Here I would be inclined to agree with you, and this is why, whilst I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist, I am agnostic as to the how of that Presence beig manifest (as are the Orthodox); transubstantiation may not necessarily be wrong but, to my mind, it's an unnecessary Scholastic over-development of the Real Presence doctrine.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Pope’s Plans on Organizing Political, Economic, and Religious Activities Worldwid
- Thread starter ReformedBaptist
- Start date
Thinkingstuff
Active Member
Just an interesting note to this debate. Papism seems to be the issue which eventually lead to the great Schism of 1054. The whole debate of filioque actually centers on Papism rather than the statement primarily because the Eastern Christians did not believe the western Christians could understand the theological intricacies (or were suffisticated enough or too wrapped up this legal thought) to come up with such a statement and that the statement wasn't ratified by council. Rather the bishop of Rome insisted on it. Though the Bishop in Spain who put it together was ultimately fighting Arianism. However this problem is about the Papacy rather than about its own statement. Finally, I think the worst issue between East and West was because of Ceasaro-Papism in the East and the nomination of Photios (By the Eastern Emperor) to be Bishop of Constantinople which culminated in the schism under Michael I Cerularius and Leo IX.
And RB, just HOW did the Church receive the Apostle's doctrine? Was the Church in limbo until the Apostles finally penned the NT and delivered such to the Churches?
Don't let one person define who the Orthodox Church is. Holy Scripture is taken very seriously in our Church as it is in your Church.
I don't believe it contains ALL the teachings, simply because in the beginning of the Church there were no hand written doctrinal instructions handed over to the Church by the Apostles. Frankly, until you come to grips with this fact, it's going to be difficult for you to understand and appreciate Holy Tradition and the role such played in the Church in the beginning and how such today keeps our Church from heresy.
Even St. John confessed that not all the teachings of Jesus are recorded in his Gospel and that the world itself could not contain the books written...this is why Christ promised the Holy Spirit would lead His Church in ALL truth and would remind His Church of ALL things...Christ was speaking to the Apostles, but the Apostles are dead now, yet His Holy Spirit continues to do the promises He promised to His Church today in 2009.
It's not that we can't understand, it's just that we may misinterpret what is saying...some of Holy Scripture isn't a straight forward rendering. IF that were the case, we wouldn't have the divisions we see today among Protestant Evangelicals. Furthermore, these doctrines you speak of were pretty much in place before the NT was finalized with the table of contents we have today.
And don't think we Orthodox anyway, are not allowed to read our Bibles...we are encouraged to do so and we will be starting January 1st a 2 year program to read the Bible in its entirely...2 chapters a day and a discussion on Wednesday evenings after Vespers of what we've read thus far.
Personally, I don't read the Bible to find new doctrines or to try and correct the Church of their supposed errors...I read the Bible to discover how such teachings are relevant to me, today in 2009. How do they speak to me to become a better Christian and I don't use Scripture to judge my neighbor either.
Actually the deception to me is the multitudes of Protestant denominations numbering in the thousands with some claiming to be the authentic NT Church.
In XC
-
Why do people like to include the Eastern Orthodox Church in the Reformation? The EOC had nothing to do with the Protestant Reformation...the EOC played no role...the easten Churches had their hands full dealing with the Muslims, than to worry about what was going on the West...jeeze...
Anyway, I agree in a sense, once the Patriarchate of Rome separated herself from the other Patriarchates in the East, do we see these teachings and dogmas that caused the Reformation arise.
Keep in mind, these teachings of Papal Infallibility, Immaculate conception of Mary, Indulgences, Purgatory, Transubstantiation and others arose AFTER the split of 1054 and have no bearing on the teachings and dogmas of the Eastern Orthodox Churches.
The Reformation was a Western event and the Eastern Orthodox Church was NOT the one being protested against. As a matter of fact we view the RCC as the original protestant Church, as Rome protested again us for not following their lead and going contrary to Holy Tradition.
