My church defined your church's bible

[orthodox]

Your whole argument is summed up in saying we're not in the true Church because only your Church is "the one founded by Christ"; then you say the true Church is not a particular group, institution or hierarchy, but rather a body of people holding "apostolic traditions" defined as "consensus of dogmatic truth", yet your only proof that your traditions are that consensus is that your church "always held them" (and this "historical" standard only judged from statements of some ECF's, that are at best ambiguous, beginning in the century following the NT, and of course later leaders who further developed/expounded the doctrines).
That is completely cyclical!

No, that's not the only proof at all. That's only a part of it, as has been discussed.

The other part of it is that scripture specifies (a) that the apostles appointed successors and arranged for them to appoint successors. Thus the church retains authority to continue the biblical model for defining belief in church councils. (b) The Church has used that authority, but you don't follow the councils.

So it wouldn't matter if we could prove nothing, the Church can still define the truth.

also (c) Scripture says to hold to the traditions, it doesn't add any qualifier of "if you think there is sufficient proof".

Since you don't follow any of the biblical models for how the church is supposed to work, you clearly don't want to be part of the biblical church.

 

[Eric B]

This is just a rehash of that same cycle.
Whatever the "successors" and their councils say is the truth, and if it's not found in scripture, it is oral tradition because they said so. The proof we are the true Church is in history, but we don't have to prove anything; we just have the authority to define truth.
(Again, you yourself have admitted that there was error, dissent and nonapostolic tradition. So being a "successor" does not guarantee/is not predicated upon 100% perfection).

 

[orthodox]

This is just a rehash of that same cycle.
Whatever the "successors" and their councils say is the truth, and if it's not found in scripture, it is oral tradition because they said so. The proof we are the true Church is in history, but we don't have to prove anything; we just have the authority to define truth.

Give me your proof that the Jerusalem council didn't err, even though its decision was contradictory to scripture. If you can't, we have to say your position is inconsistent.

(Again, you yourself have admitted that there was error, dissent and nonapostolic tradition. So being a "successor" does not guarantee/is not predicated upon 100% perfection).

I does guarantee it when defined in council. See the Jerusalem council.

 

[Eric B]

The Jerusalem council was in scripture, and not attended by "successors" to the apostles, but by the inspired apostles themselves. How was it contradictory to scripture? What scripture ever said Gentiles were supposed to keep the Law of Moses? (which is what that decision was about)

 

[orthodox]

The Jerusalem council was in scripture, and not attended by "successors" to the apostles, but by the inspired apostles themselves.

The successors to the apostles were also apostles. And also, the council wasn't just attended by the original apostles, it was attended by the other elders too.

How was it contradictory to scripture? What scripture ever said Gentiles were supposed to keep the Law of Moses? (which is what that decision was about)

The people of God were supposed to keep the Law, and the decision of the council was binding on the Jews too, although obviously they weren't going to be uncircumcised. Surely you're not going to tell me there is a sub-group in the Church called Jews who must keep the Law in its entirely??

 

[av1611jim]

Whether your church defined my Bible or not; I care not.
What you seem to have ignored is the sad fact that your church has been the epitome of evil for at least 1000 years. Particularly during the "Dark Ages". If you wish to claim 'authority' then it is not of God where that 'authority' is derived.
You can't seriously say burning women and children for memorizing Scripture is Biblical. Nor can you seriously say you have 'unbroken Apostolic tradition' when we all know your church had THREE popes at the same time and another one was a woman who delivered her child in a processional!!?
C'mon...who are you kidding?
God uses all kinds of evil things and institutions to bring about His purposes. Nazi Germany for example was used to bring the Jews back to their land, hence Isreal became a nation again in 1948.
Babylon was used to punish them and bring them back to a more pure adherance to the temple worship, hence the book of Nehemiah.
And on and on...And so we see that the ungodly catholic church was used to bring about the Reformation and get God's people reading the Bible again rather than trusting their vicars or popes or friars.

God is that way. If His people will not trust Him and His word, then He brings in an ungodly punisher. The most recent example just happens to be your church, but by no means can you claim exclusivity!

And if it be found that your church DID define the Bible(which it most certainly did not), then why o why does it violate those Scriptures historically, daily and worldwide?

