OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 12:25:15 AM *
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: Question about Bible alone??  (Read 1039 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 910


« on: September 24, 2012, 11:23:49 AM »

1.As bible is not the only valid position in Orthodox church. Besides bible, what works, writtings, teachings,etc. do an orthodox christians read and follow??
 
2How can an orthodox christian know that these works, writing, teachings,etc are come from God ?? What criterias will an orthodox christian use to measure their validity??
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 11:24:08 AM by walter1234 » Logged
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,524



« Reply #1 on: September 24, 2012, 11:29:39 AM »

Walter--What church are you a member of? I am asking to make it easier for us to answer your questions. Thanks, Carl
« Last Edit: September 24, 2012, 11:29:57 AM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #2 on: September 24, 2012, 11:33:20 AM »

Maybe this will help:

"The Bible and the Church. The Christian Church is a Scriptural Church: Orthodoxy believes this just as firmly, if not more firmly than Protestantism. The Bible is the supreme expression of God’s revelation to man, and Christians must always be ‘People of the Book.’ But if Christians are People of the Book, the Bible is the Book of the People; it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Scripture and Tradition). It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture; and it is the Church alone which can interpret Holy Scripture with authority. There are many sayings in the Bible which by themselves are far from clear, and the individual reader, however sincere, is in danger of error if he trusts his own personal interpretation. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked the Ethiopian eunuch; and the eunuch replied: "How can I, unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:30). Orthodox, when they read the Scripture, accept the guidance of the Church. When received into the Orthodox Church, a convert promises: ‘I will accept and understand Holy Scripture in accordance with the interpretation which was and is held by the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East, our Mother’ (On Bible and Church, see especially Dositheus, Confession, Decree 2)"

http://lancegold.blogspot.com/2012/04/bishop-kallistos-ware-on-bible-in.html
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
walter1234
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 910


« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2012, 11:45:41 AM »

Walter--What church are you a member of? I am asking to make it easier for us to answer your questions. Thanks, Carl

I am protestant.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2012, 02:44:43 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Let me give you the insight of the Orthodox ontology to Scripture.

There is no distinction between the Holy Bible and the Holy Tradition (which is the prayer books, Patristic writings, biblical commentaries, the calendars, the canons, the anathemas, the readings, the iconography, the Liturgy, clergy, etc etc) because they are one and the same thing.  If anything, we would more so in our ontology not only abolish the formal distinction, but further affirm that if anything, the Bible is more so an aspect of the the Holy Tradition, and not the other way around.  The Bible is just another part of our Tradition, another canonical anthology of readings, prayers, Patristic writings (the Epistles and Gospels), songs, and stories.  We hold them in equal veneration because each fulfill and explain the other when taken together.  To attempt to read the Bible without the Tradition is futile, just as to try and understand the Tradition absent of the Bible is equally empty. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,524



« Reply #5 on: September 24, 2012, 06:13:49 PM »

Walter--What church are you a member of? I am asking to make it easier for us to answer your questions. Thanks, Carl

I am protestant.

Thank you Walter. I think that Katherine's post above that quotes Metropolitan Kallistos (formerly Timothy Ware) is as authoritative an answer as there is. What is your reaction to "...if Christians are People of the Book, the Bible is the Book of the People; it must not be regarded as something set up over the Church, but as something that lives and is understood within the Church (that is why one should not separate Scripture and Tradition)" ?
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #6 on: September 25, 2012, 12:16:46 AM »

Walter, for the sake of my sanity, could you please use only a singular question mark when asking questions?

Thanks.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,813


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #7 on: September 25, 2012, 10:48:47 AM »

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture

Katherine, there is a lacuna in your argument; it is a non sequitur. The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God. The Church did not decide which books belonged in the canon, but rather recognised which ones belonged, guided (we all agree) by the Holy Spirit.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #8 on: September 25, 2012, 11:03:59 AM »

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture

Katherine, there is a lacuna in your argument; it is a non sequitur. The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God. The Church did not decide which books belonged in the canon, but rather recognised which ones belonged, guided (we all agree) by the Holy Spirit.