In XC
-
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Somehow we are not communicating because this question sounds just like the one I was asking you. But if your asking how people, Jews and Gentiles, recieved the Apostle's doctrine, they recieved by word and/or letter. Even while some of the Apostles were alive, some never met them in person, but had a letter from them.
What is impossible for Orthodox and Roman Catholics alike to prove is that the Apostles taught and practiced the multitude of "traditions" that are extra-biblical. What is even more unbelievable to Bible-believers is that current traditions and interpretations of Scripture that are contrary to Scripture are the "proper" understanding of the Scripture.
Again, what you are saying is amounting to the Holy Scripture not being sufficient for the believer. I believe, and the Scripture agrees, that God has revealed all that we need in the Scripture.
I think you mis-read my statement. I was making a point that the orthodox church most likely does not reject the Bible or hold some liberal view of it.
You should be more careful in determining what it is I know and understand. The fact is that the NT itself reveals that the OT Scriptures alone are sufficient to make one wise unto salvation, even for a child.
What apparantly Orthodox and Roman Catholics don't agree to is that there was no difference between what they taught in person and what they wrote as letters.
And what is implied in this is something that cannot be proven. In other words, there is no test for someone, such as myself, to judge these "hidden" teachings outside of submitted myself and my conscience to a particular group or person.
But God will not hold me accountable to what your church teaches. He will hold me accountable to what HE has said. And you write as though I didn't know what John said toward the end of his Gospel. I do know, because we all have a record of that.
Yet it goes on to explain why...
"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John 20:31
It does not say that these things are written, and you need some body of other believers or men to help you understand obey things that are not written. It does say they are written that I might believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that I might have eternal life through the sacraments...er..His name.
I agree with you that not all of Scripture is as clear as other Scripture, and some of it is very, very hard to understand. However, that doctrine which is needed for the salvation of souls is very clear that even the most unlearned and immature may read, percieve and understand to the saving of their soul by the grace of God.
Neither are Roman Catholics (anymore) forbidden to read their Bibles, or Jehovah Witnesses, or Mormons, et. First, no one is claim that you or your church members don't. What has been my expeirence is that those belonging to such groups really adhere to the church's interpretation rather than what they read in the Bible.
The reality is that God will hold you personally accountable to what is written in Scripture. He will not judge you according to the Orthodox Church's doctrine, but account to Holy Writ. Why anyone would search the Scripture to find new doctrines, I don't know.
But to search the Scripture to judge what others are telling you is truth, is both wise and safe.
I know of no Protestant church claiming to be THE authentic NT church. Your idea of unity is different from the Bible's idea of unity.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
I was going to respond to your post, but it clear to me that your not going think. Your not going to read a statement like, "The ball is red." and your church says, "No, that is not the proper interpretation, the ball is blue."
What you have done is submitted all of your reason, mind, will, et. to your church. That is bondage. That is the blind leading the blind.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
We have it today, the NT Scriptures. There is no such thing, biblically, of a succession of office, but of Scripture. God did not preserve offices since Pentecost, but His Word.
I am not reading something into the text. What I am doing is making the assumption that what Paul taught publically is the self-same teaching that we now have in writing. In other words, they were judging the same type of teaching.
It is only appropriate as it relates to accepting extra-biblical revelation.
Then you might as well judge the Apostle's doctrine as pernicious. They taught a pure and unadulterated Gospel which we have a perserved and uncorrupted record of we all call the New Testament. In their days, there was division and schism, and in our day the same, and such things were also prophesied by the Apostles.
Look it up if you care to know.
I did.
I am not conflaring two concepts. I am stating that there has been one people of God from the beginning of time.
I don't like Mosquitobites.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
What parrallel universe are you living in? Seriously, your really out of touch with things if these are you conclusions.
And the answer is an infallible body of councils?
When I sing to my young children it goes like this:
"Jesus loves you, this I know, for the Bible tells me so."
If I held your views, I would have to change it to:
"Jesus loves you this I know, for the Church tells me so."
What I see you and others doing is putting confidence is man rather than God. And what is apparant to us, as the Scripture says, it has brought a snare.