 

[Taufgesinnter]

Um...what're you talking about?

Whether your church defined my Bible or not; I care not.
What you seem to have ignored is the sad fact that your church has been the epitome of evil for at least 1000 years. Particularly during the "Dark Ages". If you wish to claim 'authority' then it is not of God where that 'authority' is derived.
You can't seriously say burning women and children for memorizing Scripture is Biblical. Nor can you seriously say you have 'unbroken Apostolic tradition' when we all know your church had THREE popes at the same time and another one was a woman who delivered her child in a processional!!?
C'mon...who are you kidding?
God uses all kinds of evil things and institutions to bring about His purposes. Nazi Germany for example was used to bring the Jews back to their land, hence Isreal became a nation again in 1948.
Babylon was used to punish them and bring them back to a more pure adherance to the temple worship, hence the book of Nehemiah.
And on and on...And so we see that the ungodly catholic church was used to bring about the Reformation and get God's people reading the Bible again rather than trusting their vicars or popes or friars.

God is that way. If His people will not trust Him and His word, then He brings in an ungodly punisher. The most recent example just happens to be your church, but by no means can you claim exclusivity!

And if it be found that your church DID define the Bible(which it most certainly did not), then why o why does it violate those Scriptures historically, daily and worldwide?

First, how had our Church been the epitome of evil throughout the Dark Ages, especially when it was Western and Central Europe that experienced the Dark Ages, as well as the Reformation, neither of which were experienced much at all in the part of the world where our Church remained? When did our Church burn people for memorizing Scripture, especially considering that our Liturgy is filled with Scripture, and read nearly the entire Bible to the people during services at a time when few could read for themselves? And the laughable myth of Pope Joan aside, what do Popes have to do with our Church--the Church that is the topic of this thread--since we reject papal infallibility and the Pope's supposedly universal authority?

C'mon...who are you kidding? Leave the Catholic-bashing to the threads dealing with the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church that defined your Bible for you. IOW, let's stay on track, shall we? We're talking about the Church that Christ founded, led by the apostles and then their successors in an unbroken succession, not the Romans who broke away and went off on their own about a millennium ago.

 

[orthodox]

Whether your church defined my Bible or not; I care not.
What you seem to have ignored is the sad fact that your church has been the epitome of evil for at least 1000 years. Particularly during the "Dark Ages". If you wish to claim 'authority' then it is not of God where that 'authority' is derived.
You can't seriously say burning women and children for memorizing Scripture is Biblical. Nor can you seriously say you have 'unbroken Apostolic tradition' when we all know your church had THREE popes at the same time and another one was a woman who delivered her child in a processional!!?

The Holy Orthodox Church has never had a universal pope, a dark ages, a reformation or a counter reformation. You seem to be thinking of the Roman Church. I'm not aware of the orthodox church burning anybody, unlike the protestants. The idea that there was a pope who was a woman is BTW a myth, but nevertheless irrelevant.

C'mon...who are you kidding?
God uses all kinds of evil things and institutions to bring about His purposes. Nazi Germany for example was used to bring the Jews back to their land, hence Isreal became a nation again in 1948.
Babylon was used to punish them and bring them back to a more pure adherance to the temple worship, hence the book of Nehemiah.
And on and on...And so we see that the ungodly catholic church was used to bring about the Reformation and get God's people reading the Bible again rather than trusting their vicars or popes or friars.

The Orthodox church had nothing to do with the reformation. You're off by about 5000 miles in geography.

God is that way. If His people will not trust Him and His word, then He brings in an ungodly punisher. The most recent example just happens to be your church, but by no means can you claim exclusivity!

And if it be found that your church DID define the Bible(which it most certainly did not), then why o why does it violate those Scriptures historically, daily and worldwide?

Our church doesn't violate any scriptures. Please document or have the fortitude to retract.

 

[Eric B]

The successors to the apostles were also apostles. And also, the council wasn't just attended by the original apostles, it was attended by the other elders too.

The people of God were supposed to keep the Law, and the decision of the council was binding on the Jews too, although obviously they weren't going to be uncircumcised. Surely you're not going to tell me there is a sub-group in the Church called Jews who must keep the Law in its entirely??

