Author Topic: How to Interpret the Scriptures  (Read 21024 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #720 on: May 07, 2013, 05:02:27 AM »
You ignore our arguments, questions and quotes from Scripture, take some quotes of Scripture horribly out of context yourself and triumphantly claim victory. I don't like this style of debating.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 05:04:01 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #721 on: May 07, 2013, 05:09:27 AM »

Regarding John 16:13:  Identify WHO Christ is speaking to.  He isn't addressing you or I.  He was addressing the Apostles, who were indeed led to the fullness of truth by the Holy Spirit.
he was addressing the disciples. Are you not a disciple? Jesus said, "go into the world and make disciples of all men".

Quote
 We have continued in the teachings and understandings of the Apostles exactly because we believe that this is the fullness of truth.
They are in the Bible; if it is the truth, you will believe it. Where it conflicts with the teaching of the Orthodox Church, you will continue to believe it, where it conflicts with the teaching of a 'church father', you will continue to believe it.
 
Quote
 Truth is truth.  Truth doesn't develop and change over time...or, by the day, as the case may be.  
this is true.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #722 on: May 07, 2013, 05:17:06 AM »
I'll make it easy for you by summing up some of our questions:

1. How can the mentally deranged who will never be able to make a conscious decision be saved?

2. How do you know which books are part of Scripture?

3. Where in the Scriptures (besides James 2:24, which blatently contradicts sola fide) can you find anything about being saved by faith alone.

4. If anyone who is saved is led by the Holy Spirit, how come Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals etc. all disagree with eachother?

5. If the faith is "once and for all delivered to the saints" why should anyone believe in a doctrine made up in the 19th century - i.e. the Rapture - which before that time nobody believed.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 05:27:13 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #723 on: May 07, 2013, 05:21:00 AM »
You ignore our arguments, questions and quotes from Scripture,
I address everything I can. I apologise if I miss anything. Please 'bump' it.

 
Quote
take some quotes of Scripture horribly out of context yourself
I don't recognise this. Sometimes I quote Jesus directly which may seem ' out of context'. If I do so and you consider the context decisive, please point it out.

Quote
and triumphantly claim victory. I don't like this style of debating.
this suggests that you consider this some sort of competition rather than a search for truth. Do you? I am not aware of "claiming victory" anywhere. You obviously are. Please point out where. I debate solely from what I hold scripture to be. Triumphalism doesn't come into it. I didn't write it. 
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #724 on: May 07, 2013, 05:23:32 AM »
Quote
well, Paul neither became an angel nor led the whole world!

Hymns from the Orthodox feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul:

The whole world, let us praise as its champions the Disciples of Christ and foundations of the Church, the true pillars and bases, and inspired trumpets of the doctrines and sufferings of Christ, the Princes, Peter and Paul. For they passed through the whole breadth of the earth as with a plough, and sowed the faith, and they made the knowledge of God well up for all, showing forth the understanding of the Trinity. O Peter, rock and foundation, and Paul, vessel of election; the yoked oxen of Christ drew nations, cities and islands to knowledge of God. While they have brought Hebrews again to Christ and they intercede that our souls may be saved.

First-throned of the Apostles and teachers of the inhabited world, intercede with the Master of all things to give peace to the world and to our souls His great mercy.

We magnify you, O Apostles of Christ, who enlightened the universe with your teachings, and led the ends of the earth to Christ.

Their sound has gone forth into all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.
(Romans 10:18, via Psalm 19:4)

Quote
But setting this aside, John was a man and therefore susceptible to loose exegesis.

You think far too highly of yourself, Rachel. Such presumption!

St John was an Apostle, and taught by no less than Christ Himself, who, as He did with the other apostles, brought him to knowledge of all truth. The Church fittingly calls St John by that rare title Theologian.
Quote
You see, the problem is, you can't make your doctrines stack up with scripture. Your demons hide behind icons. Have you never noticed that?

Utter, unmitigated nonsense! Orthodox hymns and prayers are stuffed full of scripture. You will hear more scripture in every Orthodox service than in any other form of Christian worship, whether as scripture readings in their own right, or incorporated into hymns and prayers, which give these passages their proper context and meaning. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

Icons are the visual equivalent of what is read, chanted and sung in church. Their content expresses in line and color what the hymns and prayers express in words. To say that demons hide behind them betrays not only an immense ignorance of what icons are, but is a monstrous blasphemy as well.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #725 on: May 07, 2013, 05:26:25 AM »
If the Bible presupposed the faith of the reader IN GOD, there would be no Gospel.  
Which came first, the Gospel or the New Testament?

salvation by faith came first but the Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus.

You're not answering the question.

yes I did. The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and therefore was revealed with and by him. The NT was not written before him. It just took a moment's thought!