On what basis do you make this assumption?
Again, on what basis are you making this assumption - it isn't there in the text; so much for sola Scriptura!
So are you calling the Apocrypha or Paul's preaching 'extra-biblical revelation'...? Paul's preaching wasn't in their Scriptures. The Apocrypha was.
That interpretation gives the lie to Jesus' promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church. Thanks for trying, but I'd rather trust Jesus.
I have: a fairly obscure American Presbyterian theologian. So you follow his teachings, do you? He's part of your Reformed tradition, so I guess that's understandable.
So the Jews, then. You're a Jew are you?
Now you're being delberately obtuse.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Scripture alone.
Look him up if you care to know. And no, I am not relying on his interpretation. Where did you get that idea?
Only a knave would think so. Orthodox and Papal "traditions" have often contradicted one another.
You sound like a Mormon.
I disagree, but the weight of Scripture is against many of the doctrines and teachings of the Orthodox Church and Papal dogma. I'll stick with the Scripture.
All the ones not found in Scripture.
Not at all; it's one of the things (observed red in tooth and claw on these boards!) that drove me from being a Baptist to being an Anglican. Are you seriously suggesting that Calvinists and Arminians are on the same epistemological table??
No, the answer is Tradition. Ecumenical councils (unless you want to throw out the Trinity and such like as dogmas) are but part of that Tradition.
No, you can keep to the original version, as do I.
No more so than putting your trust in the Bible can be said to be putting confidence in man, since it was (physically) written by men. No, I put my trust in God, and His given methods of revelation: Incarnation, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (that's why they're called 'sacred' - hint!)
Yeah, because sola Scriptura really works....
Except, as we've both agreed, Scripture alone is ambiguous on this issue. Therefore we need something more.
Not prior to 1054 they haven't.
Why?
Please don't allow the facts to change your mind.
Such as...? And...so? There are lots of things all of us do that aren't in Scripture. Scripture doesn't say we should have a Sunday service, so I guess that means we shouldn't have one; it doesn't tell us what to wear to such a service, so I guess we should all turn up butt-naked; it doesn't tell us we can drive cars of have computers or other technology so I guess we should ditch all of that and become Amish; most of the hymns we sing aren't in the Bible so I guess we should throw out our hymn books and stick to the good old Genevan metrical psalter (I hope you do that anyway, otherwise, so I've been told, you can't really call yourself Reformed) etc etc. As long as it is not against Scripture it is at worst adiaphora (now that word comes straight from the Reformation!).
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Huh? I have said that not all Scripture is as equally clear on all things. But on matters of salvation is so plainly laid down that the most unlearned may understand it.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
What is the basis for your accepting revelation beyond the Scripture?
Define Sacred Tradition.
But we were talking about Apostolic Succession. You have accepted that the Scripture may be unclear on this issue re interpretation so it is for each of us to adduce evidence in support of his interpretation. I have adduced mine, what about yours?
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
All I see is a negative assertion against the Scripture being sufficient.
Please define what yoru Sacred Tradition exactly is.
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
No. Allow me to use my own creedal statement on the matter if it helps add clarification.
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them.
( 2 Peter 3:16; Psalms 19:7; Psalms 119:130)
I have not accepted or stated that the Scripture is unclear about Apostolic Successon as taught either by Rome or orthodox churches.
The short answer (which doubtless begs more questions) is "the corporate mind of the Body of Christ, the Undivided Church, at least prior to 1054". [ETA - cross-posted with your last post, to which: I think you did]
Last edited by a moderator:
ReformedBaptist
Well-Known Member
Matt you sound like a Mormon to me because they too accept an ultimate authority which leads them to believe that whatever that authority tells them is correct and others are wrong.
The Papacy claims itself the ultimate authority, your claiming some sort of tradition, the Mormons their prophets, the JW's theirs....
And how in the world did you make an infallible choice to choose the right one? I doubt you would admit your choice was infallible. So, admitting that it was fallible, how do you know you made the right choice?
The basis of any group or person claiming ultimate authority must be able to be examined.