But the original apostles (who saw Christ), and even their contemporaries are not in question. Those generations (centuries) later are the ones we are debating, and the issue is whether everything they taught was handed down from the apostles, or whether some things may not have.
The OT did not say gentles had to be circumcised and keep the other laws unless they were joining physical Israel. The NT was spiritual Israel, and Jews were not a sub-group and di not have to keep the whole law either, but the point of the council was that they were not to force it on the Gentiles.

 

[orthodox]

But the original apostles (who saw Christ), and even their contemporaries are not in question.

Why are they not in question? The original apostles were not infallible. The original apostles made mistakes. That is the entire substance of your argument against the later Church, but if we apply your argument consistently, you have no religion.

 

[Inquiring Mind]

Why are they not in question? The original apostles were not infallible. The original apostles made mistakes. That is the entire substance of your argument against the later Church, but if we apply your argument consistently, you have no religion.

Was not John in a spiritual state of infallibility when he was writing his Gospel?

 

[orthodox]

Was not John in a spiritual state of infallibility when he was writing his Gospel?

There's not much point having an infallible book in your library unless you have an infallible Church to tell you which book it is.

Infallible inspiration doesn't work without infallible tradition confirming what is infallible and infallible preservation. Without all those links, you don't have infallibility. To retain infallibility, you need a Church.

 

[Eric B]

Why are they not in question? The original apostles were not infallible. The original apostles made mistakes. That is the entire substance of your argument against the later Church, but if we apply your argument consistently, you have no religion.

And when an original apostle made a mistake, he was corrected by another inspired apostle. This does not mean that later generations would always have the same level of error correction. Remember, it is your [initial] premise that the entire history of the Church was 100% errorless, so that whatever they say is true just because they said so; even "defining" truth, as you say.
The "religion" is primarily about Christ and His plan of salvation, not all of these other issues you are hassling us over.

 

[orthodox]

And when an original apostle made a mistake, he was corrected by another inspired apostle. This does not mean that later generations would always have the same level of error correction. Remember, it is your [initial] premise that the entire history of the Church was 100% errorless, so that whatever they say is true just because they said so; even "defining" truth, as you say.
The "religion" is primarily about Christ and His plan of salvation, not all of these other issues you are hassling us over.

No, again I have to correct you. The Church is errorless in the same way an apostle is errorless - when defining doctrine. It doesn't mean the Church is errorless when designing architecture, or apostles were errorless in making shopping lists.

I noticed you handily dodged the question. How do you know the apostles were errorless, either individually, or as a group, whatever position you believe???

 

[Eric B]

Because your question calls into question faith itself. That is basically what the agnostics ask. "How do we know Christ was true", then. I thought that the truthfulness of Christ was a granted for us, but you are elevating church leaders to the same level of objects of faith, where if I accept the writings of the apostles, and part os the later church's compilation of those writings, then I have to accept every other decision of every later leader that holds a title as their successor, or I have no basis to accept anything (Christ included, right?) where do you get this logic from? I guess if I accept the books of Moses, I should accept the rest of Jewish authority which rejects Jesus (in which case the whole notion of God rejecting them is false).

And the issues where you admitted they could be wrong, or not following the issues were not things like architecture, shopping lists or the color of their shoes. The Passover-Easter controversy was a significant doctrine and practice, with the side closest to the apostles disfavored by the Church-wide decision. What you keep dodging is proving that this was not an apostolic issue, but all the other areas you take issue with us over (infant baptism, etc) were. Just because we do not have [record of] any such controversy over it [preserved] is your final answer. But while that may be theoretical or hypothetical evidence, it is not enough conclusive proof to support the exravagant claim your church is the only true one because of those practices, (and that the vast majority of Christianity is in total error to the point of being outside of Christ, like the underground church theory suggested). The example we have in scripture is that such matters of practice were generally left up to the person and the Lord, and not to judge or divide over them. If later leaders come and choose some of these issues to make "dogmatic", then righ there, they are going beyond apostolic principle. Their titles as supposed "successors" do not in themselves make it true just because they said so, any more than their choice of Easter, etc. And don't forget the West, who operated on the same "we, the successors to the apostles define truth" principle as the East, yet the East drew a line where they would no longer follow any more such newly "defined" truth; but just keep whatever they already had at that point, and define that as the only apostolic truth.