A distinction without a difference, IMHO. Or it is your contention that the Church, the Body of Christ, lacks any authority?
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #9 on: September 25, 2012, 11:09:56 AM »

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture

Katherine, there is a lacuna in your argument; it is a non sequitur. The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God. The Church did not decide which books belonged in the canon, but rather recognised which ones belonged, guided (we all agree) by the Holy Spirit.


A distinction without a difference, IMHO. Or it is your contention that the Church, the Body of Christ, lacks any authority?

Agree, Katherine.  I dont really have a problem with what David said, but you have to also recognize the authority of the teaching Tradition of the Church.  The Church pre-dates the Bible, and it was undoubtably the source of authoritative Christian teachings. It still is today.

Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,813


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #10 on: September 25, 2012, 11:13:26 AM »

Or it is your contention that the Church, the Body of Christ, lacks any authority?

Not at all!
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #11 on: September 25, 2012, 11:27:53 AM »

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture

Katherine, there is a lacuna in your argument; it is a non sequitur. The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God. The Church did not decide which books belonged in the canon, but rather recognised which ones belonged, guided (we all agree) by the Holy Spirit.


A distinction without a difference, IMHO. Or it is your contention that the Church, the Body of Christ, lacks any authority?

Agree, Katherine.  I dont really have a problem with what David said, but you have to also recognize the authority of the teaching Tradition of the Church.  The Church pre-dates the Bible, and it was undoubtably the source of authoritative Christian teachings. It still is today.



Not sure I agree with David re. the Author - that sounds far too much like the Islamic position on the Quran to me. The Bible doesn't have one Author, but many authors, inspired by God certainly, but God didn't drop the Bible on us and both its authors and compilers were members of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. And I don't think this is an insignificant difference because contrary to how I'm reading David' comment, this leads right back to what Katherine said - it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit worked and in no other way, so the Bible does derive its authority from the Church (which in turn derives its authority from God). Without the Church there would be no Bible - and the Bible cannot be divorced from the Church and Holy Tradition.

James
Logged

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
Timon
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,490



« Reply #12 on: September 25, 2012, 11:36:38 AM »

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture

Katherine, there is a lacuna in your argument; it is a non sequitur. The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God. The Church did not decide which books belonged in the canon, but rather recognised which ones belonged, guided (we all agree) by the Holy Spirit.


A distinction without a difference, IMHO. Or it is your contention that the Church, the Body of Christ, lacks any authority?

Agree, Katherine.  I dont really have a problem with what David said, but you have to also recognize the authority of the teaching Tradition of the Church.  The Church pre-dates the Bible, and it was undoubtably the source of authoritative Christian teachings. It still is today.



Not sure I agree with David re. the Author - that sounds far too much like the Islamic position on the Quran to me. The Bible doesn't have one Author, but many authors, inspired by God certainly, but God didn't drop the Bible on us and both its authors and compilers were members of the Church guided by the Holy Spirit. And I don't think this is an insignificant difference because contrary to how I'm reading David' comment, this leads right back to what Katherine said - it's through the Church that the Holy Spirit worked and in no other way, so the Bible does derive its authority from the Church (which in turn derives its authority from God). Without the Church there would be no Bible - and the Bible cannot be divorced from the Church and Holy Tradition.

James

True.  I certainly dont think that God wrote the Bible all by himself at a desk in heaven then dropped it down here.  When he said God authored the Bible, I was interpreting that to mean God inspired the authors.  After re-reading my comment, I realize it may have been misleading. 
Logged

Even if we have thousands of acts of great virtue to our credit, our confidence in being heard must be based on God's mercy and His love for men. Even if we stand at the very summit of virtue, it is by mercy that we shall be saved.

— Chrysostom

BLOG
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



« Reply #13 on: September 25, 2012, 11:45:17 AM »

The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God.
Really was God the author of the Bible? The Muslims believe that God was the author of the Koran and it was dropped straight from Heaven. We Christians don't believe that the Bible was written by God the Almightly Himself. The only part of the Bible that God himself wrote may be was the Ten Commandments. All the others were written by fallen men. Ofcouse they were guided by the Holy Spirit. So the Bible includes words of fallen men. These men used words that other fallen men could understand; like attributing; 'wrath' and 'anger' and 'vengence' etc to a God who was always loving his entire creation. Those words were used so that people living at that time and culture, could be guided to morality and from immorality.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2012, 11:45:52 AM by dhinuus » Logged