Yet you also profess sola scriptura. Many Gospel books were written, only four were chosen to become part of the Bible. How do you think this came about? Who decided which book was in, and which book was out?

if you believe that that scripture is the construct of Man, you will say, 'men'.

if you believe the Bible is Spirit breathed, you will say 'God'.

You're not answering the question. Here's the question again:

Yet you also profess sola scriptura. Many Gospel books were written, only four were chosen to become part of the Bible. How do you think this came about? Who decided which book was in, and which book was out?

*BUMP*
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #726 on: May 07, 2013, 05:26:47 AM »
St John was an Apostle, and taught by no less than Christ Himself, who, as He did with the other apostles, brought him to knowledge of all truth. The Church fittingly calls St John by that rare title Theologian.

She was referring to the Golden-Mouthed, not to the Theologian.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #727 on: May 07, 2013, 05:29:29 AM »
St John was an Apostle, and taught by no less than Christ Himself, who, as He did with the other apostles, brought him to knowledge of all truth. The Church fittingly calls St John by that rare title Theologian.

She was referring to the Golden-Mouthed, not to the Theologian.

My apologies. Be that as it may, accusing one of our greatest saints and Fathers of "loose exegesis" is the height of presumption.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #728 on: May 07, 2013, 05:32:15 AM »
St John was an Apostle, and taught by no less than Christ Himself, who, as He did with the other apostles, brought him to knowledge of all truth. The Church fittingly calls St John by that rare title Theologian.

She was referring to the Golden-Mouthed, not to the Theologian.

My apologies. Be that as it may, accusing one of our greatest saints and Fathers of "loose exegesis" is the height of presumption.

Yes, to us it might indeed seem highly arrogant and presumptuous to 'correct' Fathers like St. John Chrysostom and St. John of Damascus.

Offline adampjr

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
  • Penguin
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #729 on: May 07, 2013, 06:21:55 AM »
To add to the list of questions:

Still wondering what you can cite for your claim that it is Orthodox teaching that people earn salvation.

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #730 on: May 07, 2013, 07:25:12 AM »
I'll make it easy for you by summing up some of our questions:

1. How can the mentally deranged who will never be able to make a conscious decision be saved?

They can't. That is why the first thing Jesus did for Legion was heal him. He commands us to do the same. The eternal welfare of the mentally deranged lies in the providence of God. I am content to trust him. But may I point out one thing? According to Orthodoxy, God has promised nothing. Therefore, Orthodoxy views everything as in the 'providence of God'.

Quote
2. How do you know which books are part of Scripture?

1] because those in the canon are relevant, rational, self-consistent and consistent with each other. That is, they bear the marks of 'truth'.

2] by the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Quote
3. Where in the Scriptures (besides James 2:24, which blatently contradicts sola fide) can you find anything about being saved by faith alone.

this passage is clearly a major stumbling block to Orthodox. I will devote some time to it.

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one.


James 2 (NASB)

Faith and Works

14 What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is without clothing and in need of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and be filled,” and yet you do not give them what is necessary for their body, what use is that? 17 Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead, being by itself.

18 But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.” 19 You believe that God is one. You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder. 20 But are you willing to recognize, you foolish fellow, that faith without works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 22 You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; 23 and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,” and he was called the friend of God. 24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.


Which came first in the instances of 'works' which James cites? The answer is faith. In fact we know that any 'work' which is not 'of faith' is useless because, "that which is not of faith is sin"! So the question of whether one can be saved by works alone is irrelevant. Unless faith already exists it is useless. That is why humanists cannot be saved by their works alone in the Age of Grace.

Now, the question is whether works are necessary salvation. What does Paul say?:

 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe;


here he plainly states that righteousness can only be obtained by faith, not by works of the Law. He says so explicitly here:

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

but the question remains, are works of faith necessary to salvation?
Earlier in the thread, someone sought to distinguish between, 'works of the Law' and 'works of righteousness' but James, correctly, does not so distinguish:


8 If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well. 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.

He correctly points out that if I fail to do a 'work  of righteousness', an act of faith, prompted by the Holy Spirit, it is a sin under the Law. But the regenerate is not under the law but under grace.

Here it is:


4 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

7 “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds have been forgiven,
And whose sins have been covered.
8 “Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not take into account.”
9 Is this blessing then on the circumcised, or on [e]the uncircumcised


a work of faith is a work prompted by the Holy Spirit. If I fail to obey the prompting of the Holy Spirit, it is sin. But my sin is already forgiven. What James urges is obedience to the Holy Spirit in performing works of righteousness because these are what justify our witness to the watching world.[/b]

Quote
4. If anyone who is saved is lead by the Holy Spirit, how come Lutherans, Calvinists, Evangelicals etc. all disagree with eachother?
because:

1] to be lead of the Spirit a man must first be indwelt of the Spirit

2] to be lead of the Spirit, that man must be obedient to the Spirit.