 

[Eliyahu]

"And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold..." (graven images of creatures of heaven)--Exodus 25:18, see also Exodus 26:1 and Ezekiel 41:25.

AND see 1 Kings 7:25-29, and 6:23-32. PLUS Numbers 21:8-9, and of course, Ezekiel 4:1. Those are places where God commanded the use of graven images of creatures of the earth.

So, are you claiming that God instructed the Christians to make Idols for Holy Mother Mary ?

Where is such instruction?

Do you know what the Cherubim mean ?

Did Israelites bow down to Cherubim ?

Don't you know the whole temple was built according to the commandment of God ?, following after the Tabernacle of Meeting ?

Do you know the meaning of Tabernacle ?


Why don't you read the followings?
2 Kings 18:4
He(Hezkiah) removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

Is Mary's statue the same as Tabernacle ?

You are following the typical excuses by the Idol Worshippers! You may be eloquent in excusing for the Idolatry now, but in the presence of God you will be speechless!


Rev 22:14-15
14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.

 

[orthodox]

So, are you claiming that God instructed the Christians to make Idols for Holy Mother Mary ?

Christians do not make idols. That is definitional.

Where is such instruction?

nowhere

Do you know what the Cherubim mean ?

yes

Did Israelites bow down to Cherubim ?

yes, they were on the ark which they bowed down to.

Don't you know the whole temple was built according to the commandment of God ?, following after the Tabernacle of Meeting ?

yes. Do you have a point with these questions?

Do you know the meaning of Tabernacle ?

yes

Why don't you read the followings?
2 Kings 18:4
He(Hezkiah) removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brasen serpent that Moses had made: for unto those days the children of Israel did burn incense to it: and he called it Nehushtan.

They had named the snake Nehushtan and were worhipping it. That's not the same as worhipping the true God with assistance of an icon.

Is Mary's statue the same as Tabernacle ?

no

You are following the typical excuses by the Idol Worshippers! You may be eloquent in excusing for the Idolatry now, but in the presence of God you will be speechless!

Your position is unknown in the Church's first 1500 years
Now I have a question for you, having answered your long list....


When you read scripture do you picture in your minds eye Christ and the apostles doing whatever it is that scripture says they were doing? Do you feel admiration for them at this time?

 

[orthodox]

Because your question calls into question faith itself. That is basically what the agnostics ask. "How do we know Christ was true", then. I thought that the truthfulness of Christ was a granted for us, but you are elevating church leaders to the same level of objects of faith

Well hang on now, the apostles are not Christ, they are just Church leaders. If faith in Christ is all that's important, why don't you have faith in Christ whilst doubting that everything the apostles wrote in scripture is infallible?

where if I accept the writings of the apostles, and part os the later church's compilation of those writings, then I have to accept every other decision of every later leader that holds a title as their successor, or I have no basis to accept anything (Christ included, right?) where do you get this logic from?

Who said you have to include every decision? Paul did not accept Peter's decision to cut himself off from the gentiles in Galatians. Nobody is saying you have to accept every decision.

I guess if I accept the books of Moses, I should accept the rest of Jewish authority which rejects Jesus (in which case the whole notion of God rejecting them is false).

Again, it's not just about the leaders. Dogmatic decisions also need the consent of the laity, en masse. Leadership can't just foist something on the Church. The Church in its entirety is the custodian of the faith. But if the Church does accept it - like the canon - there is no revisiting it in every generation. Otherwise we could go all the way back to Genesis and start revising.

And the issues where you admitted they could be wrong, or not following the issues were not things like architecture, shopping lists or the color of their shoes. The Passover-Easter controversy was a significant doctrine and practice, with the side closest to the apostles disfavored by the Church-wide decision. What you keep dodging is proving that this was not an apostolic issue, but all the other areas you take issue with us over (infant baptism, etc) were.

The Church not only defines dogma, it also defines what is and isn't dogma. Because as Christ says to the disciples "Whatever you bind on earth has been bound in heaven". Do you believe that whatever Christ's disciples bind on earth is bound in heaven?