NULL
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #14 on: September 25, 2012, 03:01:48 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture

Katherine, there is a lacuna in your argument; it is a non sequitur. The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God. The Church did not decide which books belonged in the canon, but rather recognised which ones belonged, guided (we all agree) by the Holy Spirit.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what happened, and something which inevitably all sola scripture Protestants are going to have own up to. The very Bible they read in their churches is a product solely and entirely of the Orthodox Church.  It is simple as that!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
katherineofdixie
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,197



« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2012, 03:19:33 PM »

Actually, that is EXACTLY what happened, and something which inevitably all sola scripture Protestants are going to have own up to. The very Bible they read in their churches is a product solely and entirely of the Orthodox Church.  It is simple as that!


Yeah, that whole Bible thing? That was us...
Just sayin'.  Grin
Logged

"If but ten of us lead a holy life, we shall kindle a fire which shall light up the entire city."

 St. John Chrysostom
David Young
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Baptist
Jurisdiction: local church, Wrexham, Wales
Posts: 1,813


2012, Presbyterian chapel, Nantyr


« Reply #16 on: September 26, 2012, 05:09:18 PM »

Not sure I agree with David re. the Author - that sounds far too much like the Islamic position on the Quran to me. ... God didn't drop the Bible on us

Sorry if my use of the word Author muddied the waters. I did not intend to put forward a theory as to the mechanism of inspiration; I meant that the origin of scripture is divine, that the scriptures were divinely inspired. I do not theorise as to how God achieved it.
Logged

"But if you bite and devour one another, take heed that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5.15
Aaron M
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: nothing
Posts: 60


« Reply #17 on: September 27, 2012, 12:30:45 AM »

The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God.
Really was God the author of the Bible? The Muslims believe that God was the author of the Koran and it was dropped straight from Heaven. We Christians don't believe that the Bible was written by God the Almightly Himself. The only part of the Bible that God himself wrote may be was the Ten Commandments. All the others were written by fallen men. Ofcouse they were guided by the Holy Spirit. So the Bible includes words of fallen men. These men used words that other fallen men could understand; like attributing; 'wrath' and 'anger' and 'vengence' etc to a God who was always loving his entire creation. Those words were used so that people living at that time and culture, could be guided to morality and from immorality.

(Not all this is to to you, Timon, just using this as a springboard.)

It might seem, admitting that the Bible was written by fallible men means that it is (ultimately) subject at all times to the authority of 'the Church' as to its exact contents and correct interpretation.  Since the Orthodox (and Catholics, Protestants, whoever) have such a field day with wild disagreements as to 'proper' moral strictures and guidelines (or canons, at least) passed down from the Church apart from that within the canon of Old and New Testaments, opening up the canon itself should be the logical end of such 'wild disagreement'.  This is theoretical of course, since I believe it has been 1,400 years since 'the Church' acted to add or subtract from the canon.  But just the prospect - I can imagine the Apocalypse of St. John being a prime candidate, just as it was the last addition - of the Orthodox Church removing a book of Holy Scripture (it is, after all, within her authority, no?) is too frightening a thought - to me, anyway.

I suppose 'they' (the Orthodox... you?) would say that the Church would never remove a part of Scripture that was added, and has been 'fixed' for so long.  Still could say that, theoretically, it's possible.  Personally, almost as aggravating is the tendency to change the interpretation or emphasis (emphases) of various Scriptures over time, calling it 'revelation' perhaps - so that, for example, the understood belief of Holy Orthodoxy presented today seems to include that Hell as a place does not exist, and whatever it is eternally people only choose to hate God themselves, nothing is a reward for bad works or unbelief (the lone reward perhaps for pride).  This is only my impression from reading several years on this forum, and a few bits from proponent theologians.  (For what it's worth, this view echoes among most young Christians today, evangelical Protestants included I think.)