3] all revelation is not given to all men at the same time.

Quote
5. If the faith is "once and for all delivered to the saints" why should anyone believe in a doctrine made up in the 19th century - i.e. the Rapture - which before that time nobody believed.

but you consider that the teachings of the 'church fathers' are revelatory so I may put the same logic to you.

Either the Rapture appears in scripture or it doesn't. The idea that Paul prophesied an event which he himself did not understand is possible but seems unlikely given his obvious belief in imminence.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #731 on: May 07, 2013, 07:30:11 AM »
St John was an Apostle, and taught by no less than Christ Himself, who, as He did with the other apostles, brought him to knowledge of all truth. The Church fittingly calls St John by that rare title Theologian.

She was referring to the Golden-Mouthed, not to the Theologian.

My apologies. Be that as it may, accusing one of our greatest saints and Fathers of "loose exegesis" is the height of presumption.

Yes, to us it might indeed seem highly arrogant and presumptuous to 'correct' Fathers like St. John Chrysostom and St. John of Damascus.

God is no respector of persons, he says, "call no man teacher". Since when was John infallible?
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #732 on: May 07, 2013, 07:32:25 AM »
If the Bible presupposed the faith of the reader IN GOD, there would be no Gospel.  
Which came first, the Gospel or the New Testament?

salvation by faith came first but the Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus.

You're not answering the question.

yes I did. The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and therefore was revealed with and by him. The NT was not written before him. It just took a moment's thought!

Yet you also profess sola scriptura. Many Gospel books were written, only four were chosen to become part of the Bible. How do you think this came about? Who decided which book was in, and which book was out?

if you believe that that scripture is the construct of Man, you will say, 'men'.

if you believe the Bible is Spirit breathed, you will say 'God'.

You're not answering the question. Here's the question again:

Yet you also profess sola scriptura. Many Gospel books were written, only four were chosen to become part of the Bible. How do you think this came about? Who decided which book was in, and which book was out?

*BUMP*

the Holy Spirit.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #733 on: May 07, 2013, 07:41:17 AM »
To add to the list of questions:

Still wondering what you can cite for your claim that it is Orthodox teaching that people earn salvation.

they openly state that it is not by faith in Christ's redemptive work.

“As a matter of fact, Luther argued, and other Protestants also affirmed, that a man is justified before God only through faith in Christ and the redemption that Christ brought to suffering humanity. This is called a material principle of the Reformation. Good works are not necessary for salvation... It is interesting to study the process how Luther translated the Holy Scriptures into the German language. In Romans 3:28, the verse reads: ‘We believe, namely, that a man is justified by faith independent of the works of the Law.’ Luther added to the translation an extra word: ‘alone.’ That word corrupted the Holy Scriptures to say what Luther declared as a material principle of the Reformation: ‘Man is saved by faith alone.’ Regardless of the fact that such teaching is illogical and contrary to the Bible, it has infiltrated the entirety of Protestantism in all its forms.”9

Lazar Milin, A Systematic Apologetic of Religions, Cults, and Sects, 52.


“Justification is not given once and for all, nor is it a guarantee of eternal salvation, but it depends on how much a man will live righteously or sinfully in the future. There exists no such thing judicially that instantly converts a sinful person into a righteous one.”1
1 What Do Orthodox Christians Believe? (Lamp Publishing of the Little Orthodoxy Library: 1996) p. 9
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 07:46:08 AM by rachel »
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #734 on: May 07, 2013, 07:46:00 AM »
If the Bible presupposed the faith of the reader IN GOD, there would be no Gospel.  
Which came first, the Gospel or the New Testament?

salvation by faith came first but the Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus.

You're not answering the question.

yes I did. The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and therefore was revealed with and by him. The NT was not written before him. It just took a moment's thought!

Yet you also profess sola scriptura. Many Gospel books were written, only four were chosen to become part of the Bible. How do you think this came about? Who decided which book was in, and which book was out?

if you believe that that scripture is the construct of Man, you will say, 'men'.

if you believe the Bible is Spirit breathed, you will say 'God'.

You're not answering the question. Here's the question again:

Yet you also profess sola scriptura. Many Gospel books were written, only four were chosen to become part of the Bible. How do you think this came about? Who decided which book was in, and which book was out?

*BUMP*

the Holy Spirit.

In what form did the Holy Spirit manifest Itself when It chose the "good" books and rejected the "bad" ones?
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #735 on: May 07, 2013, 07:53:13 AM »
In what form did the Holy Spirit manifest Itself when It chose the "good" books and rejected the "bad" ones?

are you indwelt by him yet know so little of him?

