OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 09:52:50 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Frank Shaeffer On The Bible  (Read 546 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Studying_Orthodoxy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« on: June 02, 2012, 08:12:15 PM »

I watched lectures by an intellectual Frank Shaeffer who converted to Orthodoxy. In them he criticises the Protestant method of interpreting the Gospel as if its books were also only interpreted by the original church. Instead he says that the Gospels were written by the church through divine inspiration. Therefore he argues that to say the Orthodox are misinterpreting the Gospel is to suggest that its own authors had a wrong interpretation of their own work.

However the Gospels were written before the first Ecumenical Council of 325 in which Trinitarianism was affirmed as orthodox belief. What is to say that the men who wrote the Gospels were Trinitarians? We know that Arianism was a non-Trinitarian interpretation of the New Testament which existed before 325.

What is to say the ones who wrote the Gospels were of the same opinion as the majority of Bishops at the First Ecumenical Council?
Logged
Big Chris
Formerly "mint"
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte, NC
Posts: 277

I live by the river where the old gods still dream


« Reply #1 on: June 02, 2012, 08:44:54 PM »


What is to say the ones who wrote the Gospels were of the same opinion as the majority of Bishops at the First Ecumenical Council?

Ever read The Heresy of Orthodoxy?
Logged

Tasting is Believing
Studying_Orthodoxy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #2 on: June 02, 2012, 08:48:24 PM »

Quote
Ever read The Heresy of Orthodoxy?

No, never. Do you recommend it? What does it discuss?
Logged
Studying_Orthodoxy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2012, 12:35:15 PM »

Looking at reviews of that book it seems that it is a critique of reading the Bible from different perspectives other than the orthodox one. However what can be said about the Arian believers who must have had access to the Gospel? Does this not refute the notion that there was complete concensus in the early years of Christianity?
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,103


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2012, 12:38:11 PM »

Looking at reviews of that book it seems that it is a critique of reading the Bible from different perspectives other than the orthodox one. However what can be said about the Arian believers who must have had access to the Gospel? Does this not refute the notion that there was complete concensus in the early years of Christianity?

The existence of heretics proves there was never a complete consensus; Fr. Thomas Hopko has said that there has never been complete agreement in the Church, and even as early as the Council of Jerusalem, we have Peter and Paul arguing somewhat heatedly.
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
Benjamin the Red
Recovering Calvinist
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America, Diocese of Dallas and the South ||| American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 1,601


Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me.


« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2012, 02:55:23 PM »

The Church has always recognized the authority of the Apostles, who established the Tradition of meeting in Council and of their successors found in the episcopate of the Church. We have all, universally (Orthodox and heretic) believed that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.

We see one strand of Christianity, Orthodoxy, that has existed for 2,000 years while all others have fallen by the wayside. "branches" of the Church such as Arianism have shown to be heretical, they do not bear fruit and therefore are cut off and burned. These doctrines are condemned by the Holy Spirit through the work of the Church, and their branch withers. This is the testament to the truth of Orthodoxy against the other forms of early Christianity such as Gnosticism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Montanism and Arianism.
Logged

"Hades is not a place, no, but a state of the soul. It begins here on earth. Just so, paradise begins in the soul of a man here in the earthly life. Here we already have contact with the divine..." -St. John, Wonderworker of Shanghai and San Francisco, Homily On the Sunday of Orthodoxy
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2012, 08:45:34 PM »

However the Gospels were written before the first Ecumenical Council of 325 in which Trinitarianism was affirmed as orthodox belief. What is to say that the men who wrote the Gospels were Trinitarians? We know that Arianism was a non-Trinitarian interpretation of the New Testament which existed before 325.

It is called Arianism because it's origin can be identified with Arius, an Alexandrian presbyter at the start of the 4th century.