All this... trying to say that, I don't see much advantage claiming the authority of one 'Church' over the Scriptures, and that kind of superceding authority is asserted when it's said "the Church wrote the Scriptures".  All it does (for me, again) is widen the scope of misrepresentation, possible heresy and apostasy, all manner of confusion etc.  The Bible (in translations) represents a fixed work, while the Church represents one (or many) continuing on in an organic, "evolving" way, therefore it can (and I believe does) change where the text of the Scriptures does not.  I can't logically or scientifically (?) follow up on this impression, but for what it is, the Bible holds more consolation within it than the plethora of beautiful images and sounds within the real-world Orthodox Church.  (Could say the same for the Roman Catholic and Protestant forms, none of which I think are as beautiful as the Orthodox, which is a sadness.)
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: refuse
Posts: 29,311


« Reply #18 on: September 27, 2012, 12:33:44 AM »

Catholics and Protestants didn't fix the canon till the 16th century, and the Orthodox never have, so...  angel
Logged
Byzantine2008
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 280



« Reply #19 on: September 27, 2012, 03:11:44 AM »

The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God.
Really was God the author of the Bible? The Muslims believe that God was the author of the Koran and it was dropped straight from Heaven. We Christians don't believe that the Bible was written by God the Almightly Himself. The only part of the Bible that God himself wrote may be was the Ten Commandments. All the others were written by fallen men. Ofcouse they were guided by the Holy Spirit. So the Bible includes words of fallen men. These men used words that other fallen men could understand; like attributing; 'wrath' and 'anger' and 'vengence' etc to a God who was always loving his entire creation. Those words were used so that people living at that time and culture, could be guided to morality and from immorality.

(Not all this is to to you, Timon, just using this as a springboard.)

It might seem, admitting that the Bible was written by fallible men means that it is (ultimately) subject at all times to the authority of 'the Church' as to its exact contents and correct interpretation.  Since the Orthodox (and Catholics, Protestants, whoever) have such a field day with wild disagreements as to 'proper' moral strictures and guidelines (or canons, at least) passed down from the Church apart from that within the canon of Old and New Testaments, opening up the canon itself should be the logical end of such 'wild disagreement'.  This is theoretical of course, since I believe it has been 1,400 years since 'the Church' acted to add or subtract from the canon.  But just the prospect - I can imagine the Apocalypse of St. John being a prime candidate, just as it was the last addition - of the Orthodox Church removing a book of Holy Scripture (it is, after all, within her authority, no?) is too frightening a thought - to me, anyway.

I suppose 'they' (the Orthodox... you?) would say that the Church would never remove a part of Scripture that was added, and has been 'fixed' for so long.  Still could say that, theoretically, it's possible.  Personally, almost as aggravating is the tendency to change the interpretation or emphasis (emphases) of various Scriptures over time, calling it 'revelation' perhaps - so that, for example, the understood belief of Holy Orthodoxy presented today seems to include that Hell as a place does not exist, and whatever it is eternally people only choose to hate God themselves, nothing is a reward for bad works or unbelief (the lone reward perhaps for pride).  This is only my impression from reading several years on this forum, and a few bits from proponent theologians.  (For what it's worth, this view echoes among most young Christians today, evangelical Protestants included I think.)

All this... trying to say that, I don't see much advantage claiming the authority of one 'Church' over the Scriptures, and that kind of superceding authority is asserted when it's said "the Church wrote the Scriptures".  All it does (for me, again) is widen the scope of misrepresentation, possible heresy and apostasy, all manner of confusion etc.  The Bible (in translations) represents a fixed work, while the Church represents one (or many) continuing on in an organic, "evolving" way, therefore it can (and I believe does) change where the text of the Scriptures does not.  I can't logically or scientifically (?) follow up on this impression, but for what it is, the Bible holds more consolation within it than the plethora of beautiful images and sounds within the real-world Orthodox Church.  (Could say the same for the Roman Catholic and Protestant forms, none of which I think are as beautiful as the Orthodox, which is a sadness.)

Lord have mercy!
Another fallible human being that thinks his opinions and views are infallible. Undecided
Logged

Let your will be done O Lord Jesus Christ through the intercession of you All Pure Mother and all the saints!
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #20 on: September 27, 2012, 04:23:39 AM »

(Not all this is to to you, Timon, just using this as a springboard.)

It might seem, admitting that the Bible was written by fallible men means that it is (ultimately) subject at all times to the authority of 'the Church' as to its exact contents and correct interpretation.  Since the Orthodox (and Catholics, Protestants, whoever) have such a field day with wild disagreements as to 'proper' moral strictures and guidelines (or canons, at least) passed down from the Church apart from that within the canon of Old and New Testaments, opening up the canon itself should be the logical end of such 'wild disagreement'.  This is theoretical of course, since I believe it has been 1,400 years since 'the Church' acted to add or subtract from the canon.  But just the prospect - I can imagine the Apocalypse of St. John being a prime candidate, just as it was the last addition - of the Orthodox Church removing a book of Holy Scripture (it is, after all, within her authority, no?) is too frightening a thought - to me, anyway.