Daniel 2:21
“It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.
Daniel 2:20-22 (in Context)
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #736 on: May 07, 2013, 07:58:03 AM »
In what form did the Holy Spirit manifest Itself when It chose the "good" books and rejected the "bad" ones?

are you indwelt by him yet know so little of him?

Daniel 2:21
“It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men And knowledge to men of understanding.
Daniel 2:20-22 (in Context)


Answer the question, Rachel.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #737 on: May 07, 2013, 08:07:45 AM »
The eternal welfare [...] lies in the providence of God. I am content to trust him.

See, you're already showing improvement. Before you know it you'll be chrismated.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #738 on: May 07, 2013, 08:30:39 AM »
Either the Rapture appears in scripture or it doesn't. The idea that Paul prophesied an event which he himself did not understand is possible

So you not only know better than St. John Chrysostom but now you know better than St. Paul as well?

 ::)
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 08:33:39 AM by Cyrillic »

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #739 on: May 07, 2013, 08:32:26 AM »
I like Rachel.  Her arguments are like a trip down memory lane.  She is like a (presumably) young female version of myself.  ;D
God bless!

Offline jah777

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,117
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #740 on: May 07, 2013, 08:34:36 AM »
Quote
Oh, and we do have faith in Christ.

if you had faith in him for salvation, you'd know that you're saved.

Rachel has stated that a person is not a Christian, does not have the Holy Spirit,

this is the statement of scripture [Romans 8]
 
Quote
and does not have faith in Christ if they have any doubt as to their eternal salvation.
please cite where I've stated this. What I've observed is that Orthodox have no assurance. That is a very different thing.

 
Quote
While quoting the words of St. Paul as "Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit", she nonetheless considers St. Paul himself to be an unbeliever, without faith in Christ, and without the Holy Spirit!  For, even St. Paul knew that, if he did not live ascetically, if he did not discipline his body and struggle against his passions, he too could be eternally lost:


but Paul is not speaking of "eternal lostness"!

Yes, that is exactly what he is speaking of.


here it is in context:

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

23 And this I do for the gospel's sake, that I might be partaker thereof with you.

24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.

25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:

27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.


Paul is speaking of the quality of his work as an evangelist for the Gospel and how the quality of his work relates to the quality of reward he may expect. Ironically, given the uncertainty of the 'Orthodox Gospel', he emphasises the need for certainty! Verse 27 is saying that his witness in evangelism and consequent reward can all be undermined if his outward testimony is controlled by his old nature since a poor outward witness inevitably creates uncertainty in his listeners.

You are incorrect, once again.  You see the words "not uncertainly" and think that St. Paul is referring to his certainty of eternal security.  He says that, "I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air".  In other words, he is certain of the path that is he on, that he is not running after empty or uncertain things but is confident in the truth of what has been revealed to him and of what he teaches.  We Orthodox also have this certainty that we are on the right path, and that if we live a life in obedience to Christ that we too will arrive in the heavenly kingdom.  There are no doubts about this.  We, with St. Paul, simply say,

Quote
Not that I have already attained, or am already perfected; but I press on, that I may lay hold of that for which Christ Jesus has also laid hold of me. (Philipians 3:12)

We know with certainty that we have been saved form the consequence of our former sins through baptism, that we are saved from sins committed since baptism by confession and repentance, and that we will be eternally saved if we live a life in obedience to Christ and His Church (which are inseparable). 


Quote
Regarding this verse, St. John Chrysostom said in the 4th century:

“Lest by any means, having preached to others, I myself should be a rejected.”
Now if Paul feared this who had taught so many, and feared it after his preaching and becoming an angel and undertaking the leadership of the whole world; what can we say?

For, “think not,” saith he, “because ye have believed, that this is sufficient for your salvation: since if to me neither preaching nor teaching nor bringing over innumerable persons, is enough for salvation unless I exhibit my own conduct also unblameable, much less to you.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf112.iv.xxiv.html

Quote
The words of St. Paul were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and St. John Chrysostom's interpretation expresses how the Church has understood these words of St. Paul since the time St. Paul wrote them.

well, Paul neither became an angel nor led the whole world! But setting this aside, John was a man and therefore susceptible to loose exegesis. 

St. John spoke correctly, and the Church has upheld his interpretation as true.  In fact, one of St. John Chrysostom's disciples witnessed St. Paul repeatedly appearing to St. John and explaining to him the meaning of all of his letters.  The Church has confirmed, accepted, and proclaimed the authority of St. John Chrysostom's interpretations of St. Paul's writings for over a thousand years.  Next to such great authority, what does the opinion of an anonymous Protestant matter?

