messiah is.

The choice to accept one and not the others is illogical.

Why do you accept their OT Canon when they deny your NT canon, when they curse you in their daily blessings, when they reject your Jesus as Messiah? Why?

 

[Inquiring Mind]

If we are not to trust their canon, then maybe the books of Enoch are valid (and weren't those referred to in the NT, which is used to prove the other books are canonical?)

Their original canon was the LXX. Why change what was already established centuries ago?

Bible Christians use the shorter canon because it matches the present day Jewish canon. They will often quote Romans 3:2, which says, "The Jews are entrusted with the oracles of God." They reason that since God entrusted the Old Testament to the Jews, they should be the ones who determine which books belong in it.

This reasoning presents a couple of problems. Firstly, both Old Testament canons were received from the Jews. Thus neither canon is eliminated by this verse. Secondly, the Jews didn't settle on the Palestinian canon until at least 90 AD at the Council of Jamnia. This was well after authority had passed from the Jews to the Church (Acts 4:19). Ironically it was at the Council of Jamnia that the Jews also rejected the New Testament. Logically speaking, anyone who would consider Jamnia as being authoritative would also have to reject the New Testament.

Most Church Fathers regarded the Septuagint as the standard form of the Old Testament. When the Councils of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage (397 AD) set the canon of the New Testament they also confirmed the Septuagint as the Old Testament. Further evidence of the Septuagint's acceptance by the early Church can be found in the New Testament itself. It quotes the Old Testament approximately 350 times. Three hundred of those quotes are from the Septuagint. Surely this amounts to an overwhelming endorsement by the early Church.

Who should you believe?

Jews that deny the New Testament, Jews that deny the Divinity and Messiahship of Christ, Jews that invoke a daily curse upon us?

or

Those Christians present at these early Councils?

Christian Council or Jewish Council? Which should it rightfully be?

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Who knows? Who cares? The Jews did lots of things against Christians that didn't make sense. The rejected the Septuagint because that is what Christians used. It may be that by this time they had physically lost these books in Hebrew. But the bottom line, why should we care? Various Jewish sects had different canons anyway. Saducees had only the Pentatuch. Who knows what Qumran had. We don't know what tradition the leadership of later Jews inherited.

Another reason, the Christians used the Greek, they wanted to seperate themselves from anything Christian so if the book was in Greek but could not be found in the Hebrew it was considered uninspired just as all the New Testament writings were in Greek. They rejected everything that was Greek that did not have a Hebrew counterpart.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Could I be right that you are really a Catholic or Orthodox, and that that whole "why the local Church" thread was supposed to be spoofing our views? You do seem to otherwise argue like an orthodox.

I argue like someone that has done some research into the Past and ignored what I was taught by my Pastors of old.