Just because we do not have [record of] any such controversy over it [preserved] is your final answer. But while that may be theoretical or hypothetical evidence, it is not enough conclusive proof to support the exravagant claim your church is the only true one because of those practices, (and that the vast majority of Christianity is in total error to the point of being outside of Christ,

I don't know about "outside of Christ", I didn't say that. Nor do I know about "the vast majority of Christianity being in error". Perhaps a majority, but not necessarily a vast majority.

like the underground church theory suggested). The example we have in scripture is that such matters of practice were generally left up to the person and the Lord, and not to judge or divide over them.

What matters does Orthodoxy consider dogmatic that the scriptural example says were left up to the person? Scripture talks about holy days and so forth begin non-dogmatic, and Orthodoxy agrees. What other scriptual examples do you refer to?

If later leaders come and choose some of these issues to make "dogmatic", then righ there, they are going beyond apostolic principle.

No, they are following the apostolic principle. Did not the apostles make things dogmatic?

Their titles as supposed "successors" do not in themselves make it true just because they said so, any more than their choice of Easter, etc. And don't forget the West, who operated on the same "we, the successors to the apostles define truth" principle as the East, yet the East drew a line where they would no longer follow any more such newly "defined" truth; but just keep whatever they already had at that point, and define that as the only apostolic truth.

Remember, the Church can newly define truth, but it doesn't define new truth. There is a massive massive difference that you ought not confuse.

The East has two complaints against the West '- (a) defining new truth, and (b) defining truths unilaterally. We wouldn't have a problem defining old truths for the clarification of the faithful, if they did it ecumenically. And we believe the West has not defined its papal infallibility doctrines because (a) it was a new truth, not an old truth and (b) it did not get the consent of the whole church, only a part of it.

These criteria are nothing new, I could give you 1500 year old quotes that lay out those criteria.

 

[Eric B]

Well hang on now, the apostles are not Christ, they are just Church leaders. If faith in Christ is all that's important, why don't you have faith in Christ whilst doubting that everything the apostles wrote in scripture is infallible?

Then we wouldn't know about Christ. I would think that those who saw Christ and were directly taught by him and whose writings we accept as Spirit-inspired "scripure" are a bit more trustworthy and definitive than later generations of leaders.

Again, it's not just about the leaders. Dogmatic decisions also need the consent of the laity, en masse. Leadership can't just foist something on the Church. The Church in its entirety is the custodian of the faith. But if the Church does accept it - like the canon - there is no revisiting it in every generation. Otherwise we could go all the way back to Genesis and start revising.
The Church not only defines dogma, it also defines what is and isn't dogma. Because as Christ says to the disciples "Whatever you bind on earth has been bound in heaven". Do you believe that whatever Christ's disciples bind on earth is bound in heaven?

Does that mean then that they could just make up something, anything, and if they all agree, and the laity agree, then it becomes truth?

Who said you have to include every decision? Paul did not accept Peter's decision to cut himself off from the gentiles in Galatians. Nobody is saying you have to accept every decision.

What matters does Orthodoxy consider dogmatic that the scriptural example says were left up to the person? Scripture talks about holy days and so forth being non-dogmatic, and Orthodoxy agrees. What other scriptual examples do you refer to?

No, they are following the apostolic principle. Did not the apostles make things dogmatic?

And the apostles were dogmatic about the doctrine of Christ and against legalism, but the type of things you are denouncing us for not "following" are religious practices in the same vein as holy days, and we do not have any record of them making them dogmatic. It was later leaders who began to dogmatize on them, and project them back to the apostles. Now if I don't have to accept every decision from those later leaders, I can accept their input on the canon, and not have to believe they were correct in some of their other dogmas.

I don't know about "outside of Christ", I didn't say that. Nor do I know about "the vast majority of Christianity being in error". Perhaps a majority, but not necessarily a vast majority.

"Majority/vast majority". Big deal! If you are the only true Church, and the Church is the Body of Christ, then everyone not in your Church is outside of Christ.

Remember, the Church can newly define truth, but it doesn't define new truth. There is a massive massive difference that you ought not confuse.

The East has two complaints against the West '- (a) defining new truth, and (b) defining truths unilaterally. We wouldn't have a problem defining old truths for the clarification of the faithful, if they did it ecumenically. And we believe the West has not defined its papal infallibility doctrines because (a) it was a new truth, not an old truth and (b) it did not get the consent of the whole church, only a part of it.