Regarding St. Paul as an "angel”, do you not believe that St. Paul was a messenger of God, as this is what “angel” means?  Do you not understand that when St. John the Theologian was instructed to write to the “angels” of the churches in Revelations 2, that this term was used to refer to bishops? 

Regarding St. Paul as “undertaking the leadership of the whole world”, do you not recognize the extent of his missionary labors and of his leadership in the early Church?  Do you not see how many of the inspired Scriptures were written by him, and how he has led the Church through these inspired writings even after his repose? 

Unfortunately, you read words but don't understand the meanings.  You read "saved", "certainty", "angel", etc. and apply one meaning when there are many.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #741 on: May 07, 2013, 08:37:24 AM »
Quote
Regarding St. Paul as “undertaking the leadership of the whole world”, do you not recognize the extent of his missionary labors and of his leadership in the early Church?

Indeed, as is clearly and eloquently expressed in the hymns I quoted earlier.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline adampjr

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
  • Penguin
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #742 on: May 07, 2013, 09:43:21 AM »
To add to the list of questions:

Still wondering what you can cite for your claim that it is Orthodox teaching that people earn salvation.

they openly state that it is not by faith in Christ's redemptive work.

“As a matter of fact, Luther argued, and other Protestants also affirmed, that a man is justified before God only through faith in Christ and the redemption that Christ brought to suffering humanity. This is called a material principle of the Reformation. Good works are not necessary for salvation... It is interesting to study the process how Luther translated the Holy Scriptures into the German language. In Romans 3:28, the verse reads: ‘We believe, namely, that a man is justified by faith independent of the works of the Law.’ Luther added to the translation an extra word: ‘alone.’ That word corrupted the Holy Scriptures to say what Luther declared as a material principle of the Reformation: ‘Man is saved by faith alone.’ Regardless of the fact that such teaching is illogical and contrary to the Bible, it has infiltrated the entirety of Protestantism in all its forms.”9

Lazar Milin, A Systematic Apologetic of Religions, Cults, and Sects, 52.


“Justification is not given once and for all, nor is it a guarantee of eternal salvation, but it depends on how much a man will live righteously or sinfully in the future. There exists no such thing judicially that instantly converts a sinful person into a righteous one.”1
1 What Do Orthodox Christians Believe? (Lamp Publishing of the Little Orthodoxy Library: 1996) p. 9


If I had asked 'Where do you get the idea that sola fide is not an Orthodox position?', that would be an answer.

But you said that Orthodox believe that they earn salvation. Where do you get that?

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #743 on: May 07, 2013, 09:50:07 AM »
But you said that Orthodox believe that they earn salvation. Where do you get that?

Seems like the same place she gets her other, and overwhelmingly wrong, ideas about Orthodox belief and doctrine which she then cuts and pastes into her posts. Furthermore, she has a habit of distorting what Orthodox people have posted to correct her misconceptions.
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline adampjr

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 95
  • Penguin
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #744 on: May 07, 2013, 09:53:26 AM »
But you said that Orthodox believe that they earn salvation. Where do you get that?

Seems like the same place she gets her other, and overwhelmingly wrong, ideas about Orthodox belief and doctrine which she then cuts and pastes into her posts. Furthermore, she has a habit of distorting what Orthodox people have posted to correct her misconceptions.

Most likely.

Rachel, the reason I am asking is, firstly, because you are incorrect about the Orthodox belief about 'earning' salvation, as your inability to demonstrate it suggests.
Perhaps you are drawing a dichotomy between sola fide and earning salvation? That dichotomy, if that's what this is all based on, is a false one.

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,906
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #745 on: May 07, 2013, 10:53:10 AM »
Rachel,

Forgive me if you already pointed to this, but where are you getting your idea that Orthodoxy is about earning salvation?

“Justification is not given once and for all, nor is it a guarantee of eternal salvation, but it depends on how much a man will live righteously or sinfully in the future. There exists no such thing judicially that instantly converts a sinful person into a righteous one.”1

“Therefore, it is no wonder that the Orthodox doctrine of justification plays such a minor role. The most common presentation of the Orthodox teaching on religion by John of Damascus2 does not mention the concept of justification at all.”3

1 What Do Orthodox Christians Believe? (Lamp Publishing of the Little Orthodoxy Library: 1996) p. 9
2 St. John of Damascus (c.a. 700-750 AD).
3 Ernst Benz, The Spirit and Life of the Eastern Church, (Svetlost Press: Sarajevo, Bosnia, 1991) p. 48


This is confirmed by my experience that Orthodox:

1] deny the all-sufficiency of Christ's redemptive death

2] have no assurance of salvation

3] deny the Biblical teaching of faith alone for salvation
So really, you get your ideas from bereanbeacon.org. That is correct, is it not? You have gone to a site that is clearly anti-Orthodox. You have not read original documents to really understand Orthodoxy for yourself, but simply taken the word of someone who happens to agree with you.