I suppose 'they' (the Orthodox... you?) would say that the Church would never remove a part of Scripture that was added, and has been 'fixed' for so long.  Still could say that, theoretically, it's possible.  Personally, almost as aggravating is the tendency to change the interpretation or emphasis (emphases) of various Scriptures over time, calling it 'revelation' perhaps - so that, for example, the understood belief of Holy Orthodoxy presented today seems to include that Hell as a place does not exist, and whatever it is eternally people only choose to hate God themselves, nothing is a reward for bad works or unbelief (the lone reward perhaps for pride).  This is only my impression from reading several years on this forum, and a few bits from proponent theologians.  (For what it's worth, this view echoes among most young Christians today, evangelical Protestants included I think.)

All this... trying to say that, I don't see much advantage claiming the authority of one 'Church' over the Scriptures, and that kind of superceding authority is asserted when it's said "the Church wrote the Scriptures".  All it does (for me, again) is widen the scope of misrepresentation, possible heresy and apostasy, all manner of confusion etc.  The Bible (in translations) represents a fixed work, while the Church represents one (or many) continuing on in an organic, "evolving" way, therefore it can (and I believe does) change where the text of the Scriptures does not.  I can't logically or scientifically (?) follow up on this impression, but for what it is, the Bible holds more consolation within it than the plethora of beautiful images and sounds within the real-world Orthodox Church.  (Could say the same for the Roman Catholic and Protestant forms, none of which I think are as beautiful as the Orthodox, which is a sadness.)

And yet it's not the Orthodox and Roman Catholics who have history of abbreviating (mutilating might be a better word) the Biblical canon, but Protestants. That's the reason why Rome needed the Council of Trent and we needed the Council of Iasi (often weirdly spelt Jassy in English) to affirm that the so-called deuterocanon was indeed Scripture. Luther wanted to go even further and mutilate the New Testament (see his views on the Epistle of James). So much for Bible alone...

James
Logged

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
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #21 on: September 27, 2012, 04:39:42 AM »

It is from the Church that the Bible ultimately derives its authority, for it was the Church which originally decided which books form a part of Holy Scripture

Katherine, there is a lacuna in your argument; it is a non sequitur. The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God. The Church did not decide which books belonged in the canon, but rather recognised which ones belonged, guided (we all agree) by the Holy Spirit.
With all possible respect, it is merely a fact of history that the New Testament canon, as we know it today, was not finalized until the 4th century.

EDIT: 3,333rd post!!!
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 04:40:07 AM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,193


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: September 27, 2012, 07:31:32 AM »

Nowhere in scripture will you see what Luther defines as sola scriptura. It is simply not in there. It is another example of someone using the bible to legitimize their beliefs.

Quote
3,333
Awesome Sev Smiley

PP
« Last Edit: September 27, 2012, 07:32:21 AM by primuspilus » Logged

"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
Aaron M
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Christian
Jurisdiction: nothing
Posts: 60


« Reply #23 on: September 27, 2012, 10:49:08 AM »

The Bible derives its authority from its Author, who (we agree) was God.
Really was God the author of the Bible? The Muslims believe that God was the author of the Koran and it was dropped straight from Heaven. We Christians don't believe that the Bible was written by God the Almightly Himself. The only part of the Bible that God himself wrote may be was the Ten Commandments. All the others were written by fallen men. Ofcouse they were guided by the Holy Spirit. So the Bible includes words of fallen men. These men used words that other fallen men could understand; like attributing; 'wrath' and 'anger' and 'vengence' etc to a God who was always loving his entire creation. Those words were used so that people living at that time and culture, could be guided to morality and from immorality.