Now, Arius and his followers claimed that their interpretation of Scripture was the 'true one'. But that was the whole reason the First Ecumenical Council was called. The bishops, the successors of the apostles, from all over the Empire, representing what had been transmitted in Rome and Alexandria and Antioch and Greece and so on and so on, were called together to determine whether Arianism was consistent with the tradition (including the traditional understanding of the Scriptures) that had been passed down from the apostles in their churches. And their unanimous witness was that Arianism was not the Gospel taught by the catholic Church, but was something different than what the Apostles had passed down (and therefore, per St. Paul, anathema).
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2012, 08:47:53 PM »

We know that Arianism was a non-Trinitarian interpretation of the New Testament which existed before 325.

The trinitarian position on Christ is that He is divine with the same divinity as the Father, and pre-existed as the Logos, who created all things.

The Arian position on Christ is that He is divine with similar divinity as the Father, and pre-existed as the Logos, who created all things except for himself.

I'm pointing this out because many critics of Orthodoxy do not understand how very similar Arianism is to Orthodoxy, and how reliant it is upon the same neoplatonic base, which explains why it arose in the fourth century and not the first. Arianism is not some cool exotic other version of Christianity.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Studying_Orthodoxy
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 123


« Reply #8 on: June 16, 2012, 10:53:23 PM »

Quote
The existence of heretics proves there was never a complete consensus; Fr. Thomas Hopko has said that there has never been complete agreement in the Church, and even as early as the Council of Jerusalem, we have Peter and Paul arguing somewhat heatedly.

I see, so there was never complete agreement.

Quote
The Church has always recognized the authority of the Apostles, who established the Tradition of meeting in Council and of their successors found in the episcopate of the Church. We have all, universally (Orthodox and heretic) believed that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.

Yes but what is to say that the traditions affirmed at the Ecumenical Councils were the original teachings of the Church?

Quote
We see one strand of Christianity, Orthodoxy, that has existed for 2,000 years while all others have fallen by the wayside. "branches" of the Church such as Arianism have shown to be heretical, they do not bear fruit and therefore are cut off and burned. These doctrines are condemned by the Holy Spirit through the work of the Church, and their branch withers. This is the testament to the truth of Orthodoxy against the other forms of early Christianity such as Gnosticism, Docetism, Adoptionism, Montanism and Arianism.

Even still, how do we know that the traditions of the Church are the original teachings? Do we have records back to the earliest years?

Quote
It is called Arianism because it's origin can be identified with Arius, an Alexandrian presbyter at the start of the 4th century.

Now, Arius and his followers claimed that their interpretation of Scripture was the 'true one'. But that was the whole reason the First Ecumenical Council was called. The bishops, the successors of the apostles, from all over the Empire, representing what had been transmitted in Rome and Alexandria and Antioch and Greece and so on and so on, were called together to determine whether Arianism was consistent with the tradition (including the traditional understanding of the Scriptures) that had been passed down from the apostles in their churches. And their unanimous witness was that Arianism was not the Gospel taught by the catholic Church, but was something different than what the Apostles had passed down (and therefore, per St. Paul, anathema).

So it did not appear near the beginning of Church history but only later on?

Quote
The trinitarian position on Christ is that He is divine with the same divinity as the Father, and pre-existed as the Logos, who created all things.

The Arian position on Christ is that He is divine with similar divinity as the Father, and pre-existed as the Logos, who created all things except for himself.

I'm pointing this out because many critics of Orthodoxy do not understand how very similar Arianism is to Orthodoxy, and how reliant it is upon the same neoplatonic base, which explains why it arose in the fourth century and not the first. Arianism is not some cool exotic other version of Christianity.

Understood.

What is important to know is if the tradition upheld by the Orthodox Church is the same as that of the early Church. How can we know if it is the case? Even if the Bible was written by the Church there are apparently some elements of it based on sources from the time of Christ. This therefore challenges to some degree the claim that the Bible belongs to the Church alone.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2012, 10:57:40 PM by Studying_Orthodoxy » Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.057 seconds with 35 queries.