You refer to "my experience". How many Orthodox services have you attended? Have you ever spent time at a monastery to really attempt to understand Orthodox Christianity? Just exactly what is your experience?

I can tell you of fifty years as an Evangelical Protestant, including two years at a Bible college, three years on the mission field, and more. I do understand Evangelical Protestantism, though your variety of it would make most of my former co-worshippers uncomfortable.

To take us back to the original question about the "Rapture", etc., in my youth I was heavily influenced by Hal Lindsey's The Late, Great Planet Earth and a whole slew of similar works. Fortunately, in my early 20s I accepted the challenge of an Evangelical professor at Bible college to consider the historical teaching of Christianity concerning Revelation, and eschatology in general.

I asked you once before (you have requested a "bump", I won't hunt for the original): where did you study Church history?

I'm not going to "debate" with you. The Orthodox position has been presented. We will hold firmly to Tradition (including especially its centrepiece the Holy Scriptures). You may choose to go your own way, but do remember that it is your own way. May God grant you wisdom and mercy as you seek Him along the path to salvation.

Offline primuspilus

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,990
  • Inserting personal quote here.
    • St. Gregory the Theologian Orthodox Church
  • Faith: Greek Orthodox (former WR)
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Boston
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #746 on: May 07, 2013, 12:15:35 PM »
I guess Im still waiting on where in the Bible it says to be sola scriptura....also if this is before or after Luther removed some books.

Missed yall :)

PP
"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #747 on: May 07, 2013, 01:46:24 PM »
If the Bible presupposed the faith of the reader IN GOD, there would be no Gospel.   
Which came first, the Gospel or the New Testament?

salvation by faith came first but the Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus.

You're not answering the question.

yes I did. The Gospel is the Gospel of Jesus and therefore was revealed with and by him. The NT was not written before him. It just took a moment's thought!
No, you did not answer my question. You dodged it and gave an irrelevant response.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #748 on: May 07, 2013, 02:01:07 PM »
Rachel, speaking formally as this section's moderator, I must say that I am quite disturbed by your apparent refusal to answer questions directly and your aggressive attacks on our Orthodox faith, both of which appear to have derailed this thread from its original purpose. I'm also going to have to take some time to read this thread more deeply, since I've been gone for so long, and this thread started AND blew up into a 20-page tome all during my month-long absence. Therefore, this thread is locked until I can complete my review and determine what actions are appropriate. Until then, I urge you to tone down your aggression and start engaging us in actual dialogue, which means giving a direct answer to every question posed of you.

Any attempts to circumvent the lock on this thread by taking the content of this ongoing discussion to another location on the Public Forum will be met with appropriate disciplinary measures.

- PeterTheAleut
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion Moderator
« Last Edit: May 07, 2013, 02:01:24 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #749 on: May 19, 2013, 11:14:09 PM »
For one, millenialism is denied in the Creed.

"And He shall return in Glory, to judge the living and the dead, and His kingdom will have no end".

One return only, no one thousand years kingdom.

and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5     But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6     Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7     And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,


Psalm 2:9
You shall break them with a rod of iron, and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.”
Psalm 2:8-10 (in Context) Psalm 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Revelation 2:27
and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as when earthen pots are broken in pieces, even as I myself have received power from my Father;
Revelation 2:26-28 (in Context) Revelation 2 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Revelation 12:5
she brought forth a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne,
Revelation 12:4-6 (in Context) Revelation 12 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations
Revelation 19:15
From his mouth issues a sharp sword with which to smite the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron; he will tread the wine press of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
Revelation 19:14-16 (in Context) Revelation 19 (Whole Chapter) Other Translations


Quote
Also, although Revelation hints about the end of the world, it's much more a revelation about the spiritual nature of the world than about the end of the world. The Liturgy is an icon of that spiritual nature. The "end of the world" is just one of the sub-topics that "nature of the world" has.

1     ¶ And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.


Quote
The "tribulations" refer to the period from the first to the second coming. We are in it now. It's our lives. We all live in tribulations, specially if one tries to live a Christian life.

20 But pray that your flight will not be in the winter, or on a Sabbath. 21 For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. 22 Unless those days had been cut short, no [a]life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

Quote
No one knows when the end of the world will be. Not even the Son. Anyone who claims to know is claiming knowledge beyond that of Christ Himself, and that's not wise.


Matthew 16:2-4
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
2 But He replied to them, “[a]When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘There will be a storm today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ Do you know how to discern the appearance of the sky, but cannot discern the signs of the times? 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a [c]sign; and a [d]sign will not be given it, except the sign of Jonah.” And He left them and went away.