All that "I..." in there must give off the impression that I think my views are infallible, but I do not.  I could be wrong on everything that I believe, but the point of all that is that I do not *trust* the Orthodox (or Catholics...or Protestants! or myself) to fully represent in its broadest scope what Christianity has "always" believed or taught.  Softening the teaching on Hell (well sort of... condemn myself and lift up every one else, even Satan) is one example, divorce and re-marriage another, why homosexuality remains in clarity (as from the Scripture, it seems enough) forbidden when the previous is 'economized', these are nagging questions among many more that could forever be dredged up to ask where the teaching is clear and consistent, that is if the Scripture cannot be taken to be.
(Not all this is to to you, Timon, just using this as a springboard.)

It might seem, admitting that the Bible was written by fallible men means that it is (ultimately) subject at all times to the authority of 'the Church' as to its exact contents and correct interpretation.  Since the Orthodox (and Catholics, Protestants, whoever) have such a field day with wild disagreements as to 'proper' moral strictures and guidelines (or canons, at least) passed down from the Church apart from that within the canon of Old and New Testaments, opening up the canon itself should be the logical end of such 'wild disagreement'.  This is theoretical of course, since I believe it has been 1,400 years since 'the Church' acted to add or subtract from the canon.  But just the prospect - I can imagine the Apocalypse of St. John being a prime candidate, just as it was the last addition - of the Orthodox Church removing a book of Holy Scripture (it is, after all, within her authority, no?) is too frightening a thought - to me, anyway.

I suppose 'they' (the Orthodox... you?) would say that the Church would never remove a part of Scripture that was added, and has been 'fixed' for so long.  Still could say that, theoretically, it's possible.  Personally, almost as aggravating is the tendency to change the interpretation or emphasis (emphases) of various Scriptures over time, calling it 'revelation' perhaps - so that, for example, the understood belief of Holy Orthodoxy presented today seems to include that Hell as a place does not exist, and whatever it is eternally people only choose to hate God themselves, nothing is a reward for bad works or unbelief (the lone reward perhaps for pride).  This is only my impression from reading several years on this forum, and a few bits from proponent theologians.  (For what it's worth, this view echoes among most young Christians today, evangelical Protestants included I think.)

All this... trying to say that, I don't see much advantage claiming the authority of one 'Church' over the Scriptures, and that kind of superceding authority is asserted when it's said "the Church wrote the Scriptures".  All it does (for me, again) is widen the scope of misrepresentation, possible heresy and apostasy, all manner of confusion etc.  The Bible (in translations) represents a fixed work, while the Church represents one (or many) continuing on in an organic, "evolving" way, therefore it can (and I believe does) change where the text of the Scriptures does not.  I can't logically or scientifically (?) follow up on this impression, but for what it is, the Bible holds more consolation within it than the plethora of beautiful images and sounds within the real-world Orthodox Church.  (Could say the same for the Roman Catholic and Protestant forms, none of which I think are as beautiful as the Orthodox, which is a sadness.)

Lord have mercy!
Another fallible human being that thinks his opinions and views are infallible. Undecided
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #24 on: September 27, 2012, 02:16:01 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


All this... trying to say that, I don't see much advantage claiming the authority of one 'Church' over the Scriptures, and that kind of superceding authority is asserted when it's said "the Church wrote the Scriptures".  All it does (for me, again) is widen the scope of misrepresentation, possible heresy and apostasy, all manner of confusion etc.  The Bible (in translations) represents a fixed work, while the Church represents one (or many) continuing on in an organic, "evolving" way, therefore it can (and I believe does) change where the text of the Scriptures does not.  I can't logically or scientifically (?) follow up on this impression, but for what it is, the Bible holds more consolation within it than the plethora of beautiful images and sounds within the real-world Orthodox Church

The catch is the Bible comes from the Church, so how could we not claim our rightful authority? Is not PK Rowling responsible for Harry Potter, or Steven King responsible for It? The Bible comes from the Church, and this is a straight fact of history, nothing can change this, it is not a matter of debatable opinion.  If folks outside the Church want to claim authority, they are pretending, and we are not ashamed to call em out on it! Further, the Bible is just another of those beautiful images and sounds within the Orthodox Church.  Today folks have a printed copy in every house, but a thousand years ago the Bible was something you listened to, and the place where you listened to it was the Church Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #25 on: September 27, 2012, 11:28:02 PM »

Catholics and Protestants didn't fix the canon till the 16th century, and the Orthodox never have, so...  angel

Can't fix what ain't broken. Bazing!
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
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 0.124 seconds with 53 queries.