These criteria are nothing new, I could give you 1500 year old quotes that lay out those criteria.

The RCC uses the same method as you. They cite Christ declaring Peter "the Rock", and right there claim that is the Pope. they use the same statements from the ECF's beginning with Ignatius to prove it was apart of the dogmatic, unchallenged, uncontested, unopposed tradition handed down from the apostles, and not a new truth. The Pope did not become the supreme leader during the split with the East, but rather well before that, so you were following him, then you decided you didn't want to follow his authority anymore and broke away, and even though the East may have had a greater number of patriarchs, still, if you say that now a majority of Christianity is in error following the West, then it was equally possible for the East to be the majority in error back then. Plus, who determines when something is a matter of "not have the consent of the whole Church" versus plain "schism"?

 

[orthodox]

Then we wouldn't know about Christ.

Sure you would. You know lots of things without having infallible scriptures.

I would think that those who saw Christ and were directly taught by him and whose writings we accept as Spirit-inspired "scripure" are a bit more trustworthy and definitive than later generations of leaders.

A "bit more" trustworthy? So all we are talking about here are percentage points of trustworthyness? Scripture is a "bit more" trustworthy than later writings?

And who was directly taught by Christ? Mark wasn't, Luke wasn't. Paul wasn't. Neither were Moses through Malachi. I guess they fall into your bucket of "somewhat unreliable". That decimates your scripture, and you've still got to rely on vague traditions that it was Matthew, John and Peter the apostles who wrote your remaining scriptures.

And then whatever is left is a "bit more reliable"? Great.

Does that mean then that they could just make up something, anything, and if they all agree, and the laity agree, then it becomes truth?

No, the church only dogmatizes whatever is already bound in heaven. It can't and doesn't do so with anything at all.

So do you believe that whatever Christ's disciples bind on earth is bound in heaven? I didn't catch the answer.

And the apostles were dogmatic about the doctrine of Christ and against legalism, but the type of things you are denouncing us for not "following" are religious practices in the same vein as holy days, and we do not have any record of them making them dogmatic.

So teachings concerning things the apostles said you must do, like communion and baptism are merely non-dogmatic topics? So you have no problem with the salvation army that doesn't practice baptism and communion, since those are non-dogmatic topics?

It was later leaders who began to dogmatize on them, and project them back to the apostles.

That's your article of faith, yes, but I thought you conceeded already that you can't prove that?

Now if I don't have to accept every decision from those later leaders, I can accept their input on the canon, and not have to believe they were correct in some of their other dogmas.

Accept their input? Since you probably only accept half their teachings one wonders why you accept any more than 50% of their canon.

The RCC uses the same method as you. They cite Christ declaring Peter "the Rock", and right there claim that is the Pope.

That is provably only an opinion of 15% of the Church fathers that Peter is the rock, and 0% infer from that that Peter has universal supremacy over the church.

they use the same statements from the ECF's beginning with Ignatius to prove it was apart of the dogmatic, unchallenged, uncontested, unopposed tradition handed down from the apostles, and not a new truth.

From memory, Ignatius doesn't even mention the bishop of Rome let alone declare him head of the Church.

The Pope did not become the supreme leader during the split with the East, but rather well before that,

Huh? Please document or retract that the East accepted the Pope as supreme leader.

so you were following him, then you decided you didn't want to follow his authority anymore and broke away, and even though the East may have had a greater number of patriarchs, still, if you say that now a majority of Christianity is in error following the West, then it was equally possible for the East to be the majority in error back then.

The point in mentioning the agreement of the four Patriarchates is not to say "nyah hyah, we had a majority". The point is that Patriarchs are heads of independent churches. If Constantinople was wrong, and Rome was right, they could have followed Rome. They are four independent witnesses to Tradition. On the other hand, say the Bishop of Venice would not be entirely independent because he is under the bishop of Rome.

Plus, who determines when something is a matter of "not have the consent of the whole Church" versus plain "schism"?

It could be tricky in some cases without the benefit of hindsight. But in most cases it is fairly obvious because those going into schism havn't even discussed their issues with the rest of the Church.