Quote
There's no such a thing as rapture. The saints elevated to heaven are the saintly Christians who, between the first and second coming reach to the "Bosom of Abraham" in anticipation of the Resurrection.

15 For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive [l]and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. 16 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a [m]shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. 17 Then we who are alive [n]and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.


50 Now I say this, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does [p]the perishable inherit [q]the imperishable. 51 Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised [r]imperishable, and we will be changed.


Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #750 on: May 20, 2013, 06:03:06 AM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion? 

I suppose the reason I find this interesting is due to the fact in one of my courses in college the debate of which books should be included and why was covered, admittedly, to a minor degree.  It seems some books which were excluded were not excluded as a result of inaccuracies or anything similar, rather as a result of the inability to show divine inspiration of the text. 

I wonder how this played out in the inclusion of the Apocalypse of St. John.  If someone has more knowledge in this area, please share.

Offline mabsoota

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,859
  • Kyrie eleison
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox (Coptic)
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #751 on: May 20, 2013, 07:21:39 AM »
we have always used it in the coptic church;
we have a whole service focusing on the end times, called 'apocalyses' which is the Good Friday night / Bright Saturday morning service.
after a long day in church, those who are really keen come back around 11pm for the really beautiful service which finishes with a liturgy around 6am.

the readings start in genesis and then summarise the prophecies about the Messiah and then we read the whole of revelation (takes 1 1/2 hours).
there is not a separate sermon given, but from the way the readings are placed, we can see how God has planned everything from the beginning of time and how is is always waiting for us to respond to him and return to His love.
in the book of revelation we see just how great is God's mercy and how He shows many signs of His power so that many will believe in Him.
the central role in the Son of God coming and taking on human nature so that we could be 'partakers of the divine nature' (1 peter 3) is also clear, and His power and just judgement and equality with the Father and the Spirit can be seen.
following this we have a service of anointing of the congregation with oil and then liturgy (Holy Communion).

but to really understand what the book of revelation is about, we need to experience God's love and mercy and spend time in church listening and meditating in the presence of loving and kind people who are on a spiritual journey together with us.
it is not something that can be easily explained in a few sound bites, this is why long debates on this subject don't usual reach a satisfactory conclusion.

trying to understand using only our mind and not our spirit and our experience is like trying to truly appreciate good food while blindfolded and with our noses blocked (as people who have lost the sense of smell either permanently or with a bad cold can testify).

maybe one day i will be able to explain this better in words, but until then i will pray for our brothers and sisters who think differently on these things, that they will also know the depths of the love of God and find that place where everything is peaceful and long arguments are no longer needed.

i am grateful to everyone who has contributed to this thread.
 :)

Offline Hinterlander

  • Site Supporter
  • High Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 848
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #752 on: May 20, 2013, 09:57:40 AM »
Fr. Thomas Hopko speaks at St. Elijah about Christianity and Armageddon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fz6DK7IRh0A

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #753 on: May 20, 2013, 10:25:43 AM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2013, 10:25:56 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Kerdy

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,813
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #754 on: May 21, 2013, 04:33:47 AM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.

Thank you for explaining.  I apologize for not understanding your meaning.

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #755 on: May 21, 2013, 01:35:29 PM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #756 on: May 21, 2013, 01:47:07 PM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.

Now, are you going to actually address the subject raised in the OP, or do you just want to use this thread as yet another opportunity to preach your gospel to us "heathen, unwashed, heretic Orthodox"?
« Last Edit: May 21, 2013, 02:02:27 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #757 on: May 21, 2013, 01:49:00 PM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.

Maybe the Church got it wrong then.  After all, they were a bunch of pagan idol worshippers by that time. Right?  Perhaps the Holy Spirit told them not to put it in and they decided to follow their idols (icons) and put it in against His wishes.
God bless!

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #758 on: May 21, 2013, 02:19:24 PM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Luke 11:13
If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!”
John 20:22
And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
Acts 1:5
for John truly baptized with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.”
Acts 1:8
But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.”
Acts 2:4
And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
Acts 4:31
And when they had prayed, the place where they were assembled together was shaken; and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and they spoke the word of God with boldness.
Acts 5:32
And we are His witnesses to these things, and so also is the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey Him.”
Acts 10:44
[ The Holy Spirit Falls on the Gentiles ] While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word.
1 Corinthians 6:19
Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own?
Ephesians 1:13
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

Indeed scripture says that if you are not personally indwelt of the Holy Spirit you do not belong to him.
Romans 8:9
But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His.

According to you, God's Holy Spirit is caged up in the Orthodox church. That is blasphemous. And God takes a very serious view of this:
Matthew 12:32
Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline rachel

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 310
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #759 on: May 21, 2013, 02:26:21 PM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.

Now, are you going to actually address the subject raised in the OP, or do you just want to use this thread as yet another opportunity to preach your gospel to us "heathen, unwashed, heretic Orthodox"?
I replied to a question by yourself regarding the authority of the book of Revelation.
Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria,   Sola Scriptura

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,707
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #760 on: May 21, 2013, 02:41:19 PM »
Rachel, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this nonsense?

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #761 on: May 21, 2013, 04:30:22 PM »
Rachel, you do realize that the Church almost decided to exclude the Apocalypse of St. John (Revelation) from the New Testament? The fact that you can even cite it as Scripture against the Church is itself dependent on the authority of the Church. If the Church had rejected the Apocalypse of St. John, would you now be able to turn it against us?

This presents an interesting situation, Peter.  You state the Church almost excluded Apocalypse of St. John; however, for whatever reason, they did not.  Having this knowledge, should we ignore it for its “almost” exclusion or should we use it for its actual inclusion?
I never said we should ignore the Apocalypse simply because the Church almost rejected it. In the end, the Church accepted it as Scripture, so the Apocalypse now has the same authority as the Gospels. I posited the near-exclusion of the Apocalypse merely as a way to set up the authority of the Church against rachel's preaching of sola scriptura.
Did the Holy Spirit decide it should be there or not? If so, it is there by his authority not by the authority of any church.
That's what you don't understand, rachel. We wouldn't know the witness of the Holy Spirit if not for the authority of the Church, because it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit has chosen to speak.
Since scripture says that all scripture is Spirit breathed it is through scripture that the Spirit has chosen to speak. The scriptures are full of references to the Holy Spirit being given to individuals. Here are just a few.
Circular reasoning, plain and simple... You cannot cite Scripture as the foundation of its own authority, since doing so requires you to bring to the discussion an a priori conclusion drawn from an outside source.

Doesn't fly with me, nor did it fly with St. Paul, for he who wrote to St. Timothy that verse about Scripture being God-breathed also wrote in the same epistle a verse about the Church being the pillar and foundation of the truth.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2013, 02:21:13 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #762 on: May 21, 2013, 06:43:51 PM »
Enough time has passed since I locked this thread that I've had the opportunity to review it completely and you've all had (hopefully) the opportunity to cool down and return to this thread in a more rational state of mind. Therefore, I am reopening this thread, but only with the following conditions:

1. We keep the thread on topic, which means that we dialogue on how to interpret the Scriptures.
2. We refrain from personal attacks.



To you specifically, rachel, I offer the following moderatorial observations and instructions:

You are apparently here only to proselytize us to your Protestant point of view. This intent I can see in the following traits:
1. You display a grossly inaccurate understanding of Orthodox Christian doctrine.
2. You do not engage criticism of your doctrines with any acknowledgement that you may be wrong.
3. You dodge criticism only to further press your attacks on our beliefs.
4. You demand that we prove our point of view, and when we do, you ignore our proofs.
5. You derail threads by pressing your attacks even where they're off topic.

This is an Orthodox Christian discussion forum, which means that the vast majority of us are adherents to the Orthodox Christian faith. You are required to respect this in all your interactions with us on this forum, which means you are not permitted to proselytize us. This is also a discussion forum, which means you ARE free to dialogue with us and engage us in healthy debate. Healthy dialogue and debate, however, requires that you ask us questions so you can truly understand what we believe and thereby address our beliefs for what they really are, and that you accept valid criticism of your beliefs. You will have no success debating us if all you can do is construct straw man images of our beliefs or dodge criticism of your beliefs.

Therefore, I place on you the following requirements:
1. You are to answer all questions posed to you in all threads.
2. You are to ask us to clarify our beliefs before you attack them.
3. When you criticize our beliefs, you are to criticize them accurately and not in straw man caricature.
4. You are to engage all criticisms of your beliefs with the acknowledgement that those criticisms may be accurate.
5. You are to keep threads on topic by actually engaging their OP's.

Failure to meet the above requirements will incur discipline to include formal warnings and post moderation.

Do not argue with this directive publicly, for such will also incur harsh discipline. If you feel you must argue with the aforementioned instructions, please do so only via private message.

Your servant in the risen Christ,


- PeterTheAleut
Orthodox-Protestant Discussion Moderator
« Last Edit: May 23, 2013, 06:03:47 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,496
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #763 on: May 21, 2013, 07:51:42 PM »
Rachel, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this nonsense?

POM nominee!  :laugh:
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline jmbejdl

  • Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,480
  • Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava
Re: How to Interpret the Scriptures
« Reply #764 on: May 22, 2013, 11:26:49 AM »
Rachel, what exactly are you trying to accomplish with all this nonsense?

POM nominee!  :laugh:
+1
We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos